That's a easy mod, I have done it myself... Trango gear has a 2 mcx jacks on the pcb ...
Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.767.7466 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 Sounds like you just want an external antenna jack on the Access5830. If so, you might consider doing something similar to what the LastMileGear guys do with the Canopy 5.7 gear. -Matt Tom DeReggi wrote: > I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about > 300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU > mode. The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a > quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and > encryption turned off. > > Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 > mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps. > > I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP > to SU) > > This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real > throughput (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. > Then through in longer range links, interference, hidden node (or > CTS/RTS to cure), retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you > know real throughput can be much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of > course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog up channels. > > My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, > or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher > processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? > > For those interested.... > > My business decission question is: > > 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and... > 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have) > 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so) > 4) Trango has better testing tools > 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew > that cost ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, > pre-assembles, consistent availabilty, security, better remote > management, ARQ, etc), > > What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even > for small community projects? > > 802.11 Atheros gives you... > > 1) Mesh designs > 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with > only a $50 cost per radio card added. > 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config. > 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532&daughter card. > 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed. > 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly > adaptabilty (pending antenna swap). > > #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to > discuss the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top > approval. > > My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / > multi-tenant complex. > I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), > apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a > Trango 60 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex > placement, Mikrotik 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP > side. On the MTU side, I would normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN > switch (24 port) for EACH building, apposed to $99 additional for > Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports including RB532). Many > complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building. But if we use an > example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN switch would > add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with maintenance > of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two devices > (VLAN switch and CPE Router). It also reduces costs for remote reboot > devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical > VLAN switch would not. We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support. We use > VLAN support for several reasons. 1) it protects end users from > seeing other end users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly > centrally bandwidth manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed > to paying attention to IPs and MACs which may have the need to change > over time, or may not be known in advance. 3) Prevents customer's > misconfigurations from effecting other users' links or router configs. > Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it can't conflict. The > misconfigured client only gets effected. > > I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, > figure out how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling > reocurring revenue, I'd argue I would have saved by just deploying > Trango and VLAN switches to the project. > > Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to > use a Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same > time, because large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN > device on the Non-VLAN custoemrs to untag > > In summary... > > 1) If Trango would add a third external connector option to their > 5830AP line, like the 900APs, it would drastically reduce the > justification of home brew wifi, making it much more affordable to use > Trango for these type projects. It still wouldn't fix the VLAN cost > reductions, but then again so what. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom DeReggi" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:06 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 Current News > > >> Level3 did it to themselves, Cogent customers didn't have the option >> to hear Level 3's side of the story because LEVEL3 blocked us access >> from reading their side, like idiots. They instead could have did >> port redirection to pass our traffic to their web site our something. >> Regardless of what anyone says, LEVEL3 could have handled this >> situation by simply cutting off the pipe that was used for peering, >> but that is not what they did. They weren't accepting route >> advertisements for Cogent IPs. We could send data through diverse >> paths (other peers / ISPs), the packets just never came back. LEVEL3 >> didn't block peering pipes, they blocked routing info, in other words >> Cogent users. Cogent wasn't technically capable to re-route our data >> becaue LEvel3's actions. People leave out those little details of >> relavence, because they can't prove it legally. But it is what >> happened. In my mind Level3 stinks bad in this battle, because how >> they fought dirty. It had nothing to do with who was actually at >> faught regarding whether Cogent should have free peering or not. >> >> However, Level3 atleast did the honorable thing and will be restoring >> service long enough for us to take action to add peers. But in my >> mind they should have made that decission two days ago, before all >> the damage was done to innocent providers and businesses such as >> MINE. We can sit behind the scenes as individuals educated on the >> matter, and point fingers at LEvel3 or Cogent. But in my customer's >> eyes the ONLY one responsible is ME. I got a black eye on this, that >> will stay for some time, and I blaim Level3. There actions were >> heartless on who it would effect. In my mind, Level3 was inches away >> from serious law sutes. >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Muto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 7:53 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 Current News >> >> >>> Level 3 Issues Ultimatum >>> Restores connectivity to Cogent until Nov 9 >>> >>> Posted 2005-10-07 19:15:54 >>> >>> After restoring connectivity to Cogent this afternoon, Level 3 has now >>> issued a press release (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/68244) >>> explaining >>> their side of the story >>> (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/051007/laf057.html?.v=17). "Despite >>> more than >>> 75 days of advance written notice of the termination of our agreement, >>> Cogent apparently failed to notify its customers or make any >>> business plans >>> to prepare for disconnection," notes Sureel Choksi, executive vice >>> president >>> of Level 3 Communications. >>> >>> The restored peering arrangement won't last if Cogent isn't willing to >>> negotiate, however. >>> >>> "Level 3 has, effective immediately, re-established a free >>> connection to >>> Cogent. In order to allow Internet users to make alternative >>> arrangements, >>> we will maintain this connection until 6:00 a.m. ET, November 9, >>> 2005. The >>> effectiveness of this arrangement of course depends on Cogent's >>> willingness >>> to maintain their side of the traffic exchange." >>> >>> >>> Frank Muto >>> Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA >>> Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee >>> http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >>> >>> -- >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >>> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/123 - Release Date: >>> 10/6/2005 >>> >>> >> >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/123 - Release Date: >> 10/6/2005 >> >> > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
