Fro easier calculation purposes ? Hot dang. Ok I can't even get a straight answer what 85% signal is supposed to mean. All I am told is that it's a "good signal".
Let me be the judge there what a good signal is. dBm is not hard to calculate and there are TONS of online calculators that can do the math for you I yet to find a single one that will figure out what % values you should have when your at X distance with antennas Y and Z in the two ends with n feet of cable. When your doing a 20mile shoot and you prepare for it you do the math. Figure out ok I should with antenna X at each side n feet of cable and with so much radio power then I should be able to get a -75dB signal which would mean say 10dB fade to 11Mbit signal levels. Or if you figure with to small antenna you find yourself with a -88dB signal and oops you don't have 11Mbit signal level you want to use bigger antennas.. So when you aim you see you get -80dB and you expect to get down to -75 well then you know your not right on target and that you should be able to get a better signal so you keep adjusting both sides of the link until you get as close as possible to the expected -75 signal. With values only being displayed in % and a theoretical and highly incorrect conversation table that is provide with sB you have no idea if your even close to what you SHOULD be able to get. Just take a look at the conversation table and bring out a free space loss calculator and you will quickly find out that some of the values you supposedly should be able to get according to the % value isn't even possible. Best regards, Eje "Aya" Gustafsson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Family Entertainment Network http://www.fament.com Phone : 620-231-7777 Fax : 240-376-7272 - Your Full Time Professionals - Online Store http://www.wisp-router.com/ MikroTik, Star-OS, PACWireless, EnGenius, RF Industries -- SM> We have converted this dbm values into % values for the easier SM> calculation purpose. SM> Seeni SM> sB Tech Support SM> [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> -----Original Message----- SM> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Sullivan SM> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 6:42 AM SM> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Repost: Auto Fallback Settings SM> How do I tell what level I am receiving a signal at? Where can I see the SM> DB numbers? SM> When I go to site survey, the DB numbers don't seem to line up with SM> anything -- a -95 DB signal is almost 100% link quality. SM> Kevin SM> ----- Original Message ----- SM> From: Seeni <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mohamed SM> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:09 PM SM> Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Repost: Auto Fallback Settings SM> Hi Todd, SM> Normally, the receive sensitivity determines the data rate at what SM> margin level (dbm) that packets receive at the CPE side. When the RF SM> signals transmit in the wireless medium, it also carries the data rate SM> together with packet size. All of our sB devices are capable to operate SM> with less overload level. I do not have the exact calculation on this. SM> When you set the device to Auto fall back and the link is not stable SM> means then the CPE not able to achieve the required margin (Receive SM> sensitivity) level at 11, 5.5 and 2 and fluctuating between the various SM> data rate. In order to establish the solid link, you need to ensure that SM> the system operating at what margin level. It seems like the receive SM> sensitivity frequently varies between -87 to -88 and that is the reason SM> it moves up and down. I think you are getting about -88 dbm at fixed SM> frequency rate. That is the reason we have given this option to select SM> at fixed level speed to suit your environments. SM> 1Mbps SM> 2Mbps SM> 5.5 Mbps SM> 11Mbps SM> -94 SM> -88 SM> -87 SM> -84 SM> Thank you SM> Seeni SM> sB Tech Support SM> [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> -----Original Message----- SM> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Barber SM> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 12:59 AM SM> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Repost: Auto Fallback Settings SM> Seeni, SM> Thank you for the explanation. One final question, can you SM> quantify the overhead needed by the radios when they must negotiate for SM> a slower speed? SM> When we first deployed our network our testing seemed to SM> indicate there was a lot of thrash when negotiating with auto fallback SM> enabled. The connection just seemed slower than if we let it run at a SM> fixed rate. We guessed this was do to the time it took to negotiate a SM> stable connection. SM> We have had all auto fallback on our network disabled since SM> deployment. We have tried to ensure rock solid links and then set the SM> customers to only 2Mb on the radio. The fastest connection we sell is 1 SM> Mb and having the wireless link at 2 Mb has always allowed us to pull SM> the desired speeds at the CPE. We have not had issue with radios SM> loosing association with this setup either. SM> I guess the heart of the issue is whether there is enough SM> thrash in auto negotiation to nullify the on the air speed gains made by SM> running at 11 Mb with auto fallback enabled. SM> Todd Barber SM> Skylink Broadband Internet SM> [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> 970-454-9499 SM> -----Original Message----- SM> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Seeni Mohamed