Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Thanks! Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Hi Chuck, Need to put the new AirOS 3.0 firmware on the NS5s and they will work as expected. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] CHUCK PROFITO wrote: > Has anyone on the list noticed on the 5.x nanos, that when selecting 10 Mhz > channels, that they only line up in the center of the channel, not like the > Star OS base AP, that can slide back and forth to the edges. Are we missing > something...what are you guys doing in a crowded environment with these? > > Chuck Profito > 209-988-7388 > CV-ACCESS, INC > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Providing High Speed Broadband > to Rural Central California > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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] Nanostations
Hi Chuck, Need to put the new AirOS 3.0 firmware on the NS5s and they will work as expected. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] CHUCK PROFITO wrote: > Has anyone on the list noticed on the 5.x nanos, that when selecting 10 Mhz > channels, that they only line up in the center of the channel, not like the > Star OS base AP, that can slide back and forth to the edges. Are we missing > something...what are you guys doing in a crowded environment with these? > > Chuck Profito > 209-988-7388 > CV-ACCESS, INC > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Providing High Speed Broadband > to Rural Central California > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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] Nanostations
Has anyone on the list noticed on the 5.x nanos, that when selecting 10 Mhz channels, that they only line up in the center of the channel, not like the Star OS base AP, that can slide back and forth to the edges. Are we missing something...what are you guys doing in a crowded environment with these? Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote: >If you needed virtualization of some type, you could install it as >the host OS, then install your Mikrotik or Asterisk or... on top. It's not that it was something I "needed", but am using it since it is already installed. In order to get the particular projects I am working on, the way it is now is the best option. >I guess I meant things that we can't already get somewhere else. >Mikrotik themselves has to do a lot of things, but we can do Xen on >our own. Since I don't direct MT in their plans (in fact, it seems the best way to ensure something DOESN'T happen is for me to ask for it), I can't offer you any advice here. In some respects, I agree with your sentiment. I just use what's there. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
Maybe you got confused with the OSwave firmware
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:11 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Hi,
I would have bet any amount of money that I saw "polling" as an option
in the AirOS stuff... but now that I am looking for it, I can't seem to
find it. :(
Travis
Randy Cosby wrote:
Where is the polling you refer to? Is that in the beta firmware or
something? I haven't noticed it.
Randy
Travis Johnson wrote:
The AirOS that comes on the Nanostations also has polling
the
issue is having a product that is compatible and has the
features that
people are already used to. Having Mikrotik on the Nano's would
open
up a whole new world.
Travis
Gino Villarini wrote:
Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations
with oswave firmware. The oswave has polling...
gino
-Original Message-
From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
To: WISPA General List
<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Travis Johnson wrote:
Matt,
I agree with almost everything you said...
except the polling part.
Having a robust, efficient polling system is the
best thing available
for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main
reasons we are now using
Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling
system. We are
finding now it's not the same quality as
Trango's polling, but it does
work.
How else do you keep a single customer from
taking down an entire AP
with a large upload (usually from an infection,
virus, worm, etc.)? I
have tested this over and over and over, and
every time I come back to
the same conclusion... you have to have a
polling system to control
the upload, otherwise the customer with the best
signal dominates the
AP (on the upload side).
Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with
two connected clients
without polling. Start an upload on one client
and then try doing a
download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My
tests show the
download and/or ping to be very unreliable and
very sporadic. Now, if
you turn polling on and do the same test,
everything works fine while
the upload is running and the 2nd client can't
even tell there is an
upload running.
Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the
upload speed coming
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the
total capacity
of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test
right now, and I
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter.
What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a
Nanostation running
Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that
would be the killer
CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now
today. :)
Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.
Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
Travis
Microserv
Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
Hi Travis,
I'm with you - the Nanostations are a
pretty amazing product. I've
been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz
channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with
StarOS access points and the
performance/interference r
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Hi, I would have bet any amount of money that I saw "polling" as an option in the AirOS stuff... but now that I am looking for it, I can't seem to find it. :( Travis Randy Cosby wrote: Where is the polling you refer to? Is that in the beta firmware or something? I haven't noticed it. Randy Travis Johnson wrote: The AirOS that comes on the Nanostations also has polling the issue is having a product that is compatible and has the features that people are already used to. Having Mikrotik on the Nano's would open up a whole new world. Travis Gino Villarini wrote: Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. The oswave has polling... gino -Original Message- From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does work. How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the AP (on the upload side). Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an upload running. Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Hi Travis, I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product. I've been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is pretty amazing at ANY price point. I could say the same thing for the newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the Ubiquity price point just yet. It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS platforms. I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the Nanostation radios. That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc). No polling, but that is one of the most overrated features anyway. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less than $200
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
If you needed virtualization of some type, you could install it as the host OS, then install your Mikrotik or Asterisk or... on top. I guess I meant things that we can't already get somewhere else. Mikrotik themselves has to do a lot of things, but we can do Xen on our own. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 10:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote: > >>Right, but my point was that Mikrotik doesn't need to be worrying >>about virtualization. They need to put some more work into QA and >>USEFUL feature expansion, like into 802.11 and 802.16, not Xen. > > You don't think XEN can be useful? I have it in testing now on 2 > unique types of deployments that will save me about $340 PER > location (possibly over 2000 locations)...I find it pretty > useful...if it works, that is. > > -- > > *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * > *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS* > *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * > *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * > *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* > *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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] Nanostations
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote: >Right, but my point was that Mikrotik doesn't need to be worrying >about virtualization. They need to put some more work into QA and >USEFUL feature expansion, like into 802.11 and 802.16, not Xen. You don't think XEN can be useful? I have it in testing now on 2 unique types of deployments that will save me about $340 PER location (possibly over 2000 locations)...I find it pretty useful...if it works, that is. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Jim Patient wrote: >Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant Virtualization (Zen). Got Jim, too...he meant Virtualization (Xen). :-) -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote: >They just copied someone else's card, though I forget now who. >It's in the FCC docs. IIRC, the MT cards are relabled Compex cards. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Scottie Arnett wrote: >DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few >chipsets. They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS >is...but, if Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be >suprised if they or a new project starts very quickly to serve that >need. MT does not appear to be dropping X86 support...I see more and more features specifically built for X86. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations - question
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Charles Wu wrote: So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to do some research on Nanostations You didn't do quite enough research. :-) (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market) Ok. I'll do it, but I'll be gentle. ;-) Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi Here's the part that you missed. This thread is about putting Mikrotik on the nanostations. Mikrotik, if it can be installed on the NS, enables the ability to run NStreme, which supports the option to turn off CSMA. That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the Nanostation and AirOS Out of curiosity, where are your numbers coming from? I'm not doubting that Tranzeo is a "market leader", but would like to see some clarification of this or know if it is simply an opinion. If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that $150 / CPE level Correct here. The "good news" is that while the AirOS is very nice, it is not NEAR as functional as Mikrotik. The thing that makes this attractive to WISPs is cost, but even more than that, it is the combination of cost + MT functionality + a very nice package. With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based WISP buy anything else? Very good question. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
Right, but my point was that Mikrotik doesn't need to be worrying about virtualization. They need to put some more work into QA and USEFUL feature expansion, like into 802.11 and 802.16, not Xen. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jim Patient" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > No Mike, not just our systems, any x86 system. That is why we don't > think they are ending x86 support any time soon. > > The package is in testing now and hasn't been officially released. > > Mikrotik continually works to improve the OS. They normally respond > well to bugs and fixes. They take votes from users on feature > requests. You can vote at: > http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/MikroTik_RouterOS/v3/Feature_Requests > > Jim > > Mike Hammett wrote: >> So let me get this right... Instead of working on wireless drivers, >> improving the existing feature set, stabilizing the whole router, etc. >> Mikrotik has been working on making your router virtual server host? >> Before >> I complain directly to Mikrotik, could you point me to something official >> saying that is out? >> >> Why don't they add on Media Center capability so I can store movies and >> TV >> shows on my router and stream them to my XBox, or heck, let me plug in a >> TV >> so I can play them directly from the router? >> >> Maybe they could just directly integrate with an XBox 360 and a DirecTV? >> >> >> -- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Jim Patient" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >> >> >> >>> Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant Virtualization (Zen). So >>> now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server >>> all on one Mikrotik box. Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the >>> PR 2282 to do this. >>> >>> Jim// >>> >>> Mike Hammett wrote: >>> >>>> Visualization? >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mike Hammett >>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>> >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Dennis Burgess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" >>>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86. Seeing >>>>> that >>>>> they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform! >>>>> >>>>> Scottie Arnett wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few >>>>>> chipsets. >>>>>> They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if >>>>>> Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a >>>>>> new >>>>>> project starts very quickly to serve that need. >>>>>> >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Original Message -- >>>>>> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> Reply-To: WISPA General List >>>>>> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Original Message - >>>>>>> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe Mikrotik should take a n
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
DD-WRT does run on the NS. Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: > I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. > > - Original Message - > From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > > >> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember >> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company >> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? >> >> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a >> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or >> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary >> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good >> code already written and being developed? >> >> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed >> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. >> solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. >> >> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some >> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into >> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to >> "port" every stinking firmware flavor. >> >> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful >> business model .. ever? >> >> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware >> does X better". Is there anything particularly different between >> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? >> >> - japhy >> >> >>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit >>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and >>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see >>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik >>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of >>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand >>>> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware >>>> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be >>>> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are >>>> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up >>>> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. >>>> >>>> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with >>>> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact >>>> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less >>>> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It >>>> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. >>>> >>>> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend >>>> market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path >>>> would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as >>>> well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make >>>> $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS >>>> network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after >>>> manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, >>>> especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti >>>> really expressed and interest in working with them. >>>> >>>> Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is >>>> interested... >>>> >>>> Sam Tetherow >>>> Sandhills Wireless >>>> >>>> Matt Ferre wrote: >>>>> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't >>>>> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly >>>>> see why. >>>>> >>>>> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, >>>>> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years >>>>> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the >>>>> software
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question
There are some apples / oranges differences between Tranzeo and Nanostation that Tranzeo really ought to trumpet more. Things like firmware rollbacks, built-in RAID file systems, etc. And they have had a lot more time to work out a lot of bugs and irritations. All of mine just work. Oh, and fcc-approved 5.4 :) They seem to be at or near the end of their development timeline though for the current product line. So on the surface, feature-wise, NS does trump them. I just don't trust them yet. My first experience with the NS5 in a PTP link was not the best. Eventually a beta firmware helped stop it from locking up randomly after a few days. Not something I'd use for another year or more for a critical client. Randy Charles Wu wrote: That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the Nanostation and AirOS WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
Randy Cosby wrote: Is polling like token passing? Say something like http://frottle.sourceforge.net/ ? > Where is the polling you refer to? Is that in the beta firmware or > something? I haven't noticed it. > > Randy > > -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
Where is the polling you refer to? Is that in the beta firmware or something? I haven't noticed it. Randy Travis Johnson wrote: > The AirOS that comes on the Nanostations also has polling the > issue is having a product that is compatible and has the features that > people are already used to. Having Mikrotik on the Nano's would open > up a whole new world. > > Travis > > Gino Villarini wrote: >> Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. >> The oswave has polling... >> >> gino >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >> >> Travis Johnson wrote: >> >>> Matt, >>> >>> I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. >>> Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available >>> for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using >>> Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are >>> finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does >>> work. >>> >>> How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP >>> with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I >>> have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to >>> the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control >>> the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the >>> AP (on the upload side). >>> >>> Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients >>> without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a >>> download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the >>> download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if >>> you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while >>> the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an >>> upload running. >>> >> >> Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming >> from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity >> of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I >> have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. >> >> >>> What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running >>> Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer >>> CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) >>> >>> >> >> Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. >> >> Matt Larsen >> vistabeam.com >> >>> Travis >>> Microserv >>> >>> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Travis, >>>> >>>> I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product. I've >>>> been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with >>>> StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is >>>> pretty amazing at ANY price point. I could say the same thing for the >>>> newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the >>>> Ubiquity price point just yet. >>>> >>>> It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich >>>> features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference >>>> resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus >>>> able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS >>>> platforms. >>>> >>>> I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the >>>> Nanostation radios. That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna >>>> mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - >>>> and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would >>>> end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every >>>> feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at >>>> the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc). No polling, >>>> but that is one of the most overrated features anyway. >>>> >>>> Matt Larsen >>>> vistabeam.com >>>> >>>> >>>&
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
