[WISPA] My friend's logic
Hello. Thought I share this with the list. I have a friend that is using MT as ap on one of his towers with his radios in 10MHz and on another tower bullets with sector panels, similar set up on both towers except for the radios. He was explaining that he finds the bullets outperforms the ubiquiti radios on the MT by far. His explanation: The reason why bullets outperfoms the radios intalled on a router board is because of the pigtail used from the radio to the antenna. This pigtail works like a electricity cable in that the thicker the cable the more current is able to pass through so, the mikrotik pigtails are way too thin. When there is a certain number of clients connected to that radio the pigtail saturates the radio traffic because of the 'high traffic or current passing through the pigtail' and as a result; links between clients and ap can be slow and performance decreases. Now, the bullets do not have any pigtail or other connector and thats a reason why links with bullets are more stable and performs better than having a routerboard and radios with pigtails. What you guys think of his logic? Note: Posted this on dslreports wisp mainling list as well so, for those also registered to that list: sorry for the double posts. 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] MikroTik as Load Balancer?
I found that load balancing in a NAT environment was much better handled with PCC. Might not fit for you, Just something to look at. /2cents http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/PCC Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106 From: Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 9:01 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] MikroTik as Load Balancer? I was playing around with a spare rb433 doing something similar to what you just posted (nth+conn-mark rules) but, things were not working properly. I noticed my connections were really really slow, I don't know if I did something wrong. It's very easy to do something wrong in such kind of setup. Look first to counters using Winbox while generating traffic (both connected and new connections); if that doesn't show what's wrong, packet captures are the next resource. One other thing, how about fail over? If one line goes out would the other 3 work and that other line would be ignored until is back up? How can that be done? A route on RouterOS have a check_gateway attribute, and usually arp or ping dies when the line dies. You can go further than that by using scripts like the ones in http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/ECMP_Failover_Script in order to kill a line when something dies beyond the last-mile hop. / ip route add dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=Uplink-A scope=255 target-scope=10 routing-mark=Route-Mark-A comment= disabled=no check_gateway=ping / ip route add dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=Uplink-B scope=255 target-scope=10 routing-mark=Route-Mark-B comment= disabled=no check_gateway=ping / ip route add dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=Uplink-A scope=255 target-scope=10 comment= disabled=no check_gateway=ping distance=2 / ip route add dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=Uplink-B scope=255 target-scope=10 comment= disabled=no check_gateway=ping distance=2 Note that when Uplink-A dies, the traffic with Route-Mark-A will match the last route to Uplink-B because the two routes to Uplink-A will be disabled by check_gateway (and be brought back when it comes up). Rubens I would also love to prioritize traffic, SYN ACK flags and DNS be on the highest priority, etc... I know is too much but, would like to do something like that, I don't know if all these are doable at the same time. You first need to move the queues back to Mikrotik, as it usually sees your ADSL/Cable line as 100 Mbps that won't ever be congested. Shaping the outbound interfaces to actual ADSL uplink is the starting point, and it's doable at the same time. The complexity of the ruleset will increase, so I recommend doing all the load-balancing + fail-over stuff, and then moving to QoS. 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] My friend's logic
At 2/14/2011 08:50 AM, OptimumWS wrote: Hello. Thought I share this with the list. I have a friend that is using MT as ap on one of his towers with his radios in 10MHz and on another tower bullets with sector panels, similar set up on both towers except for the radios. He was explaining that he finds the bullets outperforms the ubiquiti radios on the MT by far. His explanation: The reason why bullets outperfoms the radios intalled on a router board is because of the pigtail used from the radio to the antenna. This pigtail works like a electricity cable in that the thicker the cable the more current is able to pass through so, the mikrotik pigtails are way too thin. When there is a certain number of clients connected to that radio the pigtail saturates the radio traffic because of the 'high traffic or current passing through the pigtail' and as a result; links between clients and ap can be slow and performance decreases. Now, the bullets do not have any pigtail or other connector and thats a reason why links with bullets are more stable and performs better than having a routerboard and radios with pigtails. What you guys think of his logic? Note: Posted this on dslreports wisp mainling list as well so, for those also registered to that list: sorry for the double posts. This was discussed on some vendor forums too, I think UBNTs. Most pigtails shipped with radios are too cheap for their own good. They are not properly shielded. Some WISPs have found that they can put more radios on a tower if they use better pigtails, which they either make themselves or hand-select (one person found that Laird pigtails were sometimes good, but not all of them). Pigtails can be lossy, reducing effective antenna gain, and can leak, which makes it susceptible to local interference. This has nothing to do with the number of clients, though. That's just silly. -- 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] OT: Cisco line card
Ask this on [c-nsp], you'll get a response there. -- Patrick Shoemaker Vector Data Systems LLC shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com office: (301) 358-1690 x36 http://www.vectordatasystems.com On 2/12/2011 6:59 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, Has anyone ever used a Cisco 3GE-GBIC-SC line card in a 12000 series router and a WS-G5483 GBIC module (copper)? The data sheet on the line card says it requires a fiber GBIC module, yet the single GE line card will use a copper GBIC without an issue. Travis Microserv 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] My friend's logic
I agree with Fred. It's not about the number of clients that causes the problem. The physical separation of the radios is probably the key factor in the increased performance. Putting multiple radios with possibly leaky pigtails inside the same enclosure can introduce opportunities for self-interference by near field RF energies and mixing products. Unless an enclosure have been specifically designed, tested and built for that particular combination or radios and cable routing, there is no telling how it may or may not perform. Adding more radios to the MT just compounds the problem. Having the RF section outside the MT box is never a bad idea to avoid this phenomenon. Thank You, Brian Webster Skype: Radiowebst www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:35 AM To: wil...@optimumwireless.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My friend's logic At 2/14/2011 08:50 AM, OptimumWS wrote: Hello. Thought I share this with the list. I have a friend that is using MT as ap on one of his towers with his radios in 10MHz and on another tower bullets with sector panels, similar set up on both towers except for the radios. He was explaining that he finds the bullets outperforms the ubiquiti radios on the MT by far. His explanation: The reason why bullets outperfoms the radios intalled on a router board is because of the pigtail used from the radio to the antenna. This pigtail works like a electricity cable in that the thicker the cable the more current is able to pass through so, the mikrotik pigtails are way too thin. When there is a certain number of clients connected to that radio the pigtail saturates the radio traffic because of the 'high traffic or current passing through the pigtail' and as a result; links between clients and ap can be slow and performance decreases. Now, the bullets do not have any pigtail or other connector and thats a reason why links with bullets are more stable and performs better than having a routerboard and radios with pigtails. What you guys think of his logic? Note: Posted this on dslreports wisp mainling list as well so, for those also registered to that list: sorry for the double posts. This was discussed on some vendor forums too, I think UBNTs. Most pigtails shipped with radios are too cheap for their own good. They are not properly shielded. Some WISPs have found that they can put more radios on a tower if they use better pigtails, which they either make themselves or hand-select (one person found that Laird pigtails were sometimes good, but not all of them). Pigtails can be lossy, reducing effective antenna gain, and can leak, which makes it susceptible to local interference. This has nothing to do with the number of clients, though. That's just silly. -- 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/ - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3443 - Release Date: 02/14/11 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] My friend's logic
The thin pigtail decides the number of clients ? lol, more likely the signal loss in the pigtail causes low signal on clients causing all kinds of problems, making it look like it is caused by a certain number. Depending on hardware used for the Tik box, it probably out performs the Bullet. Heck you could argue that the Bullet does have a pigtail, it's the solder point on the circuit board. -- Original Message -- From: Optimum Wireless Services wil...@optimumwireless.com Reply-To: wil...@optimumwireless.com, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:50:30 -0400 Hello. Thought I share this with the list. I have a friend that is using MT as ap on one of his towers with his radios in 10MHz and on another tower bullets with sector panels, similar set up on both towers except for the radios. He was explaining that he finds the bullets outperforms the ubiquiti radios on the MT by far. His explanation: The reason why bullets outperfoms the radios intalled on a router board is because of the pigtail used from the radio to the antenna. This pigtail works like a electricity cable in that the thicker the cable the more current is able to pass through so, the mikrotik pigtails are way too thin. When there is a certain number of clients connected to that radio the pigtail saturates the radio traffic because of the 'high traffic or current passing through the pigtail' and as a result; links between clients and ap can be slow and performance decreases. Now, the bullets do not have any pigtail or other connector and thats a reason why links with bullets are more stable and performs better than having a routerboard and radios with pigtails. What you guys think of his logic? Note: Posted this on dslreports wisp mainling list as well so, for those also registered to that list: sorry for the double posts. 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] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