SM> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 8:59 PM SM> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Repost: Auto Fallback Settings SM> Hi Todd, SM> Here are the answers for your questions. >>If the CPE radios set to Auto Fallback, but you do not set Auto >>Fallback on the AP, what is the impact? SM> If the AP set to specific speed (No Auto fall back enabled), it will try SM> to communicate to the CPE at the specified speed. If the CPE enabled SM> with Auto fall back rate, SM> then the CPE will attempt to communicate at the highest speed if SM> possible, if the specified speed is not achieved then with the Auto SM> Fallback rate being enabled it will try to speak to the AP at the SM> available speed. >>If you have Auto Fallback set on the AP, but not on the clients, what SM> is >>the impact? SM> The AP always attempts to communicate to the CPE at the highest data SM> rate if the Auto Fall back enabled in the AP. If there is any SM> interference or multi path or if not able to achieve the highest data SM> rate, then the AP steps down to the next available rate that allows data SM> transmission. SM> Then based on the rates set at each CPE, they will talk to the AP based SM> on every rate that is being selected at the AP end, if that rate is not SM> available then the link will go down. Hence Auto Fall back rate is SM> important to ensure the link is UP for all times. SM> Seeni SM> sB Tech Support SM> [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> -----Original Message----- SM> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Barber SM> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 12:38 AM SM> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> Subject: [smartBridges] Repost: Auto Fallback Settings SM> I never did get an answer on how the particular Auto Fallback options SM> impact performance or exactly how they work. SM> Could one of the SB techs chip in on this please? SM> If you have client radios set to Auto Fallback, but you do not set Auto SM> Fallback on the AP, what is the impact? SM> If you have Auto Fallback set on the AP, but not on the clients, what is SM> the impact? SM> Todd Barber SM> Skylink Broadband Internet SM> [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> 970-454-9499 SM> -----Original Message----- SM> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Barber SM> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 9:04 PM SM> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Slow down problems SM> Thanks Eje, SM> I would still be interested for someone to chip in on SM> exactly SM> how the auto fallback settings behave. What happens when the AP has SM> auto fallback disabled and clients have it enabled? Do both need to be SM> enabled for it to work? Thanks again. SM> Todd Barber SM> Skylink Broadband Internet SM> [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> 970-454-9499 SM> -----Original Message----- SM> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eje Gustafsson SM> Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 8:52 PM SM> To: Todd Barber SM> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems TB>> I liked your explanation below. It makes sense to me but I SM> was TB>> wondering about some of the tradeoffs. SM> Glad someone liked it. Obviously my first one was not to liked by some SM> and I got accused for being a sales puke and calling people stupid SM> when all I wanted was to make sure nobody did something stupid because SM> of lack of knowledge. TB>> I don't really understand the Auto Fallback options provided SM> in TB>> the AP vs. the client. We have been running all our radios with SM> auto TB>> fallback disabled. Our reasoning was the AP and the client would SM> both TB>> spend less time trying to negotiate an acceptable speed and could SM> just TB>> get to the data transfer. We set all our AP's to allow 1, 2.2, 5.5, SM> and TB>> 11 Mbs but we disable auto fall back on them. We then take a look SM> at TB>> the quality of each client's link. If we have a really good link, SM> we TB>> might set to 5.5 Mbs but we do not enable auto fallback on the SM> client. TB>> If we have a marginal link, which we really try and avoid, we will SM> set TB>> to 1 Mbs without auto fallback. We BW control at the NOC via SM> Star-OS TB>> ensuring the maximum residential connection is 512k which even the 1 SM> Mb TB>> setting in the radio should sustain. Our network seems pretty SM> stable so SM> That is good. Star-OS got a pretty good bandwidth shaper with it. I SM> used MikroTik so much more that I prefer it though. But I do sell SM> both. TB>> we have been happy. Please point out any flaws in our logic. SM> Please TB>> also explain how the auto fallback options in the client and AP's SM> impact TB>> network performance. i.e. if auto fallback is disabled on the AP SM> it's TB>> disable period or if you set it in the client it will still try and TB>> negotiate. SM> Fallback can be nice to have if you start to see problems with a SM> client or the AP. But should normally not be needed. But say you have SM> a install with poor LOS the tress got leaves on them and it rains and SM> they get wet. Now your signal start deteriorate very quickly. Your SM> client is locked at 11Mbit and he lost say 8dB signal and he is not SM> doing just 1-2dB below 11Mbit limit the wind blows a little moving the SM> antennas and trees causing temporarly drops 1-2dB and the client SM> starts to "chop" he start to see lot of package drops and his SM> connection feels slower then a dailup connection. If autofallback had SM> been on