No Mike, not just our systems, any x86 system. That is why we don't think they are ending x86 support any time soon. The package is in testing now and hasn't been officially released. Mikrotik continually works to improve the OS. They normally respond well to bugs and fixes. They take votes from users on feature requests. You can vote at: http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/MikroTik_RouterOS/v3/Feature_Requests Jim Mike Hammett wrote: > So let me get this right... Instead of working on wireless drivers, > improving the existing feature set, stabilizing the whole router, etc. > Mikrotik has been working on making your router virtual server host? Before > I complain directly to Mikrotik, could you point me to something official > saying that is out? > > Why don't they add on Media Center capability so I can store movies and TV > shows on my router and stream them to my XBox, or heck, let me plug in a TV > so I can play them directly from the router? > > Maybe they could just directly integrate with an XBox 360 and a DirecTV? > > > -- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > - Original Message - > From: "Jim Patient" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > > > >> Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant Virtualization (Zen). So >> now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server >> all on one Mikrotik box. Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the >> PR 2282 to do this. >> >> Jim// >> >> Mike Hammett wrote: >> >>> Visualization? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Dennis Burgess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86. Seeing that >>>> they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform! >>>> >>>> Scottie Arnett wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few >>>>> chipsets. >>>>> They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if >>>>> Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a >>>>> new >>>>> project starts very quickly to serve that need. >>>>> >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> -- Original Message -- >>>>> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> Reply-To: WISPA General List >>>>> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Original Message - >>>>>> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember >>>>>>> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company >>>>>>> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a >>>>>>> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or >>>>>>> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary >>>>>>> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good >>>>>>> code already written and being developed? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed >>>>>>> at users who are less savvy about the g
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
On Jul 20, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: > Thay just need to add a couple of features to the t45... > > Better ethernet configuration options > > 5 10 40 channels support > > gino DD-WRT has Ubiquity versions now. Didn't have much luck with it as a client (on a NS5), but haven't tried it at the AP. -- Bryan WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
I agree... and I actually emailed their support group last night before this message even came out about the EXACT same thing... they seem really hung up on adding new features instead of fixing or improving the real issues. Travis Microserv Mike Hammett wrote: So let me get this right... Instead of working on wireless drivers, improving the existing feature set, stabilizing the whole router, etc. Mikrotik has been working on making your router virtual server host? Before I complain directly to Mikrotik, could you point me to something official saying that is out? Why don't they add on Media Center capability so I can store movies and TV shows on my router and stream them to my XBox, or heck, let me plug in a TV so I can play them directly from the router? Maybe they could just directly integrate with an XBox 360 and a DirecTV? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jim Patient" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant Virtualization (Zen). So now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server all on one Mikrotik box. Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the PR 2282 to do this. Jim// Mike Hammett wrote: Visualization? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Dennis Burgess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86. Seeing that they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform! Scottie Arnett wrote: DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new project starts very quickly to serve that need. Scott -- Original Message -- From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600 I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. - Original Message - From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good code already written and being developed? Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to "port" every stinking firmware flavor. Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful business model .. ever? And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware does X better". Is there anything particularly different between Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? - japhy And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtiona
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
So let me get this right... Instead of working on wireless drivers, improving the existing feature set, stabilizing the whole router, etc. Mikrotik has been working on making your router virtual server host? Before I complain directly to Mikrotik, could you point me to something official saying that is out? Why don't they add on Media Center capability so I can store movies and TV shows on my router and stream them to my XBox, or heck, let me plug in a TV so I can play them directly from the router? Maybe they could just directly integrate with an XBox 360 and a DirecTV? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jim Patient" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant Virtualization (Zen). So > now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server > all on one Mikrotik box. Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the > PR 2282 to do this. > > Jim// > > Mike Hammett wrote: >> Visualization? >> >> >> -- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Dennis Burgess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >> >> >> >>> Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86. Seeing that >>> they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform! >>> >>> Scottie Arnett wrote: >>> >>>> DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few >>>> chipsets. >>>> They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if >>>> Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a >>>> new >>>> project starts very quickly to serve that need. >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> -- Original Message -- >>>> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Reply-To: WISPA General List >>>> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. >>>>> >>>>> - Original Message - >>>>> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember >>>>>> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company >>>>>> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? >>>>>> >>>>>> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a >>>>>> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or >>>>>> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary >>>>>> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good >>>>>> code already written and being developed? >>>>>> >>>>>> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed >>>>>> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. >>>>>> solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. >>>>>> >>>>>> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some >>>>>> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market >>>>>> into >>>>>> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to >>>>>> "port" every stinking firmware flavor. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful >>>>>> business model .. ever? >>>>>> >>>>>> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this >>>>>> firmware >>>>>> does X better". Is there anything particularly different between >>>>>> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant Virtualization (Zen). So now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server all on one Mikrotik box. Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the PR 2282 to do this. Jim// Mike Hammett wrote: > Visualization? > > > -- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > - Original Message - > From: "Dennis Burgess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > > > >> Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86. Seeing that >> they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform! >> >> Scottie Arnett wrote: >> >>> DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. >>> They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if >>> Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new >>> project starts very quickly to serve that need. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> -- Original Message -- >>> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Reply-To: WISPA General List >>> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600 >>> >>> >>> >>>> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember >>>>> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company >>>>> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? >>>>> >>>>> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a >>>>> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or >>>>> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary >>>>> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good >>>>> code already written and being developed? >>>>> >>>>> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed >>>>> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. >>>>> solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. >>>>> >>>>> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some >>>>> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into >>>>> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to >>>>> "port" every stinking firmware flavor. >>>>> >>>>> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful >>>>> business model .. ever? >>>>> >>>>> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware >>>>> does X better". Is there anything particularly different between >>>>> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? >>>>> >>>>> - japhy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit >>>>>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and >>>>>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see >>>>>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik >>>>>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of >>>>>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't >>>>>>> understand >>>>>>> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware >>>>>>> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be >
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Visualization? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Dennis Burgess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86. Seeing that > they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform! > > Scottie Arnett wrote: >> DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. >> They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if >> Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new >> project starts very quickly to serve that need. >> >> Scott >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: WISPA General List >> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600 >> >> >>> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >>> >>> >>> >>>> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember >>>> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company >>>> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? >>>> >>>> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a >>>> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or >>>> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary >>>> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good >>>> code already written and being developed? >>>> >>>> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed >>>> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. >>>> solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. >>>> >>>> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some >>>> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into >>>> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to >>>> "port" every stinking firmware flavor. >>>> >>>> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful >>>> business model .. ever? >>>> >>>> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware >>>> does X better". Is there anything particularly different between >>>> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? >>>> >>>> - japhy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit >>>>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and >>>>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see >>>>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik >>>>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of >>>>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't >>>>>> understand >>>>>> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware >>>>>> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be >>>>>> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are >>>>>> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick >>>>>> up >>>>>> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional >>>>>> cost. >>>>>> >>>>>> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even >>>>>> with >>>>>> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a >>>>>> compact >>>>>> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 >>>>>> less >>>>>> than just the crossroads
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
A sort of naive question: Is the polling from tc particularly different? Does it need to be done via MAC and not IP? dhcpd can easily assign IPs based on the client's MAC. Do people just need a GUI on top of OpenWRT? -j On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PPPoE, NAT and the queuing are all pretty much available as is in > Linux. The part that really needs to be written, it my opinion is the > polling MAC which is not something many people are probably qualified to > do. It is not a trivial problem to get right, I'm not sure how much is > out there that one could base their code on and I don't know too many > people that are willing to alpha test live customers on one ;) > > I think it would be cool, but I don't have the time to invest in it. I > would be happy to spend a bit of time working on other stuff, such as > wrapping the queuing, nat or other bits, but to actually spend the time > to implement a new MAC, I don't have the skills and don't see me having > the time to acquire those skills to make it happen. But if we find > someone, count me in ;) > >Sam Tetherow >Sandhills Wireless > > Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: >> Well, if there was a framework of working code, and a group to help write a >> spec, I am sure some of us would hack at some of it. For example, a >> fraction of NAT or PPPoE or a filter or whatever could be done in bite size >> pieces. I would love to write a small chunk. I used to support myself >> writing code and still find it mildly theraputic when I seldom get the >> chance. But I really have no clue as to how much ROS or any of the other >> products cost as we are a 100% canopy shop. >> - Original Message ----- >> From: "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:06 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >> >> >> >>> I think for the most part those that would like something like this and >>> have the skills to do it, don't have the time to do the initial work or >>> support it. It is easier to just buy StarOS or ROS, or buy equipment >>> that already has the license for it. >>> >>>Sam Tetherow >>>Sandhills Wireless >>> >>> Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: >>> >>>> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember >>>>> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company >>>>> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? >>>>> >>>>> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a >>>>> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or >>>>> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary >>>>> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good >>>>> code already written and being developed? >>>>> >>>>> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed >>>>> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. >>>>> solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. >>>>> >>>>> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some >>>>> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into >>>>> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to >>>>> "port" every stinking firmware flavor. >>>>> >>>>> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful >>>>> business model .. ever? >>>>> >>>>> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware >>>>> does X better". Is there anything particularly different between >>>>> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? >>>>> >>>>> - japhy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit >>>>>> oriented company with clear
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86. Seeing that they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform! Scottie Arnett wrote: > DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. They > are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if Mikrotikl drops > support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new project starts very > quickly to serve that need. > > Scott > > -- Original Message -- > From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: WISPA General List > Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600 > > >> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >> >> >> >>> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember >>> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company >>> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? >>> >>> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a >>> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or >>> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary >>> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good >>> code already written and being developed? >>> >>> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed >>> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. >>> solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. >>> >>> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some >>> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into >>> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to >>> "port" every stinking firmware flavor. >>> >>> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful >>> business model .. ever? >>> >>> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware >>> does X better". Is there anything particularly different between >>> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? >>> >>> - japhy >>> >>> >>> >>>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit >>>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and >>>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see >>>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik >>>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of >>>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand >>>>> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware >>>>> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be >>>>> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are >>>>> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up >>>>> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. >>>>> >>>>> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with >>>>> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact >>>>> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less >>>>> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It >>>>> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. >>>>> >>>>> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend >>>>> market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path >>>>> would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as >>>>> well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make >>>>> $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS >>>>> network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after >>>>> manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question
Charles, we are a Canopy shop. I think most are looking at the ability to compete more profitably with DSL/cable...at least that is what I am after. Not counting the build out of lines/cable to the customer, the DSL/Cable Co's are out around $50 or less for the CPE end. I have not looked in a while, but about 2 years ago I could get some used 24/48 port dslams for around $3,000...just saw a 48 port lucent stinger on ebay for $1500...so about the same price of a new 900Mhz Canopy AP. While it cost us WISP alot less than DSL/Cable to build our infrastructure, they are out MUCH less for the CPE end and offering carrier class broadband. I am putting the cable buildout to the side, because they already had this done for telephone/TV and have that added revenue to pay for that already. So, yes, a sub $100 CPE is what I am looking for. It may not be carrier class, but if it works...I am all for it. just my thoughts, Scottie Arnett -- Original Message -- From: Charles Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:11:58 -0500 >So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has >peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to do some >research on Nanostations > >(I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as >I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market) > >Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to >being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with the >Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those >products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more >"WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi > >That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running >a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, >however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" (SL2) product >still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the >Nanostation and AirOS > >If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in >the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that >$150 / CPE level > >With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based >WISP buy anything else? > >-Charles > >--- >WiNOG Wireless Roadshows >Coming to a City Near You >http://www.winog.com >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis >Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > >You know, > >It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either... > >It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp >client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of us. > >A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size needed. > >Just a thought. > >Travis Johnson wrote: >Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they >currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per >month of now). > >If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP. > >Travis > >Matt Ferre wrote: > >One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their' > >version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the > >momentum. > > > >First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse > >in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at > >that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based > >applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on > >their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had > >any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all > >your problems. > > > >Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At > >that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too. > > > >Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely > >similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too. > > > >And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit > >oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and > >having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see > >Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik > >supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of &g
