date:20101014

Well I don't agree with that but I am curious to know if it can be done.  I
don't think so but make a switch loop.
On Oct 14, 2010 11:30 PM, "Scott Piehn"  wrote:
> what comes around goes around.
>
>
> 
> Scott Piehn
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jeromie Reeves" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] saturate frequency
>
>
>> This begs the question, Why?
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Scott Piehn  wrote:
>>> I know you can completely use spectrum by doing a bandwidth test or
>>> something else, but that takes two sides to the link. I only have one.
>>> Is it possible without a remote site you are linking to.
>>>
>>> This is using ubnt M5 line
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> Scott Piehn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> 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] saturate frequency

2010-10-14 Thread Scott Piehn

what comes around goes around.



Scott Piehn
- Original Message - 
From: "Jeromie Reeves" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] saturate frequency


> This begs the question, Why?
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Scott Piehn  wrote:
>> I know you can completely use spectrum by doing a bandwidth test or
>> something else, but that takes two sides to the link. I only have one.
>> Is it possible without a remote site you are linking to.
>>
>> This is using ubnt M5 line
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> Scott Piehn
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] saturate frequency

2010-10-14 Thread Scott Piehn

MT.  on the ethernet




Scott Piehn
- Original Message - 
  From: Josh Luthman 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] saturate frequency


  Hmm, ping flood on the rf side? What do you have it plugged in to?

  On Oct 14, 2010 10:56 PM, "Scott Piehn"  wrote:
  > I know you can completely use spectrum by doing a bandwidth test or 
something else, but that takes two sides to the link. I only have one.
  > Is it possible without a remote site you are linking to.
  > 
  > This is using ubnt M5 line
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Scott Piehn



--




  

  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] saturate frequency

Hmm, ping flood on the rf side? What do you have it plugged in to?
On Oct 14, 2010 10:56 PM, "Scott Piehn"  wrote:
> I know you can completely use spectrum by doing a bandwidth test or
something else, but that takes two sides to the link. I only have one.
> Is it possible without a remote site you are linking to.
>
> This is using ubnt M5 line
>
>
>
>
> 
> Scott Piehn



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] saturate frequency

2010-10-14 Thread Jeromie Reeves

This begs the question, Why?

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Scott Piehn  wrote:
> I know you can completely use spectrum by doing a bandwidth test or
> something else, but that takes two sides to the link.  I only have one.
> Is it possible without a remote site you are linking to.
>
> This is using ubnt M5 line
>
>
>
> 
> Scott Piehn
>
>
>
> 
> 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] saturate frequency

2010-10-14 Thread Scott Piehn

I know you can completely use spectrum by doing a bandwidth test or something 
else, but that takes two sides to the link.  I only have one.
Is it possible without a remote site you are linking to.

This is using ubnt M5 line





Scott Piehn



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] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday

At 10/14/2010 09:05 PM, Jason Bailey wrote:
>Fred,many of those tvws channels are untouchable,unless you run your 
>tx at 40mw.A full duplex system has the ap at full power on one 
>channel,the s/u  tx ing on a low power only channel in full 
>duplex.Many more channels are then available and you may now see the 
>reason for this...BTW,those low power channels are considered mobile 
>and wouldnt have all the restrictions.Do you see my point?Jason

And Brian added,

>The request was made for the simple reason of being able to use the 40 mw
>devices in a split radio architecture. If anyone caught my posting about how
>far you can broadcast with 40 mw, it might make more sense. If you transmit
>on one end of a link using 40 mw radio you could use a high gain antenna on
>the other ends receiver to make up for the low power. Design a radio with a
>separate receiver from the transmitter and you can have a multipoint system
>that can operate in the first adjacent channels and still work for a WISP.
>The key concept is that your transmitter does not use the same antenna as
>your receiver keeping the power levels fully legal. The 40 mw devices in the
>first adjacent channels do not have any HAAT limits. They are referred to as
>mobile devices.

Yes, I see what you're talking about; see my comments below.

>There was a potential problem in the rules to make this
>work. There was one little statement that said any transmitter and/or
>receiver could not exceed the HAAT rules. It makes no sense for a receiver
>to have to abide by that since it cannot cause interference. The FCC
>apparently agreed.

I don't read the new rules that way, but perhaps I'm missing 
something.  I does talk about TVBD "devices", but I take that to be 
transmitting devices, based on the context of Part 15 and the 
surrounding words.  FCC language is however sometimes 
ambiguous.  Make that often ambiguous.  So clarification is a good idea.

>40 mw transmit into a no gain antenna is legal, a 15 dbi receive antenna on
>the other end is legal to. Put one of each in all radio devices and we can
>operate in the first adjacent channels, PLUS you can transmit and receive on
>separate frequencies thus having 12 MHz to work with.

Yes, I see the configuration you have in mind.  I get how the 40 mW 
personal/portable rules allow adjacent-channel operation just outside 
the contour, so they fit in places that both 100 mW p/p and Fixed 
devices don't.  It could be useful for some kinds of applications, 
especially, I'd guess, backhaul links, where FDX is most useful and 
big receive antennas aren't a problem.  Dual antennas seems more 
unweidly for a subscriber AP.  However, portables are only usable on 
channels 21 and up, so if your area has only channels from 2-20 
available, or even say one channel above 20 (which is the case in 
some areas I've looked at), then you can't run much or any 
personal/portable devices, since VHF and 14-20 are Fixed only.

Also, 40 mW, or more precisely -1,8 dBm/100 kHz spectral density 
(which is more constraining on narrowband modes), is not a lot of 
EIRP, especially for a rural WISP. 20 dB more makes a lot of 
difference.  Even the 4W EIRP number strikes me as needlessly low, 
especially if it is highly directional gain.  (1W TPO, on the other 
hand, seems quite generous.)  I'd rather they had adopted, say, the 
2.4 GHz PtP compromise, where extra antenna gain is partially, but 
not completely, offset by lower TPO.

So it sounds to me like I should get some of my compadres together 
here and Petition to loosen up the HAAT restriction a bit.  I'll 
probably ask them to allow operation there but with lower EIRP in the 
direction of any protected contour within some reasonable distance, 
but not zero, and allowable on any channel where Fixed devices can 
go.  (I don't see why a device should have to lower the EIRP that's 
aimed away from any nearby protected contour.)  Maybe something like 
the FM broadcast contour height/power tables in 73.333. Especially 
the 15 km curve.  Offhand (very!) that looks like (compared to 75m) 
about 4 dB at 120 m, around 12 dB at 200m, and 18 dB at 1000m.

Brian and Jason, thanks for clarifying the position.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday

2010-10-14 Thread Rick Harnish

Jack my friend,

I think you may have been rather harsh with Fred.  For someone who isn't
aware of where the FCC Committee is heading with this, it does sound
somewhat illogical.  IMHO, such a harsh tone pretty much wiped out my
previous attempt today to build membership.  I thought posting the Ex Parte
would be icing on the cake and show the non-members what they are getting
for their dues.  You know I respect you very highly.  I feel I owe it to you
as a friend to encourage you to try and explain it in clearer fashion so
everyone can understand.  I thought maybe Steve would step in and explain
things but he must be away tonight.

Regards,
Rick

> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jack Unger
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:49 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
> 
>   Oops, typo corrected in 2nd line below (added the word "you").
> 
> 
> On 10/14/2010 5:44 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
> >Hello Fred,
> >
> > Regarding "snarky insults" - a simple review of this email thread
> reveals that
> > the only "snarky insults" are the ones that you contributed.
> >
> > Please review WISPA's mailing list policies
> at.
> >
> > Regarding your "strong RF and regulatory background" I offer the
> following for
> > your consideration.
> >
> > 1. Join WISPA. A quick review of WISPA's billing server did not
> return either
> > your name or your domain name. Of course, if you are (or once you
> become) a
> > WISPA Member then go to step 2 (below).
> >
> > 2. Join WISPA's FCC Committee and apply your expertise by working
> with WISPA's
> > dedicated, FCC Committee Members who volunteer hundreds of hours of
> work to keep
> > abreast of wireless technology and who discuss, draft and file
> WISPA's FCC
> > comments.
> >
> > Again, have a great day.
> >
> > jack
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/14/2010 5:28 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> >> At 10/14/2010 08:16 PM, you wrote:
> >>> Fred,
> >>>
> >>> If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple.
> >> Making snarky insults doesn't answer the question.  Quite frankly I
> >> have a pretty strong RF and regulatory background so it is not a
> good
> >> idea to treat me like a dunce.  So I'll ask the question
> >> differently.  Do I need to create a new petition or did you address
> >> the up-the-hill WISP subscriber issue?
> >>
> >> I am looking at potential subscriber locations above 75m HAAT.  So I
> >> want WISPs to be able to put a radio there.  I'm really confused at
> >> what you're trying to do.  Do you really call subscriber units (I'm
> >> imagining the TVWS version of a NanoStation) "receive only" (I
> >> don't), or do you really only want receivers?  Which of course don't
> >> fall under those rules anyway.
> >>
> >>> Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day.
> >>>
> >>> jack
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>  At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote:
> >  Fred,
> >
> > Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations
> > that transmit.
>  Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-
> way
>  transceivers.  The only receive-only equipment is what goes with
>  wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only.
> 
> > jack
> >
> >
> > On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> >> At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote:
> >>
> >>> Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and
> Spectrum
> >>> Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office
> >>> yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS
> >>> Memorandum Report& Order language.  Below is the Ex parte
> Filing
> >>> that was made today.
> >> Rick, when you guys said "to remove the HAAT restriction for
> >> receive-only sites", did you really mean receive-only, or did
> you
> >> mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the
> "tower"?
> >>
> >> I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since
> it not
> >> only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites.
> >> --
> >> Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
> >> ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
> >> +1 617 795 2701
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> 
> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> >> http://signup.wispa.org/
> >> 
> 
> >>
> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >>
> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>
> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >>
> >>
> 
> --
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
> Serving the Broadband Wire

Re: [WISPA] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

2010-10-14 Thread Mark Dueck

I know of some guys that are using SoftPerfect for small networks.  I'm
not sure how it scales or how the interface works. eg. if you can import
rules or if you have to manually create all of them.

If you simply want to limit bandwidth for each customer to their speed,
MasterShapper will work.  www.mastershapper.org 
It uses a MySQL database so you can nicely import all the rules into the
tables.

jessdk has some very nice tutorials in the forums on how to build it
with debian.

On 10/14/2010 05:40 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:
>   Ya know I'd be a lot more patient for the smart a$$ comments if I 
> didn't have to live through this, I've hired the best guys on this list 
> to solve it and the only answer I get in the end is "that shouldn't 
> happen".  I can be non-geek enough to know if I can't hire the fix it 
> ain't gonna work.  All the loyalists to a certain brand be it Mikrotik 
> or Mac users can either say 'if he can't make that work here's our 
> suggestion' or come sit in my chair for a while and wait for the 
> hundreds of calls when a piece of gear just drops for no reason.  I've 
> avoided Windows like the plague and run a 100% linux back end, every ISP 
> I bought I converted to my format, you don't have to tell me horror 
> stories I've been in this business since the beginning. I'm inferring to 
> a more GUI type interface, hell it could be redhat for all I know, I'm 
> looking for solutions not preferences.
>
> On 10/14/2010 4:27 PM, Jeremy Parr wrote:
>   
>> Splendid idea there guy, replace Mikrotik with a Windows box. Gotta
>> wonder I'd the problem is between the keyboard and the chair here.
>>
>> On 10/14/10, Forbes Mercy  wrote:
>> 
>>>In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new
>>> bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the ports or
>>> bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week).  I'm
>>> looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Forbes
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday

2010-10-14 Thread Jason Bailey

Fred,many of those tvws channels are untouchable,unless you run your tx at 
40mw.A full duplex system has the ap at full power on one channel,the s/u  tx 
ing on a low power only channel in full duplex.Many more channels are then 
available and you may now see the reason for this...BTW,those low power 
channels are considered mobile and wouldnt have all the restrictions.Do you see 
my point?Jason

--- On Thu, 10/14/10, Fred Goldstein  wrote:

From: Fred Goldstein 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
To: "WISPA General List" 
Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 8:58 PM

At 10/14/2010 08:35 PM, Jason Bailey wrote:

In the days of two way radio,we had a great tx site,but low power 
handhelds(customer radios) couldnt be heard well by the reciever at that main 
tx site.We then installed remote reciever sites to be able to better hear the 
handhelds(customer radios)They uaually heard the main tx site fine.  Jason

That makes sense when power is highly asymmetrical, as with an HT.  However, 
power limits on TVWS are all low -- 4 W ERP max for a fixed unit -- so there's 
little reason to do that.  A wireless mic ("personal/portable") system just 
might, if it has to cover a fairly large area, but that's not what WISPs need.  
And wireless mics (non-fixed devices) aren't subject to the HAAT limit; their 
receivers can be anywhere too.  Channels up to 20 are only usable by Fixed 
devices.

The term "receive only" is not defined in the recent TVWS Order.  It was used 
in the old days for satellite receivers, back when you needed a license to 
legally pick up a satellite signal.  They dropped "TVRO" licensing after a lot 
of rural people had put in unauthorized dishes (remember those), prior to the 
start of DBS services.

ju> the only "snarky insults" are the ones that you contributed.

Oh, and Jack, I actually did read the whole new policy.  Why do you think I 
joined the great silence greeting a certain other poster's partisan comments 
earlier today?  I'm seriously asking about what you meant, and what position 
was expressed to the FCC.  Really.  You didn't answer me.  Unless you think 
"worth precisely zero" was an insult, though I meant it quite literally.

I work with an organization that is pulling a ton of middle-mile fiber which we 
hope will be attractive to WISPs, to serve currently "unserved" areas.  I've 
even done some strawman designs in RadioMobile to test the feasibility.  But 
those areas (hill towns) have houses, not to mention CAIs (on fiber) and thus 
obvious AP sites, higher than 75m HAAT.  So the height rules are a real problem 
in both directions.  I read your FCC posting and saw the term "receive only".  
It also talked about moving towers below the 75m limit, and didn't directly 
address subscribers.  But the Fixed rules apply to subscriber sites too.  A 
WISP could often beam uphill, rather than downhill, if it were only the towers, 
but Fixed APs will more often talk to Fixed subscribers than to 
personal/portable ones.  Especially when the available channels are below Ch. 
21. So it's a real technical/regulatory issue I'm raising.

Does anyone else here think I'm being insulting?  Have I made the question 
clear?  Or is Jack just being overly defensive?

--- On Thu, 10/14/10, Josh Luthman  wrote:

From: Josh Luthman 

Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday

To: "WISPA General List" 

Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 8:26 PM

Maybe explain what it means to WISPs?