his radio could dropped down to 5.5Mbit and things would SM> worked fine. SM> Another thing If you don't allow autofallback then the client can only SM> speak when the AP is in the right speed. So if a 1Mbit client lock up SM> the AP with a lot of traffic the 11Mbit client just have to wait can't SM> send a single package until the AP is yet doing 11Mbit (I might be a SM> bit off here but this is my understanding). SM> One thing though is that I heard from numerous source that say that SM> many radios seems to autofall back way to fast way to easily which SM> means clients that could run with a steady 11Mbit signal but are at SM> the fringes gets dropped to 5.5Mbit or maybe 1Mbit and it will take SM> some time before it goes back to 11Mbit speeds again. By preventing SM> autofallback you get a more stable and faster network.. SM> Decision decisions.. Actually not so much.. Just be sure to do good SM> installs. Weather seal the snoot out of your connectors and install SM> with good LOS and have a decent (10-15dB) fade margin (SOM) and you SM> should have minimal problems. TB>> I can definitely see the major advantage of running SM> everything TB>> at the highest Mbs would the ability of the AP to support more SM> clients TB>> because it can get each transaction done faster. SM> Absolutely. When you run a mix of clients in different speeds it's SM> easy to lose a lot of throughput on your network because of the slower SM> clients. It's not so much a problem when there is little traffic SM> and/or a few clients. But when you have a decent amount of clients and SM> large amount of traffic then you will quickly start to notice it. SM> I had for example on one of my segments a client that had so crappy SM> signal that I could only get a 1Mbit throughput.. One different client SM> (actually myself at home) had a 3Mbit signal (this is a Alvarion BAII SM> FHSS segment but same goes there as with DSSS). When the 1Mbit client SM> was online (a heavy gamer) and played his online games (EverQuest) my SM> downloads was <100kbit when I normally could hit >150kbit when he SM> wasn't online. He didn't create a lot of traffic nor a lot of pacakges SM> just his steady stream of traffic became noticable. When I got him to SM> be able to do 3Mbit signal things where ones again good. He would be playing and I got >>150kbit downloads. TB>> Thanks in advance for any enlightenment you can share. SM> I might be a sales guy. But in heart I'm a geek. If you come to SM> wispcon you will probably be able to spot me because I will be one of SM> the guys that have the most gadgets on me and if you bring a SA you SM> should be able to track me down with it -lol- ;) SM> I'm a geek skilled with networking and understand RF and running my SM> own business so we started offering sales and consulting and the sales SM> have just kept growing more and more items been added to our list. SM> Many of our customers are very loyal and the keep coming back because SM> they know I will give them my HONEST "geek" opinion and not just a SM> sales pitch. The things I sell I have tested out and they gotten my SM> approval (if I don't like it I will not sell it so don't bother asking SM> me about Canopy I will NEVER sell those I hate them).. SM> But also since I have my technical skills I can become a very SM> dangerous sales guy since I can feed you so much facts and info ;) SM> -evil grin- Either way many of my customers coming back for more and SM> many keep calling me for new projects and ask if about other things SM> and we keep add items to our list of products due to them.. =) SM> Ok enough sales pitch here.. But when you need something give us a SM> call or go to wisp-router.com ;) (sorry couldn't resist.. hehe) SM> / Eje TB>> SB Techs please feel free to chip in on this. TB>> Todd Barber TB>> Skylink Broadband Internet TB>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] TB>> 970-454-9499 TB>> -----Original Message----- TB>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TB>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eje Gustafsson TB>> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 9:32 PM TB>> To: Colorado Wisp TB>> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems CW>>> Hmm, CW>>> We talked with Smart Bridges back in January in Denver and they TB>> suggested CW>>> this setup. We have a YDI BCU and it works great, thanks for the TB>> MicroTik CW>>> sales pitch. I apprecitate you calling us dumb, thanks, but maybe TB>> SB should CW>>> jump in here and answer the question about everyone sharing a 1Mbps TB>> pipe, CW>>> you are trying to tell me that the radio cannot handle more than SM> one TB>> CPE at CW>>> a time, that is not what they have been telling the list... TB>> I'm in no ways calling anyone dumb. Glad you have a YDI BCU every SM> WISP TB>> should have and NEED to have SOME sort of bandwidth controller. Be SM> it a TB>> YDI TB>> BCU, Packeteer, MikroTik, Star-OS or simply a Linux box with CBQ or SM> a TB>> FreeBSD with dummynet. If you would come to me to get one I would TB>> promote the MikroTik box since that is what I sell.. TB>> To use the speed settings the radio is set to talk to as bandwidth TB>> controller now that is dumb because that only shows that one haven't TB>> entirely understood how the radios operate and that was why I SM> chimmed TB>> up to make sure that nobody was doing such a dumb thing. We all TB>> started out learning things at one point and if nobody teach you how TB>> things really are or tell you it it's easy to think things work TB>> differently then