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question
Long time, Charles! All my 802.11bg problems are client talking to AP. In all cases, the client can hear the AP just fine. Charles Wu wrote: Hi Blair, A TR-CPQ-x has the following specifications CPQ-N: $165 CPZ-19: $175 (integrated 19 dBi antenna) +23 dBm Output Power Max 23dbm into a 19db antenna = 42dbm out (cpe to AP) -85 dBm @ 11 Mbps -72 dBm @ 54 Mbps Features: Client NAT with QoS (probably Wmm) Not an issue as I bridge to users router The Ubiquiti NS2 has the following specifications NS2: $79.95 (integrated 10 dBi antenna with connector) +26 dBm Output Power Max 26dbm into a 10db antenna = 36dbm out (cpe to AP) -92 dBm @ 11 Mbps -74 dBm @ 54 Mbps Features: >From a manual review perspective, AirOS seems to do miles more than what a Trango CPQ can do Not an issue as I bridge to users router Sometimes, I really need that extra 6db! So...there's not way you're going to spend $100 on a 19 dBi patch and a pigtail...so, assuming availability wasn't an issue or you weren't sitting on stock...why would you even buy a Tranzeo? Because, as I have aged, I find that I LOVE all-in-one radio/antenna with NO connections exposed to the weather! And no coax to kink... Or fill with water... And no more Coax Seal or mastic!! And from a troubleshooting/repair standpoint it makes things so simple. Swap the radio, load the settings and you are out of there! But, I still use Hyperlink 24db grids with the tranzeo CPQ-N as needed. I plan to use the NS 2 with them now, as needed, but it is rare. Most of the time, when I need that much extra, I put the user on turbocell. Soon to be netstream... -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question Charles, I use tranzeo for my 802.11b/g clients since about 2 years ago or so. I am now deploying the NS 2 as I can.get units and where approiate. I will still use the tranzeo cpq-15, (think it replaced by the sl2 now), and the cpq-19 as needed. Charles Wu wrote: So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to do some research on Nanostations (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market) Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi I'd agree with this. I don't use that gear because an ap of mine might only have 6 clients and I can not justify the high AP costs and high CPE costs. That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the Nanostation and AirOS IMHO, correct. But for light duty residental users, they work well and allow us to keep the install costs down. If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that $150 / CPE level I agree, and because of that, the crossroads has no appeal for me, yet. I am considering them as a path to netstream on 2.4GHz to replace my turbocell stuff, as most all of my turbocell gear was assembled by me. With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based WISP buy anything else? Where its antenna gain is enought, I won't. Where I need more gain, I'll use tranzeo -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations You know, It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either... It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of us. A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size needed. Just a thought. Travis Johnson wrote: Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
I believe someone else on here said you can get them with 16 mb flash. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Blair Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Flash size and memory limits? fitting it into 4Mbyt might be easier with some functions deleted. Travis Johnson wrote: Why not just the normal, regular version? Blair Davis wrote: Travis Johnson wrote: I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119 price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :) If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to fit the NS 2/5 mikrotik would likely deal Just show them the money. But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? Travis Microserv Matt Ferre wrote: Because that would: 1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development and which (obviously) they prefer to sell, 2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT, which was supposed to be dropped from development recently only because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying for the license. 3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which would then seriously help point 1 to happen. StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were official announcements about it happening. But then, that never happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller amplitude). Matt On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultati
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question
Here are a few reasons to buy the Tranzeo 1) 3 year warranty 2) Available stock - tried to buy a lot of Nanostations lately?Good luck getting them consistently. 3) Tranzeo design has been through a few winters and hot summers. There are already some questions about the durability of the Nanos, especially in environments with lots of moisture or sea 4) Proven, reliable firmware. 5) Tranzeo support Might be some others, but that is off the top of my head. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Charles Wu wrote: > Hi Blair, > > A TR-CPQ-x has the following specifications > > CPQ-N: $165 > CPZ-19: $175 (integrated 19 dBi antenna) > > +23 dBm Output Power Max > -85 dBm @ 11 Mbps > -72 dBm @ 54 Mbps > Features: > Client NAT with QoS (probably Wmm) > > The Ubiquiti NS2 has the following specifications > > NS2: $79.95 (integrated 10 dBi antenna with connector) > > +26 dBm Output Power Max > -92 dBm @ 11 Mbps > -74 dBm @ 54 Mbps > Features: > >From a manual review perspective, AirOS seems to do miles more than what a > >Trango CPQ can do > > So...there's not way you're going to spend $100 on a 19 dBi patch and a > pigtail...so, assuming availability wasn't an issue or you weren't sitting on > stock...why would you even buy a Tranzeo? > > -Charles > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations - question
Hi Blair, A TR-CPQ-x has the following specifications CPQ-N: $165 CPZ-19: $175 (integrated 19 dBi antenna) +23 dBm Output Power Max -85 dBm @ 11 Mbps -72 dBm @ 54 Mbps Features: Client NAT with QoS (probably Wmm) The Ubiquiti NS2 has the following specifications NS2: $79.95 (integrated 10 dBi antenna with connector) +26 dBm Output Power Max -92 dBm @ 11 Mbps -74 dBm @ 54 Mbps Features: >From a manual review perspective, AirOS seems to do miles more than what a >Trango CPQ can do So...there's not way you're going to spend $100 on a 19 dBi patch and a pigtail...so, assuming availability wasn't an issue or you weren't sitting on stock...why would you even buy a Tranzeo? -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question Charles, I use tranzeo for my 802.11b/g clients since about 2 years ago or so. I am now deploying the NS 2 as I can.get units and where approiate. I will still use the tranzeo cpq-15, (think it replaced by the sl2 now), and the cpq-19 as needed. Charles Wu wrote: > So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has > peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to do some > research on Nanostations > > (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as > I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market) > > Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to > being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with > the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those > products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more > "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi > I'd agree with this. I don't use that gear because an ap of mine might only have 6 clients and I can not justify the high AP costs and high CPE costs. > That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not > running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is > Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" > (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features > of the Nanostation and AirOS > IMHO, correct. But for light duty residental users, they work well and allow us to keep the install costs down. > If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in > the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that > $150 / CPE level > I agree, and because of that, the crossroads has no appeal for me, yet. I am considering them as a path to netstream on 2.4GHz to replace my turbocell stuff, as most all of my turbocell gear was assembled by me. > With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based > WISP buy anything else? > Where its antenna gain is enought, I won't. Where I need more gain, I'll use tranzeo > -Charles > > --- > WiNOG Wireless Roadshows > Coming to a City Near You > http://www.winog.com > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > > You know, > > It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either... > > It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp > client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of > us. > > A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size > needed. > > Just a thought. > > Travis Johnson wrote: > Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they > currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per > month of now). > > If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP. > > Travis > > Matt Ferre wrote: > > One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their' > > version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the > > momentum. > > > > First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse > > in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at > > that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based > > applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on > > their forum starting to suggest swapping
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
did not catch that. all good. on the other hand, they might make a 'client only' flash that fit in the smaller space if they were worried about impacting their higher end gear sales? Travis Johnson wrote: But as I said earlier, Ubiquiti told me they make custom NS units that have 16Meg of memory. I am waiting to hear back from them on pricing, but I thought it was only like $10 more. ;) Travis Blair Davis wrote: Flash size and memory limits? fitting it into 4Mbyt might be easier with some functions deleted. Travis Johnson wrote: Why not just the normal, regular version? Blair Davis wrote: Travis Johnson wrote: I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119 price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :) If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to fit the NS 2/5 mikrotik would likely deal Just show them the money. But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? Travis Microserv Matt Ferre wrote: Because that would: 1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development and which (obviously) they prefer to sell, 2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT, which was supposed to be dropped from development recently only because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying for the license. 3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which would then seriously help point 1 to happen. StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were official announcements about it happening. But then, that never happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller amplitude). Matt On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question
Charles Wu wrote: > Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to > being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with > the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those > products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more > "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi > Well, you might be surprised how many Canopy/Trango/Alvarion wisps are deploying Nanostations where the RoI on a normal AP isn't in line. We're actually deploying Nanostations to cover those situations where you have 2-3 subs you can't see from any of your AP's, but a neighbor's house can see both one of your AP's and the subs. Basically we're adding a Nanostation to a standard Canopy Install... so for the cost of the Nanostation, we gain the ability to cover those subscribers. -forrest WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
But as I said earlier, Ubiquiti told me they make custom NS units that have 16Meg of memory. I am waiting to hear back from them on pricing, but I thought it was only like $10 more. ;) Travis Blair Davis wrote: Flash size and memory limits? fitting it into 4Mbyt might be easier with some functions deleted. Travis Johnson wrote: Why not just the normal, regular version? Blair Davis wrote: Travis Johnson wrote: I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119 price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :) If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to fit the NS 2/5 mikrotik would likely deal Just show them the money. But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? Travis Microserv Matt Ferre wrote: Because that would: 1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development and which (obviously) they prefer to sell, 2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT, which was supposed to be dropped from development recently only because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying for the license. 3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which would then seriously help point 1 to happen. StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were official announcements about it happening. But then, that never happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller amplitude). Matt On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Net
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Flash size and memory limits? fitting it into 4Mbyt might be easier with some functions deleted. Travis Johnson wrote: Why not just the normal, regular version? Blair Davis wrote: Travis Johnson wrote: I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119 price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :) If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to fit the NS 2/5 mikrotik would likely deal Just show them the money. But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? Travis Microserv Matt Ferre wrote: Because that would: 1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development and which (obviously) they prefer to sell, 2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT, which was supposed to be dropped from development recently only because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying for the license. 3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which would then seriously help point 1 to happen. StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were official announcements about it happening. But then, that never happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller amplitude). Matt On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer * *
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question
Charles, I use tranzeo for my 802.11b/g clients since about 2 years ago or so. I am now deploying the NS 2 as I can.get units and where approiate. I will still use the tranzeo cpq-15, (think it replaced by the sl2 now), and the cpq-19 as needed. Charles Wu wrote: > So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has > peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to do some > research on Nanostations > > (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as > I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market) > > Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to > being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with > the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those > products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more > "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi > I'd agree with this. I don't use that gear because an ap of mine might only have 6 clients and I can not justify the high AP costs and high CPE costs. > That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not > running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is > Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" > (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features > of the Nanostation and AirOS > IMHO, correct. But for light duty residental users, they work well and allow us to keep the install costs down. > If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in > the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that > $150 / CPE level > I agree, and because of that, the crossroads has no appeal for me, yet. I am considering them as a path to netstream on 2.4GHz to replace my turbocell stuff, as most all of my turbocell gear was assembled by me. > With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based > WISP buy anything else? > Where its antenna gain is enought, I won't. Where I need more gain, I'll use tranzeo > -Charles > > --- > WiNOG Wireless Roadshows > Coming to a City Near You > http://www.winog.com > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > > You know, > > It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either... > > It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp > client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of > us. > > A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size > needed. > > Just a thought. > > Travis Johnson wrote: > Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they > currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per > month of now). > > If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP. > > Travis > > Matt Ferre wrote: > > One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their' > > version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the > > momentum. > > > > First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse > > in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at > > that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based > > applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on > > their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had > > any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all > > your problems. > > > > Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At > > that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too. > > > > Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely > > similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too. > > > > And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit > > oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and > > having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see > > Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik > > supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of > > hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. > > > > > > > > On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question
I agree. But the rest of us that are using a protocol like Nstreme on Mikrotik, would like another solution. We currently pay about $180 for a nice, professional looking Mikrotik CPE (including antenna, card, pigtail, PoE, etc). If we could get a NS for $80 and put a MT license on it for $40, that's a $60 saving per CPE... which adds up fast when you are doing hundreds of installs per month. Travis Microserv Charles Wu wrote: > So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has > peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to do some > research on Nanostations > > (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as > I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market) > > Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to > being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with > the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those > products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more > "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi > > That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not > running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is > Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" > (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features > of the Nanostation and AirOS > > If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in > the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that > $150 / CPE level > > With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based > WISP buy anything else? > > -Charles > > --- > WiNOG Wireless Roadshows > Coming to a City Near You > http://www.winog.com > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > > You know, > > It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either... > > It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp > client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of > us. > > A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size > needed. > > Just a thought. > > Travis Johnson wrote: > Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they > currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per > month of now). > > If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP. > > Travis > > Matt Ferre wrote: > > One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their' > > version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the > > momentum. > > > > First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse > > in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at > > that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based > > applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on > > their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had > > any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all > > your problems. > > > > Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At > > that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too. > > > > Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely > > similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too. > > > > And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit > > oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and > > having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see > > Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik > > supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of > > hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. > > > > > > > > On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand > > why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware > > giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be > > manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are > > already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up > > th
