Re: [WISPA] List Traffic
List emails have been coming through here every day. Al - At 03:06 PM 6/29/2012 +, Steve Barnes wrote: --- Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_000_55B821E4E4EA3944B48AE6F7A054C888282D51E5MBX244domainloc_ Then there is an issue These are the first emails I got on this list in 2 weeks as well. What was the subjects of yesterday. Steve Barnes General Manager http://www.rcwifi.com/PCS-WIN / RC-WiFi From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 10:54 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] List Traffic 3 yesterday a bunch the day before. On 6/29/2012 10:45 AM, Eric Rogers wrote: Is this list dead? I haven't received an email since 6/18. Eric ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- END QUOTE - ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Customer Routers
Been following this thread ... seems like you guys assume that ALL your customers, and ALL users of internet are total idiots with crappy equipment. Surely there are some who have decent equipment and know what they are doing. :-) Al -- At 12:53 PM 4/27/2012 -0400, Andy Trimmell wrote: --- Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01CD2496.54597EFE You really think customers listen? I had a lady blame us for lightning hitting her TV. People are going to blame you regardless of how much money you lose on them. We also keep routers separate of our responsibility. We do require our customers to have one at the time of the installation and we set it up for them. We explain that our responsibility starts at the little white/black box (injector) includes the cable and the unit on the roof. Anything else is their problem. We have a nifty screen that pops up when their router is on DHCP letting them know that they're internet is working great! But oops! Your router has lost its configuration here's the instructions in this pdf or you can call us for a $30 router setup. you're also welcome to bring in the router for us to configure free of charge. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Darin Steffl Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Customer Routers They should have no reason to do that and if they do, they're only causing problems for themselves with double or triple NAT. I make it clear when I install that the router I give them is the only router they can use and I will fix/replace it free of charge if THEY don't break it. If they cause an issue with my equipment or by adding another router and they expect me to fix it, there will be a charge. If they follow my instructions, they will be taken care of. On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Justin Wilson mailto:li...@mtin.netli...@mtin.net wrote: How do you handle the customers who then put a link sys behind your provided router? From: Darin Steffl mailto:dcsho...@gmail.comdcsho...@gmail.com Reply-To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.org Date: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:38 PM To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Customer Routers I understand not wanting to touch the router but I want to control everything up until I hand off to the customer's equipment which means I provide the router. I hear from too many people that blame their ISP like Charter or the phone company for bad internet when much of the time it is their own wireless router. That same bad mouthing will happen for my company if the customer continues to use crappy routers so I thought I would provide one to them, configure it, lock it, and replace it if it ever fails. That way, I am handing out something reliable that works and if they need help, I'm there to fix it for them. In my opinion, that should cut down on tech support calls if the router is stable. I am currently testing the Ubiquiti Airrouters and the TP-Link TL-WR841N On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Josh Luthman mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.comj...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: I would avoid the 751 for now based on my hell of an experience. That's just me. Josh Luthman Office: tel:937-552-2340937-552-2340 Direct: tel:937-552-2343937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Apr 26, 2012 6:27 PM, Justin Wilson mailto:li...@mtin.netli...@mtin.net wrote: My Take on routers. Off the shelf routers are the #1 trouble issue on the Zig network. Anything from gaming issues, to speed issues, to reliability issues. They account for roughly 92% of all calls. The first thing we have the customer do after reboots of everything is bypass the router. Most of the time this shows the customer it's their router, or something behind it. In our past life we started out selling routers. We looked for the cheapest ones we could find, which at the time were dlink. What we found was customers then considered that our equipment. Well the router you sold me went out. was something we heard a lot. Or I reset the router now you have to come out and configure it What we are doing this time around is we have only one officially approved router. The Mikrotik 751. We have a local computer shop which stocks them and sets them up. What he does as far as support is between him and the customer. I am pretty sure he tells them he is just a retailer for the product and if they want his help he will gladly charge them his hourly rate. All about expectations up front. By doing all of this we are not in the router business, but the customer gets a solid product and cuts down on our calls. In turn we have a happier customer base. And if need be, we can actually login to their router and do torch, etc. Justin From: Darin Steffl