they really do. I been there ones myself learning SM> how TB>> things works. To tell the truth when I started out doing wireless SM> this TB>> was the very same way I THOUGHT about doing bandwidth control to the TB>> clients but then I got to understand what that setting really meant TB>> and what the effect of it was and then I quickly throwed that idea SM> out TB>> in the garbage where it belonged. I learned to understand how things TB>> really was working and I simply want to help others avoid doing dumb TB>> and silly mistake. TB>> Yes in a way a radio can not handle more then one CPE at a time. SM> It's TB>> doing things in sequential. One at a time. Just like a cashier at a TB>> supermarket. You use only a single radio channel and only one person SM> can TB>> talk on that channel at a time. Just like a CB radio or any other TB>> radio device. If you have 3 walkie talkies only one can speak at the TB>> same time. If the guy that speaks take forever to get done talking TB>> that means that the fast talker will get less time to speak since he TB>> have to wait so much longer before he can speak. CW>>> We have several customer 6+ miles away and they will only run at TB>> 1Mbps so CW>>> doesn't that mean all of the "20mph people" are going to get run TB>> over by the CW>>> "220mph people" and as a result have degraded service? They all TB>> might as CW>>> well have the same service level. TB>> No not quit but pretty close. When a 20mph customer is speaking the SM> AP TB>> is running in 1Mbit mode which forces all 220mph people to run in TB>> 20mph as well. They will simply have to slow down and wait for their TB>> turn. However IF the 20mph person is NOT driving on the road (not TB>> transmitting any data) then your 220mph people can go at full speed. TB>> But as soon as the 20mph person start sending data then entire cell TB>> will slow down to 1Mbit speeds. TB>> The radio is NOT capable of doing multiple speeds at the SAME same TB>> (simultaneously) but it can sure switch between the different speeds TB>> but the switching is not instantantoiously. TB>> Best way to find this out for yourself is to associate 2 clients to SM> a TB>> AP. Force one client radio to ONLY speak at 1Mbit and allow the SM> other TB>> client radio to run at 1,2,5.5,11Mbit and then start a continously TB>> stream of data (say streaming media or a large download) on your SM> 1Mbit TB>> client now try to do a ftp download or other speed test with your TB>> other client and see what speeds you get.. You will notice that you TB>> will not get any better then 1Mbit speed (well actually half since SM> you TB>> share the 1Mbit with the other client).. TB>> Now for fun try to lock one of your clients into 11Mbit only and the TB>> other at 1Mbit only and do the same test and see the disastrous TB>> results you will get. CW>>> SB, please clarify this... TB>> Nothing for SB to clarify really it's a matter of physics and how SM> the TB>> wireless works. TB>> To give you a other example. TB>> Say if your client would send A at 1Mbit compared to other speeds. TB>> Speed Period in time (seconds) TB>> 1Mbit " A " TB>> 2Mbit " A A " TB>> 5.5Mbit "A A A A " TB>> 11Mbit "AAAAAAAAAAA" TB>> In 1Mbit you will only be able to send 1Mbit per second. TB>> So say in a given time period you can only send one A. TB>> When you run at 2Mbit you can send twice the amount of data in the TB>> same time period. So you can send 2 A's in the same time it takes SM> the TB>> 1Mbit guy to send a single A. TB>> In 11Mbit you can send 11 A's in the same time period as the 1Mbit TB>> client can send a single A. TB>> Now if your 1Mbit client is sending data then for X seconds your TB>> airwaves are filled with 1Mbit worth of data. TB>> So during this time the 11Mbit client can not speak because the TB>> airwaves are occupied.. If your 1Mbit client speak for 20sec out TB>> of a entire minute then this have eaten up 1/3 of of the 11Mbit TB>> clients possible air time. So this means that the 11Mbit clients can TB>> only send data at max speed for 2/3 of the time TB>> which means he did not achive 11Mbit speeds. TB>> Lesson learned try to get all customers on a single cell to run at TB>> 11Mbit or 5.5Mbit speeds to be able to get max throughput on your SM> cell TB>> for your clients. TB>> If you have clients far away that can only get 1Mbit signal you SM> should TB>> consider if possible get them a stronger radio (say a 200mw radio) SM> or TB>> bigger antenna (24dB grid unless they already have it) or better LOS TB>> if they don't have good LOS already.. TB>> If your clients are only getting 1Mbit signal then they are very SM> close TB>> to not getting any signal and you really should consider using SM> larger TB>> antenna, stronger radio or higher mast pole. If none of these works TB>> because your client is so far away then you should either create a TB>> second cell for just these clients preferably closer to the clients SM> or TB>> simply put them on a different AP then your closer in clients.. TB>> But just to give you a somewhat correlation of distance and radio TB>> power etc.. TB>> SM> http://www.fament.com/wireless/calculators/simple_som.php?frequency=2400 TB>> SM> &distance=10&rxsensitivity=-85&txpower=17&txloss=1&txgain=24&rxgain=8&rx TB>> loss=1&SOMcalc=Calc TB>> Client 10 Miles away. Using a aB which means 17dB radio with -85 SM> receive TB>> sensitivity for 11Mbit signal and figure 1dB cable loss and a 24dB TB>> grid and a 8dB omni on the AP side with 1dB cable loss before the TB>> APPo. TB>> IF you have enough clear line of sight a