On Oct 14, 2010 8:17 PM, "Jack Unger" < jun...@ask-wi.com> wrote:

> Fred,

> 

> If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple.

> 

> Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day.

> 

> jack

> 

> 

> On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:

>> At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote:

>>> Fred,

>>>

>>> Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations

>>> that transmit.

>> Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way

>> transceivers. The only receive-only equipment is what goes with

>> wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only.

>>

>>> jack

>>>

>>>

>>> On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:

 At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote:

> Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum

> Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office

> yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS

> Memorandum Report& Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing

> that was made today.

 Rick, when you guys said "to remove the HAAT restriction for

 receive-only sites", did you really mean receive-only, or did you

 mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the "tower"?

 I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not

 only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites.

 --
 Fred Goldstein    k1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com   
 ionary Consulting        http://www.i

Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday

At 10/14/2010 08:35 PM, Jason Bailey wrote:
In the days of two way radio,we had a great tx site,but low power 
handhelds(customer radios) couldnt be heard well by the reciever at 
that main tx site.We then installed remote reciever sites to be able 
to better hear the handhelds(customer radios)They uaually heard the 
main tx site fine.  Jason

That makes sense when power is highly asymmetrical, as with an 
HT.  However, power limits on TVWS are all low -- 4 W ERP max for a 
fixed unit -- so there's little reason to do that.  A wireless mic 
("personal/portable") system just might, if it has to cover a fairly 
large area, but that's not what WISPs need.  And wireless mics 
(non-fixed devices) aren't subject to the HAAT limit; their receivers 
can be anywhere too.  Channels up to 20 are only usable by Fixed devices.

The term "receive only" is not defined in the recent TVWS Order.  It 
was used in the old days for satellite receivers, back when you 
needed a license to legally pick up a satellite signal.  They dropped 
"TVRO" licensing after a lot of rural people had put in unauthorized 
dishes (remember those), prior to the start of DBS services.

ju> the only "snarky insults" are the ones that you contributed.

Oh, and Jack, I actually did read the whole new policy.  Why do you 
think I joined the great silence greeting a certain other poster's 
partisan comments earlier today?  I'm seriously asking about what you 
meant, and what position was expressed to the FCC.  Really.  You 
didn't answer me.  Unless you think "worth precisely zero" was an 
insult, though I meant it quite literally.

I work with an organization that is pulling a ton of middle-mile 
fiber which we hope will be attractive to WISPs, to serve currently 
"unserved" areas.  I've even done some strawman designs in 
RadioMobile to test the feasibility.  But those areas (hill towns) 
have houses, not to mention CAIs (on fiber) and thus obvious AP 
sites, higher than 75m HAAT.  So the height rules are a real problem 
in both directions.  I read your FCC posting and saw the term 
"receive only".  It also talked about moving towers below the 75m 
limit, and didn't directly address subscribers.  But the Fixed rules 
apply to subscriber sites too.  A WISP could often beam uphill, 
rather than downhill, if it were only the towers, but Fixed APs will 
more often talk to Fixed subscribers than to personal/portable 
ones.  Especially when the available channels are below Ch. 21. So 
it's a real technical/regulatory issue I'm raising.

Does anyone else here think I'm being insulting?  Have I made the 
question clear?  Or is Jack just being overly defensive?

--- On Thu, 10/14/10, Josh Luthman  wrote:

From: Josh Luthman 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
To: "WISPA General List" 
Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 8:26 PM

Maybe explain what it means to WISPs?
On Oct 14, 2010 8:17 PM, "Jack Unger" 
<jun...@ask-wi.com> 
wrote:

> Fred,
>
> If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple.
>
> Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day.
>
> jack
>
>
> On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>> At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote:
>>> Fred,
>>>
>>> Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations
>>> that transmit.
>> Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way
>> transceivers. The only receive-only equipment is what goes with
>> wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only.
>>
>>> jack
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
 At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote:

> Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum
> Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office
> yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS
> Memorandum Report& Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing
> that was made today.
 Rick, when you guys said "to remove the HAAT restriction for
 receive-only sites", did you really mean receive-only, or did you
 mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the "tower"?

 I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not
 only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites.

 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 

WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday

  Oops, typo corrected in 2nd line below (added the word "you").


On 10/14/2010 5:44 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
>Hello Fred,
>
> Regarding "snarky insults" - a simple review of this email thread reveals that
> the only "snarky insults" are the ones that you contributed.
>
> Please review WISPA's mailing list policies 
> at.
>
> Regarding your "strong RF and regulatory background" I offer the following for
> your consideration.
>
> 1. Join WISPA. A quick review of WISPA's billing server did not return either
> your name or your domain name. Of course, if you are (or once you become) a
> WISPA Member then go to step 2 (below).
>
> 2. Join WISPA's FCC Committee and apply your expertise by working with WISPA's
> dedicated, FCC Committee Members who volunteer hundreds of hours of work to 
> keep
> abreast of wireless technology and who discuss, draft and file WISPA's FCC
> comments.
>
> Again, have a great day.
>
> jack
>
>
>
> On 10/14/2010 5:28 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>> At 10/14/2010 08:16 PM, you wrote:
>>> Fred,
>>>
>>> If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple.
>> Making snarky insults doesn't answer the question.  Quite frankly I
>> have a pretty strong RF and regulatory background so it is not a good
>> idea to treat me like a dunce.  So I'll ask the question
>> differently.  Do I need to create a new petition or did you address
>> the up-the-hill WISP subscriber issue?
>>
>> I am looking at potential subscriber locations above 75m HAAT.  So I
>> want WISPs to be able to put a radio there.  I'm really confused at
>> what you're trying to do.  Do you really call subscriber units (I'm
>> imagining the TVWS version of a NanoStation) "receive only" (I
>> don't), or do you really only want receivers?  Which of course don't
>> fall under those rules anyway.
>>
>>> Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day.
>>>
>>> jack
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
 At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote:
>  Fred,
>
> Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations
> that transmit.
 Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way
 transceivers.  The only receive-only equipment is what goes with
 wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only.

> jack
>
>
> On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>> At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum
>>> Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office
>>> yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS
>>> Memorandum Report& Order language.  Below is the Ex parte Filing
>>> that was made today.
>> Rick, when you guys said "to remove the HAAT restriction for
>> receive-only sites", did you really mean receive-only, or did you
>> mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the "tower"?
>>
>> I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not
>> only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites.
>> --
>> Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>> ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
>> +1 617 795 2701
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.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] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday

  Hello Fred,

Regarding "snarky insults" - a simple review of this email thread reveals that 
the only "snarky insults" are the ones that contributed.

Please review WISPA's mailing list policies at 
.

Regarding your "strong RF and regulatory background" I offer the following for 
your consideration.

1. Join WISPA. A quick review of WISPA's billing server did not return either 
your name or your domain name. Of course, if you are (or once you become) a 
WISPA Member then go to step 2 (below).

2. Join WISPA's FCC Committee and apply your expertise by working with WISPA's 
dedicated, FCC Committee Members who volunteer hundreds of hours of work to 
keep 
abreast of wireless technology and who discuss, draft and file WISPA's FCC 
comments.

Again, have a great day.

jack



On 10/14/2010 5:28 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> At 10/14/2010 08:16 PM, you wrote:
>>Fred,
>>
>> If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple.
> Making snarky insults doesn't answer the question.  Quite frankly I
> have a pretty strong RF and regulatory background so it is not a good
> idea to treat me like a dunce.  So I'll ask the question
> differently.  Do I need to create a new petition or did you address
> the up-the-hill WISP subscriber issue?
>
> I am looking at potential subscriber locations above 75m HAAT.  So I
> want WISPs to be able to put a radio there.  I'm really confused at
> what you're trying to do.  Do you really call subscriber units (I'm
> imagining the TVWS version of a NanoStation) "receive only" (I
> don't), or do you really only want receivers?  Which of course don't
> fall under those rules anyway.
>
>> Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day.
>>
>> jack
>>
>>
>> On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>>> At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote:
 Fred,

 Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations
 that transmit.
>>> Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way
>>> transceivers.  The only receive-only equipment is what goes with
>>> wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only.
>>>
 jack


 On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote:
>
>> Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum
>> Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office
>> yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS
>> Memorandum Report&Order language.  Below is the Ex parte Filing
>> that was made today.
> Rick, when you guys said "to remove the HAAT restriction for
> receive-only sites", did you really mean receive-only, or did you
> mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the "tower"?
>
> I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not
> only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites.
>--
>Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
>+1 617 795 2701
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.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] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday

2010-10-14 Thread Jason Bailey

In the days of two way radio,we had a great tx site,but low power 
handhelds(customer radios) couldnt be heard well by the reciever at that main 
tx site.We then installed remote reciever sites to be able to better hear the 
handhelds(customer radios)They uaually heard the main tx site fine.  Jason

--- On Thu, 10/14/10, Josh Luthman  wrote:


From: Josh Luthman 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
To: "WISPA General List" 
Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 8:26 PM



Maybe explain what it means to WISPs?
On Oct 14, 2010 8:17 PM, "Jack Unger"  wrote:
> Fred,
> 
> If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple.
> 
> Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day.
> 
> jack
> 
> 
> On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>> At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote:
>>> Fred,
>>>
>>> Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations
>>> that transmit.
>> Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way
>> transceivers. The only receive-only equipment is what goes with
>> wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only.
>>
>>> jack
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
 At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote:

> Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum
> Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office
> yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS
> Memorandum Report& Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing
> that was made today.
 Rick, when you guys said "to remove the HAAT restriction for
 receive-only sites", did you really mean receive-only, or did you
 mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the "tower"?

 I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not
 only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites.

 --
 Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701




>>> 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

>>> 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


>>> --
>>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>>> Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
>>> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 
>>> 1993
>>> www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.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/
>> --
>> Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>> ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
>> +1 617 795 2701
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
> 
> -- 
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
> www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.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/

-Inline Attachment Follows-





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] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday

At 10/14/2010 08:16 PM, you wrote:
>   Fred,
>
>If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple.

Making snarky insults doesn't answer the question.  Quite frankly I 
have a pretty strong RF and regulatory background so it is not a good 
idea to treat me like a dunce.  So I'll ask the question 
differently.  Do I need to create a new petition or did you address 
the up-the-hill WISP subscriber issue?

I am looking at potential subscriber locations above 75m HAAT.  So I 
want WISPs to be able to put a radio there.  I'm really confused at 
what you're trying to do.  Do you really call subscriber units (I'm 
imagining the TVWS version of a NanoStation) "receive only" (I 
don't), or do you really only want receivers?  Which of course don't 
fall under those rules anyway.

>Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day.
>
>jack
>
>
>On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote:
> >>Fred,
> >>
> >> Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations
> >> that transmit.
> > Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way
> > transceivers.  The only receive-only equipment is what goes with
> > wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only.
> >
> >> jack
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> >>> At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote:
> >>>
>  Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum
>  Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office
>  yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS
>  Memorandum Report&   Order language.  Below is the Ex parte Filing
>  that was made today.
> >>> Rick, when you guys said "to remove the HAAT restriction for
> >>> receive-only sites", did you really mean receive-only, or did you
> >>> mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the "tower"?
> >>>
> >>> I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not
> >>> only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday

Maybe explain what it means to WISPs?
On Oct 14, 2010 8:17 PM, "Jack Unger"  wrote:
> Fred,
>
> If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple.
>
> Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day.
>
> jack
>
>
> On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>> At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote:
>>> Fred,
>>>
>>> Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations
>>> that transmit.
>> Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way
>> transceivers. The only receive-only equipment is what goes with
>> wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only.
>>
>>> jack
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
 At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote:

> Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum
> Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office
> yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS
> Memorandum Report& Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing
> that was made today.
 Rick, when you guys said "to remove the HAAT restriction for
 receive-only sites", did you really mean receive-only, or did you
 mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the "tower"?

 I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not
 only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites.

 --
 Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701




>>>

 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

>>>

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


>>> --
>>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>>> Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
>>> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
1993
>>> www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.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/
>> --
>> Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>> ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
>> +1 617 795 2701
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>

>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
1993
> www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.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] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

2010-10-14 Thread Jeromie Reeves

Since I do not have all the information you might be right. What I
have read says you have a mikrotik router (all ethernet) that is
dropping interfaces. Not sure how that relates to Ubnt gear since they
are wireless, unless you mean a MT with wireless and not a x86 unit. I
do not equate a wireless router to a core router, or possibly the
issues are effecting all units? I will concede that is possible since
I have not seen any real information on the network. $6k? Id do it for
half that, or wager the $6k vs being able to make what you have now
work =)(or at least most of it)

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Forbes Mercy
 wrote:
>  Again not a true statement, $3000 for a visit by a network
> administrator to route us (already got the quote), $600 for a packeteer
> on eBay.  Then we can route it ourselves because the network won't drop
> every day when a piece of crap router drops the ethernet port every time
> it sees traffic it doesn't like, who designs something like that
> anyway!?  ZERO drops from UBNT gear and it's handling the exact same
> gear as the Mikrotik did, EXACT same packets. OK ok sorry I'm getting
> pissed now, going to walk away for the night... I just asked for
> alternatives, that's all.  Didn't mean to walk into the MAC users group
> and say Windows was better.
>
> On 10/14/2010 5:01 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>> Sounds like you need to have someone come visit the network in person.
>> There has to be a reasonable explination for what is going on your
>> network, and i posit that no device you find is going to work right
>> till that root cause is found.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Forbes Mercy
>>   wrote:
>>> I also haven't been in my core router in ages, my template IS by Butch as I
>>> stated before, I HAVE had Dennis look at the outages, everyone is stumped,
>>> if I can't depend on it I don't want it.  THEN I'll have time to route the
>>> network.  I've used Mikrotik for years and until the load got to high things
>>> ran fine, I wish I could make it work but its down just too much.
>>>
>>> On 10/14/2010 4:18 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with Travis.
>>>
>>> Also the thread is about a bandwidth manager, which just like Travis, you
>>> would do at the edge between you and your upstream.  Your APs, backhauls and
>>> other radios can be Ubnt/Canopy/Linksys/etc
>>>
>>> I would suggest spending the minimal amount of money for the MT router,
>>> Butch's template and forget about it.  If you do have an issue (IMO it will
>>> be something a person did to the network if no one logs into it making
>>> changes all the time) you have Butch, Dennis, the list, etc.
>>>
>>> I can't remember the last time I logged into the core router.  When I did,
>>> it was to copy some rules to share on a list or ##mikrotik.
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
 Hi,

 You need to fix your network, not the hardware/software you are running. I
 have over 60 Mikrotik backhaul links, with over 1,000 Mikrotik customer
 radios (plus thousands more Trango and Canopy) and have NONE of the issues
 you describe.

 Our main edge router is a Mikrotik box (x86 with Quad core) and it has
 thousands of rules and NAT translations, moving 450Mbps x 150Mbps on a 
 daily
 basis, and has been up for over 6 months right now (due only to firmware
 upgrades).