Re: [WISPA] Every email and website to be stored
URL worked here. Al -- At 11:44 PM 10/20/2010 -0700, Charles N Wyble wrote: --- URL is broken the irony is thick. Lol. Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: Every email, phone call and website visit is to be recorded and stored after http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8075563/Every-email-and -website-to-be-stored.html -- END QUOTE - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] FW: TechNet Flash: IE9 Beta is here
Yeah, but IE9 ONLY works with Windows 7. Al -- At 10:10 PM 09/22/2010 -0400, Robert West wrote: --- Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary==_NextPart_000_00D1_01CB5AA2.EE501AA0 Content-Language: en-us Oh, hell. IE9. Get ready for the calls .. From: Microsoft [mailto:micros...@e-mail.microsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:01 PM To: robert.w...@just-micro.com Subject: TechNet Flash: IE9 Beta is here http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bb16f64c1ec9ea5f3b62856b82c5ac7aca55dbf3e5db5a13b0bfce040e112d7c75TechNet Flashhttp://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bb16f64c1ec9ea5f3b62856b82c5ac7aca55dbf3e5db5a13b0bfce040e112d7c75 Mobile | http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bb07af7fbf437ff595a276ab906722fa4366f9f65ccf6e4f3be6e463cf7146fd75Unsubscribe | http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbeacf81068c6a42443d9a0733ea714a590a28dbe0d0ccbeaba4548f7f20186ea2Customize http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbeacf81068c6a42443d9a0733ea714a590a28dbe0d0ccbeaba4548f7f20186ea2TechNet Flash Volume 12, Issue 19 | September 22, 2010 Top Stories http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbe5753bdeedd9a0b74c95605f3898e4adca7cbf25d45dadfeac6b7957c992396fRealizing the Full Value of Virtualized Environments The move from physical to virtual has become a sure bet for IT organizations, and with more payoff to come, it's time to make sure your infrastructure is aligned for maximum value. http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bb8c56dbf74777ff8d834079fd137b18e4b09e3e5e970726d4d87af944f66b5bc6Get the Internet Explorer 9 Beta Internet Explorer 9 Beta is here, and it's fast. Web sites and applications look and perform as if they were native to your PC, and you'll notice a clean look and increased viewing area that makes Web sites shine. Taking full advantage of your PC's hardware through Windows, Internet Explorer 9 Beta delivers graphically rich and immersive experiences. http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=c15b7693984573bbca9fc92fbd5ff60892009130308496eca8ccbc3d75bf324a64888d875045f5eaSave 25% on TechNet Subscription Professional With an annual subscription, you can evaluate more than 70 full-version Microsoft software titles such as Windows 7 and Office 2010 without time or feature limits. But hurry, the offer ends October 31, 2010. Use promo code TNITQ413. Your Featured Content http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=8ee6f7c96b13bffa9ce761156ad6362d314d778ac6bacf3b34c6445c0793ca193d41ed9fbc9b859eDownload Microsoft Lync Server 2010 Release Candidate Microsoft Lync Server 2010 RC ushers in a new connected experience. A single interface unites voice, IM, audio-, video-, and web-conferencing into a richer, more contextual offering and a single identity makes it easier and more efficient for users to find contacts, check their availability, and connect with them. http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=8ee6f7c96b13bffafd98ce6b4ffaac4fa7136ecbe89bf849fe2d6edbc48ea8d0b6e5ba601fda8a3eAnnouncing the Springboard Series Windows 7 Deployment Learning Portal Think you know everything about deploying Windows 7? Find out with the Springboard Series Deployment Learning Portal, an online assessment and learning tool, designed to help IT pros identify their knowledge strengths and information gaps around Windows 7 deployment. http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=8ee6f7c96b13bffafe85b5b11ad0b4e312b588e243cdf98d2accab574073d025ffb4203cb00de10cNew White Paper: Plan, Implement, and Support SQL Server Virtualization It is now possible to virtualize heavy SQL Server workloads and move virtual machines between Hyper-V hosts within a failover cluster without downtime. http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=8ee6f7c96b13bffa35c3783957e15cf8ec76b6ff60322082433a947265c5636179c2c1701ee4d403Security Talk Video: Azure Federated Identity Security Using ADFS 2.0 We explain how to create an Azure application using Active Directory Federation Services (ADFS) 2.0 Security Token Service (STS), previously known as Geneva Server, for back-end authentication. http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=8ee6f7c96b13bffabe186d606061d26a1d9bf24dc7521d37068d2b69754bfe9bdec699dc6c5aee4aFree Windows Server 2008 R2 E-book Offer Learn about the features of Windows Server 2008 R2 in the areas of virtualization, management, the web application platform, scalability, reliability, and interoperability with Windows 7. Download http://click.email.microsoftemail.com/?qs=8ee6f7c96b13bffabe186d606061d26a1d9bf24dc7521d37068d2b69754bfe9bdec699dc6c5aee4aIntroducing Windows Server 2008 R2, written by industry experts Charlie Russel and Craig Zacker along with the Windows Server team at Microsoft.