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Why not just the normal, regular version? Blair Davis wrote: Travis Johnson wrote: I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119 price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :) If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to fit the NS 2/5 mikrotik would likely deal Just show them the money. But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? Travis Microserv Matt Ferre wrote: Because that would: 1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development and which (obviously) they prefer to sell, 2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT, which was supposed to be dropped from development recently only because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying for the license. 3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which would then seriously help point 1 to happen. StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were official announcements about it happening. But then, that never happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller amplitude). Matt On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.w
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question
You've summed it up pretty good. I have a few in the field and so far they are holding up well. I've been buying the NS5s when I need new CPE equipment (and I can find someone who has them in stock). For residential deployments they are currently my CPE of choice. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Charles Wu wrote: > So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has > peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to do some > research on Nanostations > > (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as > I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market) > > Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to > being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with > the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those > products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more > "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi > > That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not > running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is > Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" > (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features > of the Nanostation and AirOS > > If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in > the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that > $150 / CPE level > > With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based > WISP buy anything else? > > -Charles > > --- > WiNOG Wireless Roadshows > Coming to a City Near You > http://www.winog.com > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > > You know, > > It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either... > > It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp > client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of > us. > > A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size > needed. > > Just a thought. > > Travis Johnson wrote: > Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they > currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per > month of now). > > If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP. > > Travis > > Matt Ferre wrote: > > One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their' > > version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the > > momentum. > > > > First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse > > in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at > > that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based > > applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on > > their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had > > any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all > > your problems. > > > > Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At > > that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too. > > > > Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely > > similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too. > > > > And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit > > oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and > > having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see > > Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik > > supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of > > hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. > > > > > > > > On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand > > why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware > > giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be > > manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are > > already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up > > the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. > > > > People bu
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Yup... it's the Catch 22 scenario... :( Travis Matt Ferre wrote: As long as you (and others) are actually buying these RB411s and Crossroads instead of Nanostations they won't even consider doing it. On 7/21/08, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per month of now). If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP. Travis Matt Ferre wrote: One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their' version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the momentum. First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all your problems. Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too. Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too. And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
PPPoE, NAT and the queuing are all pretty much available as is in Linux. The part that really needs to be written, it my opinion is the polling MAC which is not something many people are probably qualified to do. It is not a trivial problem to get right, I'm not sure how much is out there that one could base their code on and I don't know too many people that are willing to alpha test live customers on one ;) I think it would be cool, but I don't have the time to invest in it. I would be happy to spend a bit of time working on other stuff, such as wrapping the queuing, nat or other bits, but to actually spend the time to implement a new MAC, I don't have the skills and don't see me having the time to acquire those skills to make it happen. But if we find someone, count me in ;) Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: > Well, if there was a framework of working code, and a group to help write a > spec, I am sure some of us would hack at some of it. For example, a > fraction of NAT or PPPoE or a filter or whatever could be done in bite size > pieces. I would love to write a small chunk. I used to support myself > writing code and still find it mildly theraputic when I seldom get the > chance. But I really have no clue as to how much ROS or any of the other > products cost as we are a 100% canopy shop. > - Original Message - > From: "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:06 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > > > >> I think for the most part those that would like something like this and >> have the skills to do it, don't have the time to do the initial work or >> support it. It is easier to just buy StarOS or ROS, or buy equipment >> that already has the license for it. >> >>Sam Tetherow >>Sandhills Wireless >> >> Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: >> >>> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember >>>> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company >>>> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? >>>> >>>> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a >>>> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or >>>> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary >>>> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good >>>> code already written and being developed? >>>> >>>> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed >>>> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. >>>> solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. >>>> >>>> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some >>>> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into >>>> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to >>>> "port" every stinking firmware flavor. >>>> >>>> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful >>>> business model .. ever? >>>> >>>> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware >>>> does X better". Is there anything particularly different between >>>> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? >>>> >>>> - japhy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit >>>>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and >>>>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see >>>>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik >>>>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of >>>>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> While you may be
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question
So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to do some research on Nanostations (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market) Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the Nanostation and AirOS If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that $150 / CPE level With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based WISP buy anything else? -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations You know, It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either... It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of us. A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size needed. Just a thought. Travis Johnson wrote: Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per month of now). If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP. Travis Matt Ferre wrote: One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their' version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the momentum. First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all your problems. Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too. Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too. And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. We
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
But I'm not. I never bought MT based clients precisely because they were too expensive. While I would like to have the control to do all of the ROS things on the client radio I could not justify the expense of purchasing the components and assembling the final product to deploy. MT could have the software side of my CPE business if I could put it on a NS, but since they are more interested in the hardware, and the constant changing stream of hardware to boot, I have stopped deploying MT except in a pinch when I lose equipment and don't have an upgrade handy. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless > As long as you (and others) are actually buying these RB411s and > Crossroads instead of Nanostations they won't even consider doing it. > > On 7/21/08, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they >> currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per >> month of now). >> >> If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP. >> >> Travis >> >> Matt Ferre wrote: >> >>> One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their' >>> version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the >>> momentum. >>> >>> First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse >>> in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at >>> that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based >>> applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on >>> their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had >>> any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all >>> your problems. >>> >>> Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At >>> that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too. >>> >>> Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely >>> similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too. >>> >>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit >>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and >>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see >>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik >>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of >>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: > Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't > exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly > see why. > > Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, > their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years > they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the > software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that > situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never > ever. > > > > > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: > > > > >>> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has >>> support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to >>> support them. I wonder how muc
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Well, if there was a framework of working code, and a group to help write a spec, I am sure some of us would hack at some of it. For example, a fraction of NAT or PPPoE or a filter or whatever could be done in bite size pieces. I would love to write a small chunk. I used to support myself writing code and still find it mildly theraputic when I seldom get the chance. But I really have no clue as to how much ROS or any of the other products cost as we are a 100% canopy shop. - Original Message - From: "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >I think for the most part those that would like something like this and > have the skills to do it, don't have the time to do the initial work or > support it. It is easier to just buy StarOS or ROS, or buy equipment > that already has the license for it. > >Sam Tetherow >Sandhills Wireless > > Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: >> I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >> >> >> >>> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember >>> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company >>> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? >>> >>> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a >>> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or >>> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary >>> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good >>> code already written and being developed? >>> >>> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed >>> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. >>> solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. >>> >>> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some >>> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into >>> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to >>> "port" every stinking firmware flavor. >>> >>> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful >>> business model .. ever? >>> >>> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware >>> does X better". Is there anything particularly different between >>> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? >>> >>> - japhy >>> >>> >>> >>>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit >>>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and >>>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see >>>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik >>>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of >>>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't >>>>> understand >>>>> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware >>>>> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be >>>>> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are >>>>> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick >>>>> up >>>>> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. >>>>> >>>>> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even >>>>> with >>>>> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact >>>>> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 >>>>> less >>>>> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It >>>>> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. >>>>> >>>>> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the >>>>> lowend >>>>> market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path >>>>>
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Travis Johnson wrote: I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119 price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :) If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to fit the NS 2/5 mikrotik would likely deal Just show them the money. But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? Travis Microserv Matt Ferre wrote: Because that would: 1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development and which (obviously) they prefer to sell, 2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT, which was supposed to be dropped from development recently only because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying for the license. 3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which would then seriously help point 1 to happen. StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were official announcements about it happening. But then, that never happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller amplitude). Matt On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wirel
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
I think for the most part those that would like something like this and have the skills to do it, don't have the time to do the initial work or support it. It is easier to just buy StarOS or ROS, or buy equipment that already has the license for it. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: > I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. > > - Original Message - > From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > > > >> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember >> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company >> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? >> >> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a >> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or >> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary >> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good >> code already written and being developed? >> >> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed >> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. >> solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. >> >> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some >> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into >> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to >> "port" every stinking firmware flavor. >> >> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful >> business model .. ever? >> >> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware >> does X better". Is there anything particularly different between >> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? >> >> - japhy >> >> >> >>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit >>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and >>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see >>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik >>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of >>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand >>>> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware >>>> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be >>>> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are >>>> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up >>>> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. >>>> >>>> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with >>>> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact >>>> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less >>>> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It >>>> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. >>>> >>>> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend >>>> market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path >>>> would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as >>>> well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make >>>> $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS >>>> network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after >>>> manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, >>>> especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti >>>> really expressed and interest in working with them. >>>> >>>> Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is >>>> interested... >>>> >>>> Sam Tetherow >>>> Sandhills Wireless >>>> >>>> Matt Ferre wrote: >>>> >>>>> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't >>>>> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly >>>>> se
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