 Having your network bridged is the problem. Take time out and fix that, or
 you will continue to have more and more problems...

 Travis
 Microserv

 On 10/14/2010 4:45 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:

 Really Josh, you want me to rehash this?  To be simple I'm not a true
 geek, I barely speak linux and Router OS not at all.  Our network of 700
 over 12 towers is bridged, a big no-no but I can't keep radios up long
 enough to make us routed along with the growth sprut we've had this year 
 (we
 're averaging 3 installs a day with one installer/field tech).  We've found
 that if you get over 50 on Mikrotik you start getting latency issues, four
 of our towers have over that.  When I was all Mikrotik (well 90% that 10%
 Moto) it worked great for about a year and a half, then the packet storms
 started, then radios started doing weird intermittent things like turning
 off.  Sure we did the obvious, change passwords, isolate the radios from 
 the
 rest of the network but it just started to get worse, probably traffic
 driven from our ongoing growth that the greater demand for more bandwidth
 (we are 90% residential so Netflix type stuff).

 To solve this we started replacing backhauls with Ubiquiti radios.
 Ubiquiti allows more traffic so the added pressure really started to take
 down the Mikrotik AP's, ports and bridges now drop with undiagnoisable

Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday

  Fred,

If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple.

Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day.

jack


On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote:
>>Fred,
>>
>> Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations
>> that transmit.
> Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way
> transceivers.  The only receive-only equipment is what goes with
> wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only.
>
>> jack
>>
>>
>> On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>>> At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote:
>>>
 Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum
 Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office
 yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS
 Memorandum Report&   Order language.  Below is the Ex parte Filing
 that was made today.
>>> Rick, when you guys said "to remove the HAAT restriction for
>>> receive-only sites", did you really mean receive-only, or did you
>>> mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the "tower"?
>>>
>>> I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not
>>> only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>>> ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
>>> +1 617 795 2701
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>> 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>> Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
>> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
>> www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.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/
>--
>Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
>+1 617 795 2701
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.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] Looking for Bandwidth Manager


 Thanks Josh I'll try that

Forbes

On 10/14/2010 5:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:


Run smokeping and Dude.  You need to find the issues or you may spend 
money needlessly.


On Oct 14, 2010 7:57 PM, "Forbes Mercy" > wrote:

> I also haven't been in my core router in ages, my template IS by Butch
> as I stated before, I HAVE had Dennis look at the outages, everyone is
> stumped, if I can't depend on it I don't want it. THEN I'll have time
> to route the network. I've used Mikrotik for years and until the load
> got to high things ran fine, I wish I could make it work but its down
> just too much.
>
> On 10/14/2010 4:18 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> I agree with Travis.
>>
>> Also the thread is about a bandwidth manager, which just like Travis,
>> you would do at the edge between you and your upstream. Your APs,
>> backhauls and other radios can be Ubnt/Canopy/Linksys/etc
>>
>> I would suggest spending the minimal amount of money for the MT
>> router, Butch's template and forget about it. If you do have an issue
>> (IMO it will be something a person did to the network if no one logs
>> into it making changes all the time) you have Butch, Dennis, the list,
>> etc.
>>
>> I can't remember the last time I logged into the core router. When I
>> did, it was to copy some rules to share on a list or ##mikrotik.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Travis Johnson 

>> >> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You need to fix your network, not the hardware/software you are
>> running. I have over 60 Mikrotik backhaul links, with over 1,000
>> Mikrotik customer radios (plus thousands more Trango and Canopy)
>> and have NONE of the issues you describe.
>>
>> Our main edge router is a Mikrotik box (x86 with Quad core) and it
>> has thousands of rules and NAT translations, moving 450Mbps x
>> 150Mbps on a daily basis, and has been up for over 6 months right
>> now (due only to firmware upgrades).
>>
>> Having your network bridged is the problem. Take time out and fix
>> that, or you will continue to have more and more problems...
>>
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/14/2010 4:45 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:
>>> Really Josh, you want me to rehash this? To be simple I'm not a
>>> true geek, I barely speak linux and Router OS not at all. Our
>>> network of 700 over 12 towers is bridged, a big no-no but I can't
>>> keep radios up long enough to make us routed along with the
>>> growth sprut we've had this year (we 're averaging 3 installs a
>>> day with one installer/field tech). We've found that if you get
>>> over 50 on Mikrotik you start getting latency issues, four of our
>>> towers have over that. When I was all Mikrotik (well 90% that
>>> 10% Moto) it worked great for about a year and a half, then the
>>> packet storms started, then radios started doing weird
>>> intermittent things like turning off. Sure we did the obvious,
>>> change passwords, isolate the radios from the rest of the network
>>> but it just started to get worse, probably traffic driven from
>>> our ongoing growth that the greater demand for more bandwidth (we
>>> are 90% residential so Netflix type stuff).
>>>
>>> To solve this we started replacing backhauls with Ubiquiti
>>> radios. Ubiquiti allows more traffic so the added pressure
>>> really started to take down the Mikrotik AP's, ports and bridges
>>> now drop with undiagnoisable (new word) regularity. Then the
>>> bandwidth manager failed, Butch rebuilt it but for some reason
>>> the upgrade to 4.11 made failures happen more often that were
>>> like the AP's, dropped ports and bridges. We compensated by
>>> making a path on the Ethernet side and in-network side so we
>>> could maybe ... (fix the disabled port/bridge) from either end.
>>> We are spending all of our time building redundant this and
>>> redundant that until we realized one thing, on every outage
>>> Mikrotik's had cascading failures shutting down ports or turning
>>> off radios (disabling) meanwhile Ubiquiti never went down,
>>> ever. So we started pulling all Mikrotik backhauls, now we only
>>> lose AP's and the bandwidth manager. Since the bandwidth manager
>>> takes the entire network down we want replace it. Now you're up
>>> to speed on where we are, I call Mikrotik my 'backwards momentum'
>>> mover, we have to stop our forward motion on building and
>>> installing so we can restore service, it takes the fun out of
>>> this business thats for sure.
>>>
>>> Forbes
>>>
>>> On 10/14/2010 3:17 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

 Hrm why doesn't Mikrotik work?

 On Oct 14, 2010 6:15 PM, "Forbes Mercy"
 mailto:forbes.me...@wabroadband.com>
 >> wrote:

 > In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop
 for a new
 > bandwidt

Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday

At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote:
>   Fred,
>
>Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations 
>that transmit.

Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way 
transceivers.  The only receive-only equipment is what goes with 
wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only.

>jack
>
>
>On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum
> >> Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office
> >> yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS
> >> Memorandum Report&  Order language.  Below is the Ex parte Filing
> >> that was made today.
> > Rick, when you guys said "to remove the HAAT restriction for
> > receive-only sites", did you really mean receive-only, or did you
> > mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the "tower"?
> >
> > I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not
> > only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites.
> >
> >--
> >Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
> >ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
> >+1 617 795 2701
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> 
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > http://signup.wispa.org/
> > 
> 
> >
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
> >
>
>--
>Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
>Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
>www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.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/

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

  Again not a true statement, $3000 for a visit by a network 
administrator to route us (already got the quote), $600 for a packeteer 
on eBay.  Then we can route it ourselves because the network won't drop 
every day when a piece of crap router drops the ethernet port every time 
it sees traffic it doesn't like, who designs something like that 
anyway!?  ZERO drops from UBNT gear and it's handling the exact same 
gear as the Mikrotik did, EXACT same packets. OK ok sorry I'm getting 
pissed now, going to walk away for the night... I just asked for 
alternatives, that's all.  Didn't mean to walk into the MAC users group 
and say Windows was better.

On 10/14/2010 5:01 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
> Sounds like you need to have someone come visit the network in person.
> There has to be a reasonable explination for what is going on your
> network, and i posit that no device you find is going to work right
> till that root cause is found.
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Forbes Mercy
>   wrote:
>> I also haven't been in my core router in ages, my template IS by Butch as I
>> stated before, I HAVE had Dennis look at the outages, everyone is stumped,
>> if I can't depend on it I don't want it.  THEN I'll have time to route the
>> network.  I've used Mikrotik for years and until the load got to high things
>> ran fine, I wish I could make it work but its down just too much.
>>
>> On 10/14/2010 4:18 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Travis.
>>
>> Also the thread is about a bandwidth manager, which just like Travis, you
>> would do at the edge between you and your upstream.  Your APs, backhauls and
>> other radios can be Ubnt/Canopy/Linksys/etc
>>
>> I would suggest spending the minimal amount of money for the MT router,
>> Butch's template and forget about it.  If you do have an issue (IMO it will
>> be something a person did to the network if no one logs into it making
>> changes all the time) you have Butch, Dennis, the list, etc.
>>
>> I can't remember the last time I logged into the core router.  When I did,
>> it was to copy some rules to share on a list or ##mikrotik.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> You need to fix your network, not the hardware/software you are running. I
>>> have over 60 Mikrotik backhaul links, with over 1,000 Mikrotik customer
>>> radios (plus thousands more Trango and Canopy) and have NONE of the issues
>>> you describe.
>>>
>>> Our main edge router is a Mikrotik box (x86 with Quad core) and it has
>>> thousands of rules and NAT translations, moving 450Mbps x 150Mbps on a daily
>>> basis, and has been up for over 6 months right now (due only to firmware
>>> upgrades).
>>>
>>> Having your network bridged is the problem. Take time out and fix that, or
>>> you will continue to have more and more problems...
>>>
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/14/2010 4:45 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:
>>>
>>> Really Josh, you want me to rehash this?  To be simple I'm not a true
>>> geek, I barely speak linux and Router OS not at all.  Our network of 700
>>> over 12 towers is bridged, a big no-no but I can't keep radios up long
>>> enough to make us routed along with the growth sprut we've had this year (we
>>> 're averaging 3 installs a day with one installer/field tech).  We've found
>>> that if you get over 50 on Mikrotik you start getting latency issues, four
>>> of our towers have over that.  When I was all Mikrotik (well 90% that 10%
>>> Moto) it worked great for about a year and a half, then the packet storms
>>> started, then radios started doing weird intermittent things like turning
>>> off.  Sure we did the obvious, change passwords, isolate the radios from the
>>> rest of the network but it just started to get worse, probably traffic
>>> driven from our ongoing growth that the greater demand for more bandwidth
>>> (we are 90% residential so Netflix type stuff).
>>>
>>> To solve this we started replacing backhauls with Ubiquiti radios.
>>> Ubiquiti allows more traffic so the added pressure really started to take
>>> down the Mikrotik AP's, ports and bridges now drop with undiagnoisable (new
>>> word) regularity.  Then the bandwidth manager failed, Butch rebuilt it but
>>> for some reason the upgrade to 4.11 made failures happen more often that
>>> were like the AP's, dropped ports and bridges.  We compensated by making a
>>> path on the Ethernet side and in-network side so we could maybe ... (fix the
>>> disabled port/bridge) from either end.  We are spending all of our time
>>> building redundant this and redundant that until we realized one thing, on
>>> every outage Mikrotik's had cascading failures shutting down ports or
>>> turning off radios (disabling)  meanwhile Ubiquiti never went down, ever.
>>> So we started pulling all Mikrotik backhauls, now we only lose AP's and the
>>> bandwidth manager.  Since the bandw

Re: [WISPA] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

Run smokeping and Dude.  You need to find the issues or you may spend money
needlessly.
On Oct 14, 2010 7:57 PM, "Forbes Mercy" 
wrote:
> I also haven't been in my core router in ages, my template IS by Butch
> as I stated before, I HAVE had Dennis look at the outages, everyone is
> stumped, if I can't depend on it I don't want it. THEN I'll have time
> to route the network. I've used Mikrotik for years and until the load
> got to high things ran fine, I wish I could make it work but its down
> just too much.
>
> On 10/14/2010 4:18 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> I agree with Travis.
>>
>> Also the thread is about a bandwidth manager, which just like Travis,
>> you would do at the edge between you and your upstream. Your APs,
>> backhauls and other radios can be Ubnt/Canopy/Linksys/etc
>>
>> I would suggest spending the minimal amount of money for the MT
>> router, Butch's template and forget about it. If you do have an issue
>> (IMO it will be something a person did to the network if no one logs
>> into it making changes all the time) you have Butch, Dennis, the list,
>> etc.
>>
>> I can't remember the last time I logged into the core router. When I
>> did, it was to copy some rules to share on a list or ##mikrotik.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Travis Johnson > > wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You need to fix your network, not the hardware/software you are
>> running. I have over 60 Mikrotik backhaul links, with over 1,000
>> Mikrotik customer radios (plus thousands more Trango and Canopy)
>> and have NONE of the issues you describe.
>>
>> Our main edge router is a Mikrotik box (x86 with Quad core) and it
>> has thousands of rules and NAT translations, moving 450Mbps x
>> 150Mbps on a daily basis, and has been up for over 6 months right
>> now (due only to firmware upgrades).
>>
>> Having your network bridged is the problem. Take time out and fix
>> that, or you will continue to have more and more problems...
>>
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/14/2010 4:45 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:
>>> Really Josh, you want me to rehash this? To be simple I'm not a
>>> true geek, I barely speak linux and Router OS not at all. Our
>>> network of 700 over 12 towers is bridged, a big no-no but I can't
>>> keep radios up long enough to make us routed along with the
>>> growth sprut we've had this year (we 're averaging 3 installs a
>>> day with one installer/field tech). We've found that if you get
>>> over 50 on Mikrotik you start getting latency issues, four of our
>>> towers have over that. When I was all Mikrotik (well 90% that
>>> 10% Moto) it worked great for about a year and a half, then the
>>> packet storms started, then radios started doing weird
>>> intermittent things like turning off. Sure we did the obvious,
>>> change passwords, isolate the radios from the rest of the network
>>> but it just started to get worse, probably traffic driven from
>>> our ongoing growth that the greater demand for more bandwidth (we
>>> are 90% residential so Netflix type stuff).
>>>
>>> To solve this we started replacing backhauls with Ubiquiti
>>> radios. Ubiquiti allows more traffic so the added pressure
>>> really started to take down the Mikrotik AP's, ports and bridges
>>> now drop with undiagnoisable (new word) regularity. Then the
>>> bandwidth manager failed, Butch rebuilt it but for some reason
>>> the upgrade to 4.11 made failures happen more often that were
>>> like the AP's, dropped ports and bridges. We compensated by
>>> making a path on the Ethernet side and in-network side so we
>>> could maybe ... (fix the disabled port/bridge) from either end.
>>> We are spending all of our time building redundant this and
>>> redundant that until we realized one thing, on every outage
>>> Mikrotik's had cascading failures shutting down ports or turning
>>> off radios (disabling) meanwhile Ubiquiti never went down,
>>> ever. So we started pulling all Mikrotik backhauls, now we only
>>> lose AP's and the bandwidth manager. Since the bandwidth manager
>>> takes the entire network down we want replace it. Now you're up
>>> to speed on where we are, I call Mikrotik my 'backwards momentum'
>>> mover, we have to stop our forward motion on building and
>>> installing so we can restore service, it takes the fun out of
>>> this business thats for sure.
>>>
>>> Forbes
>>>
>>> On 10/14/2010 3:17 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

 Hrm why doesn't Mikrotik work?