I think we should consider supporting it only as our fallback position. I think our primary mission should be on bringing awareness that it makes no sense to raise government money by selling off the one asset (spectrum) required to bring affordable and plentiful broadband to the masses to the highest bidders and then turn around and pay those same bidders to build broadband. It is insane. Just give us the spectrum. We'll build the damn broadband. It is that easy. The voucher should be the exclusive spectrum license granted to those who build the tower and serve the broadband. Why do we have to have auctions, USF and go broke with paying out trillions in stimulus. Free Spectrum Licenses = Universal low-cost broadband. Problem solved. Scriv On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Charles Wu c...@cticonnect.com wrote: It looks like a success-based voucher technologically neutral system for USF Reform/CAF is what's being proposed by the RCA (Rural Cellular Association) http://rca-usa.org/press/rca-press-releases/five-things-the-fcc-can-do-to-accelerate-broadband-deployment/914048 Perhaps WISPA should/could partner up with them for a stronger voice? -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 11:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband We need to have the USF turned into a voucher credit system that the end user can apply to what ever supplier they chose. Maybe its not the best idea, but I do not feel I have heard of a better one. Better for /the users/ not better for the I/CLECs and other very vested interests. On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 2/11/2011 01:06 AM, JohnS wrote: The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all broadband providers! http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213 Bret We should comment. The comment should be that we do not support any form of broadband subsidies and that USF should be eliminated. It is a New Internet Tax. We should all call it that and get people riled up about it. The FCC can't eliminate USF entirely. It is statutory: The Telecom Act of 1996 established USF and called for it to keep rural telephone rates comparable to urban rates. Because rural states get two senators just like big states, they have undue influence on subsidy legislation. Ted Stevens of Alaska was a leader here; he later wanted the FCC to outlaw VoIP, since it threatened the costly toll minutes that paid into USF. The new proposal makes matters worse, though, since it keeps existing USF intact and adds yet another fund to allow one provider per place to provide subsidized Internet access. I expect that it will usually be the ILEC, getting more money to compete with WISPs. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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] My friend's logic
On 02/14/2011 07:50 AM, Optimum Wireless Services wrote: Hello. Thought I share this with the list. I have a friend that is using MT as ap on one of his towers with his radios in 10MHz and on another tower bullets with sector panels, similar set up on both towers except for the radios. He was explaining that he finds the bullets outperforms the ubiquiti radios on the MT by far. His explanation: The reason why bullets outperfoms the radios intalled on a router board is because of the pigtail used from the radio to the antenna. This pigtail works like a electricity cable in that the thicker the cable the more current is able to pass through so, the mikrotik pigtails are way too thin. When there is a certain number of clients connected to that radio the pigtail saturates the radio traffic because of the 'high traffic or current passing through the pigtail' and as a result; links between clients and ap can be slow and performance decreases. Now, the bullets do not have any pigtail or other connector and thats a reason why links with bullets are more stable and performs better than having a routerboard and radios with pigtails. What you guys think of his logic? Well, his logic is fine, but his reasoning is wrong. There are a couple of reasons that the bullet devices work better (or MAY work better). The first (and most important) has to do with RF shielding. The radio cards used in the MT platform are mini-pci type cards and they are connected to their antenna using a very small rf cable. This rf cable (the pigtail) has a tendency toward being very lossy, which can dramatically impact performance. Another problem has to do with the shielding on the card itself. When you install these devices in a routerboard (for example), the radio cards have SOME shielding on them, but in practice, this shielding tends to be less than perfect. It's position on the board is subject to RF coming from the routerboard. With the bullet device, this position can be optimized so that the impact of these rf signals (noise) are minimized. The second reason is related to the first. This has to do with being purpose built. In the MT device, there are drivers that allow it to run as an access point/client. There are also a HUGE number of other options available. Ubiquiti builds radios. Making the comparison between a purpose built radio (bullet) and a device capable of being a radio (MT) is similar to comparing a luxury H3 and the Army's HumVee. While you can certainly take the H3 offroad, it's performance there will not even approach the performance of the Army's purpose built specifically to do just that. -- * 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! * *NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * 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] NSM2 StarOS
StarOS 1.3.23b.v.fcc They are Lucaya x4000s which I believe are gateworks boards with wlm54agp23 cards On 2/10/11 5:58 PM, RickG wrote: Whats the StarOS running on? What type of cards? On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Sam Tetherowtethe...@shwisp.net wrote: Can't speak to the 2.4GHz gear, but I've been using NS5, NS5loco, and various Tranzeo 5GHz gear with 10MHz channels on StarOS for almost 2 years without issues. On 2/8/11 10:13 AM, Roger Howard wrote: So I've heard of several people now who are running StarOS APs who have started to use Ubiquiti products for CPE. I've tried several times and the NSM2 won't connect. What am I doing wrong? I understand Aggregate needs to be turned off on the CPE. I'm running 1.5.15.3b on the AP and I'm running 5.3 on the CPE. I'm using 10Mhz channels. I can see the AP in a site survey, but it won't associate. I've tried turning off superA/G and other special features on the AP. Can anyone think what I'm missing? Thanks, Roger 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] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
At 2/14/2011 11:30 AM, John Scrivner wrote: I think we should consider supporting it only as our fallback position. I think our primary mission should be on bringing awareness that it makes no sense to raise government money by selling off the one asset (spectrum) required to bring affordable and plentiful broadband to the masses to the highest bidders and then turn around and pay those same bidders to build broadband. It is insane. Only if you step outside from the belly of the beast and look at it objectively. That is just *so hard* for the insiders to do... (Of course when I point out the same thing to netheads, that TCP/IP is terribly obsolete, they look at me like I'm nuts, but then they're inside the belly of their beast too.) Just give us the spectrum. We'll build the damn broadband. It is that easy. The voucher should be the exclusive spectrum license granted to those who build the tower and serve the broadband. Why do we have to have auctions, USF and go broke with paying out trillions in stimulus. Free Spectrum Licenses = Universal low-cost broadband. Problem solved. Scriv Good idea. Of course it doesn't fly with the FCC, and for the silliest reason: The people in charge of broadband and USF are the FCC's Wireline [prevention of] Competition Bureau, while auctions belong to the Wirelss Telecommunications Bureau. WTB will no nothing to help WCB. Each has its own metrics. WTB's is auction revenue, so free spectrum would hurt their metrics. And WCB's subsidiary USAC can just raise taxes. I actually proposed this once and the results were interesting: A brief, sad study in how the FCC reads Comments Fred Goldstein, November 2003 http://www.ionary.com/ion-FCC-comments.html -- 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] My friend's logic
So now you have lots of good explanations for what the differences are. Another part of it is that if you do the calculations, you will find 2 things. First, the current in the cable is minuscule, so the loss because of current is basically non-existent. Secondly, the current does not go up with the number of users as the radio transmits at the same level for each of them and can only transmit to one at a time, no matter how many there are. On 2/14/2011 11:39 AM, Butch Evans wrote: On 02/14/2011 07:50 AM, Optimum Wireless Services wrote: Hello. Thought I share this with the list. I have a friend that is using MT as ap on one of his towers with his radios in 10MHz and on another tower bullets with sector panels, similar set up on both towers except for the radios. He was explaining that he finds the bullets outperforms the ubiquiti radios on the MT by far. His explanation: The reason why bullets outperfoms the radios intalled on a router board is because of the pigtail used from the radio to the antenna. This pigtail works like a electricity cable in that the thicker the cable the more current is able to pass through so, the mikrotik pigtails are way too thin. When there is a certain number of clients connected to that radio the pigtail saturates the radio traffic because of the 'high traffic or current passing through the pigtail' and as a result; links between clients and ap can be slow and performance decreases. Now, the bullets do not have any pigtail or other connector and thats a reason why links with bullets are more stable and performs better than having a routerboard and radios with pigtails. What you guys think of his logic? Well, his logic is fine, but his reasoning is wrong. There are a couple of reasons that the bullet devices work better (or MAY work better). The first (and most important) has to do with RF shielding. The radio cards used in the MT platform are mini-pci type cards and they are connected to their antenna using a very small rf cable. This rf cable (the pigtail) has a tendency toward being very lossy, which can dramatically impact performance. Another problem has to do with the shielding on the card itself. When you install these devices in a routerboard (for example), the radio cards have SOME shielding on them, but in practice, this shielding tends to be less than perfect. It's position on the board is subject to RF coming from the routerboard. With the bullet device, this position can be optimized so that the impact of these rf signals (noise) are minimized. The second reason is related to the first. This has to do with being purpose built. In the MT device, there are drivers that allow it to run as an access point/client. There are also a HUGE number of other options available. Ubiquiti builds radios. Making the comparison between a purpose built radio (bullet) and a device capable of being a radio (MT) is similar to comparing a luxury H3 and the Army's HumVee. While you can certainly take the H3 offroad, it's performance there will not even approach the performance of the Army's purpose built specifically to do just that. -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 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] My friend's logic