client 10 Miles away should TB>> about 7.8dB signal fade margin to the 11Mbit signal limit. Which TB>> should be plenty enough to sustain a 11Mbit signal with some TB>> occasional dips down to 5.5Mbit. TB>> It's all math and physics. TB>> - Eje CW>>> -----Original Message----- CW>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TB>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] CW>>> On Behalf Of Eje Gustafsson CW>>> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 8:55 PM CW>>> To: Colorado Wisp CW>>> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems CW>>> Your setting the data rate to 1 Mbps to offer a 512k service ? Now TB>> that CW>>> isn't very good nor smart. This means that your entire cell NEVER TB>> runs any CW>>> faster then 1Mbps. ALL your customers are sharing 1Mbps. CW>>> Don't use the radio speed settings as a bandwidth throttle SM> mechanism TB>> get a CW>>> bandwidth shaper. Get a MikroTik box or a YDI BCU or something but TB>> by george CW>>> do not set the radio speed to 1Mbit as a way of bandwidth throttle TB>> your CW>>> clients... That is a waste of radiowaves.. CW>>> I do sell MikroTik routers and bandwidth controllers so I'm SM> somewhat TB>> biased CW>>> but whatever you do don't do what you do today get yourself a real TB>> bandwidth CW>>> shaper from me or from anyone else.. CW>>> Because I hope you do understand by setting the data rate to 1Mbps TB>> means you CW>>> limit ALL your clients to run at a TOTAL of 1Mbps (not 1Mbps per TB>> client to CW>>> the AP but 1Mbps for ALL clients). CW>>> Think of it as a single file road. If the speed limit is 20mph then TB>> only so CW>>> many cars can pass a certain stretch of the road in any given time TB>> period CW>>> (your 1Mbit setting). Now if you up the speed limit to 40mph (2Mbit TB>> setting) CW>>> still single file road then twice as many cars CW>>> (bytes) can be pass through on your road. CW>>> If you up to 110mph (5.5Mbit) then you can now pass 5.5 times SM> amount TB>> of cars CW>>> in the same time period as on the 20mph single file road (more SM> bytes TB>> can be CW>>> uploaded or downloaded in the same time period). Now lets go all SM> the TB>> way and CW>>> do 11Mbit or 220mph.. Still single file road (you only use one TB>> frequency to CW>>> talk to your clients).. CW>>> Best regards, CW>>> Eje Gustafsson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] CW>>> The Family Entertainment Network http://www.fament.com CW>>> Phone : 620-231-7777 Fax : 620-231-4066 CW>>> - Your Full Time Professionals - CW>>> Online Store http://www.wisp-router.com/ CW>>> PACWireless Antennas Distributor - MikroTik OEM CW>>> -- CW>>>> Hi, CW>>>> I have not followed the entire thread, but here is what we set the CW>>>> aB CPE CW>>>> at: CW>>>> Frag Threshold: 1066 CW>>>> RTS Threshold: 256 CW>>>> IP of the CPE is static private (192.168.5.X), full class c subent CW>>>> and 0.0.0.0 for the gateway. Data rate is set at 1 Mbps. We only CW>>>> offer 512 service, so no need to run any higher. CW>>>> Our APPO are set at: CW>>>> Fragmentation: 2346 CW>>>> RTS/CTS: 2346 CW>>>> All data rates are checked on the APPO, static private IP... CW>>>> Could your problem be that the CPE radios are connecting a TB>> different CW>>>> speeds and the APPO is always busy changing data rates to talk to CW>>>> the various CPEs? CW>>>> Try that... CW>>>> Chris CW>>>> --- CW>>>> Colorado WISP llc. http://www.cowisp.net CW>>>> Bringing high speed internet to rural communities. CW>>>> P.O. Box 55 CW>>>> Wellington, Colorado 80549 CW>>>> 970-218-5295 CW>>>> -----Original Message----- CW>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CW>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] CW>>>> On Behalf Of Blazen Wireless CW>>>> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 3:01 PM CW>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CW>>>> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems CW>>>> I also forgot to mention I throttled the one big user down to CW>>>> 100kbps and same think its like it has a hold on the APPO at 11 TB>> megs CW>>>> (5.5) and wont let anything else talk to it?? CW>>>> ----- Original Message ----- CW>>>> From: "Blazen Wireless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CW>>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CW>>>> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:59 PM CW>>>> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems CW>>>> Okay this slow down is really killing me I have all users turned TB>> off CW>>> that CW>>>> appear to be sending any kind of arp but this was not what was TB>> causing CW>>> the CW>>>> slowdowns. I have two users on right now one downloading at SM> 700kbps TB>> and CW>>> the CW>>>> other one my slow customer just trying to surf and cant due it due TB>> to CW>>> ping CW>>>> rates we beyond out of control 300-400 and packet loss. CW>>>> I turn off the one customer who is downloading and the problem TB>> resolves. CW>>> I CW>>>> called the customer downloading and they are doing Microsoft TB>> patches on CW>>>> their machines right now so its not a virus. What gives why can SM> one CW>>> person CW>>>> not taking up the full bandwidth screw the whole system I mean TB>> every one CW>>>> else is at a dead stand still?? CW>>>> To me this is a problem in the radio APPO not being able to talk SM> to TB>> two CW>>>> radios at the same time at two different speeds this thing is TB>> totally CW>>> just CW>>>> sh**ing all over itself? CW>>>> Anyone else see this happen I had the APPO set to 1 meg only 2 meg TB>> and