 On Oct 14, 2010 6:15 PM, "Forbes Mercy"
 >>> > wrote:
 > In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop
 for a new
 > bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the
 ports or
 > bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week).
 I'm
 > looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any
 suggestions.
 >
 > Than

Re: [WISPA] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

2010-10-14 Thread Dennis Burgess

Forbes, I am not stumped, but the simple fact is that we don't have
enough information to make a "final" fix.  So, be sure here, that we are
not stumped, the information has not came in to find out why.  I think
mike was suppose to work with one of your guys, I will have to find out
where they left off.   You want the help, then we are here.

 

---
Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer 
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
 
LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training 
- Author of "Learn RouterOS"  

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: October 14, 2010 6:57 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

 

I also haven't been in my core router in ages, my template IS by Butch
as I stated before, I HAVE had Dennis look at the outages, everyone is
stumped, if I can't depend on it I don't want it.  THEN I'll have time
to route the network.  I've used Mikrotik for years and until the load
got to high things ran fine, I wish I could make it work but its down
just too much.

On 10/14/2010 4:18 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: 

I agree with Travis.

Also the thread is about a bandwidth manager, which just like Travis,
you would do at the edge between you and your upstream.  Your APs,
backhauls and other radios can be Ubnt/Canopy/Linksys/etc

I would suggest spending the minimal amount of money for the MT router,
Butch's template and forget about it.  If you do have an issue (IMO it
will be something a person did to the network if no one logs into it
making changes all the time) you have Butch, Dennis, the list, etc.

I can't remember the last time I logged into the core router.  When I
did, it was to copy some rules to share on a list or ##mikrotik.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:

Hi,

You need to fix your network, not the hardware/software you are running.
I have over 60 Mikrotik backhaul links, with over 1,000 Mikrotik
customer radios (plus thousands more Trango and Canopy) and have NONE of
the issues you describe.

Our main edge router is a Mikrotik box (x86 with Quad core) and it has
thousands of rules and NAT translations, moving 450Mbps x 150Mbps on a
daily basis, and has been up for over 6 months right now (due only to
firmware upgrades).

Having your network bridged is the problem. Take time out and fix that,
or you will continue to have more and more problems...

Travis
Microserv 




On 10/14/2010 4:45 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote: 

Really Josh, you want me to rehash this?  To be simple I'm not a true
geek, I barely speak linux and Router OS not at all.  Our network of 700
over 12 towers is bridged, a big no-no but I can't keep radios up long
enough to make us routed along with the growth sprut we've had this year
(we 're averaging 3 installs a day with one installer/field tech).
We've found that if you get over 50 on Mikrotik you start getting
latency issues, four of our towers have over that.  When I was all
Mikrotik (well 90% that 10% Moto) it worked great for about a year and a
half, then the packet storms started, then radios started doing weird
intermittent things like turning off.  Sure we did the obvious, change
passwords, isolate the radios from the rest of the network but it just
started to get worse, probably traffic driven from our ongoing growth
that the greater demand for more bandwidth (we are 90% residential so
Netflix type stuff).

To solve this we started replacing backhauls with Ubiquiti radios.
Ubiquiti allows more traffic so the added pressure really started to
take down the Mikrotik AP's, ports and bridges now drop with
undiagnoisable (new word) regularity.  Then the bandwidth manager
failed, Butch rebuilt it but for some reason the upgrade to 4.11 made
failures happen more often that were like the AP's, dropped ports and
bridges.  We compensated by making a path on the Ethernet side and
in-network side so we could maybe ... (fix the disabled port/bridge)
from either end.  We are spending all of our time building redundant
this and redundant that until we realized one thing, on every outage
Mikrotik's had cascading failures shutting down ports or turning off
radios (disabling)  meanwhile Ubiquiti never went down, ever.  So we
started pulling all Mikrotik backhauls, now we only lose AP's and the
bandwidth manager.  Since the bandwidth manager takes the entire network
down we want replace it.  Now you're up to speed on where we are, I call
Mikrotik my 'backwards momentum' mover, we have to stop our forward
motion on building and installing so we can restore service, it takes
the fun out of this business thats for sure.

Forbes

On 10/14/2010 3:17 PM, Josh Lut

Re: [WISPA] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

2010-10-14 Thread Jeromie Reeves

Sounds like you need to have someone come visit the network in person.
There has to be a reasonable explination for what is going on your
network, and i posit that no device you find is going to work right
till that root cause is found.

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Forbes Mercy
 wrote:
> I also haven't been in my core router in ages, my template IS by Butch as I
> stated before, I HAVE had Dennis look at the outages, everyone is stumped,
> if I can't depend on it I don't want it.  THEN I'll have time to route the
> network.  I've used Mikrotik for years and until the load got to high things
> ran fine, I wish I could make it work but its down just too much.
>
> On 10/14/2010 4:18 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> I agree with Travis.
>
> Also the thread is about a bandwidth manager, which just like Travis, you
> would do at the edge between you and your upstream.  Your APs, backhauls and
> other radios can be Ubnt/Canopy/Linksys/etc
>
> I would suggest spending the minimal amount of money for the MT router,
> Butch's template and forget about it.  If you do have an issue (IMO it will
> be something a person did to the network if no one logs into it making
> changes all the time) you have Butch, Dennis, the list, etc.
>
> I can't remember the last time I logged into the core router.  When I did,
> it was to copy some rules to share on a list or ##mikrotik.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You need to fix your network, not the hardware/software you are running. I
>> have over 60 Mikrotik backhaul links, with over 1,000 Mikrotik customer
>> radios (plus thousands more Trango and Canopy) and have NONE of the issues
>> you describe.
>>
>> Our main edge router is a Mikrotik box (x86 with Quad core) and it has
>> thousands of rules and NAT translations, moving 450Mbps x 150Mbps on a daily
>> basis, and has been up for over 6 months right now (due only to firmware
>> upgrades).
>>
>> Having your network bridged is the problem. Take time out and fix that, or
>> you will continue to have more and more problems...
>>
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>>
>> On 10/14/2010 4:45 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:
>>
>> Really Josh, you want me to rehash this?  To be simple I'm not a true
>> geek, I barely speak linux and Router OS not at all.  Our network of 700
>> over 12 towers is bridged, a big no-no but I can't keep radios up long
>> enough to make us routed along with the growth sprut we've had this year (we
>> 're averaging 3 installs a day with one installer/field tech).  We've found
>> that if you get over 50 on Mikrotik you start getting latency issues, four
>> of our towers have over that.  When I was all Mikrotik (well 90% that 10%
>> Moto) it worked great for about a year and a half, then the packet storms
>> started, then radios started doing weird intermittent things like turning
>> off.  Sure we did the obvious, change passwords, isolate the radios from the
>> rest of the network but it just started to get worse, probably traffic
>> driven from our ongoing growth that the greater demand for more bandwidth
>> (we are 90% residential so Netflix type stuff).
>>
>> To solve this we started replacing backhauls with Ubiquiti radios.
>> Ubiquiti allows more traffic so the added pressure really started to take
>> down the Mikrotik AP's, ports and bridges now drop with undiagnoisable (new
>> word) regularity.  Then the bandwidth manager failed, Butch rebuilt it but
>> for some reason the upgrade to 4.11 made failures happen more often that
>> were like the AP's, dropped ports and bridges.  We compensated by making a
>> path on the Ethernet side and in-network side so we could maybe ... (fix the
>> disabled port/bridge) from either end.  We are spending all of our time
>> building redundant this and redundant that until we realized one thing, on
>> every outage Mikrotik's had cascading failures shutting down ports or
>> turning off radios (disabling)  meanwhile Ubiquiti never went down, ever.
>> So we started pulling all Mikrotik backhauls, now we only lose AP's and the
>> bandwidth manager.  Since the bandwidth manager takes the entire network
>> down we want replace it.  Now you're up to speed on where we are, I call
>> Mikrotik my 'backwards momentum' mover, we have to stop our forward motion
>> on building and installing so we can restore service, it takes the fun out
>> of this business thats for sure.
>>
>> Forbes
>>
>> On 10/14/2010 3:17 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> Hrm why doesn't Mikrotik work?
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2010 6:15 PM, "Forbes Mercy" 
>> wrote:
>> > In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new
>> > bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the ports or
>> > bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week). I'm
>> > looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Forbes
>

Re: [WISPA] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

 I also haven't been in my core router in ages, my template IS by Butch 
as I stated before, I HAVE had Dennis look at the outages, everyone is 
stumped, if I can't depend on it I don't want it.  THEN I'll have time 
to route the network.  I've used Mikrotik for years and until the load 
got to high things ran fine, I wish I could make it work but its down 
just too much.

On 10/14/2010 4:18 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

I agree with Travis.

Also the thread is about a bandwidth manager, which just like Travis, 
you would do at the edge between you and your upstream.  Your APs, 
backhauls and other radios can be Ubnt/Canopy/Linksys/etc

I would suggest spending the minimal amount of money for the MT 
router, Butch's template and forget about it.  If you do have an issue 
(IMO it will be something a person did to the network if no one logs 
into it making changes all the time) you have Butch, Dennis, the list, 
etc.

I can't remember the last time I logged into the core router.  When I 
did, it was to copy some rules to share on a list or ##mikrotik.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Travis Johnson > wrote:

Hi,

You need to fix your network, not the hardware/software you are
running. I have over 60 Mikrotik backhaul links, with over 1,000
Mikrotik customer radios (plus thousands more Trango and Canopy)
and have NONE of the issues you describe.

Our main edge router is a Mikrotik box (x86 with Quad core) and it
has thousands of rules and NAT translations, moving 450Mbps x
150Mbps on a daily basis, and has been up for over 6 months right
now (due only to firmware upgrades).

Having your network bridged is the problem. Take time out and fix
that, or you will continue to have more and more problems...

Travis
Microserv

On 10/14/2010 4:45 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:

Really Josh, you want me to rehash this?  To be simple I'm not a
true geek, I barely speak linux and Router OS not at all.  Our
network of 700 over 12 towers is bridged, a big no-no but I can't
keep radios up long enough to make us routed along with the
growth sprut we've had this year (we 're averaging 3 installs a
day with one installer/field tech).  We've found that if you get
over 50 on Mikrotik you start getting latency issues, four of our
towers have over that.  When I was all Mikrotik (well 90% that
10% Moto) it worked great for about a year and a half, then the
packet storms started, then radios started doing weird
intermittent things like turning off.  Sure we did the obvious,
change passwords, isolate the radios from the rest of the network
but it just started to get worse, probably traffic driven from
our ongoing growth that the greater demand for more bandwidth (we
are 90% residential so Netflix type stuff).

To solve this we started replacing backhauls with Ubiquiti
radios.  Ubiquiti allows more traffic so the added pressure
really started to take down the Mikrotik AP's, ports and bridges
now drop with undiagnoisable (new word) regularity.  Then the
bandwidth manager failed, Butch rebuilt it but for some reason
the upgrade to 4.11 made failures happen more often that were
like the AP's, dropped ports and bridges.  We compensated by
making a path on the Ethernet side and in-network side so we
could maybe ... (fix the disabled port/bridge) from either end. 
We are spending all of our time building redundant this and

redundant that until we realized one thing, on every outage
Mikrotik's had cascading failures shutting down ports or turning
off radios (disabling)  meanwhile Ubiquiti never went down,
ever.  So we started pulling all Mikrotik backhauls, now we only
lose AP's and the bandwidth manager.  Since the bandwidth manager
takes the entire network down we want replace it.  Now you're up
to speed on where we are, I call Mikrotik my 'backwards momentum'
mover, we have to stop our forward motion on building and
installing so we can restore service, it takes the fun out of
this business thats for sure.

Forbes

On 10/14/2010 3:17 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Hrm why doesn't Mikrotik work?

On Oct 14, 2010 6:15 PM, "Forbes Mercy"
mailto:forbes.me...@wabroadband.com>> wrote:
> In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop
for a new
> bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the
ports or
> bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week).
I'm
> looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any
suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
> Forbes
>
>
>

> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>

--

Re: [WISPA] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

  Ya know I'd be a lot more patient for the smart a$$ comments if I 
didn't have to live through this, I've hired the best guys on this list 
to solve it and the only answer I get in the end is "that shouldn't 
happen".  I can be non-geek enough to know if I can't hire the fix it 
ain't gonna work.  All the loyalists to a certain brand be it Mikrotik 
or Mac users can either say 'if he can't make that work here's our 
suggestion' or come sit in my chair for a while and wait for the 
hundreds of calls when a piece of gear just drops for no reason.  I've 
avoided Windows like the plague and run a 100% linux back end, every ISP 
I bought I converted to my format, you don't have to tell me horror 
stories I've been in this business since the beginning. I'm inferring to 
a more GUI type interface, hell it could be redhat for all I know, I'm 
looking for solutions not preferences.

On 10/14/2010 4:27 PM, Jeremy Parr wrote:
> Splendid idea there guy, replace Mikrotik with a Windows box. Gotta
> wonder I'd the problem is between the keyboard and the chair here.
>
> On 10/14/10, Forbes Mercy  wrote:
>>In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new
>> bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the ports or
>> bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week).  I'm
>> looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Forbes
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

I believe he is looking for an easier interface.  Not the Windows kernel on
the hardware doing the job.
On Oct 14, 2010 7:27 PM, "Jeremy Parr"  wrote:
> Splendid idea there guy, replace Mikrotik with a Windows box. Gotta
> wonder I'd the problem is between the keyboard and the chair here.
>
> On 10/14/10, Forbes Mercy  wrote:
>> In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new
>> bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the ports or
>> bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week). I'm
>> looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Forbes
>>
>>
>>

>> 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/
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
>
>

> 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] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

2010-10-14 Thread Jeremy Parr

Splendid idea there guy, replace Mikrotik with a Windows box. Gotta
wonder I'd the problem is between the keyboard and the chair here.

On 10/14/10, Forbes Mercy  wrote:
>   In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new
> bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the ports or
> bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week).  I'm
> looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
> Forbes
>
>
> 
> 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/
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device



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] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

2010-10-14 Thread Stuart Pierce

Over 50 and you get latency issues ?