You know, It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either... It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of us. A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size needed. Just a thought. Travis Johnson wrote: Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per month of now). If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP. Travis Matt Ferre wrote: One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their' version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the momentum. First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all your problems. Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too. Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too. And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new project starts very quickly to serve that need. Scott -- Original Message -- From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600 >I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. > >- Original Message - >From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > > >> Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember >> how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company >> that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? >> >> For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a >> card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or >> something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary >> firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good >> code already written and being developed? >> >> Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed >> at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. >> solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. >> >> Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some >> of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into >> some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to >> "port" every stinking firmware flavor. >> >> Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful >> business model .. ever? >> >> And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware >> does X better". Is there anything particularly different between >> Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? >> >> - japhy >> >> >>> >>> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit >>> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and >>> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see >>> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik >>> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of >>> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand >>>> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware >>>> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be >>>> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are >>>> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up >>>> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. >>>> >>>> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with >>>> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact >>>> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less >>>> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It >>>> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. >>>> >>>> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend >>>> market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path >>>> would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as >>>> well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make >>>> $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS >>>> network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after >>>> manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, >>>> especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti >>>> really expressed and interest in working with them. >>>> >>>> Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is >>>> interested... >>>> >>>> Sam Tetherow >>>> Sandhills Wireless >>>> >>>> Matt Ferre wrote: >>>>> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't >>>>> exactly
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
They just copied someone else's card, though I forget now who. It's in the FCC docs. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations MT doesn't know radio cards or antennas. They have proven their radio card capabilities in the R52H world. About 3 months ago we ordered 50 R52H cards and saw a 50% failure rate right out of the box. There are still people seeing that mess going on. The question MT needs to ask themselves... are they are a hardware company or software company? Cisco is a software company. I think MT is a software company as well. They do not currently have a product that is even CLOSE to the Nanostation in price... why not sell a MT license for every one of those? Travis Matt Ferre wrote: MT can manufacture NS alike hardware if they only want to. They don't have to buy it from Ubiquiti and making Ubiquiti (competing company?) profit from it. On 7/20/08, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mk can buy nanostations in bulk, -Original Message- From: Matt Ferre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer * WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
YES! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These post bring back memories from the Karlnet days of Karlnet vs. non Karlnet systems :) Michiana Wireless, Inc. John Buwa, President http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com 574-233-7170 "Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!" *US Distributor for www.itelite.net Antennas* -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Ferre Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:38 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second. Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same. Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really good reason - performance. Matt I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least the way I have my network setup. None of my customers have an upload that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily at that rate. If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that polling is an important consideration. It is pretty easy to work around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com --- - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --- - WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These post bring back memories from the Karlnet days of Karlnet vs. non Karlnet systems :) Michiana Wireless, Inc. John Buwa, President http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com 574-233-7170 "Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!" *US Distributor for www.itelite.net Antennas* -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Ferre Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:38 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second. Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same. Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really good reason - performance. Matt I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least the way I have my network setup. None of my customers have an upload that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily at that rate. If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that polling is an important consideration. It is pretty easy to work around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com --- - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --- - WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. - Original Message - From: "Japhy Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember > how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company > that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? > > For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a > card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or > something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary > firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good > code already written and being developed? > > Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed > at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. > solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. > > Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some > of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into > some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to > "port" every stinking firmware flavor. > > Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful > business model .. ever? > > And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware > does X better". Is there anything particularly different between > Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? > > - japhy > > >> >> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit >> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and >> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see >> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik >> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of >> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. >> >> >> >> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand >>> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware >>> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be >>> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are >>> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up >>> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. >>> >>> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with >>> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact >>> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less >>> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It >>> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. >>> >>> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend >>> market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path >>> would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as >>> well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make >>> $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS >>> network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after >>> manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, >>> especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti >>> really expressed and interest in working with them. >>> >>> Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is >>> interested... >>> >>> Sam Tetherow >>> Sandhills Wireless >>> >>> Matt Ferre wrote: >>>> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't >>>> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly >>>> see why. >>>> >>>> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, >>>> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years >>>> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the >>>> software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that >>>> situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never >>>> ever. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good code already written and being developed? Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin. solution. I.e., Windows and Apple. Look at how the PC market converged towards x86! If Mikrotik or some of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to "port" every stinking firmware flavor. Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful business model .. ever? And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this firmware does X better". Is there anything particularly different between Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS? - japhy > > And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit > oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and > having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see > Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik > supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of > hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. > > > > On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand >> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware >> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be >> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are >> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up >> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. >> >> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with >> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact >> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less >> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It >> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. >> >> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend >> market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path >> would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as >> well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make >> $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS >> network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after >> manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, >> especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti >> really expressed and interest in working with them. >> >> Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... >> >> Sam Tetherow >> Sandhills Wireless >> >> Matt Ferre wrote: >>> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't >>> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly >>> see why. >>> >>> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, >>> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years >>> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the >>> software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that >>> situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never >>> ever. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: >>> >>> > Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has > support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to > support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get > Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? > >>> >>> My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that >>> MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is >>> not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with >>> a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that >>> could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 >>> license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available >>> pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. >>> >>> -- >>> *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering >>> *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * >>> *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * >>> *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik >>> Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer * >>> **
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
As long as you (and others) are actually buying these RB411s and Crossroads instead of Nanostations they won't even consider doing it. On 7/21/08, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they > currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per > month of now). > > If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP. > > Travis > > Matt Ferre wrote: >> >> One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their' >> version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the >> momentum. >> >> First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse >> in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at >> that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based >> applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on >> their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had >> any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all >> your problems. >> >> Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At >> that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too. >> >> Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely >> similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too. >> >> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit >> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and >> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see >> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik >> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of >> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. >> >> >> >> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand >>> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware >>> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be >>> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are >>> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up >>> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. >>> >>> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with >>> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact >>> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less >>> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It >>> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. >>> >>> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend >>> market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path >>> would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as >>> well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make >>> $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS >>> network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after >>> manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, >>> especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti >>> really expressed and interest in working with them. >>> >>> Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is >>> interested... >>> >>> Sam Tetherow >>> Sandhills Wireless >>> >>> Matt Ferre wrote: >>> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: >> >> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has >> support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to >> support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get >> Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? >> >> My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *Mi
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
R52H cards are made for Mikrotik by Compex. And these are exactly the same cards as R52 ones (hardware wise) with calibration data pushed to the limits. Or even further, one step too far, and perhaps that's why you see such failure rate. Cisco doesn't sell their software for generic x86 systems eventhough they definitely could. Mikrotik used to sell their software for bare x86 systems, but since then they decided it's better for them to sell complete hardware+software solution. And I guess there must be a good reason for that. On 7/21/08, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MT doesn't know radio cards or antennas. They have proven their radio card > capabilities in the R52H world. About 3 months ago we ordered 50 R52H cards > and saw a 50% failure rate right out of the box. There are still people > seeing that mess going on. > > The question MT needs to ask themselves... are they are a hardware company > or software company? Cisco is a software company. I think MT is a software > company as well. They do not currently have a product that is even CLOSE to > the Nanostation in price... why not sell a MT license for every one of > those? > > Travis > > Matt Ferre wrote: >> >> MT can manufacture NS alike hardware if they only want to. They don't >> have to buy it from Ubiquiti and making Ubiquiti (competing company?) >> profit from it. >> >> >> On 7/20/08, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Mk can buy nanostations in bulk, >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Matt Ferre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM >>> To: wireless@wispa.org >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >>> >>> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't >>> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly >>> see why. >>> >>> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, >>> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years >>> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the >>> software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that >>> situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never >>> ever. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has >>>>> support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to >>>>> support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get >>>>> Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? >>>>> >>> >>> My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that >>> MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is >>> not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with >>> a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that >>> could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 >>> license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available >>> pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. >>> >>> -- >>> *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering >>> *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * >>> *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * >>> *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik >>> Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> --
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per month of now). If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP. Travis Matt Ferre wrote: One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their' version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the momentum. First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all your problems. Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too. Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too. And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ W
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119 price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :) Travis Microserv Matt Ferre wrote: Because that would: 1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development and which (obviously) they prefer to sell, 2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT, which was supposed to be dropped from development recently only because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying for the license. 3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which would then seriously help point 1 to happen. StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were official announcements about it happening. But then, that never happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller amplitude). Matt On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer * WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
MT doesn't know radio cards or antennas. They have proven their radio card capabilities in the R52H world. About 3 months ago we ordered 50 R52H cards and saw a 50% failure rate right out of the box. There are still people seeing that mess going on. The question MT needs to ask themselves... are they are a hardware company or software company? Cisco is a software company. I think MT is a software company as well. They do not currently have a product that is even CLOSE to the Nanostation in price... why not sell a MT license for every one of those? Travis Matt Ferre wrote: MT can manufacture NS alike hardware if they only want to. They don't have to buy it from Ubiquiti and making Ubiquiti (competing company?) profit from it. On 7/20/08, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mk can buy nanostations in bulk, -Original Message- From: Matt Ferre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer * WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
This only applies to already open TCP connections. If the application keeps opening new TCP connections, or better, uses UDP flood on a purpose, it will not be affected by dropped packets in any way. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The application layer knows nothing about congestion (packets or bytes), > it is the network layers job to keep track of that. If packets are > getting dropped the IP stack should back off on all sends. It shouldn't > matter if they are small packets or large and it shouldn't matter what > program is requesting that they be transmitted. > > Sam Tetherow > Sandhills Wireless > > > Matt Ferre wrote: >> Not really because virus program will purposely keep opening new >> connection. P2P apps will be doing the same. >> >> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> While I haven't tried it, wouldn't limiting packets per second cause the >>> IP stack on the sending machine to back down just like limiting >>> throughput? >>> >>> Sam Tetherow >>> Sandhills Wireless >>> >>> Matt Ferre wrote: >>> It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second. Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same. Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really good reason - performance. Matt > I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least > the way I have my network setup. None of my customers have an upload > that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest > upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily > at that rate. > > If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that > polling is an important consideration. It is pretty easy to work > around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >>> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> 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] Nanostations
