Re: [WISPA] basic mikrotik question
A while back we experimented with trunking VLANs over a Mikrotik backhaul, and *at the same time* putting the Mikrotiks themselves into a tagged 802.1q management VLAN. We had major problems with that. But yeah, just bridging 802.1q VLANs over the Mikrotiks while keeping the radios themselves in an untagged management subnet, I expected that that should work. Thanks, all, for the feedback! Adam - Original Message - From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 1:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] basic mikrotik question On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 01:26 -0400, Josh Luthman wrote: Ya, not a Vlan person myself. I prefer routers. VLAN does not necessarily preclude routing. VLANs are a layer 2 method of segmenting the network. You can route on top of a VLAN layer. I am not a fan of VLANs because a large part of the time I see them used, they add complexity to the network when it is not necessary to do so. Used correctly, VLANs are a really easy way to provide segmentation and broadcast controls. -- * 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] LanRoamer TP500
Hi Guys, Asked about this because some people had been mentioning having good experience with Test-Um cat5 testers. LanRoamer bought Test-Um. If no takers, I'll go ask LanRoamer. Have a great morning! (for those on my side of the international date line) Adam - Original Message - From: Adam Greene maill...@webjogger.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 10:09 AM Subject: [WISPA] LanRoamer TP500 Anyone know if this tests crossover as well as straightthrough cat5/6? Thanks, Adam 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] Nominations for The Board of Directors of WISPA.org
The nominating committee for the election of The Board of Directors is pleased to announce that nominations are now open. Please click on the link below for more information or to submit your application. http://nominations.wispa.org/ Nominations will be accepted now thru June 23, 2009 so please submit your application now. Cordially, The Nominating Committee Scott Reed Jerry Richardson Paul McCall Tim Harris _ I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter http://www.spamfighter.com/len . We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 4053 of my spam emails to date. The Professional version does not have this message. 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] basic mikrotik question
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 09:01 -0400, Adam Greene wrote: A while back we experimented with trunking VLANs over a Mikrotik backhaul, and *at the same time* putting the Mikrotiks themselves into a tagged 802.1q management VLAN. We had major problems with that. I just did this the other day. There are several possible scenarios that you can do: 1. Straight passing of vlan tags (just simple layer2 bridge) where the MT is not participating in any of the vlans. This is very easy, as you said. 2. Passthrough of tagged traffic and the MT participates in one or more vlans (management vlan for example). This, too, is fairly easy. * Build the bridge to include the ports that will passthrough traffic. * Build a bridge to host the management vlan. * Create a vlan on the passthrough bridge and add this vlan interface to the vlan host bridge. DO NOT add the management vlan as a port on the passthrough bridge * managment IP address would be assigned to the vlan host bridge 3. VLAN termination with trunked port. Simply add vlan interfaces on the physical interface. IP addresses for each vlan would be assigned to the vlan interfaces themselves. The physical interface would then be equivalent to a Cisco trunk port. Each vlan is a routing interface in this scenario. 4. VLAN participation where multiple ports participate in the vlan. This is a bit more complex type of configuration and describing steps to create this would be too difficult to do here in a generic fasion. You can, of course, have combinations of all the above. The trick with Mikrotik is a matter of creative use of bridges and vlans and understanding traffic flow at layer 2. -- * 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] OSPF and BGP for Internal Network
What are the bennefits of running both protocols in the internal network? 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] Radio Seperation
We've just installed a 3 sector 2.4 setup, at 145' with maxrad 120's. I'm noticing the receive sensitivity on the AP's are about 15-20 db's different then what I see on the CPE's, tried a Tranzeo/Ubiquity radio. I'm using Ubiquity AP's, and they work fine on another 3 sector setup I have, however this tower is an A-Frame. The tower owner won't allow outside climbers so his guy did it, and he put one on each leg at 145' back to back. If the radios were too close together even on different channels, would the RX performance on the AP exhibit this behavior? Only other change on this tower was RFLinx Quarter-wave arrestors in line. If I'm 3-5 miles away I can see on the CPE a RSSI of -65 to -75 for example, on the AP the reading would be in the -90 to not even below the noise floor. Any thoughts would be appreciated as always. Regards Michael Baird 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] basic mikrotik question