Re: [WISPA] Google is out of control.
It's been happening here for awhile. Actually if you drag your cursor around the screen where other links are supposed to be (without clicking) I think they show up quicker. My, sort of, observations, anyway. Al -- At 08:05 AM 06/11/2010 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: --- OK, speaking of google. Lately (last few days maybe?) I've noticed that the links at the top and bottom of the page take a few seconds longer to load than the search box does. Is this something that's happening on my site or is it everywhere? laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google is out of control. I'm just gonna change mine to Google.NU. Still the old Google. I guess the island of Niue just isn't very important.. :) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Al Stewart Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google is out of control. Really? .. On Google Canada, all I get is the Google Account sign in page. -- At 08:47 AM 06/10/2010 -0700, Jeromie Reeves wrote: --- You can click the change background link and change it back to white. The 'Future' I spoke of was a sunlit desert or was it a dessert? The mirage is kinda fuzzy after that kool-aid. -- END QUOTE - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ -- END QUOTE - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Google is out of control.
Really? .. On Google Canada, all I get is the Google Account sign in page. -- At 08:47 AM 06/10/2010 -0700, Jeromie Reeves wrote: --- You can click the change background link and change it back to white. The 'Future' I spoke of was a sunlit desert or was it a dessert? The mirage is kinda fuzzy after that kool-aid. -- END QUOTE - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Google is out of control.
Well, now Google.ca is showing the white page with the option to fill it up with something colorful. -- At 12:12 PM 06/10/2010 -0400, Robert West wrote: --- I'm just gonna change mine to Google.NU. Still the old Google. I guess the island of Niue just isn't very important.. :) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Al Stewart Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google is out of control. Really? .. On Google Canada, all I get is the Google Account sign in page. -- At 08:47 AM 06/10/2010 -0700, Jeromie Reeves wrote: --- You can click the change background link and change it back to white. The 'Future' I spoke of was a sunlit desert or was it a dessert? The mirage is kinda fuzzy after that kool-aid. -- END QUOTE - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ -- END QUOTE - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Simultaneous connections
Thanks Tom ... I know some of the cheaper wireless routers on our system have been causing speed problems for various reasons. And I can see the reasons for the problems. But for most people, I guess a router is a router, and they don't want to spend big bucks. For myself, I'm looking to replace my own personal D-Link DI-704P (wired) with another wired unit. Researching models gives all kinds of conflicting info/complaints/recommendations. Someone here recommended, so I guess I'll see what I can track down on that. Al -- At 05:54 PM 10/16/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- Yes they can be the cause for numerous reasons. 1) they can start to go flaky, and when gone flaky they can cause hesitent throughput, (sorta like when a CPU overheats, or when a bus or cache limit gets exceeded) that will force TCPIP congestion to slow throughput. Its not uncommon to have cases where we replace a router with another of the same brand/model and the speed testing improves by 4x. BUT when this happens it is because the product had become defective, not because the unit wasn't originally capable.. 2) a 10mbps port does not guarantee that a route can push 10mbps. 10mbps is just the speed of the NIC itself. Many cheaper or older generation routers have very slow processors and can slow down with small packet traffic. Not just processors but memory and bus design. Also, all firmwares might not be optimize for higher speeds. For example, for GB you might want large network buffers, where as routers that were developed at the day of 1mbps max DSL, may have optimized for the typic speed, and used fewer buffers to conserve RAM, and use less ram to lower costs. However, MOST routers of current generation are pretty capable, and usually do fine up at higher speeds. Also be cautious of using a VPN router, because it can take quite a bit of overhead to encrypt or compress the tunnel, and could get slowed at high speed. The best thing to do is to certify the peak speed of any Router that you plan to use regularly. Dont believe the Spec sheet, believe your own Iperf test results. The issue is how do you tell if a router is flaking out and how can you test the router's capabilty remotely if a support call arises? If you dont have a way to test certify it working to spec, how do you know it is? This is why we tend to use more power routers when we can. We like them to have processor powerful enough to run full speed throughput tests directly to the router. In other words, A router can always pass much more traffic speeds through it, than it can actuallu hald directly to or from it. Having fast processors in the routers, creating extra headroom, gets aroud this problem. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Thanks ... this helps. One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times at least what the nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be ALL the routers in the system. Al -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to address those conditions. The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets and/or lots of uploads. Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing to be up or down during the congestion time. Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. Therfore when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited amount of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. We took a two prong approach to fix. 1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set to end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to have a time slice for uploading. 2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every users gets fair weight to available bandwdith. With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