CW>>> 5.5 CW>>>> and also 11 but nothing seems to help! I have RTS set to 800 on SM> the CW>>> clients CW>>>> and that made no difference I give up this customer wants me to TB>> come CW>>> pull CW>>>> the equipment.. CW>>>> Any ideas? CW>>>> HELP! CW>>>> ----- Original Message ----- CW>>>> From: "Mark Radabaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CW>>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CW>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 6:02 PM CW>>>> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems CW>>>> This can get tricky. You need to be on a port that sees all of SM> the CW>>> traffic CW>>>> - read that as 'not a switch port'. By definition a switch will TB>> only CW>>> show CW>>>> you packets destined for your computer. CW>>>> If you really want to see what going on you need a hub or a SM> managed CW>>> switch CW>>>> that can replicate all traffic onto a port. CW>>>> Another option is to use a wireless card in promiscious mode - a TB>> mode CW>>> where CW>>>> you see all of the traffic. Ethereal will do this with (I think) TB>> most CW>>>> common wireless cards. CW>>>> Mark Radabaugh CW>>>> Amplex CW>>>> (419) 720-3635 CW>>>> ----- Original Message ----- CW>>>> From: "Pascal Losier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CW>>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CW>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:41 PM CW>>>> Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>>>> >>>>> Just a small question, >>>>> >>>>> When running ethereal, Do you run it directly on the router >>>>> (ex.Mikrotik) or on any system connected to the router. >>>>> >>>>> Also does it matter if the system running ethereal is log via PPPOE >>>>> ???? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blazen SM> Wireless >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 6:12 PM >>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> HAHA well then my router has the virus I get like over 2000 arp >>>>> request from the router in less then 20 min which I think is way SM> out >>>>> of control it always is asking who has what IP etc. I was told this TB>> is >>>>> normal in order for the router to know what IP has what mac etc.. >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Scott Damron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:15 PM >>>>> Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A WHOLE bunch of arp requests. If you run ethereal, you would see >>>>> upwards of 30 or 40% ARP requests. Some of the viruses cause ARP >>>>> storms. >>>>> >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blazen SM> Wireless >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:09 PM >>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What do you mean check arp I know how to check it but what am I >>>>> looking for?? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Scott Damron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 11:37 AM >>>>> Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Check ARP. >>>>> >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blazen SM> Wireless >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 11:17 AM >>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have done that already and there is no ICMP other then me pinging >>>>> the radios It doesn't happen when there is no one online it only >>>>> happens when a few close users get on and start to surf and then SM> the >>>>> far users have a hard time with dropped packets and slow speeds and >>>>> high pings. I just thing I need to open up another AP closer to SM> them >>>>> and keep my distance down to under 5 miles. The one person having TB>> the >>>>> hardest time is about 5.6 miles which is closer then my 7.2 mile >>>>> customer who is doing great and pointed at the same radio APPO. It >>>>> might just be this person is in a bad area with more interference SM> is >>>>> what I am thinking and I also may need to raise her ant a smidge.. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 11:47 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Every time I've experienced interference (numerous times), it SM> hasn't >>>>> affected ping times. >From what I've seen, it usually causes lost >>>>> packets, but not high latency. I don't know if anyone has SM> mentioned >>>>> this before (I jumped in in the middle of this thread), but what >>>>> you're describing sounds exactly like something I experienced a few >>>>> weeks ago. I had about six users with the Welchia virus, and they TB>> were >>>>> causing high latency all over the network. If you haven't done it >>>>> already, put a packet sniffer on the network, and see if you're TB>> seeing >>>>> a lot of icmp echo traffic. >>>>> >>>>> Craig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quoting Blazen Wireless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>> >>>>> > Well maybe this is not the problem now I am back to the same TB>> issues >>>>> > pings up to over 100ms and it seems now more with radios that TB>> never >>>>> > had problems before I am thinking more of interference now? How TB>> many >>>>> > of you have seen a drastic increase in SOHO wireless routers TB>> popping >>>>> > up on your site survey tab when setting up a customer, I s**t you >>>>> > not one the other day had 11 >>>>> that >>>>> > all >>>>> > said linksys or the default ssid for dlink stuff. Are those >>>>> manufacturers >>>>> > within spec it seems more and more are popping up and some with >>>>> > better >>>>> >>>>> > signal then my tower according to the site survey