-- Original Message --
From: Forbes Mercy 
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:45:32 -0700

>  Really Josh, you want me to rehash this?  To be simple I'm not a true 
>geek, I barely speak linux and Router OS not at all.  Our network of 700 
>over 12 towers is bridged, a big no-no but I can't keep radios up long 
>enough to make us routed along with the growth sprut we've had this year 
>(we 're averaging 3 installs a day with one installer/field tech).  
>We've found that if you get over 50 on Mikrotik you start getting 
>latency issues, four of our towers have over that.  When I was all 
>Mikrotik (well 90% that 10% Moto) it worked great for about a year and a 
>half, then the packet storms started, then radios started doing weird 
>intermittent things like turning off.  Sure we did the obvious, change 
>passwords, isolate the radios from the rest of the network but it just 
>started to get worse, probably traffic driven from our ongoing growth 
>that the greater demand for more bandwidth (we are 90% residential so 
>Netflix type stuff).
>
>To solve this we started replacing backhauls with Ubiquiti radios.  
>Ubiquiti allows more traffic so the added pressure really started to 
>take down the Mikrotik AP's, ports and bridges now drop with 
>undiagnoisable (new word) regularity.  Then the bandwidth manager 
>failed, Butch rebuilt it but for some reason the upgrade to 4.11 made 
>failures happen more often that were like the AP's, dropped ports and 
>bridges.  We compensated by making a path on the Ethernet side and 
>in-network side so we could maybe ... (fix the disabled port/bridge) 
>from either end.  We are spending all of our time building redundant 
>this and redundant that until we realized one thing, on every outage 
>Mikrotik's had cascading failures shutting down ports or turning off 
>radios (disabling)  meanwhile Ubiquiti never went down, ever.  So we 
>started pulling all Mikrotik backhauls, now we only lose AP's and the 
>bandwidth manager.  Since the bandwidth manager takes the entire network 
>down we want replace it.  Now you're up to speed on where we are, I call 
>Mikrotik my 'backwards momentum' mover, we have to stop our forward 
>motion on building and installing so we can restore service, it takes 
>the fun out of this business thats for sure.
>
>Forbes
>
>On 10/14/2010 3:17 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> Hrm why doesn't Mikrotik work?
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2010 6:15 PM, "Forbes Mercy" > > wrote:
>> > In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new
>> > bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the ports or
>> > bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week). I'm
>> > looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Forbes
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> 
>> > 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/
>
>
>
>
 





Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.net


 
   



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] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

I agree with Travis.

Also the thread is about a bandwidth manager, which just like Travis, you
would do at the edge between you and your upstream.  Your APs, backhauls and
other radios can be Ubnt/Canopy/Linksys/etc

I would suggest spending the minimal amount of money for the MT router,
Butch's template and forget about it.  If you do have an issue (IMO it will
be something a person did to the network if no one logs into it making
changes all the time) you have Butch, Dennis, the list, etc.

I can't remember the last time I logged into the core router.  When I did,
it was to copy some rules to share on a list or ##mikrotik.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> You need to fix your network, not the hardware/software you are running. I
> have over 60 Mikrotik backhaul links, with over 1,000 Mikrotik customer
> radios (plus thousands more Trango and Canopy) and have NONE of the issues
> you describe.
>
> Our main edge router is a Mikrotik box (x86 with Quad core) and it has
> thousands of rules and NAT translations, moving 450Mbps x 150Mbps on a daily
> basis, and has been up for over 6 months right now (due only to firmware
> upgrades).
>
> Having your network bridged is the problem. Take time out and fix that, or
> you will continue to have more and more problems...
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
>
>
> On 10/14/2010 4:45 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:
>
> Really Josh, you want me to rehash this?  To be simple I'm not a true geek,
> I barely speak linux and Router OS not at all.  Our network of 700 over 12
> towers is bridged, a big no-no but I can't keep radios up long enough to
> make us routed along with the growth sprut we've had this year (we 're
> averaging 3 installs a day with one installer/field tech).  We've found that
> if you get over 50 on Mikrotik you start getting latency issues, four of our
> towers have over that.  When I was all Mikrotik (well 90% that 10% Moto) it
> worked great for about a year and a half, then the packet storms started,
> then radios started doing weird intermittent things like turning off.  Sure
> we did the obvious, change passwords, isolate the radios from the rest of
> the network but it just started to get worse, probably traffic driven from
> our ongoing growth that the greater demand for more bandwidth (we are 90%
> residential so Netflix type stuff).
>
> To solve this we started replacing backhauls with Ubiquiti radios.
> Ubiquiti allows more traffic so the added pressure really started to take
> down the Mikrotik AP's, ports and bridges now drop with undiagnoisable (new
> word) regularity.  Then the bandwidth manager failed, Butch rebuilt it but
> for some reason the upgrade to 4.11 made failures happen more often that
> were like the AP's, dropped ports and bridges.  We compensated by making a
> path on the Ethernet side and in-network side so we could maybe ... (fix the
> disabled port/bridge) from either end.  We are spending all of our time
> building redundant this and redundant that until we realized one thing, on
> every outage Mikrotik's had cascading failures shutting down ports or
> turning off radios (disabling)  meanwhile Ubiquiti never went down, ever.
> So we started pulling all Mikrotik backhauls, now we only lose AP's and the
> bandwidth manager.  Since the bandwidth manager takes the entire network
> down we want replace it.  Now you're up to speed on where we are, I call
> Mikrotik my 'backwards momentum' mover, we have to stop our forward motion
> on building and installing so we can restore service, it takes the fun out
> of this business thats for sure.
>
> Forbes
>
> On 10/14/2010 3:17 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> Hrm why doesn't Mikrotik work?
> On Oct 14, 2010 6:15 PM, "Forbes Mercy" 
> wrote:
> > In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new
> > bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the ports or
> > bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week). I'm
> > looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Forbes
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > 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/pipermai

Re: [WISPA] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

2010-10-14 Thread David Williamson

Can you recommend a routing configuration because we currently run some
bridging and I am curious as to what your recommendations would be.  How
do you do the bandwidth shaping if you are routing from local tower
sites directly?

Thanks,

David

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

Hi,

You need to fix your network, not the hardware/software you are running.
I have over 60 Mikrotik backhaul links, with over 1,000 Mikrotik
customer radios (plus thousands more Trango and Canopy) and have NONE of
the issues you describe.

Our main edge router is a Mikrotik box (x86 with Quad core) and it has
thousands of rules and NAT translations, moving 450Mbps x 150Mbps on a
daily basis, and has been up for over 6 months right now (due only to
firmware upgrades).

Having your network bridged is the problem. Take time out and fix that,
or you will continue to have more and more problems...

Travis
Microserv

On 10/14/2010 4:45 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote: 

Really Josh, you want me to rehash this?  To be simple I'm not a true
geek, I barely speak linux and Router OS not at all.  Our network of 700
over 12 towers is bridged, a big no-no but I can't keep radios up long
enough to make us routed along with the growth sprut we've had this year
(we 're averaging 3 installs a day with one installer/field tech).
We've found that if you get over 50 on Mikrotik you start getting
latency issues, four of our towers have over that.  When I was all
Mikrotik (well 90% that 10% Moto) it worked great for about a year and a
half, then the packet storms started, then radios started doing weird
intermittent things like turning off.  Sure we did the obvious, change
passwords, isolate the radios from the rest of the network but it just
started to get worse, probably traffic driven from our ongoing growth
that the greater demand for more bandwidth (we are 90% residential so
Netflix type stuff).

To solve this we started replacing backhauls with Ubiquiti radios.
Ubiquiti allows more traffic so the added pressure really started to
take down the Mikrotik AP's, ports and bridges now drop with
undiagnoisable (new word) regularity.  Then the bandwidth manager
failed, Butch rebuilt it but for some reason the upgrade to 4.11 made
failures happen more often that were like the AP's, dropped ports and
bridges.  We compensated by making a path on the Ethernet side and
in-network side so we could maybe ... (fix the disabled port/bridge)
from either end.  We are spending all of our time building redundant
this and redundant that until we realized one thing, on every outage
Mikrotik's had cascading failures shutting down ports or turning off
radios (disabling)  meanwhile Ubiquiti never went down, ever.  So we
started pulling all Mikrotik backhauls, now we only lose AP's and the
bandwidth manager.  Since the bandwidth manager takes the entire network
down we want replace it.  Now you're up to speed on where we are, I call
Mikrotik my 'backwards momentum' mover, we have to stop our forward
motion on building and installing so we can restore service, it takes
the fun out of this business thats for sure.

Forbes

On 10/14/2010 3:17 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: 

Hrm why doesn't Mikrotik work?

On Oct 14, 2010 6:15 PM, "Forbes Mercy" 
wrote:
> In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new 
> bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the ports
or 
> bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week). I'm 
> looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.
> 
> Thanks,
> Forbes
> 
> 
>

> 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] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

2010-10-14 Thread Travis Johnson

 Hi,

You need to fix your network, not the hardware/software you are running. 
I have over 60 Mikrotik backhaul links, with over 1,000 Mikrotik 
customer radios (plus thousands more Trango and Canopy) and have NONE of 
the issues you describe.

Our main edge router is a Mikrotik box (x86 with Quad core) and it has 
thousands of rules and NAT translations, moving 450Mbps x 150Mbps on a 
daily basis, and has been up for over 6 months right now (due only to 
firmware upgrades).

Having your network bridged is the problem. Take time out and fix that, 
or you will continue to have more and more problems...

Travis
Microserv

On 10/14/2010 4:45 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:
Really Josh, you want me to rehash this?  To be simple I'm not a true 
geek, I barely speak linux and Router OS not at all.  Our network of 
700 over 12 towers is bridged, a big no-no but I can't keep radios up 
long enough to make us routed along with the growth sprut we've had 
this year (we 're averaging 3 installs a day with one installer/field 
tech).  We've found that if you get over 50 on Mikrotik you start 
getting latency issues, four of our towers have over that.  When I was 
all Mikrotik (well 90% that 10% Moto) it worked great for about a year 
and a half, then the packet storms started, then radios started doing 
weird intermittent things like turning off.  Sure we did the obvious, 
change passwords, isolate the radios from the rest of the network but 
it just started to get worse, probably traffic driven from our ongoing 
growth that the greater demand for more bandwidth (we are 90% 
residential so Netflix type stuff).

To solve this we started replacing backhauls with Ubiquiti radios.  
Ubiquiti allows more traffic so the added pressure really started to 
take down the Mikrotik AP's, ports and bridges now drop with 
undiagnoisable (new word) regularity.  Then the bandwidth manager 
failed, Butch rebuilt it but for some reason the upgrade to 4.11 made 
failures happen more often that were like the AP's, dropped ports and 
bridges.  We compensated by making a path on the Ethernet side and 
in-network side so we could maybe ... (fix the disabled port/bridge) 
from either end.  We are spending all of our time building redundant 
this and redundant that until we realized one thing, on every outage 
Mikrotik's had cascading failures shutting down ports or turning off 
radios (disabling)  meanwhile Ubiquiti never went down, ever.  So we 
started pulling all Mikrotik backhauls, now we only lose AP's and the 
bandwidth manager.  Since the bandwidth manager takes the entire 
network down we want replace it.  Now you're up to speed on where we 
are, I call Mikrotik my 'backwards momentum' mover, we have to stop 
our forward motion on building and installing so we can restore 
service, it takes the fun out of this business thats for sure.

Forbes

On 10/14/2010 3:17 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Hrm why doesn't Mikrotik work?

On Oct 14, 2010 6:15 PM, "Forbes Mercy" > wrote:

> In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new
> bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the 
ports or

> bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week). I'm
> looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
> Forbes
>
>
> 

> 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] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

2010-10-14 Thread Ryan Ghering

I agree with you btw on the ubnt radios.. we LOVE them.. But we've also
never used mikkrotik for ap's or BH's either..

Ryan

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Forbes Mercy
wrote:

>  Ask Butch, we have a kick-ass Bandwidth manager machine, it's no good when
> it disables it's ports or bridge randomly.  NO traffic over the Internet
> should have the ability to shut down the OS, Mikrotik does, Ubiquiti
> doesn't, simple as that.
>
>
> On 10/14/2010 3:44 PM, Ryan Ghering wrote:
>
> You want to base your network traffic on a windows based machine??
> I wouldn't put the life of my network dependent on a windows box for ANY
> REASON... EVER..
>
> Thats just suicide..
>
> Why not just build a more stable x86 mikrotik router??
> Our main mikrotik bridge for bandwidth management is a quad zeon 16 gig ram
> and (4) 4 port mikrotik gigabit eth cards.
> I've yet to have to reboot it in the year and 3 months its been online, its
> got all the horsepower it needs. (BTW the server is a rackable systems box
> if ya care) And its doing queuing for our entire /20 of which I've got about
> 3500 address's used.
>
> Ryan
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Forbes Mercy <
> forbes.me...@wabroadband.com> wrote:
>
>>  In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new
>> bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the ports or
>> bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week).  I'm
>> looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Forbes
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Ghering
> Network Operations - Plains.Net
> Office: 970-848-0475 - Cell: 970-630-1879
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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/
>



-- 
Ryan Ghering
Network Operations - Plains.Net
Office: 970-848-0475 - Cell: 970-630-1879



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] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

2010-10-14 Thread Brad Belton

We used Packeteer prior to MikroTik for bandwidth management.  Packeteer
arguably makes one of if not the finest bandwidth manager availablebut
you pay for it!

I'd take a closer look at your MikoTik configurations and/or hardware before
springing for a bunch of $10k+ Packeteers...Just my opinion.

Best,


Brad

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 5:15 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

  In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new
bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the ports or
bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week).  I'm looking
for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.

Thanks,
Forbes




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] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

2010-10-14 Thread Ryan Ghering

As I said myself windows is suicide.. If you want an easy to use solution
for bandwidth management I'd check out
a used packeteer from ebay first.. We origionally bought 3 45meg
packetshaper 4500's for our network "from ebay"
and they worked very well for over 5 years, however our billing system now
has integration with mikrotik router os so we use it now..