Question on this... If you simply make the MT bridge the traffic, leaving VLAN tags alone, could torch see the traffic? On 6/13/09, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com wrote: On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 09:01 -0400, Adam Greene wrote: A while back we experimented with trunking VLANs over a Mikrotik backhaul, and *at the same time* putting the Mikrotiks themselves into a tagged 802.1q management VLAN. We had major problems with that. I just did this the other day. There are several possible scenarios that you can do: 1. Straight passing of vlan tags (just simple layer2 bridge) where the MT is not participating in any of the vlans. This is very easy, as you said. 2. Passthrough of tagged traffic and the MT participates in one or more vlans (management vlan for example). This, too, is fairly easy. * Build the bridge to include the ports that will passthrough traffic. * Build a bridge to host the management vlan. * Create a vlan on the passthrough bridge and add this vlan interface to the vlan host bridge. DO NOT add the management vlan as a port on the passthrough bridge * managment IP address would be assigned to the vlan host bridge 3. VLAN termination with trunked port. Simply add vlan interfaces on the physical interface. IP addresses for each vlan would be assigned to the vlan interfaces themselves. The physical interface would then be equivalent to a Cisco trunk port. Each vlan is a routing interface in this scenario. 4. VLAN participation where multiple ports participate in the vlan. This is a bit more complex type of configuration and describing steps to create this would be too difficult to do here in a generic fasion. You can, of course, have combinations of all the above. The trick with Mikrotik is a matter of creative use of bridges and vlans and understanding traffic flow at layer 2. -- * 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/ -- 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] Radio Seperation
Yea, can't try that until Monday though. Was just sort of wondering if improper isolation would cause the issue I'm seeing, or if I need to keep looking for something else. Regards Michael Baird - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel lakel...@gbcx.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 5:13:10 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [WISPA] Radio Seperation Michael, A quick test would be to shut off the other two sectors and see if your AP RSL goes up. If it does, you may have answered your question regarding channel separation. -B- m...@tc3net.com wrote: We've just installed a 3 sector 2.4 setup, at 145' with maxrad 120's. I'm noticing the receive sensitivity on the AP's are about 15-20 db's different then what I see on the CPE's, tried a Tranzeo/Ubiquity radio. I'm using Ubiquity AP's, and they work fine on another 3 sector setup I have, however this tower is an A-Frame. The tower owner won't allow outside climbers so his guy did it, and he put one on each leg at 145' back to back. If the radios were too close together even on different channels, would the RX performance on the AP exhibit this behavior? Only other change on this tower was RFLinx Quarter-wave arrestors in line. If I'm 3-5 miles away I can see on the CPE a RSSI of -65 to -75 for example, on the AP the reading would be in the -90 to not even below the noise floor. Any thoughts would be appreciated as always. Regards Michael Baird 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] Radio Seperation
If there are adjacent channel rejection issues you can see degradation of the RSL level. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: m...@tc3net.com Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:24:09 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Radio Seperation Yea, can't try that until Monday though. Was just sort of wondering if improper isolation would cause the issue I'm seeing, or if I need to keep looking for something else. Regards Michael Baird - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel lakel...@gbcx.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 5:13:10 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [WISPA] Radio Seperation Michael, A quick test would be to shut off the other two sectors and see if your AP RSL goes up. If it does, you may have answered your question regarding channel separation. -B- m...@tc3net.com wrote: We've just installed a 3 sector 2.4 setup, at 145' with maxrad 120's. I'm noticing the receive sensitivity on the AP's are about 15-20 db's different then what I see on the CPE's, tried a Tranzeo/Ubiquity radio. I'm using Ubiquity AP's, and they work fine on another 3 sector setup I have, however this tower is an A-Frame. The tower owner won't allow outside climbers so his guy did it, and he put one on each leg at 145' back to back. If the radios were too close together even on different channels, would the RX performance on the AP exhibit this behavior? Only other change on this tower was RFLinx Quarter-wave arrestors in line. If I'm 3-5 miles away I can see on the CPE a RSSI of -65 to -75 for example, on the AP the reading would be in the -90 to not even below the noise floor. Any thoughts would be appreciated as always. Regards Michael Baird 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] basic mikrotik question
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 16:55 -0400, Josh Luthman wrote: Question on this... If you simply make the MT bridge the traffic, leaving VLAN tags alone, could torch see the traffic? Yes, that should be no problem. -- * 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] acceptable SWR for 2 foot dishes
What is the acceptable SWR on some Pacwireless 2 foot dishes? Praxym meter is showing 2:1 SWR on channels 5745 and 5825. These are 5.8ghz feeds. Tested some dishes on the ground also and was seeing the same 2:1 SWR. I also tested a 24db Pacwireless flat panel on the ground for reference and SWR on those are always lower than 1.5:1 Anyone have some radiowaves dishes and happen to know what your getting SWR on them? 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/
Re: [WISPA] OSPF and BGP for Internal Network
Run what you require... If you need internal dynamic routing protocol for your network only just use ospf - bgp on top would be unnecessary and most likely problematic ran in this fashion. If you require bgp because you have clients that you want to peer with then fine... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 3:51 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] OSPF and BGP for Internal Network What are the bennefits of running both protocols in the internal network? 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/