numbers in the TB>> ABO >>>>> /ABI >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> > From: "Scott Damron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 9:07 AM >>>>> > Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Actually, it does not really drop everyone down to 1meg, it just >>>>> > _MAY_ >>>>> >>>>> > slow down the 11meg folks in order to respond to the 1meg person. >>>>> > Hope >>>>> >>>>> > that makes sense. >>>>> > >>>>> > Scott >>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Wirefree >>>>> > Network >>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 9:08 AM >>>>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> > Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Huh!??!? This seems bass ackwards. If one client associates at SM> 1 >>>>> > Meg, it drops everyone down to that speed. Not the other way >>>>> > around. Weakest link theory. If a client can not associate at 11 >>>>> > Meg and steps it's way down to 1 Meg, then it CAN NOT be forced SM> to >>>>> > connect at 11 Meg. However, a client who is close in with 100% TB>> RSSI, >>>>> > could be stepped down to 1 Meg based on some far out client. >>>>> > >>>>> > Sully >>>>> > >>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blazen TB>> Wireless >>>>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:56 PM >>>>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> > Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>>>> > >>>>> > I have throttling in place now thats not the issue. The issue is TB>> in >>>>> > my >>>>> >>>>> > opinion and theory is at what rate the radios associate at.. If TB>> they >>>>> > are only associating at 1 meg or less then yes you will have >>>>> > throughput problems, if I have all my close customers able to >>>>> > associate at 11 megs >>>>> > (5.5) and my furthest customers only at 1 meg ( 500kbps) then the >>>>> > further users are not going to be able to associate at 1 meg but >>>>> > will >>>>> be >>>>> > forced to associate at 11 megs and since that is not a stable SM> link >>>>> they >>>>> > will suffer as I kind of proved tonight but cant be 100% sure TB>> unless >>>>> > I >>>>> >>>>> > could verify what speed the users radios are associating at to SM> the >>>>> > AP. >>>>> >>>>> > In theory the AP cant be associated to 3 to 4 radios all at >>>>> > different speeds. They will be associated at the speed of the >>>>> > slowest radio or >>>>> the >>>>> > fastest depending on what radio has the best link I think? >>>>> > >>>>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> > From: Vasu (sB Tech Team) >>>>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:27 PM >>>>> > Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>>>> > >>>>> > That's the basics of 802.11 std, when one user hogs the entire >>>>> > bandwidth the remaining users have to share the bandwidth, hence >>>>> > bandwidth throttling is important to ensure good and stable links TB>> to >>>>> > all users, I think the XO series access point should solve your >>>>> > problem which can provide dedicated bandwidth to every user. >>>>> > >>>>> > Vasu >>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blazen TB>> Wireless >>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 2:02 PM >>>>> > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >>>>> > Subject: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>>>> > >>>>> > Okay I think I have figured out the problem with my system. It TB>> seems >>>>> > that when users are one (close users) they are associated to the >>>>> > APPO at 5.5 to 11 megs possibly and the users that are further TB>> away >>>>> > are at 1 meg max well if you have the near users at 11 megs tying TB>> up >>>>> > the radio and the far uses cant connect at a slower speed for a >>>>> > better link / speed quality then the far users suffer? am I TB>> correct >>>>> > in my theory does that make any sense? >>>>> > >>>>> > So going forward we are going to have to plan some more sites TB>> closer >>>>> > to the users having issues etc Has anyone else experienced this. SM> I >>>>> > cant verify 100% that this is true due to the fact the radios TB>> don't >>>>> > report what speed they are associated at? Can someone think of a TB>> way >>>>> > to validate this theory?? >>>>> > >>>>> > Thanks >>>>> > >>>>> > Martin & Steve >>>>> > Blazen Wireless >>>>> > www.blazenwireless.com >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>>>> > Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>>>> > http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>>>> > >>>>> > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>>>> > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>>>> > smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: SM> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> > (in >>>>> >>>>> > the body type unsubscribe >>>>> > smartBridges) >>>>> > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>>>> > Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>>>> > http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>>>> > >>>>> > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>>>> > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>>>> smartBridges >>>>> > <yournickname> >>>>> > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type TB>> unsubscribe >>>>> > smartBridges) >>>>> > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>>>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>>>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>>>> >>>>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>>>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>>>> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TB>> (in >>>>> the body type unsubscribe >>>>> smartBridges) >>>>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>>>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>>>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>>>> >>>>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>>>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>>>> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TB>> (in >>>>> the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) >>>>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>>>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>>>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>>>> >>>>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>>>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>>>> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TB>> (in >>>>> the body type unsubscribe >>>>> smartBridges) >>>>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>>>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>>>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>>>> >>>>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>>>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>>>> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TB>> (in >>>>> the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) >>>>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>>>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>>>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>>>> >>>>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>>>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>>>> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TB>> (in >>>>> the body type unsubscribe >>>>> smartBridges) >>>>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>>>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>>>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>>>> >>>>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>>>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>>>> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TB>> (in >>>>> the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) >>>>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>>>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>>>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>>>> >>>>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>>>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe CW>>>> smartBridges <yournickname> >>>>> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type SM> unsubscribe CW>>>> smartBridges) >>>>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>>>> CW>>>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- CW>>>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV CW>>>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm CW>>>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List CW>>>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe CW>>>> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TB>> (in CW>>> the CW>>>> body type unsubscribe CW>>>> smartBridges) CW>>>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org CW>>>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- CW>>>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV CW>>>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm CW>>>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List CW>>>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe CW>>>> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TB>> (in CW>>> the CW>>>> body type unsubscribe smartBridges) CW>>>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org CW>>>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- CW>>>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV CW>>>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm CW>>>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List CW>>>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe CW>>> smartBridges <yournickname> CW>>>> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type TB>> unsubscribe CW>>> smartBridges) CW>>>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org CW>>>> -- CW>>>> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] TB>> -- TB>> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] TB>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- TB>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV TB>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm TB>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List TB>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe TB>> smartBridges <yournickname> TB>> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe TB>> smartBridges) TB>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org TB>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- TB>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV TB>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm TB>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List TB>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe SM> smartBridges <yournickname> TB>> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe SM> smartBridges) TB>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org SM> Best regards, SM> Eje Gustafsson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SM> --- SM> The Family Entertainment Network http://www.fament.com SM> Phone : 620-231-7777 Fax : 620-231-4066 SM> eBay UserID : macahan SM> - Your Full Time Professionals - -- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://archives.part-15.org