My experience is that with the crappy little grey or black pigtails your signal sucks. The copper braided pigtails like the Laird/Pac ones seem to do great. Not that I 'm downing Wisp-router, but they have always carried the crappy ones. I have avoided ordering any pigtails from them for quite a while so I don't know if they are still shipping those. Roc-noc, Wlanparts, Titan, to name a few always seen to ship the good copper ones. I've had 72 clients connected to a Mikrotik AP running a horizontal omni with little performance issues besides that fact that it had 72 clients on it... :) Chris -Original Message- From: Brian Webster Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:06 AM To: 'WISPA General List' ; wil...@optimumwireless.com Subject: Re: [WISPA] My friend's logic I agree with Fred. It's not about the number of clients that causes the problem. The physical separation of the radios is probably the key factor in the increased performance. Putting multiple radios with possibly leaky pigtails inside the same enclosure can introduce opportunities for self-interference by near field RF energies and mixing products. Unless an enclosure have been specifically designed, tested and built for that particular combination or radios and cable routing, there is no telling how it may or may not perform. Adding more radios to the MT just compounds the problem. Having the RF section outside the MT box is never a bad idea to avoid this phenomenon. Thank You, Brian Webster Skype: Radiowebst www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:35 AM To: wil...@optimumwireless.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My friend's logic At 2/14/2011 08:50 AM, OptimumWS wrote: Hello. Thought I share this with the list. I have a friend that is using MT as ap on one of his towers with his radios in 10MHz and on another tower bullets with sector panels, similar set up on both towers except for the radios. He was explaining that he finds the bullets outperforms the ubiquiti radios on the MT by far. His explanation: The reason why bullets outperfoms the radios intalled on a router board is because of the pigtail used from the radio to the antenna. This pigtail works like a electricity cable in that the thicker the cable the more current is able to pass through so, the mikrotik pigtails are way too thin. When there is a certain number of clients connected to that radio the pigtail saturates the radio traffic because of the 'high traffic or current passing through the pigtail' and as a result; links between clients and ap can be slow and performance decreases. Now, the bullets do not have any pigtail or other connector and thats a reason why links with bullets are more stable and performs better than having a routerboard and radios with pigtails. What you guys think of his logic? Note: Posted this on dslreports wisp mainling list as well so, for those also registered to that list: sorry for the double posts. This was discussed on some vendor forums too, I think UBNTs. Most pigtails shipped with radios are too cheap for their own good. They are not properly shielded. Some WISPs have found that they can put more radios on a tower if they use better pigtails, which they either make themselves or hand-select (one person found that Laird pigtails were sometimes good, but not all of them). Pigtails can be lossy, reducing effective antenna gain, and can leak, which makes it susceptible to local interference. This has nothing to do with the number of clients, though. That's just silly. -- 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/ - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3443 - Release Date: 02/14/11 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:
[WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem
Sorry for the long post but I need some suggestions here guys. Customer has a 7.3 mile 5ghz link. MT 433AH on one end and MT 411AH on the other. Version 4.16 on both units. Both units have MT R52Hn cards. 28 db grids on both ends with 6-10ft lmr400 jumper. Signal strength is -65 to -65 on one end and -66 to -67 on the other. CCQ is 98 to 100% Configured as bridge wds on one end and station wds on the other. This customer is a school and when they came back from Christmas break the link was down. This is in a rural area and no other 5 ghz systems show up in a scan so it is a 50/50 shot at the one that is bad. We changed the card in one unit and that was not it so we changed the card in the other unit and the link came back up. It was not working 100% and would go down and up but the signal looked ok. It was at -70 at the time. The only way I could get it to stay up was to change to a 5meg bandwidth. The link finally stabilized with the 5 meg channel. This would have to do until we could go back and check cables and connections. Well it has worked ok for the most part since then but we have noticed that when it rains the link starts dropping out again even though the signal stays good when it is connected. Sounds like water in a connection so I went yesterday to check some connections and they look good. Had electrical tape, mastic, and electrical tape. I actually cut open one just to inspect and was dry. I know it only takes one connection to cause a problem but visual inspection of all connections looked ok. Next trip we will have new cables and new antenna. After I finished messing around with the first unit the link started going down and up. The strange thing about this is that when it is up the signal is a solid. About every 60 seconds the link would drop out and come right back up. It did this for about an hour and finally stabilized. Sounds like interference. Here are a few lines from both logfiles. 05:28:53 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:29:00 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:30:01 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:30:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:31:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:31:19 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:32:20 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:32:28 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:33:29 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:33:37 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS feb/13 16:14:51 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:14:58 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:16:01 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:16:08 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:17:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:17:17 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:18:19 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:18:26 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:19:28 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:19:35 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview My Conclustions are possibly 2 problems. 1. Water somewhere ? I will have to check each connection and or replace jumper cable and possibly antenna. Has anyone seen the grid element go bad and leak? 2. Interference ? Maybe need spectrum analyzer to check things out. What is the timing of a radar signal sweep? Also, one tower has a lot of slack in the guy wires and it was moving a lot more than I liked in the wind yesterday. I think that might be a problem but I don't think it would cause it to drop every 60 seconds. If you made it this far, thank for reading. LaRoy McCann Data Technology Trumann, AR 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] Strange RF disconnect problem
After posting I recalculated what the signal strength should be and it turns out to be mid 50's. So I guess there is defiantly wrong in the rf system some where. On 2/14/2011 12:00 PM, Data Technology wrote: Sorry for the long post but I need some suggestions here guys. Customer has a 7.3 mile 5ghz link. MT 433AH on one end and MT 411AH on the other. Version 4.16 on both units. Both units have MT R52Hn cards. 28 db grids on both ends with 6-10ft lmr400 jumper. Signal strength is -65 to -65 on one end and -66 to -67 on the other. CCQ is 98 to 100% Configured as bridge wds on one end and station wds on the other. This customer is a school and when they came back from Christmas break the link was down. This is in a rural area and no other 5 ghz systems show up in a scan so it is a 50/50 shot at the one that is bad. We changed the card in one unit and that was not it so we changed the card in the other unit and the link came back up. It was not working 100% and would go down and up but the signal looked ok. It was at -70 at the time. The only way I could get it to stay up was to change to a 5meg bandwidth. The link finally stabilized with the 5 meg channel. This would have to do until we could go back and check cables and connections. Well it has worked ok for the most part since then but we have noticed that when it rains the link starts dropping out again even though the signal stays good when it is connected. Sounds like water in a connection so I went yesterday to check some connections and they look good. Had electrical tape, mastic, and electrical tape. I actually cut open one just to inspect and was dry. I know it only takes one connection to cause a problem but visual inspection of all connections looked ok. Next trip we will have new cables and new antenna. After I finished messing around with the first unit the link started going down and up. The strange thing about this is that when it is up the signal is a solid. About every 60 seconds the link would drop out and come right back up. It did this for about an hour and finally stabilized. Sounds like interference. Here are a few lines from both logfiles. 05:28:53 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:29:00 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:30:01 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:30:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:31:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:31:19 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:32:20 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:32:28 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:33:29 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:33:37 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS feb/13 16:14:51 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:14:58 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:16:01 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:16:08 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:17:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:17:17 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:18:19 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:18:26 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:19:28 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:19:35 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview My Conclustions are possibly 2 problems. 1. Water somewhere ? I will have to check each connection and or replace jumper cable and possibly antenna. Has anyone seen the grid element go bad and leak? 2. Interference ? Maybe need spectrum analyzer to check things out. What is the timing of a radar signal sweep? Also, one tower has a lot of slack in the guy wires and it was moving a lot more than I liked in the wind yesterday. I think that might be a problem but I don't think it would cause it to drop every 60 seconds. If you made it this far, thank for reading. LaRoy McCann Data Technology Trumann, AR WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives:
Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem
If it were me, I would check that LMR and all that other garbage. Use the ARC 23dbi panel/enclosures. You'll lose 10dbi (less because of LMR400, connectors, pigtails, N connectors) but you'll have less to worry about when ice gets on the antenna (IME last week - none). Everything is enclosed and pretty and the mounting is easier then the grids and those stupid U bolts. Every time I've tried to swap a radio, or a board, or an antenna, or lmr400...it was a waste of time and money. Scrap the entire thing and do everything in one clean swoop. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.com wrote: After posting I recalculated what the signal strength should be and it turns out to be mid 50's. So I guess there is defiantly wrong in the rf system some where. On 2/14/2011 12:00 PM, Data Technology wrote: Sorry for the long post but I need some suggestions here guys. Customer has a 7.3 mile 5ghz link. MT 433AH on one end and MT 411AH on the other. Version 4.16 on both units. Both units have MT R52Hn cards. 28 db grids on both ends with 6-10ft lmr400 jumper. Signal strength is -65 to -65 on one end and -66 to -67 on the other. CCQ is 98 to 100% Configured as bridge wds on one end and station wds on the other. This customer is a school and when they came back from Christmas break the link was down. This is in a rural area and no other 5 ghz systems show up in a scan so it is a 50/50 shot at the one that is bad. We changed the card in one unit and that was not it so we changed the card in the other unit and the link came back up. It was not working 100% and would go down and up but the signal looked ok. It was at -70 at the time. The only way I could get it to stay up was to change to a 5meg bandwidth. The link finally stabilized with the 5 meg channel. This would have to do until we could go back and check cables and connections. Well it has worked ok for the most part since then but we have noticed that when it rains the link starts dropping out again even though the signal stays good when it is connected. Sounds like water in a connection so I went yesterday to check some connections and they look good. Had electrical tape, mastic, and electrical tape. I actually cut open one just to inspect and was dry. I know it only takes one connection to cause a problem but visual inspection of all connections looked ok. Next trip we will have new cables and new antenna. After I finished messing around with the first unit the link started going down and up. The strange thing about this is that when it is up the signal is a solid. About every 60 seconds the link would drop out and come right back up. It did this for about an hour and finally stabilized. Sounds like interference. Here are a few lines from both logfiles. 05:28:53 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:29:00 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:30:01 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:30:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:31:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:31:19 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:32:20 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:32:28 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:33:29 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:33:37 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS feb/13 16:14:51 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:14:58 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:16:01 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:16:08 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:17:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:17:17 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:18:19 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:18:26 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:19:28 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:19:35 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview My Conclustions are possibly 2 problems. 1. Water somewhere ? I will have to check each connection and or replace jumper cable and possibly antenna. Has anyone seen the
Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem
Agreed. The overall cost is not that high compared to the time lost picking at it. I'd rather test and troubleshoot at the bench. - Jerry From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem If it were me, I would check that LMR and all that other garbage. Use the ARC 23dbi panel/enclosures. You'll lose 10dbi (less because of LMR400, connectors, pigtails, N connectors) but you'll have less to worry about when ice gets on the antenna (IME last week - none). Everything is enclosed and pretty and the mounting is easier then the grids and those stupid U bolts. Every time I've tried to swap a radio, or a board, or an antenna, or lmr400...it was a waste of time and money. Scrap the entire thing and do everything in one clean swoop. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.commailto:w...@dtisp.com wrote: After posting I recalculated what the signal strength should be and it turns out to be mid 50's. So I guess there is defiantly wrong in the rf system some where. On 2/14/2011 12:00 PM, Data Technology wrote: Sorry for the long post but I need some suggestions here guys. Customer has a 7.3 mile 5ghz link. MT 433AH on one end and MT 411AH on the other. Version 4.16 on both units. Both units have MT R52Hn cards. 28 db grids on both ends with 6-10ft lmr400 jumper. Signal strength is -65 to -65 on one end and -66 to -67 on the other. CCQ is 98 to 100% Configured as bridge wds on one end and station wds on the other. This customer is a school and when they came back from Christmas break the link was down. This is in a rural area and no other 5 ghz systems show up in a scan so it is a 50/50 shot at the one that is bad. We changed the card in one unit and that was not it so we changed the card in the other unit and the link came back up. It was not working 100% and would go down and up but the signal looked ok. It was at -70 at the time. The only way I could get it to stay up was to change to a 5meg bandwidth. The link finally stabilized with the 5 meg channel. This would have to do until we could go back and check cables and connections. Well it has worked ok for the most part since then but we have noticed that when it rains the link starts dropping out again even though the signal stays good when it is connected. Sounds like water in a connection so I went yesterday to check some connections and they look good. Had electrical tape, mastic, and electrical tape. I actually cut open one just to inspect and was dry. I know it only takes one connection to cause a problem but visual inspection of all connections looked ok. Next trip we will have new cables and new antenna. After I finished messing around with the first unit the link started going down and up. The strange thing about this is that when it is up the signal is a solid. About every 60 seconds the link would drop out and come right back up. It did this for about an hour and finally stabilized. Sounds like interference. Here are a few lines from both logfiles. 05:28:53 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:29:00 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:30:01 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:30:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:31:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:31:19 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:32:20 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:32:28 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:33:29 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:33:37 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS feb/13 16:14:51 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:14:58 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:16:01 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:16:08 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:17:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:17:17 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:18:19 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:18:26 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:19:28 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:19:35
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
(Of course when I point out the same thing to netheads, that TCP/IP is terribly obsolete, they look at me like I'm nuts, but then they're inside the belly of their beast too.) If you have a link to any of your past writings along that regard I would very much like to see them. Just give us the spectrum. We'll build the damn broadband. It is that easy. The voucher should be the exclusive spectrum license granted to those who build the tower and serve the broadband. Why do we have to have auctions, USF and go broke with paying out trillions in stimulus. Free Spectrum Licenses = Universal low-cost broadband. Problem solved. Scriv Good idea. Of course it doesn't fly with the FCC, and for the silliest reason: The people in charge of broadband and USF are the FCC's Wireline [prevention of] Competition Bureau, while auctions belong to the Wirelss Telecommunications Bureau. WTB will no nothing to help WCB. Each has its own metrics. WTB's is auction revenue, so free spectrum would hurt their metrics. And WCB's subsidiary USAC can just raise taxes. I actually proposed this once and the results were interesting: A brief, sad study in how the FCC reads Comments Fred Goldstein, November 2003 http://www.ionary.com/ion-FCC-comments.html Fred, I can definitely feel your pain. And I am also greatly enlightened with the revelations I read in your article. I have seen the same level of near schizophrenic interpretations of comments in how they word their ROs. I learned something in your article I did not know about the WTB and the WCB. I did not know how their missions were at odds. Thank you for sharing this perspective. I would suggest everyone read Fred's article. The date may be from 2003 but the content is very much apropos to the issues we are facing today within the FCC. John Scrivner 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] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
At 2/14/2011 01:40 PM, you wrote: (Of course when I point out the same thing to netheads, that TCP/IP is terribly obsolete, they look at me like I'm nuts, but then they're inside the belly of their beast too.) If you have a link to any of your past writings along that regard I would very much like to see them. Sure, be happy to. My web site has a couple. You can poke around http://www.ionary.com/vis.html or just go to this article http://www.ionary.com/PSOC-MovingBeyondTCP.pdf for a summary of our RINA proposal and the motivations behind it. And from 2005, before we went public with PNA/RINA, I wrote this little phillipic about IPv6: http://www.ionary.com/ion-ipv6.html The Pouzin Society web site also has some material. Just give us the spectrum. We'll build the damn broadband. It is that easy. The voucher should be the exclusive spectrum license granted to those who build the tower and serve the broadband. Why do we have to have auctions, USF and go broke with paying out trillions in stimulus. Free Spectrum Licenses = Universal low-cost broadband. Problem solved. Scriv Good idea. Of course it doesn't fly with the FCC, and for the silliest reason: The people in charge of broadband and USF are the FCC's Wireline [prevention of] Competition Bureau, while auctions belong to the Wirelss Telecommunications Bureau. WTB will no nothing to help WCB. Each has its own metrics. WTB's is auction revenue, so free spectrum would hurt their metrics. And WCB's subsidiary USAC can just raise taxes. I actually proposed this once and the results were interesting: A brief, sad study in how the FCC reads Comments Fred Goldstein, November 2003 http://www.ionary.com/ion-FCC-comments.html Fred, I can definitely feel your pain. And I am also greatly enlightened with the revelations I read in your article. I have seen the same level of near schizophrenic interpretations of comments in how they word their ROs. I learned something in your article I did not know about the WTB and the WCB. I did not know how their missions were at odds. Thank you for sharing this perspective. I would suggest everyone read Fred's article. The date may be from 2003 but the content is very much apropos to the issues we are facing today within the FCC. John Scrivner And that's the sad thing. When K-Mart left the FCC, there was jubilation in the halls of The Portals and outside too. But while Julius has not been the martinet that K-Mart was, he has left the silos intact, preferring instead to put on little kabuki dances for the crowds (Neutrality, Plan) while still largely doing the incumbents' bidding. -- 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] Strange RF disconnect problem
This was not my design. I would not have used a pac grid on a link like this. Ice on them will cause them to drop signal. I would have used a 2 ft dish for this link but I think I will look at the arc panels. LaRoy On 2/14/2011 12:20 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: Agreed. The overall cost is not that high compared to the time lost picking at it. I'd rather test and troubleshoot at the bench. - Jerry *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman *Sent:* Monday, February 14, 2011 10:14 AM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem If it were me, I would check that LMR and all that other garbage. Use the ARC 23dbi panel/enclosures. You'll lose 10dbi (less because of LMR400, connectors, pigtails, N connectors) but you'll have less to worry about when ice gets on the antenna (IME last week - none). Everything is enclosed and pretty and the mounting is easier then the grids and those stupid U bolts. Every time I've tried to swap a radio, or a board, or an antenna, or lmr400...it was a waste of time and money. Scrap the entire thing and do everything in one clean swoop. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.com mailto:w...@dtisp.com wrote: After posting I recalculated what the signal strength should be and it turns out to be mid 50's. So I guess there is defiantly wrong in the rf system some where. On 2/14/2011 12:00 PM, Data Technology wrote: Sorry for the long post but I need some suggestions here guys. Customer has a 7.3 mile 5ghz link. MT 433AH on one end and MT 411AH on the other. Version 4.16 on both units. Both units have MT R52Hn cards. 