Re: [WISPA] Radio Seperation
What sort of ubiquiti APs? You'll have serious loss on anything but a bullet, and I wouldn't put one of them 145' up a tower. Also see that the firmware is up to date. They've had some issues misreporting signal in various versions. On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 04:09:40PM -0400, m...@tc3net.com wrote: We've just installed a 3 sector 2.4 setup, at 145' with maxrad 120's. I'm noticing the receive sensitivity on the AP's are about 15-20 db's different then what I see on the CPE's, tried a Tranzeo/Ubiquity radio. I'm using Ubiquity AP's, and they work fine on another 3 sector setup I have, however this tower is an A-Frame. The tower owner won't allow outside climbers so his guy did it, and he put one on each leg at 145' back to back. If the radios were too close together even on different channels, would the RX performance on the AP exhibit this behavior? Only other change on this tower was RFLinx Quarter-wave arrestors in line. If I'm 3-5 miles away I can see on the CPE a RSSI of -65 to -75 for example, on the AP the reading would be in the -90 to not even below the noise floor. Any thoughts would be appreciated as always. Regards Michael Baird 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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/
Re: [WISPA] acceptable SWR for 2 foot dishes
Kurt The SWR for those is not great. A Gabriel flat panel 2' will be less than 1.3 accross the 5.2 - 5.8 band. Anything more than 10% reflected is unacceptable in my book -B- Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:36:41 To: 'WISPA General List'wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] acceptable SWR for 2 foot dishes What is the acceptable SWR on some Pacwireless 2 foot dishes? Praxym meter is showing 2:1 SWR on channels 5745 and 5825. These are 5.8ghz feeds. Tested some dishes on the ground also and was seeing the same 2:1 SWR. I also tested a 24db Pacwireless flat panel on the ground for reference and SWR on those are always lower than 1.5:1 Anyone have some radiowaves dishes and happen to know what your getting SWR on them? 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/
Re: [WISPA] Radio Seperation
Well I'm using BulletHP's, but I have them on other towers, and they work fine. I have the Ubiquity 3.4 firmware on them, it's not the radio's, not the antenna's, it's definitely something with this tower configuration. The only thing we did differently is use RFlinx Lightning arrestors inline, but I don't see how they would affect only receive and not transmit, it has to be the configuration of the antenna's on the tower. As has been suggested I think it has to do with them being to close together, they are too hot, and even though the channels are non-overlapping on the 3 AP's, the attenuated portion is still too strong and messing up the RSL's badly on the AP's. Regards Michael Baird What sort of ubiquiti APs? You'll have serious loss on anything but a bullet, and I wouldn't put one of them 145' up a tower. Also see that the firmware is up to date. They've had some issues misreporting signal in various versions. On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 04:09:40PM -0400, m...@tc3net.com wrote: We've just installed a 3 sector 2.4 setup, at 145' with maxrad 120's. I'm noticing the receive sensitivity on the AP's are about 15-20 db's different then what I see on the CPE's, tried a Tranzeo/Ubiquity radio. I'm using Ubiquity AP's, and they work fine on another 3 sector setup I have, however this tower is an A-Frame. The tower owner won't allow outside climbers so his guy did it, and he put one on each leg at 145' back to back. If the radios were too close together even on different channels, would the RX performance on the AP exhibit this behavior? Only other change on this tower was RFLinx Quarter-wave arrestors in line. If I'm 3-5 miles away I can see on the CPE a RSSI of -65 to -75 for example, on the AP the reading would be in the -90 to not even below the noise floor. Any thoughts would be appreciated as always. Regards Michael Baird 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] LACP + Wi-Fi = ghettofabulous big wireless pipes?
jree...@18-30chat.net wrote: Yes that will work. I am not sure if the link layer fault detect will work correctly so you might need to run Spanning Tree also. Something that can be a issue is if say you have 4 links and one is running 24mbit modulation and the rest are 54, your going to have issues with the slow link. If possible I would use a radio board that can take all your radios and bond them, presenting you with a single ethernet with the bonded capacity. For what it's worth, I talked to a buddy today who does quite a bit of switching stuff (especially with iSCSI related stuff), and he recommended against running spanning tree. He had some questions on the types of radios that I'd be sending these LACP 802.3ad packets through (to make sure that they passed them through to the switch on the other side), but he said that if all of that was kosher, then he'd just stick with LACP features and avoid adding STP to complicate things. He also recommended using the *dynamic* LACP features, rather than static features, as the static features were really designed for legacy devices and did primitive load balancing like round robin (which could cause problems in the lower modulation scenario that you gave). Thanks for your feedback. If people are interested, I'll post the solution that I find works best for me. 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] OSPF and BGP for Internal Network
Dynamic route redistribution if your network is sufficiently complex and you have customers that you are servicing bgp to that you want to protect from intra-network failure -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 2:50 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OSPF and BGP for Internal Network What are the bennefits of running both protocols in the internal network? 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/