And that is a problem. Al -- At 05:56 PM 10/16/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- Its not a question of manufacturer, its a question of model and/or rev of model. Near impossible to have time to test them all, there are so many.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca To: n...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections How do D-Link products rate in your experience? Al -- At 02:48 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote: --- This could be a very touchy topic. Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At your location or your ISP's its inevitable. But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they remove the router and it all works great suddenly. As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I know back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on wan to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down under the 10Mb/s mark. I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Thanks ... this helps. One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times at least what the nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be ALL the routers in the system. Al -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to address those conditions. The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets and/or lots of uploads. Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing to be up or down during the congestion time. Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. Therfore when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited amount of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. We took a two prong approach to fix. 1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set to end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to have a time slice for uploading. 2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every users gets fair weight to available bandwdith. With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively to most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb plans. But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is reached packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end user, because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to slower speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans
[WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. Al WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Simultaneous connections
Okay, that's the ideal ratio. Which under normal casual usage probably works great most of the time. But what happens if, say, 15 or 20 of them are all connected and using for downloads/uploads etc at the same time? Al -- At 11:34 AM 10/15/2009 -0400, chris cooper wrote: --- At 500k per user I would cap users at 50 on that single AP. 35 would be better. Chris Cooper Intelliwave -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Al Stewart Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. Al WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ -- END QUOTE - - Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Simultaneous connections
I know ... there's no easy answer. We have a situation where in the early morning speeds are in the vicinity of 2000 (2.0 meg), and by 4:30 in the afternoon, speeds will drop to 1/4 of that. That says to me that there are a number of people doing pretty steady usage ... but I could be wrong. There may be other factors. Al -- At 09:35 AM 10/15/2009 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: --- It's a moving target. It's also dependant on your customer habits. Grandma and grandpa customers will allow more per ap than a family with 3 teenagers. It also changes throughout the day. My business customers tend to have more steady usage (people listening to the radio, 10 people checking email every 5 minutes, chat windows open, remote computing apps etc.). My home based customers have higher peaks but use less on a consistent basis. Here's an interesting note. We have about 70/30 home vs. business customers. It might even be 80/20. Our business users today use ALMOST as much bandwidth from 8 to 5 as my home users use from 6 to 11pm. Sorry I'm not able to give you more specific help. marlon - Original Message - From: Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:21 AM Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. Al WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ -- END QUOTE - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Simultaneous connections
Thanks ... this helps. One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times at least what the nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be ALL the routers in the system. Al -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to address those conditions. The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets and/or lots of uploads. Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing to be up or down during the congestion time. Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. Therfore when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited amount of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. We took a two prong approach to fix. 1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set to end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to have a time slice for uploading. 2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every users gets fair weight to available bandwdith. With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively to most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb plans. But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is reached packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end user, because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to slower speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of the radio speed, to minmiize the damage one person can do. VIDEO can quickly harm that model for the individual end user doing video, it prevents the video guy from harming all the other subs. Therefore if someone complains about speeds, its jsut teh one person that gets discruntled, not the whole subscriber base.