28 db grids on both ends with 6-10ft lmr400 jumper. Signal strength is -65 to -65 on one end and -66 to -67 on the other. CCQ is 98 to 100% Configured as bridge wds on one end and station wds on the other. This customer is a school and when they came back from Christmas break the link was down. This is in a rural area and no other 5 ghz systems show up in a scan so it is a 50/50 shot at the one that is bad. We changed the card in one unit and that was not it so we changed the card in the other unit and the link came back up. It was not working 100% and would go down and up but the signal looked ok. It was at -70 at the time. The only way I could get it to stay up was to change to a 5meg bandwidth. The link finally stabilized with the 5 meg channel. This would have to do until we could go back and check cables and connections. Well it has worked ok for the most part since then but we have noticed that when it rains the link starts dropping out again even though the signal stays good when it is connected. Sounds like water in a connection so I went yesterday to check some connections and they look good. Had electrical tape, mastic, and electrical tape. I actually cut open one just to inspect and was dry. I know it only takes one connection to cause a problem but visual inspection of all connections looked ok. Next trip we will have new cables and new antenna. After I finished messing around with the first unit the link started going down and up. The strange thing about this is that when it is up the signal is a solid. About every 60 seconds the link would drop out and come right back up. It did this for about an hour and finally stabilized. Sounds like interference. Here are a few lines from both logfiles. 05:28:53 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:29:00 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:30:01 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:30:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:31:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:31:19 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:32:20 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:32:28 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:33:29 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:33:37 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS feb/13 16:14:51 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:14:58 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:16:01 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:16:08 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:17:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:17:17 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established connection on 5200, SSID Hillview feb/13 16:18:19
Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem
For 7 miles? Use the 23dbi ARC things. I get them from Streakwave. Jut ask for ARC wireless 23dbi panel/enclosures. Very lightweight solution (compared to a two foot dish!) Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.com wrote: This was not my design. I would not have used a pac grid on a link like this. Ice on them will cause them to drop signal. I would have used a 2 ft dish for this link but I think I will look at the arc panels. LaRoy On 2/14/2011 12:20 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: Agreed. The overall cost is not that high compared to the time lost picking at it. I'd rather test and troubleshoot at the bench. - Jerry *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman *Sent:* Monday, February 14, 2011 10:14 AM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem If it were me, I would check that LMR and all that other garbage. Use the ARC 23dbi panel/enclosures. You'll lose 10dbi (less because of LMR400, connectors, pigtails, N connectors) but you'll have less to worry about when ice gets on the antenna (IME last week - none). Everything is enclosed and pretty and the mounting is easier then the grids and those stupid U bolts. Every time I've tried to swap a radio, or a board, or an antenna, or lmr400...it was a waste of time and money. Scrap the entire thing and do everything in one clean swoop. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.com wrote: After posting I recalculated what the signal strength should be and it turns out to be mid 50's. So I guess there is defiantly wrong in the rf system some where. On 2/14/2011 12:00 PM, Data Technology wrote: Sorry for the long post but I need some suggestions here guys. Customer has a 7.3 mile 5ghz link. MT 433AH on one end and MT 411AH on the other. Version 4.16 on both units. Both units have MT R52Hn cards. 28 db grids on both ends with 6-10ft lmr400 jumper. Signal strength is -65 to -65 on one end and -66 to -67 on the other. CCQ is 98 to 100% Configured as bridge wds on one end and station wds on the other. This customer is a school and when they came back from Christmas break the link was down. This is in a rural area and no other 5 ghz systems show up in a scan so it is a 50/50 shot at the one that is bad. We changed the card in one unit and that was not it so we changed the card in the other unit and the link came back up. It was not working 100% and would go down and up but the signal looked ok. It was at -70 at the time. The only way I could get it to stay up was to change to a 5meg bandwidth. The link finally stabilized with the 5 meg channel. This would have to do until we could go back and check cables and connections. Well it has worked ok for the most part since then but we have noticed that when it rains the link starts dropping out again even though the signal stays good when it is connected. Sounds like water in a connection so I went yesterday to check some connections and they look good. Had electrical tape, mastic, and electrical tape. I actually cut open one just to inspect and was dry. I know it only takes one connection to cause a problem but visual inspection of all connections looked ok. Next trip we will have new cables and new antenna. After I finished messing around with the first unit the link started going down and up. The strange thing about this is that when it is up the signal is a solid. About every 60 seconds the link would drop out and come right back up. It did this for about an hour and finally stabilized. Sounds like interference. Here are a few lines from both logfiles. 05:28:53 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:29:00 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:30:01 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:30:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:31:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:31:19 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:32:20 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:32:28 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:33:29 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:33:37 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS feb/13 16:14:51 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1: lost connection, not polled for too long feb/13 16:14:58 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E0:A6@wlan1 established
[WISPA] Service Provider Summit Early Registration Deadline Tomorrow
In case you missed the Announcement Email I sent out last night, if you register before the Early Discount Deadline of February 15th, your name will be placed in the pool to be drawn to win an Apple iPad. Make sure you take advantage of a $40 savings on Early Discounts and have a chance to win this very nice prize. Click the link below to register. Attend http://fispawispaspring2011.eventbrite.com/ the Orlando Service Provider Summit March 23-25 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/
Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem
Looking at these panels, it looks like you would not easily change a card or board on the tower. Can these panels be swapped out without having to re-align? LaRoy On 2/14/2011 1:19 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: For 7 miles? Use the 23dbi ARC things. I get them from Streakwave. Jut ask for ARC wireless 23dbi panel/enclosures. Very lightweight solution (compared to a two foot dish!) Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.com mailto:w...@dtisp.com wrote: This was not my design. I would not have used a pac grid on a link like this. Ice on them will cause them to drop signal. I would have used a 2 ft dish for this link but I think I will look at the arc panels. LaRoy On 2/14/2011 12:20 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: Agreed. The overall cost is not that high compared to the time lost picking at it. I'd rather test and troubleshoot at the bench. - Jerry *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman *Sent:* Monday, February 14, 2011 10:14 AM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem If it were me, I would check that LMR and all that other garbage. Use the ARC 23dbi panel/enclosures. You'll lose 10dbi (less because of LMR400, connectors, pigtails, N connectors) but you'll have less to worry about when ice gets on the antenna (IME last week - none). Everything is enclosed and pretty and the mounting is easier then the grids and those stupid U bolts. Every time I've tried to swap a radio, or a board, or an antenna, or lmr400...it was a waste of time and money. Scrap the entire thing and do everything in one clean swoop. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.com mailto:w...@dtisp.com wrote: After posting I recalculated what the signal strength should be and it turns out to be mid 50's. So I guess there is defiantly wrong in the rf system some where. On 2/14/2011 12:00 PM, Data Technology wrote: Sorry for the long post but I need some suggestions here guys. Customer has a 7.3 mile 5ghz link. MT 433AH on one end and MT 411AH on the other. Version 4.16 on both units. Both units have MT R52Hn cards. 28 db grids on both ends with 6-10ft lmr400 jumper. Signal strength is -65 to -65 on one end and -66 to -67 on the other. CCQ is 98 to 100% Configured as bridge wds on one end and station wds on the other. This customer is a school and when they came back from Christmas break the link was down. This is in a rural area and no other 5 ghz systems show up in a scan so it is a 50/50 shot at the one that is bad. We changed the card in one unit and that was not it so we changed the card in the other unit and the link came back up. It was not working 100% and would go down and up but the signal looked ok. It was at -70 at the time. The only way I could get it to stay up was to change to a 5meg bandwidth. The link finally stabilized with the 5 meg channel. This would have to do until we could go back and check cables and connections. Well it has worked ok for the most part since then but we have noticed that when it rains the link starts dropping out again even though the signal stays good when it is connected. Sounds like water in a connection so I went yesterday to check some connections and they look good. Had electrical tape, mastic, and electrical tape. I actually cut open one just to inspect and was dry. I know it only takes one connection to cause a problem but visual inspection of all connections looked ok. Next trip we will have new cables and new antenna. After I finished messing around with the first unit the link started going down and up. The strange thing about this is that when it is up the signal is a solid. About every 60 seconds the link would drop out and come right back up. It did this for about an hour and finally stabilized. Sounds like interference. Here are a few lines from both logfiles. 05:28:53 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:29:00 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:30:01 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:30:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:31:10 wireless,info
Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem
I've never had to swap them so I can't speak from first hand experience. Also, when I replace something - it's the whole thing. I don't not tinker around with a tiny mini pci card when it's raining or 0*F. Raise the whole thing up, whole thing down. To answer your question, you need to replace the whole thing or nothing realistically. Certainly need to realign. You could probably get away with taking the bolt that attaches the mounting hardware to the back of the enclosure apart, but I certainly wouldn't advise that. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.com wrote: Looking at these panels, it looks like you would not easily change a card or board on the tower. Can these panels be swapped out without having to re-align? LaRoy On 2/14/2011 1:19 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: For 7 miles? Use the 23dbi ARC things. I get them from Streakwave. Jut ask for ARC wireless 23dbi panel/enclosures. Very lightweight solution (compared to a two foot dish!) Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.com wrote: This was not my design. I would not have used a pac grid on a link like this. Ice on them will cause them to drop signal. I would have used a 2 ft dish for this link but I think I will look at the arc panels. LaRoy On 2/14/2011 12:20 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: Agreed. The overall cost is not that high compared to the time lost picking at it. I'd rather test and troubleshoot at the bench. - Jerry *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman *Sent:* Monday, February 14, 2011 10:14 AM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem If it were me, I would check that LMR and all that other garbage. Use the ARC 23dbi panel/enclosures. You'll lose 10dbi (less because of LMR400, connectors, pigtails, N connectors) but you'll have less to worry about when ice gets on the antenna (IME last week - none). Everything is enclosed and pretty and the mounting is easier then the grids and those stupid U bolts. Every time I've tried to swap a radio, or a board, or an antenna, or lmr400...it was a waste of time and money. Scrap the entire thing and do everything in one clean swoop. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.com wrote: After posting I recalculated what the signal strength should be and it turns out to be mid 50's. So I guess there is defiantly wrong in the rf system some where. On 2/14/2011 12:00 PM, Data Technology wrote: Sorry for the long post but I need some suggestions here guys. Customer has a 7.3 mile 5ghz link. MT 433AH on one end and MT 411AH on the other. Version 4.16 on both units. Both units have MT R52Hn cards. 28 db grids on both ends with 6-10ft lmr400 jumper. Signal strength is -65 to -65 on one end and -66 to -67 on the other. CCQ is 98 to 100% Configured as bridge wds on one end and station wds on the other. This customer is a school and when they came back from Christmas break the link was down. This is in a rural area and no other 5 ghz systems show up in a scan so it is a 50/50 shot at the one that is bad. We changed the card in one unit and that was not it so we changed the card in the other unit and the link came back up. It was not working 100% and would go down and up but the signal looked ok. It was at -70 at the time. The only way I could get it to stay up was to change to a 5meg bandwidth. The link finally stabilized with the 5 meg channel. This would have to do until we could go back and check cables and connections. Well it has worked ok for the most part since then but we have noticed that when it rains the link starts dropping out again even though the signal stays good when it is connected. Sounds like water in a connection so I went yesterday to check some connections and they look good. Had electrical tape, mastic, and electrical tape. I actually cut open one just to inspect and was dry. I know it only takes one connection to cause a problem but visual inspection of all connections looked ok. Next trip we will have new cables and new antenna. After I finished messing around with the first unit the link started going down and up. The strange thing about this is that when it is up the signal is a solid. About every 60 seconds the link would drop out and come right back up. It did this for about an hour and finally stabilized. Sounds like interference. Here are a few lines from both logfiles. 05:28:53 wireless,info
Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem
The mount attaches to the enclosure, and the antenna screws to the enclosure. You can remove the whole thing from the mount, work on it, and put it back on the mount without losing alignment. - Jerry From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Data Technology Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 11:50 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem Looking at these panels, it looks like you would not easily change a card or board on the tower. Can these panels be swapped out without having to re-align? LaRoy On 2/14/2011 1:19 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: For 7 miles? Use the 23dbi ARC things. I get them from Streakwave. Jut ask for ARC wireless 23dbi panel/enclosures. Very lightweight solution (compared to a two foot dish!) Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.commailto:w...@dtisp.com wrote: This was not my design. I would not have used a pac grid on a link like this. Ice on them will cause them to drop signal. I would have used a 2 ft dish for this link but I think I will look at the arc panels. LaRoy On 2/14/2011 12:20 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: Agreed. The overall cost is not that high compared to the time lost picking at it. I'd rather test and troubleshoot at the bench. - Jerry From: wireless-boun...@wispa.orgmailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem If it were me, I would check that LMR and all that other garbage. Use the ARC 23dbi panel/enclosures. You'll lose 10dbi (less because of LMR400, connectors, pigtails, N connectors) but you'll have less to worry about when ice gets on the antenna (IME last week - none). Everything is enclosed and pretty and the mounting is easier then the grids and those stupid U bolts. Every time I've tried to swap a radio, or a board, or an antenna, or lmr400...it was a waste of time and money. Scrap the entire thing and do everything in one clean swoop. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.commailto:w...@dtisp.com wrote: After posting I recalculated what the signal strength should be and it turns out to be mid 50's. So I guess there is defiantly wrong in the rf system some where. On 2/14/2011 12:00 PM, Data Technology wrote: Sorry for the long post but I need some suggestions here guys. Customer has a 7.3 mile 5ghz link. MT 433AH on one end and MT 411AH on the other. Version 4.16 on both units. Both units have MT R52Hn cards. 28 db grids on both ends with 6-10ft lmr400 jumper. Signal strength is -65 to -65 on one end and -66 to -67 on the other. CCQ is 98 to 100% Configured as bridge wds on one end and station wds on the other. This customer is a school and when they came back from Christmas break the link was down. This is in a rural area and no other 5 ghz systems show up in a scan so it is a 50/50 shot at the one that is bad. We changed the card in one unit and that was not it so we changed the card in the other unit and the link came back up. It was not working 100% and would go down and up but the signal looked ok. It was at -70 at the time. The only way I could get it to stay up was to change to a 5meg bandwidth. The link finally stabilized with the 5 meg channel. This would have to do until we could go back and check cables and connections. Well it has worked ok for the most part since then but we have noticed that when it rains the link starts dropping out again even though the signal stays good when it is connected. Sounds like water in a connection so I went yesterday to check some connections and they look good. Had electrical tape, mastic, and electrical tape. I actually cut open one just to inspect and was dry. I know it only takes one connection to cause a problem but visual inspection of all connections looked ok. Next trip we will have new cables and new antenna. After I finished messing around with the first unit the link started going down and up. The strange thing about this is that when it is up the signal is a solid. About every 60 seconds the link would drop out and come right back up. It did this for about an hour and finally stabilized. Sounds like interference. Here are a few lines from both logfiles. 05:28:53 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:29:00 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:30:01 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data loss 05:30:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: connected, wants WDS 05:31:10 wireless,info 00:0C:42:62:E4:82@wlan1: disconnected, extensive data
Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem
You could remove the 4 bolts to remove the antenna/enclosure part, yes. Not sure how in the world you'd take the 8mm nuts off on a tower and not lose one! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Jerry Richardson jrichard...@aircloud.comwrote: The mount attaches to the enclosure, and the antenna screws to the enclosure. You can remove the whole thing from the mount, work on it, and put it back on the mount without losing alignment. - Jerry *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Data Technology *Sent:* Monday, February 14, 2011 11:50 AM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem Looking at these panels, it looks like you would not easily change a card or board on the tower. Can these panels be swapped out without having to re-align? LaRoy On 2/14/2011 1:19 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: For 7 miles? Use the 23dbi ARC things. I get them from Streakwave. Jut ask for ARC wireless 23dbi panel/enclosures. Very lightweight solution (compared to a two foot dish!) Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.com wrote: This was not my design. I would not have used a pac grid on a link like this. Ice on them will cause them to drop signal. I would have used a 2 ft dish for this link but I think I will look at the arc panels. LaRoy On 2/14/2011 12:20 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: Agreed. The overall cost is not that high compared to the time lost picking at it. I'd rather test and troubleshoot at the bench. - Jerry *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman *Sent:* Monday, February 14, 2011 10:14 AM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem If it were me, I would check that LMR and all that other garbage. Use the ARC 23dbi panel/enclosures. You'll lose 10dbi (less because of LMR400, connectors, pigtails, N connectors) but you'll have less to worry about when ice gets on the antenna (IME last week - none). Everything is enclosed and pretty and the mounting is easier then the grids and those stupid U bolts. Every time I've tried to swap a radio, or a board, or an antenna, or lmr400...it was a waste of time and money. Scrap the entire thing and do everything in one clean swoop. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.com wrote: After posting I recalculated what the signal strength should be and it turns out to be mid 50's. So I guess there is defiantly wrong in the rf system some where. On 2/14/2011 12:00 PM, Data Technology wrote: Sorry for the long post but I need some suggestions here guys. Customer has a 7.3 mile 5ghz link. MT 433AH on one end and MT 411AH on the other. Version 4.16 on both units. Both units have MT R52Hn cards. 28 db grids on both ends with 6-10ft lmr400 jumper. Signal strength is -65 to -65 on one end and -66 to -67 on the other. CCQ is 98 to 100% Configured as bridge wds on one end and station wds on the other. This customer is a school and when they came back from Christmas break the link was down. This is in a rural area and no other 5 ghz systems show up in a scan so it is a 50/50 shot at the one that is bad. We changed the card in one unit and that was not it so we changed the card in the other unit and the link came back up. It was not working 100% and would go down and up but the signal looked ok. It was at -70 at the time. The only way I could get it to stay up was to change to a 5meg bandwidth. The link finally stabilized with the 5 meg channel. This would have to do until we could go back and check cables and connections. Well it has worked ok for the most part since then but we have noticed that when it rains the link starts dropping out again even though the signal stays good when it is connected. Sounds like water in a connection so I went yesterday to check some connections and they look good. Had electrical tape, mastic, and electrical tape. I actually cut open one just to inspect and was dry. I know it only takes one connection to cause a problem but visual inspection of all connections looked ok. Next trip we will have new cables and new antenna. After I finished messing around with the first unit the link started going down and up. The strange thing about this is that when it is up the signal is a solid. About every 60 seconds the link would drop out and come right back up. It did this for about an hour and finally stabilized. Sounds like interference. Here
Re: [WISPA] Strange RF disconnect problem
