One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a
full 1500 byte payload.
Fully agree. One of the top reasons we chose Trango 5 years ago.
Its abilty to pass VLAN traffic, as well as future techknowlogies such as
MPLS that were identified but only emerging at the time.
(although Canopy is a close competitor to Trango today, with their newer
firmware features, they were not 3-5 years ago)
Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but
support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango
sector because of its lack of VLAN support.
Does Canopy use VLAN tagging at the CPE?
I didn't think they did. I thought they just did passthrough like Trango?
Canopy doesn't support bandwdith management assignment based on VLANs does
it?
How is Canopy's support for VLAN better than Trango's?
If Canopy does support it completely, it would be a valuable feature, that
is underpublicized, that buyers should consider.
VLAN support at the CPE has been a feature I have been begging Trango to add
for years, unfortuneately they have not yet.
Allthough with their new Linux platform, I'm guessing that they probably
will, as it would be really easy for them to add it.
I found that where VLAN was needed, the business markets, we usually put a
router or switch their anyway that supported VLAN, so it wasn't necessary
for the radio itself to supprot VLAN. Although, Trango's builtin bandwidth
management would be usable if they supported VLANs and allowed assigning
bandwidht per VLAN not jsut per subscriber radio. The largest reason we had
to commit to using our own bandwdith management platform is the inabilty to
distinguish between radios that supported jsut one subscriber versus a
building full of multiple subscribers, therefore not able to sue radio
enabled bandwidth management.
If Trango had built-in VLAN (and in their bandwidth management), we could
have gotten rid of our router platform and switched to name brand appliances
that had trusted tried and true reliabilty but lacked the bandwidth
management features that were essential (such as CISCO).
PS. Who cares if Orthogon supports it, because its to darn expensive, and if
you can afford Orthogon, you can afford the extra $180 to put a
VLANrouter/VLANswitch behind it.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way
to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ
for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a
desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as
it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs
is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't
offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the
requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500
byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the
virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are
the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless,
but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older
technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the
worst requiring an extra 24 bytes.
I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a
radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango,
and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it
nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector
because of its lack of VLAN support.
-Matt
On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:
As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and
I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a
real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product
line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios
support
QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on
a
Trango sector.
Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to
partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as
long
as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the
reasons
that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to
allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally
limit
its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their
own
network.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Our setup requires the following:
1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header
That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless
1512
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to
backhaul an MPLS network.
-Matt
Patrick Leary wrote:
Matt,
I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is
1512.
Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15,
2006
6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are
looking
for an MTU of 1532.
-Matt
Patrick Leary wrote:
Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data
from
beta
testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the
Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy,
a
link
is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in
Nebraska
told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about
the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since
2001).
The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like
all B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version
(antenna
built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B
achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and
sharp
terrain.
We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP
backhaul.
It
is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to
install
backhaul for a very moderate price.
Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.
Patrick
--
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/
**********************************************************************
******
************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer
viruses(192).
**********************************************************************
******
************
**********************************************************************
******
********
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer
viruses(43).
**********************************************************************
******
********
--
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/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
