Re: [WISPA] Advice on PTP link over water?
Why not just run it in the LinkPlanner and find out? On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Christopher Hair wrote: > We use 5.8Ghz PTP & PTMP and 900Mhz PTMP to reach customers on the other > side of a lake about 2.2 miles wide. AP side is on a 40ft pole mounted at > the edge of the lake shore. SM's are approx. 25 feet above the water on the > other side. This site has been running now for about 18 months without any > issues. > > Chris > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Robert West > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:04 PM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advice on PTP link over water? > > Look at 900MHz. It's my understanding that 900MHz is crazy good over > water. > > Albert- > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Sharples > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 4:51 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] Advice on PTP link over water? > > Hi, we need to install an aprox. 8 mile PTP 5.8Ghz link near the Big Island > in Hawaii. One end will be at about 50ft MSL, while the other end is at > about 3500ft. The first 4 miles are over water, with rest over moderately > hilly terrain to a freestanding 50ft tower. The ends have LOS. Ordinarly > I'd > just use a conventional setup with a pair of 2' dish antennas and XR5 > radios, but am considering using dual-polarity feedhorns (or even separate > dishes) and diversity or dual radios due to the water. Is this worth the > effort, or should we just use e.g. horizontal polarity and stick to it? > Since the one end is much higher than the other I'm thinking this should > mitigate water effects, but would welcome any opinions. > > Thanks, > > Tom S. > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.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] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google
AND we spells it gooad twooz! On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > Matt, > > I find it incredably interesting and clever that you have managed to > operate > your network on private IP addresses. > However, the problem you are running into now is one common reason others > have given in to using public IP addresses. > > Having public IPs throughout your transport network is not necessary, we > use > all private IPs for all our radios. > But there is a large risk not giving end users, or small groups of end > users > their own public IP space. > The inherent problem is, that if one person causes an AUP violation, it > risks ALL subs. > There becomes a point where you grow large enough that your volume then > increases the chances of someone making a violation, where that risk puts > to > many existing customers at risk to everyone else. > > The two most common situations are... > Sending Email. and > Reported as a BitTorrent users. > > Large ISPs are becomming much quicker to simply immediately block an IP > assumed to be a potential threat. > > The risk can be reduced by devidign your network into multiple smaller > groups and assigning multiple public IPs each to one of these groups. > Now when there is a problem, fewer customers are effected, and lower odds > that group will have one detected. > > I can tell you in our world, if we have a business sub get their traffic > blocked/compromised because of the usage of another business, it quickly > leads to letter of cancellation. Its a common reason that WISPs will > eventually convert to public IPs, and leverage BGP to bypass being held > hostage by upstream providers. > But even still it adds a level of inflexibilty for internal network IP > assignment. > > Ironically, you probably have less BitTorrent problems, considering your > Private IP sceam. > > What this really is is a NetNeutrality issue. Yahoo,Google, and Hotmail > have > the rights to methods of Network Management. And there is a concensus > between them that this method of network management is an acceptable best > practice, and its your problem if you NAT all your users to a few IPs. > > You'll also see problems with poor rankings with "IP Reputation" methods of > Anti-spam. > > Another issue to consider is that Hotmail, Yahoo, and Google prefer to know > exactly where the end user resides, so they can better direct > advertisement. > NATing your customer base to a single NOC location, is distruptive to their > long term advertizing goals for target marketing. Its likely this battle > wont end here with this insodent. > > IF your problems are primarilly Email related, you can try to signup for > feedback loops to help, and make sure SPF records are valid, valid PTRs and > stuff. But if just to web sites, well, not sure their is an answer other > than to change the source IP address for the traffic. In that scenario you > may want to setup some sort of load balancing routine, to redirect > outbound > sessions to different source IPs or Proxy servers. > > A problem where we see it is with Hotels. We'll give a few IPs to the > Hotel, > and then NAT to all their rooms. When one of the overnight guests decides > to > download a copyrighted movie, we get an AUP notice, and ahve to react. > Obviously for a Hotel, we ahve no way to contact that subscriber or know > who > it is for Hotel confidentiality reasons. Sometimes upstreams might just > block that Public IP that serves them, if they didn't like our answer. Then > the whole Hotel will have problems. (The preferred solution is for us to > block access to the offending host site). This is one reason many Hotel > Hotspot providers try to ask for full Class C PUBLIC IP blocks for their > circuits. Then only the one room gets blocked if they violate AUP. This > has > not been a big problem, because my upstream is easy to work with and rarely > blocks traffic. But this situation demonstrates my point. > > Good luck with it. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Matt Larsen - Lists" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:22 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] NAT issue with Hotmail/Yahoo/Google > > > >I believe that we have fixed this by using the StarOS policy routing to > > split up some of our subnets to SourceNAT through a different IP address > > on our NAT server. > > > > If we are going to get into the public vs. privates discussion, well > > > > I have used NAT for customer IP addresses from day 1. I used to use > > publics, but it was a tremendous pain in the ass, and would be very > > difficult to implement on my current network design (routed subnets at > > every single location) so I have no interest in giving each customer > > their own public IP address. There are about 160 private subnets on > > the access points in my network, so I have no intention of switching to > > publics anytime soon. I also
Re: [WISPA] spectrum analysis - 5dBm interference at 5785