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Okay, that's the ideal ratio. Which under normal casual usage probably works great most of the time. But what happens if, say, 15 or 20 of them are all connected and using for downloads/uploads etc at the same time? Al -- At 11:34 AM 10/15/2009 -0400, chris cooper wrote: --- At 500k per user I would cap users at 50 on that single AP. 35 would be better. Chris Cooper Intelliwave -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Al Stewart Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Using a 900 AP (like Trango) theoretically allows up to 3000 (3.0 meg) bandwidth. But there has to be a limit on how many simultaneous connections can go through the AP and maintain bandwidth. At what point -- how many using/downloading etc at the same time -- would the bandwidth be reduced by usage to below 500 (.5 meg) or lower? There has to, logically, be some kind of limit to what the pipe will hande. We're trying to evaluate our user to AP ratio in real life. Al -- END QUOTE - - Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
How do D-Link products rate in your experience? Al -- At 02:48 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Nick Olsen wrote: --- This could be a very touchy topic. Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At your location or your ISP's its inevitable. But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they remove the router and it all works great suddenly. As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I know back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on wan to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down under the 10Mb/s mark. I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Thanks ... this helps. One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times at least what the nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be ALL the routers in the system. Al -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to address those conditions. The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets and/or lots of uploads. Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing to be up or down during the congestion time. Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. Therfore when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited amount of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. We took a two prong approach to fix. 1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set to end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to have a time slice for uploading. 2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every users gets fair weight to available bandwdith. With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively to most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb plans. But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is reached packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end user, because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to slower speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of the radio speed, to minmiize the damage one person can do. VIDEO can quickly harm that model for the individual end user doing video, it prevents the video guy from harming all the other subs. Therefore if someone complains about speeds, its jsut teh one person that gets discruntled, not the whole subscriber base.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Al Stewart To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Okay, that's the ideal ratio. Which under normal casual usage probably
Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections
Which routers/brands are you referring to? And what do you consider the good brands? Al -- At 06:45 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, RickG wrote: --- Cheap routers will be the death of me! I can take just about any off the shelf router and compare speed tests and they loose 25-50% throughput. The cheaper the router, the worse it is. Along with other issues such as disconnects, etc. -RickG On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Nick Olsen n...@brevardwireless.com wrote: This could be a very touchy topic. Routers, are everywhere. Someone can't blame a router for all there problems because at some point your internet goes through a router. At your location or your ISP's its inevitable. But why have routers gotten such a bad name? I believe this is the fact that most SOHO routers are trash. Generally your average home user isn't doing much to notice a router. But then you get your users that are heavy on the P2P or something they find the router gets slow.. Most SOHO routers don't handle P2P very well because the number of connections. So they remove the router and it all works great suddenly. As for the actual question. No, most routers are not the cause of speed/bandwidth issues. As today most of them are decently equipped. I know back in the day I saw many a netgear 614 have about a 14Mb/s ceiling on wan to lan throughput. Add in lots of P2P connections and that could come down under the 10Mb/s mark. I really like the idea of the new RB750, I have one running right now and its capable of doing 98Mb/s TCP at about 60% cpu load. This is in the standard soho config (1 wan, 4 lan, nat, no queues) Nick Olsen Brevard Wireless (321) 205-1100 x106 From: Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Simultaneous connections Thanks ... this helps. One more question. Do routers being used by the subscribers (wired or wireless) ever affect the speed/bandwidth. I don't see how that can be as they are designed to pass 10 Meg to the WAN, which is six times at least what the nominal bandwidth would be. One tech guy is trying to blame routers for all problems. But I have yet to see the logic in that. Unless of course one is malfunctioning or dying or something. But that can't be ALL the routers in the system. Al -- At 02:15 PM 10/15/2009 -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote: --- Everything goes to crap, unless you've put in bandwdith management to address those conditions. The problem gets worse when Traffic becomes... Lots of small packets and/or lots of uploads. Obviously Peer-to-Peer can have those characteristics. The bigger problem is NOT fairly sharing bandwidith per sub, but instead managing based on what percentage of bandwidth is going up versus down. This can be a problem when Bandwdith mangement is Full Duplex, and Radios are Half Duplex, and its never certain whether end user traffic is gfoing to be up or down during the congestion time. Generally congestion will happen in teh upload direction more, because its common practice to assume majority of bandwidth use is in teh download direction, so most providers allocate more bandwdith for download. Therfore when there is an unsuspecting surge in upload bandwdith, the limited amount of upload capacity gets saturated sooner. We took a two prong approach to fix. 1) We used Trango 900Mhz internal bandwidth management, to help. MIRs set to end user sold full speed, and CIR set really low (maybe 5% of MIR speed). Primary purpose was to reserve ENOUGH minimal capacity for end users to have a time slice for uploading. 