Ryan

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Forbes Mercy
wrote:

>  Really Josh, you want me to rehash this?  To be simple I'm not a true
> geek, I barely speak linux and Router OS not at all.  Our network of 700
> over 12 towers is bridged, a big no-no but I can't keep radios up long
> enough to make us routed along with the growth sprut we've had this year (we
> 're averaging 3 installs a day with one installer/field tech).  We've found
> that if you get over 50 on Mikrotik you start getting latency issues, four
> of our towers have over that.  When I was all Mikrotik (well 90% that 10%
> Moto) it worked great for about a year and a half, then the packet storms
> started, then radios started doing weird intermittent things like turning
> off.  Sure we did the obvious, change passwords, isolate the radios from the
> rest of the network but it just started to get worse, probably traffic
> driven from our ongoing growth that the greater demand for more bandwidth
> (we are 90% residential so Netflix type stuff).
>
> To solve this we started replacing backhauls with Ubiquiti radios.
> Ubiquiti allows more traffic so the added pressure really started to take
> down the Mikrotik AP's, ports and bridges now drop with undiagnoisable (new
> word) regularity.  Then the bandwidth manager failed, Butch rebuilt it but
> for some reason the upgrade to 4.11 made failures happen more often that
> were like the AP's, dropped ports and bridges.  We compensated by making a
> path on the Ethernet side and in-network side so we could maybe ... (fix the
> disabled port/bridge) from either end.  We are spending all of our time
> building redundant this and redundant that until we realized one thing, on
> every outage Mikrotik's had cascading failures shutting down ports or
> turning off radios (disabling)  meanwhile Ubiquiti never went down, ever.
> So we started pulling all Mikrotik backhauls, now we only lose AP's and the
> bandwidth manager.  Since the bandwidth manager takes the entire network
> down we want replace it.  Now you're up to speed on where we are, I call
> Mikrotik my 'backwards momentum' mover, we have to stop our forward motion
> on building and installing so we can restore service, it takes the fun out
> of this business thats for sure.
>
> Forbes
>
>
> On 10/14/2010 3:17 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> Hrm why doesn't Mikrotik work?
> On Oct 14, 2010 6:15 PM, "Forbes Mercy" 
> wrote:
> > In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new
> > bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the ports or
> > bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week). I'm
> > looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Forbes
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > 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/
>



-- 
Ryan Ghering
Network Operations - Plains.Net
Office: 970-848-0475 - Cell: 970-630-1879



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] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

 Ask Butch, we have a kick-ass Bandwidth manager machine, it's no good 
when it disables it's ports or bridge randomly.  NO traffic over the 
Internet should have the ability to shut down the OS, Mikrotik does, 
Ubiquiti doesn't, simple as that.


On 10/14/2010 3:44 PM, Ryan Ghering wrote:

You want to base your network traffic on a windows based machine??
I wouldn't put the life of my network dependent on a windows box for 
ANY REASON... EVER..


Thats just suicide..

Why not just build a more stable x86 mikrotik router??
Our main mikrotik bridge for bandwidth management is a quad zeon 16 
gig ram and (4) 4 port mikrotik gigabit eth cards.
I've yet to have to reboot it in the year and 3 months its been 
online, its got all the horsepower it needs. (BTW the server is a 
rackable systems box if ya care) And its doing queuing for our entire 
/20 of which I've got about 3500 address's used.


Ryan

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Forbes Mercy 
mailto:forbes.me...@wabroadband.com>> 
wrote:


 In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new
bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the
ports or
bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week).  I'm
looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.

Thanks,
Forbes




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/




--
Ryan Ghering
Network Operations - Plains.Net
Office: 970-848-0475 - Cell: 970-630-1879





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] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

 Really Josh, you want me to rehash this?  To be simple I'm not a true 
geek, I barely speak linux and Router OS not at all.  Our network of 700 
over 12 towers is bridged, a big no-no but I can't keep radios up long 
enough to make us routed along with the growth sprut we've had this year 
(we 're averaging 3 installs a day with one installer/field tech).  
We've found that if you get over 50 on Mikrotik you start getting 
latency issues, four of our towers have over that.  When I was all 
Mikrotik (well 90% that 10% Moto) it worked great for about a year and a 
half, then the packet storms started, then radios started doing weird 
intermittent things like turning off.  Sure we did the obvious, change 
passwords, isolate the radios from the rest of the network but it just 
started to get worse, probably traffic driven from our ongoing growth 
that the greater demand for more bandwidth (we are 90% residential so 
Netflix type stuff).

To solve this we started replacing backhauls with Ubiquiti radios.  
Ubiquiti allows more traffic so the added pressure really started to 
take down the Mikrotik AP's, ports and bridges now drop with 
undiagnoisable (new word) regularity.  Then the bandwidth manager 
failed, Butch rebuilt it but for some reason the upgrade to 4.11 made 
failures happen more often that were like the AP's, dropped ports and 
bridges.  We compensated by making a path on the Ethernet side and 
in-network side so we could maybe ... (fix the disabled port/bridge) 
from either end.  We are spending all of our time building redundant 
this and redundant that until we realized one thing, on every outage 
Mikrotik's had cascading failures shutting down ports or turning off 
radios (disabling)  meanwhile Ubiquiti never went down, ever.  So we 
started pulling all Mikrotik backhauls, now we only lose AP's and the 
bandwidth manager.  Since the bandwidth manager takes the entire network 
down we want replace it.  Now you're up to speed on where we are, I call 
Mikrotik my 'backwards momentum' mover, we have to stop our forward 
motion on building and installing so we can restore service, it takes 
the fun out of this business thats for sure.

Forbes

On 10/14/2010 3:17 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Hrm why doesn't Mikrotik work?

On Oct 14, 2010 6:15 PM, "Forbes Mercy" > wrote:

> In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new
> bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the ports or
> bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week). I'm
> looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
> Forbes
>
>
> 

> 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] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

2010-10-14 Thread Faisal Imtiaz

" more friendly windows type based unit "

Forbes, are you sure you are not jumping from the hot frying pan into 
the Fire ?

:)

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom

On 10/14/2010 6:15 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:
>In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new
> bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the ports or
> bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week).  I'm
> looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
> Forbes
>
>
> 
> 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] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

2010-10-14 Thread Ryan Ghering

You want to base your network traffic on a windows based machine??
I wouldn't put the life of my network dependent on a windows box for ANY
REASON... EVER..

Thats just suicide..

Why not just build a more stable x86 mikrotik router??
Our main mikrotik bridge for bandwidth management is a quad zeon 16 gig ram
and (4) 4 port mikrotik gigabit eth cards.
I've yet to have to reboot it in the year and 3 months its been online, its
got all the horsepower it needs. (BTW the server is a rackable systems box
if ya care) And its doing queuing for our entire /20 of which I've got about
3500 address's used.

Ryan

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Forbes Mercy
wrote:

>  In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new
> bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the ports or
> bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week).  I'm
> looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
> Forbes
>
>
>
> 
> 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/
>

-- 
Ryan Ghering
Network Operations - Plains.Net
Office: 970-848-0475 - Cell: 970-630-1879

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] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday

  Fred,

Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations that transmit.

jack


On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote:
>
>> Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum
>> Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office
>> yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS
>> Memorandum Report&  Order language.  Below is the Ex parte Filing
>> that was made today.
> Rick, when you guys said "to remove the HAAT restriction for
> receive-only sites", did you really mean receive-only, or did you
> mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the "tower"?
>
> I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not
> only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites.
>
>--
>Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
>+1 617 795 2701
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.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] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday

At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote:

>Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum 
>Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office 
>yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS 
>Memorandum Report & Order language.  Below is the Ex parte Filing 
>that was made today.

Rick, when you guys said "to remove the HAAT restriction for 
receive-only sites", did you really mean receive-only, or did you 
mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the "tower"?

I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not 
only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

Hrm why doesn't Mikrotik work?
On Oct 14, 2010 6:15 PM, "Forbes Mercy" 
wrote:
> In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new
> bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the ports or
> bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week). I'm
> looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
> Forbes
>
>
>

> 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] Looking for Bandwidth Manager

  In my mission to rid our network of Mikrotik I need to shop for a new 
bandwidth manager since mine likes to randomly drop one of the ports or 
bridge, and reset the route gateway (twice already this week).  I'm 
looking for a more friendly windows type based unit, any suggestions.

Thanks,
Forbes



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] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday

2010-10-14 Thread Rick Harnish

Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum Bridge
met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office yesterday in regard
to certain limiting factors in the TVWS Memorandum Report & Order language.
Below is the Ex parte Filing that was made today.

 

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016058471

 

Respectfully,

 

Rick Harnish

Executive Director

WISPA

260-307-4000 cell

866-317-2851 WISPA Office

Skype: rick.harnish.

rharn...@wispa.org

 




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] Sea Change - about the FCC

2010-10-14 Thread Rick Harnish

Mark,

 

I started to type an email "call for support" to all WISPs, manufacturers,
distributors and consultants that the time is now to step up to the plate
and support WISPA.  We now have over 400 members out of approximately 2500
WISPs in the country.  That is only 20%.  We need the financial and
grassroots support of a much larger percentage of our industry participants
so that we can have greater reach in our lobbying efforts, involving both
from the legislative and administrative functions of our governments.  

 

As we continue to incur greater lobbying expenses each year, our need to
involve more membership is becoming very evident.  The TV Whitespaces
lobbying expense in September was very high and brings to the forefront our
need encourage  greater participation from the Non-Member WISPs to join.  I
would like to see our membership jump to 75%.  I assure you, if we can
achieve that kind of penetration by getting everyone to sacrifice a little
bit, the strength of our industry will increase substantially.  When we go
to manufacturers and other possible sources of additional revenue, they are
often disappointed that we only have about 20% penetration.  It is truly
disappointing that more independent WISPs do not understand the importance
of teaming up and the power it creates.

 

Hopefully, I will write a better structured email in the near future to
better describe the possible scenarios of banding together or not banding
together.  I hopefully have encouraged some with my words and if so, please
sign up for principal membership at http://signup.wispa.org.  WE ALL NEED
YOU and WE STAND TOGETHER!  I do hope that this email isn't discarded as
just another WISPA membership call.  This is a call to take part in your
future and your business's future.

 

Mark, your goals are good and achievable and with well thought out positions
and wording they can impact elections and our future.

 

Respectfully,

 

Rick Harnish

Executive Director

WISPA

260-307-4000 cell

866-317-2851 WISPA Office

Skype: rick.harnish.

rharn...@wispa.org

 



 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of MDK
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 4:06 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Sea Change - about the FCC

 

This morning my favorite news site had yet another article about the FCC,
labled "walking a fine line" where they're distancing themselves a bit from
full on telecom style regulation and trying to sell some vague "in between"
approach.  

 

To be honest, the electorate isn't in favor of ISP regulation at all.   The
political activists are counting on a Sea Change in Congress with the
elections coming up soon, and are chomping at the bit for change, including
having Congress direct the FCC BY VOTE to leave ISP's alone.  

 

A few Congresscritters and indeed, some of the apparently soon be elected
ones are willing to be activist in this regard to roll regulations back.
Is this something we could get WISPA to officially support?   I realize that
this may seem premature, however...   

 

1.  Political climates change fast.The activists to deregulate things
are  fired up big time.   We'd be just one thing they'd love to add to the
list of overreaches, but few grasp the whys or hows.However, if sit and
wait, while making no noise, it is unlikely we'll get very far. 

 

2.  The public is almost universally unaware that we're supposed to create
and support the ability to fully capture everything an individual client
does.  When I explain it to them, they get narrowed eyes and start to get
quite hostile.   We WOULD have great public support for repeal. 

 

3. Considerable attention is being given to the cost of mandates, as a form
of hidden tax on business.   

 

Of course, nothing is set in stone until its set in stone, but should the
sea change occur that's being predicted, the new Congress will be actively
searching for and attempting to repeal overreaches.   Is WISPA prepared to
go to bat for us in this regard?If not, why not, what's needed?
WISPA needs a well written, clear, and unambiguous statement ready to go in
January, should we have the opportunity to make our voices heard by ears
that think we have not just a right to be heard, but are indeed, on our
side.   

 

Is this where WISPA is willing to go?

 

 

 

  

 

++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

 




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] Network Monitoring

Not was I was referring to.  You can single click update Canopy with
Powercode.  Just put the files in the web server, go to the equipment on the
account page and click the one you want it to update to.

As far as the IP - Powercode does DHCP reservations, which is what I always
have done.  You could do static IPs, too, but that is a pain.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Patrick Shoemaker <
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com> wrote:

> Yes, basically anything that can pull SNMP data is canopy friendly. But
> being able to update firmware with a few clicks, add new alerts without
> digging through piles of MIBs, monitor SMs without needing to assign IP
> addresses to them, etc. are nice things about Prizm. You can do it all
> with a third party app, but is it worth it to pay your network admins to
> customize the system rather than just buying some Prizm licenses?
>
> Patrick Shoemaker
> Vector Data Systems LLC
> shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
> office: (301) 358-1690 x36
> http://www.vectordatasystems.com
>
> On 10/14/2010 4:48 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> > Powercode, Jon's software and boss are all canopy friendly.
> >
> > On Oct 14, 2010 4:40 PM, "Patrick Shoemaker"
> >  > > wrote:
> >  > It is expensive, and has some quirks, and can be a pain to configure,
> >  > but it is definitely the best choice for close integration with
> Motorola
> >  > equipment. There is a customer management module in there and there
> are
> >  > reports for top bandwidth users, etc.
> >  >
> >  > Patrick Shoemaker
> >  > Vector Data Systems LLC
> >  > shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
> > 
> >  > office: (301) 358-1690 x36
> >  > http://www.vectordatasystems.com
> >  >
> >  > On 10/14/2010 3:25 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> >  >> I've heard it is decent but expensive.
> >  >>
> >  >> On Oct 14, 2010 2:28 PM, "Carl Shivers"  > 
> >  >> >>
> wrote:
> >  >> > A bit. I've heard that Prizm isn't all it's cracked up to be.
> >  >> >
> >  >> > -Original Message-
> >  >> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
> >   > >
> >  >> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org
> >   > >] On
> >  >> > Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker
> >  >> > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:35 AM
> >  >> > To: WISPA General List
> >  >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring
> >  >> >
> >  >> > If this is all Motorola, have you looked at Prizm?
> >  >> >
> >  >> > Patrick Shoemaker
> >  >> > Vector Data Systems LLC
> >  >> > shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
> > 
> >  >>  > >
> >  >> > office: (301) 358-1690 x36
> >  >> > http://www.vectordatasystems.com
> >  >> >
> >  >> > On 10/14/2010 11:58 AM, Carl Shivers wrote:
> >  >> >> We have a monitoring system, but it doesn't meet the needs of our
> >  >> >> Customer Service side of the company.
> >  >> >>
> >  >> >> I would like to have a GUI to see Networks by locations showing
> > the APs
> >  >> >> and their SMs. I'm using Canopy 900 MHz with connected SMs. They
> > would
> >  >> >> like to be able to see a mouse over so they could identify the
> > customers
> >  >> >> when an outage occurs giving customer data and location.
> >  >> >>
> >  >> >> Because of bandwidth consumption by some of our customers, the
> > old 80 -
> >  >> >> 20 rule, I would also like to start capturing the Byte throughput
> > on my
> >  >> >> customers so I can set bandwidth caps and tiered bandwidth usage
> >  >> services.
> >  >> >>
> >  >> >> Any thoughts on what might be best for this?
> >  >> >>
> >  >> >>
> >  >> >>
> >  >> >>
> >  >> >>
> >  >> >>
> >  >> >
> >  >>
> >
> 
> >  >> > 
> >  >> >> 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] Network Monitoring

2010-10-14 Thread Patrick Shoemaker

Yes, basically anything that can pull SNMP data is canopy friendly. But 
being able to update firmware with a few clicks, add new alerts without 
digging through piles of MIBs, monitor SMs without needing to assign IP 
addresses to them, etc. are nice things about Prizm. You can do it all 
with a third party app, but is it worth it to pay your network admins to 
customize the system rather than just buying some Prizm licenses?