absolutely. is it shielded? even more likely now that we know about the cell tower... On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Randy Cosby wrote: > Are you saying you think the 5875 signal could be coming through > cabling? Like a bad poe injector or something? > > Randy > > > Gary McWhirter wrote: > > Cabling? > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Randy Cosby > wrote: > > > > > >> Well, we replaced the backhaul (osbridge) and get the same readings on > >> the new one. The old one does not get the same readings when moved to > >> another location, so it's picking up SOMETHING. Powered down everything > >> else, same problem. So, someone is slamming me with a ton of signal > >> near 5875... Now to find out where it's coming from. > >> > >> Any recommendations for a 5 gig spectrum analyzer? Ubiquiti airview > >> looks interesting, but only for 2.4 and 900. Guess I can use the > >> built-in one in the osbridge, but it's not too fast / granular. > >> > >> Randy > >> > >> > >> Randy Cosby wrote: > >> > >>> Did that - don't have the results here with me, but there was quite a > >>> poor noise floor around the middle of the band - just like the osbridge > >>> reported. Not nearly as severe though. > >>> > >>> Randy > >>> > >>> > >>> Scott Carullo wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Just do a survey on the AP, really thats all that matters... its easy > >>>> takes a few minutes and you have the data you need to make educated > >>>> decision. > >>>> > >>>> Scott Carullo > >>>> Brevard Wireless > >>>> 321-205-1100 x102 > >>>> Original Message > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> From: "Randy Cosby" > >>>>> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 11:45 AM > >>>>> To: "WISPA General List" > >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] spectrum analysis - 5dBm interference at 5785 > >>>>> > >>>>> Quite likely you're right. > >>>>> > >>>>> I tried shutting off the trango AP's with no luck - same bad spectrum > >>>>> analysis. I'm next going to go on site and do linktests on the AP's > >>>>> with the backhaul off. > >>>>> > >>>>> My suspicion is the backhaul is bad - at least the spectrum analysis, > >>>>> but it is potentially the source of interference as well. > >>>>> > >>>>> Randy > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Lakeland wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Randy, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You cant go by that spectrum analyzer. Something is wrong. Most > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> receivers > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> can't handle 5dbm pumped into them without killing them. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -B- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Randy Cosby writes: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Over the weekend we started getting complaints about a bad > linktests > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>> for > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>> all customers on an old trango AP site. I've tried finding a > cleaner > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>> channel, but am not having much luck getting good linktests up > there. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>> > &
Re: [WISPA] spectrum analysis - 5dBm interference at 5785
Cabling? On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Randy Cosby wrote: > Well, we replaced the backhaul (osbridge) and get the same readings on > the new one. The old one does not get the same readings when moved to > another location, so it's picking up SOMETHING. Powered down everything > else, same problem. So, someone is slamming me with a ton of signal > near 5875... Now to find out where it's coming from. > > Any recommendations for a 5 gig spectrum analyzer? Ubiquiti airview > looks interesting, but only for 2.4 and 900. Guess I can use the > built-in one in the osbridge, but it's not too fast / granular. > > Randy > > > Randy Cosby wrote: > > Did that - don't have the results here with me, but there was quite a > > poor noise floor around the middle of the band - just like the osbridge > > reported. Not nearly as severe though. > > > > Randy > > > > > > Scott Carullo wrote: > > > >> Just do a survey on the AP, really thats all that matters... its easy > >> takes a few minutes and you have the data you need to make educated > >> decision. > >> > >> Scott Carullo > >> Brevard Wireless > >> 321-205-1100 x102 > >> Original Message > >> > >> > >>> From: "Randy Cosby" > >>> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 11:45 AM > >>> To: "WISPA General List" > >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] spectrum analysis - 5dBm interference at 5785 > >>> > >>> Quite likely you're right. > >>> > >>> I tried shutting off the trango AP's with no luck - same bad spectrum > >>> analysis. I'm next going to go on site and do linktests on the AP's > >>> with the backhaul off. > >>> > >>> My suspicion is the backhaul is bad - at least the spectrum analysis, > >>> but it is potentially the source of interference as well. > >>> > >>> Randy > >>> > >>> > >>> Lakeland wrote: > >>> > >>> > Randy, > > You cant go by that spectrum analyzer. Something is wrong. Most > > > >> receivers > >> > >> > can't handle 5dbm pumped into them without killing them. > > -B- > > > > > > > Randy Cosby writes: > > > > > > Over the weekend we started getting complaints about a bad linktests > > > > > >> for > >> > >> > > all customers on an old trango AP site. I've tried finding a cleaner > > > > > >> > >> > > channel, but am not having much luck getting good linktests up there. > > > > > >> > >> > > This is one of the first sites I built, and use a couple OSBridge > 5Gxi > > > > > >> > >> > > radios to backhaul. I found they added a spectrum analyzer to a > > > > > >> newer > >> > >> > > firmware version, so I installed it and ran a analysis of the site. > > > > > >> It > >> > >> > > shows a 5dBm signal at 5785! Not -5, but 5. See attached. It > > > > > >> appears > >> > >> > > that something VERY hot is either pointed at my AP site, or something > > > > > >> up > >> > >> > > there has started interfering. > > > > Spectrum analysis from the near side of the link was relatively > clean. > > > > > >> > >> > > Any suggestions on where to start my search? > > > > Randy > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob Moldashel > Lakeland Communications, Inc. > 1350 Lincoln Avenue > Holbrook, NY 11741 > 800-479-9195 > 631-286-8873 Fax > 516-551-1131 Cell > > > > > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > >>> > >>> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >>> > >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>> > >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> > > >> > >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > >> >