On 02/14/2011 01:19 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: For 7 miles? Use the 23dbi ARC things. I get them from Streakwave. Jut ask for ARC wireless 23dbi panel/enclosures. Very lightweight solution (compared to a two foot dish!) http://tinyurl.com/4jqqq2h is a complete system (with routerboard, radio, power supply and antenna). I have the antennas available as well. -- * 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! * *NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * 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] Strange RF disconnect problem
That's the one, but I would DEFINITELY use an XR5 for a ptp link. Voltage/board depends on your particular link. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com wrote: On 02/14/2011 01:19 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: For 7 miles? Use the 23dbi ARC things. I get them from Streakwave. Jut ask for ARC wireless 23dbi panel/enclosures. Very lightweight solution (compared to a two foot dish!) http://tinyurl.com/4jqqq2h is a complete system (with routerboard, radio, power supply and antenna). I have the antennas available as well. -- * 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! * *NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * 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] Strange RF disconnect problem
I have tried those in the past and not had good luck with them. They don't seem to be as sensitive as other cards. I used to use mostly cm9's but have been using the MT R52Hn cards. You get the power and they seem to receive better than the XR5's. LaRoy On 2/14/2011 2:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: That's the one, but I would DEFINITELY use an XR5 for a ptp link. Voltage/board depends on your particular link. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com mailto:but...@butchevans.com wrote: On 02/14/2011 01:19 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: For 7 miles? Use the 23dbi ARC things. I get them from Streakwave. Jut ask for ARC wireless 23dbi panel/enclosures. Very lightweight solution (compared to a two foot dish!) http://tinyurl.com/4jqqq2h is a complete system (with routerboard, radio, power supply and antenna). I have the antennas available as well. -- * 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! * *NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the *DTISP MailScanner* http://www.dtisp.com/, and is believed to be clean. 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] Strange RF disconnect problem
My experience shows the complete opposite and all other reports have agreed with me. Not arguing, just emerging facts. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.com wrote: I have tried those in the past and not had good luck with them. They don't seem to be as sensitive as other cards. I used to use mostly cm9's but have been using the MT R52Hn cards. You get the power and they seem to receive better than the XR5's. LaRoy On 2/14/2011 2:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: That's the one, but I would DEFINITELY use an XR5 for a ptp link. Voltage/board depends on your particular link. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.comwrote: On 02/14/2011 01:19 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: For 7 miles? Use the 23dbi ARC things. I get them from Streakwave. Jut ask for ARC wireless 23dbi panel/enclosures. Very lightweight solution (compared to a two foot dish!) http://tinyurl.com/4jqqq2h is a complete system (with routerboard, radio, power supply and antenna). I have the antennas available as well. -- * 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! * *NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * 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/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the *DTISP MailScanner* http://www.dtisp.com/, and is believed to be clean. 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] Mikrotik Bandwidth Test
Anyone have a 25Mbps+ circuit with a Mikrotik on the edge that I could run some bandwidth tests to? The most I have access to at the moment is 10meg with a Mikrotik on it. I just installed a bonded DSL setup, and want to test the speeds Thanks Nick 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] Strange RF disconnect problem
I hear ya. I know a lot of people swear by them. I just know I have tried them 4-5 different times and they never work as well as I think they should. I can pull it out and use a CM9 or R52Hn and get better receive by a couple of db or more. On 2/14/2011 2:46 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: My experience shows the complete opposite and all other reports have agreed with me. Not arguing, just emerging facts. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.com mailto:w...@dtisp.com wrote: I have tried those in the past and not had good luck with them. They don't seem to be as sensitive as other cards. I used to use mostly cm9's but have been using the MT R52Hn cards. You get the power and they seem to receive better than the XR5's. LaRoy On 2/14/2011 2:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: That's the one, but I would DEFINITELY use an XR5 for a ptp link. Voltage/board depends on your particular link. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com mailto:but...@butchevans.com wrote: On 02/14/2011 01:19 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: For 7 miles? Use the 23dbi ARC things. I get them from Streakwave. Jut ask for ARC wireless 23dbi panel/enclosures. Very lightweight solution (compared to a two foot dish!) http://tinyurl.com/4jqqq2h is a complete system (with routerboard, radio, power supply and antenna). I have the antennas available as well. -- * 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! * *NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the *DTISP MailScanner* http://www.dtisp.com/, and is believed to be clean. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org mailto: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 mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the *DTISP MailScanner* http://www.dtisp.com/, and is believed to be clean. 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] Strange RF disconnect problem
Actually, in the technical specificationsthe R52HN claims to be better than a XR5. I have not used any R52HN for comparison. RX Sensitivity at 54mbit is -80 with R52HN vs -74 for XR5. Regards, Chuck On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.comwrote: My experience shows the complete opposite and all other reports have agreed with me. Not arguing, just emerging facts. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.com wrote: I have tried those in the past and not had good luck with them. They don't seem to be as sensitive as other cards. I used to use mostly cm9's but have been using the MT R52Hn cards. You get the power and they seem to receive better than the XR5's. LaRoy On 2/14/2011 2:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: That's the one, but I would DEFINITELY use an XR5 for a ptp link. Voltage/board depends on your particular link. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.comwrote: On 02/14/2011 01:19 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: For 7 miles? Use the 23dbi ARC things. I get them from Streakwave. Jut ask for ARC wireless 23dbi panel/enclosures. Very lightweight solution (compared to a two foot dish!) http://tinyurl.com/4jqqq2h is a complete system (with routerboard, radio, power supply and antenna). I have the antennas available as well. -- * 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! * *NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * 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/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the *DTISP MailScanner* http://www.dtisp.com/, and is believed to be clean. 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] Mikrotik Bandwidth Test
http://speed.inxwireless.com If it has to be MT let me know off list. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Nick lists-wi...@atomsplash.com wrote: Anyone have a 25Mbps+ circuit with a Mikrotik on the edge that I could run some bandwidth tests to? The most I have access to at the moment is 10meg with a Mikrotik on it. I just installed a bonded DSL setup, and want to test the speeds Thanks Nick 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] Strange RF disconnect problem
I think the r52hn is ideal for a cheap CPE radio. Cheap and works well. It does N, too, but that's besides this discussion. Just not quite up there in terms of a ptp link. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: Actually, in the technical specificationsthe R52HN claims to be better than a XR5. I have not used any R52HN for comparison. RX Sensitivity at 54mbit is -80 with R52HN vs -74 for XR5. Regards, Chuck On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: My experience shows the complete opposite and all other reports have agreed with me. Not arguing, just emerging facts. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Data Technology w...@dtisp.com wrote: I have tried those in the past and not had good luck with them. They don't seem to be as sensitive as other cards. I used to use mostly cm9's but have been using the MT R52Hn cards. You get the power and they seem to receive better than the XR5's. LaRoy On 2/14/2011 2:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: That's the one, but I would DEFINITELY use an XR5 for a ptp link. Voltage/board depends on your particular link. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.comwrote: On 02/14/2011 01:19 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: For 7 miles? Use the 23dbi ARC things. I get them from Streakwave. Jut ask for ARC wireless 23dbi panel/enclosures. Very lightweight solution (compared to a two foot dish!) http://tinyurl.com/4jqqq2h is a complete system (with routerboard, radio, power supply and antenna). I have the antennas available as well. -- * 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! * *NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * 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/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the *DTISP MailScanner* http://www.dtisp.com/, and is believed to be clean. 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] Mikrotik Bandwidth Test
Ok that doesn't mean everyone on the list has to try the speed test =P Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.comwrote: http://speed.inxwireless.com If it has to be MT let me know off list. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Nick lists-wi...@atomsplash.com wrote: Anyone have a 25Mbps+ circuit with a Mikrotik on the edge that I could run some bandwidth tests to? The most I have access to at the moment is 10meg with a Mikrotik on it. I just installed a bonded DSL setup, and want to test the speeds Thanks Nick 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] Mikrotik Bandwidth Test
There's about 400 megs free on this pipe. Can I try? :-p - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 2/14/2011 3:12 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: Ok that doesn't mean everyone on the list has to try the speed test =P Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: http://speed.inxwireless.com If it has to be MT let me know off list. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Nick lists-wi...@atomsplash.com mailto:lists-wi...@atomsplash.com wrote: Anyone have a 25Mbps+ circuit with a Mikrotik on the edge that I could run some bandwidth tests to? The most I have access to at the moment is 10meg with a Mikrotik on it. I just installed a bonded DSL setup, and want to test the speeds Thanks Nick WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org mailto: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] Mikrotik Bandwidth Test
Let me know, one of our speeds tests to a client last weekend was 350 meg .:) --- 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 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Nick Sent: February 14, 2011 2:55 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Mikrotik Bandwidth Test Anyone have a 25Mbps+ circuit with a Mikrotik on the edge that I could run some bandwidth tests to? The most I have access to at the moment is 10meg with a Mikrotik on it. I just installed a bonded DSL setup, and want to test the speeds Thanks Nick 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] Google chrome notebooks.