2) At our first hop router, we setup Fair Weighted Queuing, so every users gets fair weight to available bandwdith. With 5.8Ghz, we did not use Bandwdith management on the trango itself. If you have good queuing, customers rarely ever notice when there is congestion. They might slow down to 100kbps now and then, but end uses really dont realize it for most applications, becaue the degragation of service rarely lasts long because oversubscription is low comparatively to most ISPs. Usually end use bandwidth tests will still reach in the 1-1.5 mbps level ranges. We run about 40-50 users per AP, selling 1mb and 2mb plans. But the key is Queuing If you dont have it, when congestion is reached packet loss occurs, and degregation is much more noticeable by the end user, because TCP will become way more sporatic in its self-tunning. We also learned faster speeds w/ Queuing worked much better than Limiting to slower speeds. We also learned avoid having speed plans higher than 60-70% of the radio speed, to minmiize the damage one person can do. VIDEO can quickly harm that model for the individual end user doing video, it prevents the video guy from harming all
Re: [WISPA] Customer to Bandwidth Ratio
I get time out problems. Firefox says the site was taking too long to respond. Al -- At 08:03 AM 09/14/2009 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: --- That link popped right open for me. I'm also outside of that network. marlon - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Customer to Bandwidth Ratio This doesn't work (can't get to port 81; if it's MT check to see that you have an admins list and a default drop input policy on it): http://64.146.146.1:81/graphs/iface/uplink-to-pud/ I did have to upgrade a backhaul link to one of the towers recently. It tested plenty fast but pings would jump to 2000 to 3000ms when you ran a ping test. My *theory* is that the link was able to handle the speed but not the number of threads running through it. Do you mean PPS? Threads are built on processes, a CPU thing. Being in Washington I'm sure you love trees. And Microsoft =P Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Marlon K. Schafer o...@odessaoffice.comwrote: We test with speakeasy.net most of the time. It can be jerky too. We've got nearly 400 wireless or fiber to the home (plus servers) subs on a 20 meg pipe. Here's the current usage: http://64.146.146.1:81/graphs/iface/uplink-to-pud/ I did have to upgrade a backhaul link to one of the towers recently. It tested plenty fast but pings would jump to 2000 to 3000ms when you ran a ping test. My *theory* is that the link was able to handle the speed but not the number of threads running through it. It was some Airaya gear that had been in place for the better part of 5 or 6 years. I sure wish more of my gear would sit there that long and just work and work and work! I think I only did one firmware upgrade too! Don't forget that we also charge per bit. Not per speed. Our users likely use less bandwidth than the average one does. Out here, with our high costs for bandwidth make that matter. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 7:03 AM Subject: [WISPA] Customer to Bandwidth Ratio I'm sure this has been asked before but what ratio are some of you using for customer vs. available bandwidth? We aren't experiencing any problems at the moment but I want to know when we should start looking to add capacity. Our competitor is running 20 up and 20 down but has 500+ customers on it and if I do a speed test the pings are fast, 32 or so, but it's really jerky on the download and uploads. So.. What is a good REAL WORLD ratio that you use that is smooth? Thanks! Robert West Just Micro Digital Services Inc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ -- END QUOTE - WISPA Wants You! Join today!
Re: [WISPA] Usage caps
Anyone else putting usage caps on subscribers? Where do you set the max number of Gigs? And how much are you charging for those who go beyond the limit? Al -- At 09:21 AM 04/16/2009 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: --- Yeppers. http://www.odessaoffice.com/services.html We generate about a $1k per month because of them. Plus the business customers that we've had to put onto bigger accounts because they always went over. The biggest benefit though? Running off the hogs!! We keep the people that want to download movies off our system and on everyone elses. Our customers normally get much better service. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 7:58 AM Subject: [WISPA] Usage caps I realize this is a controversial question, but one we are being forced to consider. Do any of you have usage caps on your systems? And charges per gig over that limit? Al - Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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/ -- END QUOTE - - Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Usage caps
I realize this is a controversial question, but one we are being forced to consider. Do any of you have usage caps on your systems? And charges per gig over that limit? Al - Al Stewart stewa...@westcreston.ca - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.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] Alvarion
Does anyone have any experience with Alvarion wireless products? Al WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