One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their' version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the momentum. First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all your problems. Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too. Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too. And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand > why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware > giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be > manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are > already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up > the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. > > People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with > an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact > unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less > than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It > would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. > > If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend > market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path > would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as > well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make > $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS > network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after > manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, > especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti > really expressed and interest in working with them. > > Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... > > Sam Tetherow > Sandhills Wireless > > Matt Ferre wrote: >> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't >> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly >> see why. >> >> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, >> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years >> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the >> software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that >> situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never >> ever. >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: >> >> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? >> >> My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that >> MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is >> not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with >> a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that >> could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 >> license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available >> pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. >> >> -- >> *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering >> *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * >> *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * >> *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik >> Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer * >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> 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] Nanostations
The application layer knows nothing about congestion (packets or bytes), it is the network layers job to keep track of that. If packets are getting dropped the IP stack should back off on all sends. It shouldn't matter if they are small packets or large and it shouldn't matter what program is requesting that they be transmitted. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: > Not really because virus program will purposely keep opening new > connection. P2P apps will be doing the same. > > On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> While I haven't tried it, wouldn't limiting packets per second cause the >> IP stack on the sending machine to back down just like limiting throughput? >> >> Sam Tetherow >> Sandhills Wireless >> >> Matt Ferre wrote: >> >>> It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second. >>> Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus >>> and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to >>> only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this >>> will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you >>> can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that >>> customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point >>> and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few >>> uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same. >>> >>> Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses >>> some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX >>> to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really >>> good reason - performance. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> >>> I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least the way I have my network setup. None of my customers have an upload that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily at that rate. If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that polling is an important consideration. It is pretty easy to work around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >>> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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] Nanostations
Because that would: 1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development and which (obviously) they prefer to sell, 2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT, which was supposed to be dropped from development recently only because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying for the license. 3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which would then seriously help point 1 to happen. StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were official announcements about it happening. But then, that never happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller amplitude). Matt On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand > why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware > giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be > manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are > already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up > the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. > > People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with > an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact > unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less > than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It > would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. > > If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend > market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path > would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as > well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make > $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS > network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after > manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, > especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti > really expressed and interest in working with them. > > Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... > > Sam Tetherow > Sandhills Wireless > > Matt Ferre wrote: >> Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't >> exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly >> see why. >> >> Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, >> their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years >> they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the >> software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that >> situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never >> ever. >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: >> >> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? >> >> My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that >> MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is >> not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with >> a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that >> could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 >> license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available >> pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. >> >> -- >> *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering >> *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * >> *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * >> *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik >> Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer * >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Not really because virus program will purposely keep opening new connection. P2P apps will be doing the same. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While I haven't tried it, wouldn't limiting packets per second cause the > IP stack on the sending machine to back down just like limiting throughput? > > Sam Tetherow > Sandhills Wireless > > Matt Ferre wrote: >> It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second. >> Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus >> and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to >> only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this >> will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you >> can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that >> customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point >> and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few >> uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same. >> >> Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses >> some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX >> to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really >> good reason - performance. >> >> Matt >> >> >>> I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least >>> the way I have my network setup. None of my customers have an upload >>> that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest >>> upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily >>> at that rate. >>> >>> If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that >>> polling is an important consideration. It is pretty easy to work >>> around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however. >>> >>> Matt Larsen >>> vistabeam.com >>> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
MT can manufacture NS alike hardware if they only want to. They don't have to buy it from Ubiquiti and making Ubiquiti (competing company?) profit from it. On 7/20/08, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mk can buy nanostations in bulk, > > -Original Message- > From: Matt Ferre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM > To: wireless@wispa.org > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > > Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't > exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly > see why. > > Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, > their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years > they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the > software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that > situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never > ever. > > > > > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: > >> >Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has >> >support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to >> >support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get >> >Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? > > My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that > MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is > not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with > a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that > could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 > license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available > pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. > > -- > *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering > *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * > *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * > *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik > Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer * > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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] Nanostations
While I haven't tried it, wouldn't limiting packets per second cause the IP stack on the sending machine to back down just like limiting throughput? Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: > It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second. > Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus > and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to > only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this > will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you > can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that > customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point > and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few > uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same. > > Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses > some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX > to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really > good reason - performance. > > Matt > > >> I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least >> the way I have my network setup. None of my customers have an upload >> that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest >> upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily >> at that rate. >> >> If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that >> polling is an important consideration. It is pretty easy to work >> around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however. >> >> Matt Larsen >> vistabeam.com >> > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost. People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint. Even with an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE. That is $10 less than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. It would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE. If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend market and finally have certified gear out there. The upgrade path would be perfect for their hardware. They would sell the AP hardware as well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and still make $40/CPE on the cheap end. And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS network. I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after manufacture and shipping. I really don't see the downside to this, especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti really expressed and interest in working with them. Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: > Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't > exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly > see why. > > Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, > their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years > they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the > software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that > situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never > ever. > > > > > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: > > >>> Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has >>> support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to >>> support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get >>> Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? >>> > > My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that > MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is > not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with > a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that > could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 > license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available > pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. > > -- > *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering > *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * > *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * > *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik > Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer * > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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] Nanostations
Never really had a major problem with this. Just keep P2P apps limited at the core router, no intercell relay and connection limits per customer. It would be nice if there was a polling implementation that could be easily implemented with standards-based equipment instead of proprietary gear. I'd certainly look at it, but just don't have a need for it now. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Matt Ferre wrote: > It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second. > Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus > and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to > only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this > will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you > can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that > customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point > and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few > uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same. > > Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses > some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX > to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really > good reason - performance. > > Matt > > >> I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least >> the way I have my network setup. None of my customers have an upload >> that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest >> upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily >> at that rate. >> >> If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that >> polling is an important consideration. It is pretty easy to work >> around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however. >> >> Matt Larsen >> vistabeam.com >> > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Mk can buy nanostations in bulk, -Original Message- From: Matt Ferre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: > >Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has > >support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to > >support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get > >Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer * WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
These post bring back memories from the Karlnet days of Karlnet vs. non Karlnet systems :) Michiana Wireless, Inc. John Buwa, President http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com 574-233-7170 "Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!" *US Distributor for www.itelite.net Antennas* > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Matt Ferre > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:38 PM > To: wireless@wispa.org > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > > It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second. > Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus > and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to > only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this > will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you > can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that > customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point > and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few > uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same. > > Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses > some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX > to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really > good reason - performance. > > Matt > > > I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at > least > > the way I have my network setup. None of my customers have an > upload > > that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest > > upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty > easily > > at that rate. > > > > If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that > > polling is an important consideration. It is pretty easy to work > > around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however. > > > > Matt Larsen > > vistabeam.com > > > --- > - > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > --- > - > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second. Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this will bring your AP to the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same. Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really good reason - performance. Matt > I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least > the way I have my network setup. None of my customers have an upload > that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest > upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily > at that rate. > > If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that > polling is an important consideration. It is pretty easy to work > around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never ever. On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: > >Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has > >support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to > >support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get > >Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer * WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