Patrick Shoemaker
Vector Data Systems LLC
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
http://www.vectordatasystems.com

On 10/14/2010 4:48 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> Powercode, Jon's software and boss are all canopy friendly.
>
> On Oct 14, 2010 4:40 PM, "Patrick Shoemaker"
>  > wrote:
>  > It is expensive, and has some quirks, and can be a pain to configure,
>  > but it is definitely the best choice for close integration with Motorola
>  > equipment. There is a customer management module in there and there are
>  > reports for top bandwidth users, etc.
>  >
>  > Patrick Shoemaker
>  > Vector Data Systems LLC
>  > shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
> 
>  > office: (301) 358-1690 x36
>  > http://www.vectordatasystems.com
>  >
>  > On 10/14/2010 3:25 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>  >> I've heard it is decent but expensive.
>  >>
>  >> On Oct 14, 2010 2:28 PM, "Carl Shivers"  
>  >> >> wrote:
>  >> > A bit. I've heard that Prizm isn't all it's cracked up to be.
>  >> >
>  >> > -Original Message-
>  >> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
>   >
>  >> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org
>   >] On
>  >> > Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker
>  >> > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:35 AM
>  >> > To: WISPA General List
>  >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring
>  >> >
>  >> > If this is all Motorola, have you looked at Prizm?
>  >> >
>  >> > Patrick Shoemaker
>  >> > Vector Data Systems LLC
>  >> > shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
> 
>  >>  >
>  >> > office: (301) 358-1690 x36
>  >> > http://www.vectordatasystems.com
>  >> >
>  >> > On 10/14/2010 11:58 AM, Carl Shivers wrote:
>  >> >> We have a monitoring system, but it doesn't meet the needs of our
>  >> >> Customer Service side of the company.
>  >> >>
>  >> >> I would like to have a GUI to see Networks by locations showing
> the APs
>  >> >> and their SMs. I'm using Canopy 900 MHz with connected SMs. They
> would
>  >> >> like to be able to see a mouse over so they could identify the
> customers
>  >> >> when an outage occurs giving customer data and location.
>  >> >>
>  >> >> Because of bandwidth consumption by some of our customers, the
> old 80 -
>  >> >> 20 rule, I would also like to start capturing the Byte throughput
> on my
>  >> >> customers so I can set bandwidth caps and tiered bandwidth usage
>  >> services.
>  >> >>
>  >> >> Any thoughts on what might be best for this?
>  >> >>
>  >> >>
>  >> >>
>  >> >>
>  >> >>
>  >> >>
>  >> >
>  >>
> 
>  >> > 
>  >> >> 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
>

Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring

Powercode, Jon's software and boss are all canopy friendly.
On Oct 14, 2010 4:40 PM, "Patrick Shoemaker" <
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com> wrote:
> It is expensive, and has some quirks, and can be a pain to configure,
> but it is definitely the best choice for close integration with Motorola
> equipment. There is a customer management module in there and there are
> reports for top bandwidth users, etc.
>
> Patrick Shoemaker
> Vector Data Systems LLC
> shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
> office: (301) 358-1690 x36
> http://www.vectordatasystems.com
>
> On 10/14/2010 3:25 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> I've heard it is decent but expensive.
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2010 2:28 PM, "Carl Shivers" > > wrote:
>> > A bit. I've heard that Prizm isn't all it's cracked up to be.
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
>> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org ]
On
>> > Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker
>> > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:35 AM
>> > To: WISPA General List
>> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring
>> >
>> > If this is all Motorola, have you looked at Prizm?
>> >
>> > Patrick Shoemaker
>> > Vector Data Systems LLC
>> > shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
>> 
>> > office: (301) 358-1690 x36
>> > http://www.vectordatasystems.com
>> >
>> > On 10/14/2010 11:58 AM, Carl Shivers wrote:
>> >> We have a monitoring system, but it doesn't meet the needs of our
>> >> Customer Service side of the company.
>> >>
>> >> I would like to have a GUI to see Networks by locations showing the
APs
>> >> and their SMs. I'm using Canopy 900 MHz with connected SMs. They would
>> >> like to be able to see a mouse over so they could identify the
customers
>> >> when an outage occurs giving customer data and location.
>> >>
>> >> Because of bandwidth consumption by some of our customers, the old 80
-
>> >> 20 rule, I would also like to start capturing the Byte throughput on
my
>> >> customers so I can set bandwidth caps and tiered bandwidth usage
>> services.
>> >>
>> >> Any thoughts on what might be best for this?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>

>> > 
>> >> 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] Network Monitoring

2010-10-14 Thread ogundogba


Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN

-Original Message-
From: Patrick Shoemaker 
Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:40:23 
To: WISPA General List
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring

It is expensive, and has some quirks, and can be a pain to configure, 
but it is definitely the best choice for close integration with Motorola 
equipment. There is a customer management module in there and there are 
reports for top bandwidth users, etc.

Patrick Shoemaker
Vector Data Systems LLC
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
http://www.vectordatasystems.com

On 10/14/2010 3:25 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> I've heard it is decent but expensive.
>
> On Oct 14, 2010 2:28 PM, "Carl Shivers"  > wrote:
>  > A bit. I've heard that Prizm isn't all it's cracked up to be.
>  >
>  > -Original Message-
>  > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org ] On
>  > Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker
>  > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:35 AM
>  > To: WISPA General List
>  > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring
>  >
>  > If this is all Motorola, have you looked at Prizm?
>  >
>  > Patrick Shoemaker
>  > Vector Data Systems LLC
>  > shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
> 
>  > office: (301) 358-1690 x36
>  > http://www.vectordatasystems.com
>  >
>  > On 10/14/2010 11:58 AM, Carl Shivers wrote:
>  >> We have a monitoring system, but it doesn't meet the needs of our
>  >> Customer Service side of the company.
>  >>
>  >> I would like to have a GUI to see Networks by locations showing the APs
>  >> and their SMs. I'm using Canopy 900 MHz with connected SMs. They would
>  >> like to be able to see a mouse over so they could identify the customers
>  >> when an outage occurs giving customer data and location.
>  >>
>  >> Because of bandwidth consumption by some of our customers, the old 80 -
>  >> 20 rule, I would also like to start capturing the Byte throughput on my
>  >> customers so I can set bandwidth caps and tiered bandwidth usage
> services.
>  >>
>  >> Any thoughts on what might be best for this?
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
> 
>  > 
>  >> 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] Network Monitoring

2010-10-14 Thread Patrick Shoemaker

It is expensive, and has some quirks, and can be a pain to configure, 
but it is definitely the best choice for close integration with Motorola 
equipment. There is a customer management module in there and there are 
reports for top bandwidth users, etc.

Patrick Shoemaker
Vector Data Systems LLC
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
http://www.vectordatasystems.com

On 10/14/2010 3:25 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> I've heard it is decent but expensive.
>
> On Oct 14, 2010 2:28 PM, "Carl Shivers"  > wrote:
>  > A bit. I've heard that Prizm isn't all it's cracked up to be.
>  >
>  > -Original Message-
>  > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org ] On
>  > Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker
>  > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:35 AM
>  > To: WISPA General List
>  > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring
>  >
>  > If this is all Motorola, have you looked at Prizm?
>  >
>  > Patrick Shoemaker
>  > Vector Data Systems LLC
>  > shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
> 
>  > office: (301) 358-1690 x36
>  > http://www.vectordatasystems.com
>  >
>  > On 10/14/2010 11:58 AM, Carl Shivers wrote:
>  >> We have a monitoring system, but it doesn't meet the needs of our
>  >> Customer Service side of the company.
>  >>
>  >> I would like to have a GUI to see Networks by locations showing the APs
>  >> and their SMs. I'm using Canopy 900 MHz with connected SMs. They would
>  >> like to be able to see a mouse over so they could identify the customers
>  >> when an outage occurs giving customer data and location.
>  >>
>  >> Because of bandwidth consumption by some of our customers, the old 80 -
>  >> 20 rule, I would also like to start capturing the Byte throughput on my
>  >> customers so I can set bandwidth caps and tiered bandwidth usage
> services.
>  >>
>  >> Any thoughts on what might be best for this?
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
> 
>  > 
>  >> 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] Network Monitoring

2010-10-14 Thread Cameron Crum

Wispmon will do what you want along with customer qualification, CRM,
ticketing, billing, work order scheduling, provisioning, etc (or it can just
monitor). Hit me off list or contact Butch from his above post.

Regards,

Cameron Crum
WispMon.com

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Josh Luthman
wrote:

> I've heard it is decent but expensive.
> On Oct 14, 2010 2:28 PM, "Carl Shivers"  wrote:
> > A bit. I've heard that Prizm isn't all it's cracked up to be.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> > Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker
> > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:35 AM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring
> >
> > If this is all Motorola, have you looked at Prizm?
> >
> > Patrick Shoemaker
> > Vector Data Systems LLC
> > shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
> > office: (301) 358-1690 x36
> > http://www.vectordatasystems.com
> >
> > On 10/14/2010 11:58 AM, Carl Shivers wrote:
> >> We have a monitoring system, but it doesn't meet the needs of our
> >> Customer Service side of the company.
> >>
> >> I would like to have a GUI to see Networks by locations showing the APs
> >> and their SMs. I'm using Canopy 900 MHz with connected SMs. They would
> >> like to be able to see a mouse over so they could identify the customers
> >> when an outage occurs giving customer data and location.
> >>
> >> Because of bandwidth consumption by some of our customers, the old 80 -
> >> 20 rule, I would also like to start capturing the Byte throughput on my
> >> customers so I can set bandwidth caps and tiered bandwidth usage
> services.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts on what might be best for this?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> > 
> >> 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] Sea Change - about the FCC

2010-10-14 Thread MDK

This morning my favorite news site had yet another article about the FCC, 
labled "walking a fine line" where they're distancing themselves a bit from 
full on telecom style regulation and trying to sell some vague "in between" 
approach.  

To be honest, the electorate isn't in favor of ISP regulation at all.   The 
political activists are counting on a Sea Change in Congress with the elections 
coming up soon, and are chomping at the bit for change, including having 
Congress direct the FCC BY VOTE to leave ISP's alone.  

A few Congresscritters and indeed, some of the apparently soon be elected ones 
are willing to be activist in this regard to roll regulations back.Is this 
something we could get WISPA to officially support?   I realize that this may 
seem premature, however...   

1.  Political climates change fast.The activists to deregulate things are  
fired up big time.   We'd be just one thing they'd love to add to the list of 
overreaches, but few grasp the whys or hows.However, if sit and wait, while 
making no noise, it is unlikely we'll get very far. 

2.  The public is almost universally unaware that we're supposed to create and 
support the ability to fully capture everything an individual client does.  
When I explain it to them, they get narrowed eyes and start to get quite 
hostile.   We WOULD have great public support for repeal. 

3. Considerable attention is being given to the cost of mandates, as a form of 
hidden tax on business.   

Of course, nothing is set in stone until its set in stone, but should the sea 
change occur that's being predicted, the new Congress will be actively 
searching for and attempting to repeal overreaches.   Is WISPA prepared to go 
to bat for us in this regard?If not, why not, what's needed? WISPA 
needs a well written, clear, and unambiguous statement ready to go in January, 
should we have the opportunity to make our voices heard by ears that think we 
have not just a right to be heard, but are indeed, on our side.   

Is this where WISPA is willing to go?



  

++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++



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/

Thank you for taking the time to search and locate the prefix for
the FCC ID. That prefix does indicate that the amplifier is
certified as part of a kit using the WLAN-LCUSB-03 wireless adapter.
So if Greg wants to extend the range of his computer using this
particular adapter on Channel 6 then this complete kit (or similar)
will be legal for him to use.

From L-Com's website

"The USB 802.11g adapter included with this kit is a L-com
WLAN-LCUSB-03. This adapter features a reverse polarity SMA
antenna port for use with the included rubber duck antenna. For
proper operation, the drivers and wireless utility included on
the CD in the kit must be installed. Note: The USB wireless
adapter included with this kit is factory set to operate on
channel 6 only."

Greg hasn't advised whether this is the use that he wants to put
this kit to so I await further information from him regarding his
intended use.

By the way, it seems rather unfortunate (or perhaps very deliberate)
that L-Com also includes on the same webpage the following:

Similar Products In Stock
100 mW 2.4 GHz 802.11g Indoor WiFi Amplifier, RP-TNC Connectors
100 mW 2.4 GHz 802.11g Indoor WiFi Amplifier, RP-TNC
Connectors
Your Price: $129.90
Availability: In Stock

So here they are advertising the same line of amplifiers NOT as part
of a certified kit but all alone. Yet it is illegal to sell
amplifiers that are not part of a certified kit, right? No, it is
legal to sell them if they are "replacement" amplifiers intended to
replace a amplifier that IS part of a certified kit but in which the
original amplifier has failed and needs replacement.

Is L-Com truly being ethical here and following the law or are they
deliberately making it possible to buy amplifiers which are legal
only under very limited, not-really-very- useful for legitimate WISP
conditions?

You decide.

And then there are their 25-watt 2.4 GHz amplifiers that are sold
NOT as a part of any certified kit. Is that ethical? Well, they
include the language "These amplifier products are
available only for export, military, licensed amateur radio and
OEM component sales and are not offered for general sale within
the USA.". I guess that make it OK, right?

jack

On 10/14/2010 12:20 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

From L-Com's website Product Description:-
Note:
This Hyperlink bi-directional amplifier is designed for burst
half-duplex operation. It is not intended for constant transmit or CW
operation. Operation of the amplifier in CW mode will damage the
amplifier and void the warranty.

FCC PART 15 NOTICE:
This amplifier can be used only in a system which it has obtained
authorization. The authorized systems by FCC Identifier are as follows: MYF

From FCC's Website.
---
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=97587&fcc_id='MYF-WL2401'
--

. So what exactly are we discussing ?

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom

On 10/14/2010 3:01 PM, Jack Unger wrote:

Greg,

I hate to use the word "hate" because that's an emotion best saved for people
who engage in really, really, really bad practices so let me just say that
companies that lie about what they are sell (telling people that it's legal when
it's not) are about the worst of the worst kind of people.