Just to let you know, Google are giving away chrome notebooks for testing. https://services.google.com/fb/forms/cr48advanced/ Best wishes, Will Sent from my HTC 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] My friend's logic
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:59 -0600, ch...@htswireless.com wrote: My experience is that with the crappy little grey or black pigtails your signal sucks. The copper braided pigtails like the Laird/Pac ones seem to do great. Not that I 'm downing Wisp-router, but they have always carried the crappy ones. I have avoided ordering any pigtails from them for quite a while so I don't know if they are still shipping those. Roc-noc, Wlanparts, Titan, to name a few always seen to ship the good copper ones. I've had 72 clients connected to a Mikrotik AP running a horizontal omni with little performance issues besides that fact that it had 72 clients on it... :) Chris Wow! 72 clients on an omni. That's impressive. Thats probably the only antenna trasnmiting around that area. I have an omni with 20 clients and get all sort of interference problems. Well, I'm glad I got a lot of explanations from the list. I WILL be printing these to show my friend. I just learned he has 6 radios installed on a RB600. How about that for self interference -Original Message- From: Brian Webster Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:06 AM To: 'WISPA General List' ; wil...@optimumwireless.com Subject: Re: [WISPA] My friend's logic I agree with Fred. It's not about the number of clients that causes the problem. The physical separation of the radios is probably the key factor in the increased performance. Putting multiple radios with possibly leaky pigtails inside the same enclosure can introduce opportunities for self-interference by near field RF energies and mixing products. Unless an enclosure have been specifically designed, tested and built for that particular combination or radios and cable routing, there is no telling how it may or may not perform. Adding more radios to the MT just compounds the problem. Having the RF section outside the MT box is never a bad idea to avoid this phenomenon. Thank You, Brian Webster Skype: Radiowebst www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:35 AM To: wil...@optimumwireless.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My friend's logic At 2/14/2011 08:50 AM, OptimumWS wrote: Hello. Thought I share this with the list. I have a friend that is using MT as ap on one of his towers with his radios in 10MHz and on another tower bullets with sector panels, similar set up on both towers except for the radios. He was explaining that he finds the bullets outperforms the ubiquiti radios on the MT by far. His explanation: The reason why bullets outperfoms the radios intalled on a router board is because of the pigtail used from the radio to the antenna. This pigtail works like a electricity cable in that the thicker the cable the more current is able to pass through so, the mikrotik pigtails are way too thin. When there is a certain number of clients connected to that radio the pigtail saturates the radio traffic because of the 'high traffic or current passing through the pigtail' and as a result; links between clients and ap can be slow and performance decreases. Now, the bullets do not have any pigtail or other connector and thats a reason why links with bullets are more stable and performs better than having a routerboard and radios with pigtails. What you guys think of his logic? Note: Posted this on dslreports wisp mainling list as well so, for those also registered to that list: sorry for the double posts. This was discussed on some vendor forums too, I think UBNTs. Most pigtails shipped with radios are too cheap for their own good. They are not properly shielded. Some WISPs have found that they can put more radios on a tower if they use better pigtails, which they either make themselves or hand-select (one person found that Laird pigtails were sometimes good, but not all of them). Pigtails can be lossy, reducing effective antenna gain, and can leak, which makes it susceptible to local interference. This has nothing to do with the number of clients, though. That's just silly. -- 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/ - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3443 - Release Date: 02/14/11
Re: [WISPA] My friend's logic
That's just plain ignorant! 6 radios? I think the o=most I have ever attempted was 2 in one unit. I've heard too many horror stories...! Actually in this town there's another wisp using a vertical omni and a horizontal omni. Plus the town is only like 2k pop. I ran like that for the better part of a year until I finally got around to sectorizing. That only got delayed because a tower I leased space on got cut down Chris -Original Message- From: Optimum Wireless Services Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:25 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My friend's logic On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:59 -0600, ch...@htswireless.com wrote: My experience is that with the crappy little grey or black pigtails your signal sucks. The copper braided pigtails like the Laird/Pac ones seem to do great. Not that I 'm downing Wisp-router, but they have always carried the crappy ones. I have avoided ordering any pigtails from them for quite a while so I don't know if they are still shipping those. Roc-noc, Wlanparts, Titan, to name a few always seen to ship the good copper ones. I've had 72 clients connected to a Mikrotik AP running a horizontal omni with little performance issues besides that fact that it had 72 clients on it... :) Chris Wow! 72 clients on an omni. That's impressive. Thats probably the only antenna trasnmiting around that area. I have an omni with 20 clients and get all sort of interference problems. Well, I'm glad I got a lot of explanations from the list. I WILL be printing these to show my friend. I just learned he has 6 radios installed on a RB600. How about that for self interference -Original Message- From: Brian Webster Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:06 AM To: 'WISPA General List' ; wil...@optimumwireless.com Subject: Re: [WISPA] My friend's logic I agree with Fred. It's not about the number of clients that causes the problem. The physical separation of the radios is probably the key factor in the increased performance. Putting multiple radios with possibly leaky pigtails inside the same enclosure can introduce opportunities for self-interference by near field RF energies and mixing products. Unless an enclosure have been specifically designed, tested and built for that particular combination or radios and cable routing, there is no telling how it may or may not perform. Adding more radios to the MT just compounds the problem. Having the RF section outside the MT box is never a bad idea to avoid this phenomenon. Thank You, Brian Webster Skype: Radiowebst www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:35 AM To: wil...@optimumwireless.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My friend's logic At 2/14/2011 08:50 AM, OptimumWS wrote: Hello. Thought I share this with the list. I have a friend that is using MT as ap on one of his towers with his radios in 10MHz and on another tower bullets with sector panels, similar set up on both towers except for the radios. He was explaining that he finds the bullets outperforms the ubiquiti radios on the MT by far. His explanation: The reason why bullets outperfoms the radios intalled on a router board is because of the pigtail used from the radio to the antenna. This pigtail works like a electricity cable in that the thicker the cable the more current is able to pass through so, the mikrotik pigtails are way too thin. When there is a certain number of clients connected to that radio the pigtail saturates the radio traffic because of the 'high traffic or current passing through the pigtail' and as a result; links between clients and ap can be slow and performance decreases. Now, the bullets do not have any pigtail or other connector and thats a reason why links with bullets are more stable and performs better than having a routerboard and radios with pigtails. What you guys think of his logic? Note: Posted this on dslreports wisp mainling list as well so, for those also registered to that list: sorry for the double posts. This was discussed on some vendor forums too, I think UBNTs. Most pigtails shipped with radios are too cheap for their own good. They are not properly shielded. Some WISPs have found that they can put more radios on a tower if they use better pigtails, which they either make themselves or hand-select (one person found that Laird pigtails were sometimes good, but not all of them). Pigtails can be lossy, reducing effective antenna gain, and can leak, which makes it susceptible to local interference. This has nothing to do with the number of clients, though. That's just silly. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701
Re: [WISPA] My friend's logic
I use a lot of omni's... 5-10 cust each... The most radio's I have in one box is 3... one on 2.4GHz, one on 900MHz, one on 5.8GHz And one other with one on 2.4GHz, one on 5.3GHz, and one on 5.8GHz And my experience with pigtails has been the opposite... The black ones work well, the clear ones are junk... YMMV On 2/14/2011 11:45 PM, ch...@htswireless.com wrote: That's just plain ignorant! 6 radios? I think the o=most I have ever attempted was 2 in one unit. I've heard too many horror stories...! Actually in this town there's another wisp using a vertical omni and a horizontal omni. Plus the town is only like 2k pop. I ran like that for the better part of a year until I finally got around to sectorizing. That only got delayed because a tower I leased space on got cut down Chris -Original Message- From: Optimum Wireless Services Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:25 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My friend's logic On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:59 -0600, ch...@htswireless.com wrote: My experience is that with the crappy little grey or black pigtails your signal sucks. The copper braided pigtails like the Laird/Pac ones seem to do great. Not that I 'm downing Wisp-router, but they have always carried the crappy ones. I have avoided ordering any pigtails from them for quite a while so I don't know if they are still shipping those. Roc-noc, Wlanparts, Titan, to name a few always seen to ship the good copper ones. I've had 72 clients connected to a Mikrotik AP running a horizontal omni with little performance issues besides that fact that it had 72 clients on it... :) Chris Wow! 72 clients on an omni. That's impressive. Thats probably the only antenna trasnmiting around that area. I have an omni with 20 clients and get all sort of interference problems. Well, I'm glad I got a lot of explanations from the list. I WILL be printing these to show my friend. I just learned he has 6 radios installed on a RB600. How about that for self interference -Original Message- From: Brian Webster Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:06 AM To: 'WISPA General List' ; wil...@optimumwireless.com Subject: Re: [WISPA] My friend's logic I agree with Fred. It's not about the number of clients that causes the problem. The physical separation of the radios is probably the key factor in the increased performance. Putting multiple radios with possibly leaky pigtails inside the same enclosure can introduce opportunities for self-interference by near field RF energies and mixing products. Unless an enclosure have been specifically designed, tested and built for that particular combination or radios and cable routing, there is no telling how it may or may not perform. Adding more radios to the MT just compounds the problem. Having the RF section outside the MT box is never a bad idea to avoid this phenomenon. Thank You, Brian Webster Skype: Radiowebst www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 9:35 AM To: wil...@optimumwireless.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My friend's logic At 2/14/2011 08:50 AM, OptimumWS wrote: Hello. Thought I share this with the list. I have a friend that is using MT as ap on one of his towers with his radios in 10MHz and on another tower bullets with sector panels, similar set up on both towers except for the radios. He was explaining that he finds the bullets outperforms the ubiquiti radios on the MT by far. His explanation: "The reason why bullets outperfoms the radios intalled on a router board is because of the pigtail used from the radio to the antenna. This pigtail works like a electricity cable in that the thicker the cable the more current is able to pass through so, the mikrotik pigtails are way too thin. When there is a certain number of clients connected to that radio the pigtail saturates the radio traffic because of the 'high traffic or current passing through the pigtail' and as a result; links between clients and ap can be slow and performance decreases. Now, the bullets do not have any pigtail or other connector and thats a reason why links with bullets are more stable and performs better than having a routerboard and radios with pigtails." What you guys think of his logic? Note: Posted this on dslreports wisp mainling list as well so, for those also registered to that list: sorry for the double posts. This was discussed on some vendor forums too, I think UBNTs. Most pigtails shipped with radios are too cheap for their own good. They are not properly shielded. Some WISPs have found that they can put more radios on a tower if they use better pigtails, which they either make themselves or hand-select