All are the same platform, the differ only on the form factor and antennas gino -Original Message- From: Jeromie Reeves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:19 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Where? I see LS2/5 and PS2/5 support but nothing for NS2/5. Searching the forum I found: Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:38 pm from oswave "We currently have no plans to port oswave to NS2/NS5." And it goes on to ask why and also someone says if you order 1000 they will (likely) do it. I am not able to find it, can you post a link. On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The oswave website says it supports the NS platform > > -Original Message- > From: Jeromie Reeves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:38 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > > Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has > support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to > support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get > Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? > > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. >> The oswave has polling... >> >> gino >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >> >> Travis Johnson wrote: >>> Matt, >>> >>> I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. >>> Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available >>> for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using >>> Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are >>> finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does >>> work. >>> >>> How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP >>> with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I >>> have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to >>> the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control >>> the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the >>> AP (on the upload side). >>> >>> Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients >>> without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a >>> download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the >>> download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if >>> you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while >>> the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an >>> upload running. >> >> Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming >> from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity >> of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I >> have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. >> >>> >>> What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running >>> Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer >>> CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) >>> >> >> Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. >> >> Matt Larsen >> vistabeam.com >>> Travis >>> Microserv >>> >>> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >>>> Hi Travis, >>>> >>>> I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product. I've >>>> been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with >>>> StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is >>>> pretty amazing at ANY price point. I could say the same thing for the >>>> newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the >>>> Ubiquity price point just yet. >>>> >>>> It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich >>>> features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference >>>> resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus >>>> able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS >>>> platforms. >>>> >>>> I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Where? I see LS2/5 and PS2/5 support but nothing for NS2/5. Searching the forum I found: Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:38 pm from oswave "We currently have no plans to port oswave to NS2/NS5." And it goes on to ask why and also someone says if you order 1000 they will (likely) do it. I am not able to find it, can you post a link. On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The oswave website says it supports the NS platform > > -Original Message- > From: Jeromie Reeves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:38 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > > Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has > support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to > support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get > Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? > > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. >> The oswave has polling... >> >> gino >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations >> >> Travis Johnson wrote: >>> Matt, >>> >>> I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. >>> Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available >>> for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using >>> Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are >>> finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does >>> work. >>> >>> How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP >>> with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I >>> have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to >>> the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control >>> the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the >>> AP (on the upload side). >>> >>> Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients >>> without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a >>> download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the >>> download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if >>> you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while >>> the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an >>> upload running. >> >> Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming >> from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity >> of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I >> have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. >> >>> >>> What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running >>> Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer >>> CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) >>> >> >> Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. >> >> Matt Larsen >> vistabeam.com >>> Travis >>> Microserv >>> >>> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >>>> Hi Travis, >>>> >>>> I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product. I've >>>> been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with >>>> StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is >>>> pretty amazing at ANY price point. I could say the same thing for the >>>> newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the >>>> Ubiquity price point just yet. >>>> >>>> It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich >>>> features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference >>>> resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus >>>> able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS >>>> platforms. >>>> >>>> I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the >>>> Nanostation radios. That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna >>>> mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - >>>> and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol a
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least the way I have my network setup. None of my customers have an upload that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily at that rate. If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that polling is an important consideration. It is pretty easy to work around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: > Matt, > > Having 90-100 subs on an AP that supports roughly 20Mbps of bandwidth > is different than an AP that supports 5Mbps with 128 subs. There is a > reason Trango, Canopy, Alvarion, and many others do a "polling" > system... it allows better, more effecient use of the available > bandwidth... especially for providers like me that sell a symmetrical > service (1meg x 1meg, 2meg x 2meg, etc.). So the upload is just as > important as the download. > > Here's a test for you... take an AP without polling and start an > upload on a client that is 80% of the capacity of the AP and then try > and surf with another connected client and see how it "feels"... if > it's even possible. With the Trango AP's, we are able to use 95% of > the rated bandwidth on each AP before we see any issues (jitter, > latency, etc.). That just is not possible with a non-polling system > (in upload or download scenarios). > > Travis > > > Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >> Travis, >> >> I've got 802.11a APs with 90-100 subs on them without polling and >> customers are very happy. I am one of them - as I have a 4meg >> connection at my house that does just about anything my Trango gear >> would do when I was using it. Bandwidth control addresses nearly all >> of the issues that polling does in the implementations I have put >> together. >> >> As far as the MT community being 10x the size of the StarOS Community - >> it's not how big it is, it is what you do with it. :^) >> >> I've had plenty of experience with both StarOS and MT, and MT just >> doesn't have certain features that StarOS does. StarOS has kickass >> Atheros drivers and a superior way of automating the provisioning and >> deployment. MT does have a lot of other cool features, but I don't use >> them so they don't mean a lot to me. >> >> FWIW, the WAR-1 version of StarOS is stripped down to the point where it >> fits into 4meg of memory. Probably wouldn't be hard to port it to the >> Nanos. >> >> Matt Larsen >> vistabeam.com >> >> Travis Johnson wrote: >> >>> Matt, >>> >>> Polling is a requirement for a system that will scale to larger number >>> of clients. I have Trango AP's that will only do 5Mbps total >>> bandwidth, yet we have loaded them up to their max clients (128) and >>> have no issues. Latency is less than 5ms to any client at any time, >>> and the bandwidth is smooth and consistent. >>> >>> And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik community >>> is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more sense for >>> Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;) >>> >>> Travis >>> Microserv >>> >>> >>> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >>> Travis Johnson wrote: > Matt, > > I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. > Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available > for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using > Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are > finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does > work. > > How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP > with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I > have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to > the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control > the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the > AP (on the upload side). > > Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients > without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a > download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the > download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if > you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while > the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an > upload running. > > Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. > What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Na
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
There used to be a graphic on one of the Canopy marketing pages showing the loading vs latency curves for polled vs non polled systems. Lightly loaded 802.11 will always do better but once you get up to 20 or 30 users, the polling type systems start to shine with their fixed latency. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Matt, Having 90-100 subs on an AP that supports roughly 20Mbps of bandwidth is different than an AP that supports 5Mbps with 128 subs. There is a reason Trango, Canopy, Alvarion, and many others do a "polling" system... it allows better, more effecient use of the available bandwidth... especially for providers like me that sell a symmetrical service (1meg x 1meg, 2meg x 2meg, etc.). So the upload is just as important as the download. Here's a test for you... take an AP without polling and start an upload on a client that is 80% of the capacity of the AP and then try and surf with another connected client and see how it "feels"... if it's even possible. With the Trango AP's, we are able to use 95% of the rated bandwidth on each AP before we see any issues (jitter, latency, etc.). That just is not possible with a non-polling system (in upload or download scenarios). Travis Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Travis, I've got 802.11a APs with 90-100 subs on them without polling and customers are very happy. I am one of them - as I have a 4meg connection at my house that does just about anything my Trango gear would do when I was using it. Bandwidth control addresses nearly all of the issues that polling does in the implementations I have put together. As far as the MT community being 10x the size of the StarOS Community - it's not how big it is, it is what you do with it. :^) I've had plenty of experience with both StarOS and MT, and MT just doesn't have certain features that StarOS does. StarOS has kickass Atheros drivers and a superior way of automating the provisioning and deployment. MT does have a lot of other cool features, but I don't use them so they don't mean a lot to me. FWIW, the WAR-1 version of StarOS is stripped down to the point where it fits into 4meg of memory. Probably wouldn't be hard to port it to the Nanos. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, Polling is a requirement for a system that will scale to larger number of clients. I have Trango AP's that will only do 5Mbps total bandwidth, yet we have loaded them up to their max clients (128) and have no issues. Latency is less than 5ms to any client at any time, and the bandwidth is smooth and consistent. And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik community is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more sense for Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;) Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does work. How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the AP (on the upload side). Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an upload running. Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Matt, Having 90-100 subs on an AP that supports roughly 20Mbps of bandwidth is different than an AP that supports 5Mbps with 128 subs. There is a reason Trango, Canopy, Alvarion, and many others do a "polling" system... it allows better, more effecient use of the available bandwidth... especially for providers like me that sell a symmetrical service (1meg x 1meg, 2meg x 2meg, etc.). So the upload is just as important as the download. Here's a test for you... take an AP without polling and start an upload on a client that is 80% of the capacity of the AP and then try and surf with another connected client and see how it "feels"... if it's even possible. With the Trango AP's, we are able to use 95% of the rated bandwidth on each AP before we see any issues (jitter, latency, etc.). That just is not possible with a non-polling system (in upload or download scenarios). Travis Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Travis, I've got 802.11a APs with 90-100 subs on them without polling and customers are very happy. I am one of them - as I have a 4meg connection at my house that does just about anything my Trango gear would do when I was using it. Bandwidth control addresses nearly all of the issues that polling does in the implementations I have put together. As far as the MT community being 10x the size of the StarOS Community - it's not how big it is, it is what you do with it. :^) I've had plenty of experience with both StarOS and MT, and MT just doesn't have certain features that StarOS does. StarOS has kickass Atheros drivers and a superior way of automating the provisioning and deployment. MT does have a lot of other cool features, but I don't use them so they don't mean a lot to me. FWIW, the WAR-1 version of StarOS is stripped down to the point where it fits into 4meg of memory. Probably wouldn't be hard to port it to the Nanos. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, Polling is a requirement for a system that will scale to larger number of clients. I have Trango AP's that will only do 5Mbps total bandwidth, yet we have loaded them up to their max clients (128) and have no issues. Latency is less than 5ms to any client at any time, and the bandwidth is smooth and consistent. And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik community is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more sense for Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;) Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does work. How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the AP (on the upload side). Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an upload running. Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Travis, I've got 802.11a APs with 90-100 subs on them without polling and customers are very happy. I am one of them - as I have a 4meg connection at my house that does just about anything my Trango gear would do when I was using it. Bandwidth control addresses nearly all of the issues that polling does in the implementations I have put together. As far as the MT community being 10x the size of the StarOS Community - it's not how big it is, it is what you do with it. :^) I've had plenty of experience with both StarOS and MT, and MT just doesn't have certain features that StarOS does. StarOS has kickass Atheros drivers and a superior way of automating the provisioning and deployment. MT does have a lot of other cool features, but I don't use them so they don't mean a lot to me. FWIW, the WAR-1 version of StarOS is stripped down to the point where it fits into 4meg of memory. Probably wouldn't be hard to port it to the Nanos. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: > Matt, > > Polling is a requirement for a system that will scale to larger number > of clients. I have Trango AP's that will only do 5Mbps total > bandwidth, yet we have loaded them up to their max clients (128) and > have no issues. Latency is less than 5ms to any client at any time, > and the bandwidth is smooth and consistent. > > And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik community > is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more sense for > Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;) > > Travis > Microserv > > > Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >> Travis Johnson wrote: >> >>> Matt, >>> >>> I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. >>> Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available >>> for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using >>> Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are >>> finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does >>> work. >>> >>> How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP >>> with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I >>> have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to >>> the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control >>> the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the >>> AP (on the upload side). >>> >>> Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients >>> without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a >>> download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the >>> download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if >>> you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while >>> the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an >>> upload running. >>> >> >> Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming >> from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity >> of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I >> have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. >> >> >>> What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running >>> Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer >>> CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) >>> >>> >> >> Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. >> >> Matt Larsen >> vistabeam.com >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
I wonder if the chip could be changed to give you more memory. - Original Message - From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote: > >>And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik >>community is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more >>sense for Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;) > > First, there is not enough flash on the Nanos to hold MT. IIRC, the > flash on the nano is 4M (maybe 8?). I can't recall exactly, but > it's not enough either way. That is the only thing that limits the > ability to run MT on the Nano, as the remaining hardware is pretty > close to the same thing as the RB133C. > > -- > > *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * > *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS* > *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * > *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * > *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* > *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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] Nanostations
Really... I did not know that... I will contact Ubiquiti about getting a 16M version so I can try and load MT on it. :) Travis Microserv Butch Evans wrote: On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote: You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that processor. The CPU is the same as the RB133C. WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
If I remember correctly, it was only like $10 or $20 more. Here's the difference the Crossroads (which I have deployed) still requires a PoE, antenna, pigtail, etc. bringing the cost up to over $150... and then you are still stuck with a vertical or horizontal system, and not FCC certified. I know it wouldn't be hard for MT to build an OS for the Nano's... and I also know that Ubiquiti has already tried talking to MT and they were NOT interested... which does not make sense to me. If they could get $40 per Nano from Ubiquiti, they would be making MORE money than selling an RB411 or Crossroads board. They really need to look at the bigger picture. Travis Microserv Butch Evans wrote: On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote: You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that processor. I didn't know that. It's good information to have. However, the Crossroads platform is very similar in function, though it is only 2.4GHz. For the 5GHz, do you know the cost of a 16M unit? WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
Afaik the latests Mk builds are ATheros cpu focused, all the latest mikrotik routerboards are atheros based gino -Original Message- From: Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Butch, You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that processor. Travis Microserv Butch Evans wrote: On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote: And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik community is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more sense for Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;) First, there is not enough flash on the Nanos to hold MT. IIRC, the flash on the nano is 4M (maybe 8?). I can't recall exactly, but it's not enough either way. That is the only thing that limits the ability to run MT on the Nano, as the remaining hardware is pretty close to the same thing as the RB133C. WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