I've looked at L-Com's webpage in the past and my impression was that they were
lying with their words by implying that sales and use of their products was
legal when it appeared to not be legal.

Looking at the page (and similar higher-power amp pages) that you pointed out,
it sure looks like IF they are not lying outright they are at least trying to
use a sneaky (lying) method of getting around the FCC rules. Selling an
amplifier as part of a kit with a USB wireless card that only works on Channel 6
and including a rubber duck antenna that fits on the USB card makes no logical
sense therefore leading me to the conclusion that inclusion of the USB card is
just a dodge to create a "kit" that really allows them to sell amplifiers.

They call their amps "certified" but nowhere that I can see do they say the
amplifier is "FCC certified". To cut to the chase, just call them and ask them
for the FCC ID number of the "kit" that you want to purchase. All the other
mumbo-jumbo on their webpage ("no FCC forms needed", etc.) is just bullshit
calculated to confuse potential buyers into thinking that the amplifier purchase
and use is legal.

Last but not least, for what purpose do you

Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring

I've heard it is decent but expensive.
On Oct 14, 2010 2:28 PM, "Carl Shivers"  wrote:
> A bit. I've heard that Prizm isn't all it's cracked up to be.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:35 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring
>
> If this is all Motorola, have you looked at Prizm?
>
> Patrick Shoemaker
> Vector Data Systems LLC
> shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
> office: (301) 358-1690 x36
> http://www.vectordatasystems.com
>
> On 10/14/2010 11:58 AM, Carl Shivers wrote:
>> We have a monitoring system, but it doesn't meet the needs of our
>> Customer Service side of the company.
>>
>> I would like to have a GUI to see Networks by locations showing the APs
>> and their SMs. I'm using Canopy 900 MHz with connected SMs. They would
>> like to be able to see a mouse over so they could identify the customers
>> when an outage occurs giving customer data and location.
>>
>> Because of bandwidth consumption by some of our customers, the old 80 -
>> 20 rule, I would also like to start capturing the Byte throughput on my
>> customers so I can set bandwidth caps and tiered bandwidth usage
services.
>>
>> Any thoughts on what might be best for this?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

> 
>> 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] Not this again

2010-10-14 Thread Faisal Imtiaz


 From L-Com's website Product Description:-
Note:
This Hyperlink bi-directional amplifier is designed for burst 
half-duplex operation. It is not intended for constant transmit or CW 
operation. Operation of the amplifier in CW mode will damage the 
amplifier and void the warranty.

FCC PART 15 NOTICE:
This amplifier can be used only in a system which it has obtained 
authorization. The authorized systems by FCC Identifier are as follows: MYF




 From FCC's Website.
---
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=97587&fcc_id='MYF-WL2401'
--

. So what exactly are we discussing ?


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom


On 10/14/2010 3:01 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
>Greg,
>
> I hate to use the word "hate" because that's an emotion best saved for people
> who engage in really, really, really bad practices so let me just say that
> companies that lie about what they are sell (telling people that it's legal 
> when
> it's not) are about the worst of the worst kind of people.
>
> I've looked at L-Com's webpage in the past and my impression was that they 
> were
> lying with their words by implying that sales and use of their products was
> legal when it appeared to not be legal.
>
> Looking at the page (and similar higher-power amp pages) that you pointed out,
> it sure looks like IF they are not lying outright they are at least trying to
> use a sneaky (lying) method of getting around the FCC rules. Selling an
> amplifier as part of a kit with a USB wireless card that only works on 
> Channel 6
> and including a rubber duck antenna that fits on the USB card makes no logical
> sense therefore leading me to the conclusion that inclusion of the USB card is
> just a dodge to create a "kit" that really allows them to sell amplifiers.
>
> They call their amps "certified" but nowhere that I can see do they say the
> amplifier is "FCC certified". To cut to the chase, just call them and ask them
> for the FCC ID number of the "kit" that you want to purchase. All the other
> mumbo-jumbo on their webpage ("no FCC forms needed", etc.) is just bullshit
> calculated to confuse potential buyers into thinking that the amplifier 
> purchase
> and use is legal.
>
> Last but not least, for what purpose do you plan to use the amplifier? 9 times
> out of 10 there is a better and more effective way to get the results that you
> need.
>
> jack
> 818-227-4220
>
>
> On 10/14/2010 11:33 AM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
>> I'm sure some people will be saying "oh not this discussion again" but I've 
>> just got to ask. L-Com is selling "FCC certified systems" and they go into 
>> detail to explain that their system are available without license or special 
>> requirement because it's not just an amplifier but rather a complete system. 
>> Clicking on a link in their email brings you here 
>> http://www.l-com.com/item.aspx?id=25975&CMP=101410. I assumed this was an AP 
>> with amplifier and antenna which the FCC could determine it's eirp and 
>> overall compliance and certify. But it's a wireless NIC for a computer with 
>> an antenna, and a bare amplifier. There's no way the FCC could take cable 
>> loss and antenna gain into account. The amps go from 100mW to 1W. How can 
>> this possibly be certified if the amp isn't paired with an antenna? What 1W 
>> amp and antenna combination could possibly yield a legal eirp? The antenna 
>> would have to be a leaky dummy load. It surprises me that this could be 
>> viewed as a "system" by the FCC and 
 
wo
>   ul
>>d receive certification to be put in the hands of the general public. It 
>> seems to be that the sale of these "systems" would be a bane to the WISP 
>> community.
>>
>> Are these truly FCC certified?
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] Not this again

  Greg,

I hate to use the word "hate" because that's an emotion best saved for people 
who engage in really, really, really bad practices so let me just say that 
companies that lie about what they are sell (telling people that it's legal 
when 
it's not) are about the worst of the worst kind of people.

I've looked at L-Com's webpage in the past and my impression was that they were 
lying with their words by implying that sales and use of their products was 
legal when it appeared to not be legal.

Looking at the page (and similar higher-power amp pages) that you pointed out, 
it sure looks like IF they are not lying outright they are at least trying to 
use a sneaky (lying) method of getting around the FCC rules. Selling an 
amplifier as part of a kit with a USB wireless card that only works on Channel 
6 
and including a rubber duck antenna that fits on the USB card makes no logical 
sense therefore leading me to the conclusion that inclusion of the USB card is 
just a dodge to create a "kit" that really allows them to sell amplifiers.

They call their amps "certified" but nowhere that I can see do they say the 
amplifier is "FCC certified". To cut to the chase, just call them and ask them 
for the FCC ID number of the "kit" that you want to purchase. All the other 
mumbo-jumbo on their webpage ("no FCC forms needed", etc.) is just bullshit 
calculated to confuse potential buyers into thinking that the amplifier 
purchase 
and use is legal.

Last but not least, for what purpose do you plan to use the amplifier? 9 times 
out of 10 there is a better and more effective way to get the results that you 
need.

jack
818-227-4220

On 10/14/2010 11:33 AM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
> I'm sure some people will be saying "oh not this discussion again" but I've 
> just got to ask. L-Com is selling "FCC certified systems" and they go into 
> detail to explain that their system are available without license or special 
> requirement because it's not just an amplifier but rather a complete system. 
> Clicking on a link in their email brings you here 
> http://www.l-com.com/item.aspx?id=25975&CMP=101410. I assumed this was an AP 
> with amplifier and antenna which the FCC could determine it's eirp and 
> overall compliance and certify. But it's a wireless NIC for a computer with 
> an antenna, and a bare amplifier. There's no way the FCC could take cable 
> loss and antenna gain into account. The amps go from 100mW to 1W. How can 
> this possibly be certified if the amp isn't paired with an antenna? What 1W 
> amp and antenna combination could possibly yield a legal eirp? The antenna 
> would have to be a leaky dummy load. It surprises me that this could be 
> viewed as a "system" by the FCC and wo
 ul
>   d receive certification to be put in the hands of the general public. It 
> seems to be that the sale of these "systems" would be a bane to the WISP 
> community.
>
> Are these truly FCC certified?
>
> Greg
>
>
> 
> 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/
>
>

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.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] Not this again

2010-10-14 Thread Faisal Imtiaz

it appears to be a in-line amp, max input 100mW 20dbm, max out 100mw 
20dbm... primarily designed to compensate for cable loss on long 
cable runs.

What would be the issue with this ?



Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom

On 10/14/2010 2:46 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
> Yeah, I guess my bigger question is if it has a cert number has the FCC lost 
> it's mind? Are they really opening up the sale of high powered WiFi amps to 
> everyone? Who wants to be the last one on their block without one?
>
> Greg
>
> On Oct 14, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff wrote:
>
>>   On 10/14/2010 2:33 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
>>> I'm sure some people will be saying "oh not this discussion again" but I've 
>>> just got to ask. L-Com is selling "FCC certified systems" and they go into 
>>> detail to explain that their system are available without license or 
>>> special requirement because it's not just an amplifier but rather a 
>>> complete system. Clicking on a link in their email brings you here 
>>> http://www.l-com.com/item.aspx?id=25975&CMP=101410. I assumed this was an 
>>> AP with amplifier and antenna which the F
>> You could always ask them for the FCC Cert #
>>
>> Leon
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] Not this again

2010-10-14 Thread Greg Ihnen

Yeah, I guess my bigger question is if it has a cert number has the FCC lost 
it's mind? Are they really opening up the sale of high powered WiFi amps to 
everyone? Who wants to be the last one on their block without one?

Greg

On Oct 14, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff wrote:

>  On 10/14/2010 2:33 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
>> I'm sure some people will be saying "oh not this discussion again" but I've 
>> just got to ask. L-Com is selling "FCC certified systems" and they go into 
>> detail to explain that their system are available without license or special 
>> requirement because it's not just an amplifier but rather a complete system. 
>> Clicking on a link in their email brings you here 
>> http://www.l-com.com/item.aspx?id=25975&CMP=101410. I assumed this was an AP 
>> with amplifier and antenna which the F
> You could always ask them for the FCC Cert #
> 
> Leon
> 
> 
> 
> 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] Not this again

2010-10-14 Thread Leon D. Zetekoff

  On 10/14/2010 2:33 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
> I'm sure some people will be saying "oh not this discussion again" but I've 
> just got to ask. L-Com is selling "FCC certified systems" and they go into 
> detail to explain that their system are available without license or special 
> requirement because it's not just an amplifier but rather a complete system. 
> Clicking on a link in their email brings you here 
> http://www.l-com.com/item.aspx?id=25975&CMP=101410. I assumed this was an AP 
> with amplifier and antenna which the F
You could always ask them for the FCC Cert #

Leon



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] Not this again

2010-10-14 Thread Greg Ihnen

I'm sure some people will be saying "oh not this discussion again" but I've 
just got to ask. L-Com is selling "FCC certified systems" and they go into 
detail to explain that their system are available without license or special 
requirement because it's not just an amplifier but rather a complete system. 
Clicking on a link in their email brings you here 
http://www.l-com.com/item.aspx?id=25975&CMP=101410. I assumed this was an AP 
with amplifier and antenna which the FCC could determine it's eirp and overall 
compliance and certify. But it's a wireless NIC for a computer with an antenna, 
and a bare amplifier. There's no way the FCC could take cable loss and antenna 
gain into account. The amps go from 100mW to 1W. How can this possibly be 
certified if the amp isn't paired with an antenna? What 1W amp and antenna 
combination could possibly yield a legal eirp? The antenna would have to be a 
leaky dummy load. It surprises me that this could be viewed as a "system" by 
the FCC and woul
 d receive certification to be put in the hands of the general public. It seems 
to be that the sale of these "systems" would be a bane to the WISP community.

Are these truly FCC certified?

Greg



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] Network Monitoring

2010-10-14 Thread Carl Shivers

A bit. I've heard that Prizm isn't all it's cracked up to be.

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:35 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring

If this is all Motorola, have you looked at Prizm?

Patrick Shoemaker
Vector Data Systems LLC
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
http://www.vectordatasystems.com

On 10/14/2010 11:58 AM, Carl Shivers wrote:
> We have a monitoring system, but it doesn't meet the needs of our
> Customer Service side of the company.
>
> I would like to have a GUI to see Networks by locations showing the APs
> and their SMs. I'm using Canopy 900 MHz with connected SMs. They would
> like to be able to see a mouse over so they could identify the customers
> when an outage occurs giving customer data and location.
>
> Because of bandwidth consumption by some of our customers, the old 80 -
> 20 rule, I would also like to start capturing the Byte throughput on my
> customers so I can set bandwidth caps and tiered bandwidth usage services.
>
> Any thoughts on what might be best for this?
>
>
>
>
>
>


> 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] Network Monitoring

2010-10-14 Thread Patrick Shoemaker

If this is all Motorola, have you looked at Prizm?

Patrick Shoemaker
Vector Data Systems LLC
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
http://www.vectordatasystems.com

On 10/14/2010 11:58 AM, Carl Shivers wrote:
> We have a monitoring system, but it doesn’t meet the needs of our
> Customer Service side of the company.
>
> I would like to have a GUI to see Networks by locations showing the APs
> and their SMs. I’m using Canopy 900 MHz with connected SMs. They would
> like to be able to see a mouse over so they could identify the customers
> when an outage occurs giving customer data and location.
>
> Because of bandwidth consumption by some of our customers, the old 80 –
> 20 rule, I would also like to start capturing the Byte throughput on my
> customers so I can set bandwidth caps and tiered bandwidth usage services.
>
> Any thoughts on what might be best for this?
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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] Network Monitoring

2010-10-14 Thread Butch Evans

On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 10:58 -0500, Carl Shivers wrote: 
> We have a monitoring system, but it doesn’t meet the needs of our
> Customer Service side of the company. 

There are a couple of monitoring applications available with built in
CRM functions.  If you'd like to discuss some of these options, give me
a shout at 573-276-2879 and I can go over them with you.  

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *

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] Network Monitoring

2010-10-14 Thread Jerry Richardson

Might want to stand by to see what the folks at Wireless Beehive cook up

they are working on a monitoring/call center program. I don't know if the 
monitoring platform is going to be available separately from the call center 
but if it is you'll like it. What I saw at AF was very impressive.

- Jerry

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Carl Shivers
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:59 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] Network Monitoring

We have a monitoring system, but it doesn't meet the needs of our Customer 
Service side of the company.

I would like to have a GUI to see Networks by locations showing the APs and 
their SMs. I'm using Canopy 900 MHz with connected SMs. They would like to be 
able to see a mouse over so they could identify the customers when an outage 
occurs giving customer data and location.

Because of bandwidth consumption by some of our customers, the old 80 - 20 
rule, I would also like to start capturing the Byte throughput on my customers 
so I can set bandwidth caps and tiered bandwidth usage services.

Any thoughts on what might be best for this?



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] Network Monitoring