The oswave website says it supports the NS platform -Original Message- From: Jeromie Reeves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. > The oswave has polling... > > gino > > -Original Message- > From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > > Travis Johnson wrote: >> Matt, >> >> I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. >> Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available >> for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using >> Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are >> finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does >> work. >> >> How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP >> with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I >> have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to >> the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control >> the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the >> AP (on the upload side). >> >> Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients >> without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a >> download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the >> download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if >> you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while >> the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an >> upload running. > > Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming > from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity > of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I > have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. > >> >> What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running >> Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer >> CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) >> > > Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com >> Travis >> Microserv >> >> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >>> Hi Travis, >>> >>> I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product. I've >>> been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with >>> StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is >>> pretty amazing at ANY price point. I could say the same thing for the >>> newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the >>> Ubiquity price point just yet. >>> >>> It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich >>> features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference >>> resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus >>> able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS >>> platforms. >>> >>> I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the >>> Nanostation radios. That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna >>> mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - >>> and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would >>> end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every >>> feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at >>> the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc). No polling, >>> but that is one of the most overrated features anyway. >>> >>> Matt Larsen >>> vistabeam.com >>> >>> >>> Travis Johnson wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some >>>> new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could >>>> shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti >>>
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote: >You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already >stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the >CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current >MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that processor. The CPU is the same as the RB133C. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote: >Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has >support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to >support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get >Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform. It is not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that could be done. I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote: >You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already >stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the >CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current >MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that processor. I didn't know that. It's good information to have. However, the Crossroads platform is very similar in function, though it is only 2.4GHz. For the 5GHz, do you know the cost of a 16M unit? -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. > The oswave has polling... > > gino > > -Original Message- > From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations > > Travis Johnson wrote: >> Matt, >> >> I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. >> Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available >> for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using >> Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are >> finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does >> work. >> >> How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP >> with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I >> have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to >> the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control >> the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the >> AP (on the upload side). >> >> Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients >> without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a >> download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the >> download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if >> you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while >> the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an >> upload running. > > Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming > from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity > of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I > have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. > >> >> What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running >> Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer >> CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) >> > > Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com >> Travis >> Microserv >> >> Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >>> Hi Travis, >>> >>> I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product. I've >>> been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with >>> StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is >>> pretty amazing at ANY price point. I could say the same thing for the >>> newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the >>> Ubiquity price point just yet. >>> >>> It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich >>> features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference >>> resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus >>> able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS >>> platforms. >>> >>> I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the >>> Nanostation radios. That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna >>> mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - >>> and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would >>> end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every >>> feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at >>> the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc). No polling, >>> but that is one of the most overrated features anyway. >>> >>> Matt Larsen >>> vistabeam.com >>> >>> >>> Travis Johnson wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some >>>> new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could >>>> shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti >>>> quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this >>>> coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these >>>> companies can really have into a radio sys
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Butch, You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that processor. Travis Microserv Butch Evans wrote: On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote: And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik community is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more sense for Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;) First, there is not enough flash on the Nanos to hold MT. IIRC, the flash on the nano is 4M (maybe 8?). I can't recall exactly, but it's not enough either way. That is the only thing that limits the ability to run MT on the Nano, as the remaining hardware is pretty close to the same thing as the RB133C. WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
The AirOS that comes on the Nanostations also has polling the issue is having a product that is compatible and has the features that people are already used to. Having Mikrotik on the Nano's would open up a whole new world. Travis Gino Villarini wrote: Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. The oswave has polling... gino -Original Message- From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does work. How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the AP (on the upload side). Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an upload running. Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Hi Travis, I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product. I've been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is pretty amazing at ANY price point. I could say the same thing for the newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the Ubiquity price point just yet. It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS platforms. I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the Nanostation radios. That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc). No polling, but that is one of the most overrated features anyway. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less than $200 for a nice CPE. I think Trango's first mistake was the "mesh" game they played for a year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a product that seems too good to be true... and now it turns out, it was. So, they are now 2+ years behind everyone else in the R&D world, and they are losing customers left and right. The licensed market may help get them by for a while, but I don't think that is enough business to sustain the compan
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote: >And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik >community is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more >sense for Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;) First, there is not enough flash on the Nanos to hold MT. IIRC, the flash on the nano is 4M (maybe 8?). I can't recall exactly, but it's not enough either way. That is the only thing that limits the ability to run MT on the Nano, as the remaining hardware is pretty close to the same thing as the RB133C. -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream * *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE * *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks* *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer* WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Nanostations
Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. The oswave has polling... gino -Original Message- From: Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Travis Johnson wrote: > Matt, > > I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. > Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available > for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using > Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are > finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does > work. > > How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP > with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I > have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to > the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control > the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the > AP (on the upload side). > > Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients > without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a > download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the > download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if > you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while > the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an > upload running. Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. > > What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running > Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer > CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) > Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com > Travis > Microserv > > Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >> Hi Travis, >> >> I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product. I've >> been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with >> StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is >> pretty amazing at ANY price point. I could say the same thing for the >> newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the >> Ubiquity price point just yet. >> >> It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich >> features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference >> resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus >> able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS >> platforms. >> >> I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the >> Nanostation radios. That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna >> mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - >> and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would >> end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every >> feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at >> the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc). No polling, >> but that is one of the most overrated features anyway. >> >> Matt Larsen >> vistabeam.com >> >> >> Travis Johnson wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some >>> new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could >>> shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti >>> quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this >>> coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these >>> companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) >>> when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there >>> are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's >>> out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put >>> whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less >>> than $200 for a nice CPE. >>> >>> I think Trango's first mistake was the "mesh" game they played for a >>> year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a >>> product that seems too good to
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Matt, Polling is a requirement for a system that will scale to larger number of clients. I have Trango AP's that will only do 5Mbps total bandwidth, yet we have loaded them up to their max clients (128) and have no issues. Latency is less than 5ms to any client at any time, and the bandwidth is smooth and consistent. And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik community is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more sense for Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;) Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does work. How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the AP (on the upload side). Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an upload running. Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Hi Travis, I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product. I've been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is pretty amazing at ANY price point. I could say the same thing for the newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the Ubiquity price point just yet. It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS platforms. I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the Nanostation radios. That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc). No polling, but that is one of the most overrated features anyway. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less than $200 for a nice CPE. I think Trango's first mistake was the "mesh" game they played for a year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a product that seems too good to be true... and now it turns out, it was. So, they are now 2+ years behind everyone else in the R&D world, and they are losing customers left and right. The licensed market may help get them by for a while, but I don't think that is enough business to sustain the company forever. Travis Charles Wu wrote: Travis, I
Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Travis Johnson wrote: > Matt, > > I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. > Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available > for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using > Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are > finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does > work. > > How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP > with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I > have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to > the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control > the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the > AP (on the upload side). > > Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients > without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a > download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the > download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if > you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while > the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an > upload running. Um, bandwidth limiting? As long as the AP has the upload speed coming from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity of the pipe, its not a problem. I'm doing the test right now, and I have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. > > What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running > Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer > CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) > Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com > Travis > Microserv > > Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: >> Hi Travis, >> >> I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product. I've >> been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with >> StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is >> pretty amazing at ANY price point. I could say the same thing for the >> newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the >> Ubiquity price point just yet. >> >> It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich >> features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference >> resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus >> able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS >> platforms. >> >> I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the >> Nanostation radios. That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna >> mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - >> and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would >> end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every >> feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at >> the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc). No polling, >> but that is one of the most overrated features anyway. >> >> Matt Larsen >> vistabeam.com >> >> >> Travis Johnson wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some >>> new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could >>> shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti >>> quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this >>> coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these >>> companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) >>> when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there >>> are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's >>> out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put >>> whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less >>> than $200 for a nice CPE. >>> >>> I think Trango's first mistake was the "mesh" game they played for a >>> year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a >>> product that seems too good to be true... and now it turns out, it was. >>> So, they are now 2+ years behind everyone else in the R&D world, and >>> they are losing customers left and right. The licensed market may help >>> get them by for a while, but I don't think that is enough business to >>> sustain the company forever. >>> >>> Travis >>> >>> Charles Wu wrote: >>> >>> Travis, I agree with you 100%...I still think there's a huge opportunity in the market right now that's being missed for a solid 2nd player (not Motorola Canopy) in the last-mile access space However, neither you nor I run Trango If you step back and look at the situation, this discussion is pretty interesting, coming from 2 people who really know Trango well-- we were their
[WISPA] Nanostations
Matt, I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling system. We are finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does work. How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the AP (on the upload side). Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an upload running. What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :) Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Hi Travis, I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product. I've been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is pretty amazing at ANY price point. I could say the same thing for the newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the Ubiquity price point just yet. It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS platforms. I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the Nanostation radios. That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc). No polling, but that is one of the most overrated features anyway. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less than $200 for a nice CPE. I think Trango's first mistake was the "mesh" game they played for a year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a product that seems too good to be true... and now it turns out, it was. So, they are now 2+ years behind everyone else in the R&D world, and they are losing customers left and right. The licensed market may help get them by for a while, but I don't think that is enough business to sustain the company forever. Travis Charles Wu wrote: Travis, I agree with you 100%...I still think there's a huge opportunity in the market right now that's being missed for a solid 2nd player (not Motorola Canopy) in the last-mile access space However, neither you nor I run Trango If you step back and look at the situation, this discussion is pretty interesting, coming from 2 people who really know Trango well-- we were their largest distributor back before they got rid of the channel, and you probably operate one of the largest Trango networks now That said, you've started building out your network with different access solutions, and we're doing other stuff It looks like we've both moved on... -Charles WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://l
