I don't know, I like Alvarion EQ, but I'm sure that the gist I got from Tom's post was that the only vendor he could trust to get the job done right because of the available test tools was Trango.
Am I off base there, Tom ? -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:47 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion Thanks Tom, Your findings are in line with what many Alvarion operators also enjoy. Ease of installs and low operational costs. Brad -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion The link: 4.5 miles, 1 Big fat building in the way, barely unable to clear the roof. Noise floor high. Limits: Noise Floor to high for PtMP Trango, based on obstruction. Stats: rssi -75 & -78, noise -79 or worse on Horiz, Vert worse, RSSI almost 15db below calculations due to NLOS ) Solution: Install PTP to get more gain on AP side, Add OFDM to help with obstruction. Trango 5830 was invaluable to determine what was going on. It's built-in survey command was able to determine the noise floor on all channels accurately, and home in on the fact that the link was marginal because of gear that used a 20Mhz channel half way between Trango's channels. StarOS w/ 28 dbi PAcwireless on both sides- Got -55 & -60 rssi. Good link, but it was not perfect, with 1 out of 20 large ping packets with high latency. It would regularly negotiate down to 36mbps or 18 mbps on one side. StarOS w/ 28db on one side, and 23dbi on other side- Got -60 & -65 rssi. Excellent / Perfect link. Stayed constant at 54 mbps, with a very rare negotiation down to 48mbps or 36mbps. We believe this is becaue one of two reasons, reflections off the building right back at us, or the wide beamwidth of lower gain antenna to help use multi-path to optimize OFDM. We often felt 19-23 dbi antenna ideal for OFDM. This put us above the noise of most of the channels, and narrowed our beam compared to PtMP to reduce noise. OFDM clearly helped to not lose rssi due to the building obstruction, and gain was not received solely from higher gain of PTP antennas. The problem with STAROS-V3... We ran survey, and picked up ZERO interference or devices, but yet we know that there is lots of interfering devices out there. The "Quality" reading was pointless at either 100% or 13% with very little correlation to what the link actual performance was. Hard setting modulation, to 24mbps, left the link unusable, even when Quality of 100 was shown. When we put modulation on auto, every thing worked well. SNR was only available on client side, and not accurate, reading only a -95 (which may have been average, but not peak noise, based on Trango scans). Basically, with the STAROS box, we were left totally in the dark, on what the noise environment was. We really missed the detail of the Trango tools, and not sure what we would have done, if we had not had a Trango on site simultaneously gathering test results. We learned via the Trango, that we could have survived the noise with a 10 Mhz channel, that the StarOS allowed, but we would not have known where that was without the Trango test results. We relied on End to End large pings to determine link state during tests, and were glad to see the addition of Iperf embedded in StarOS for more strenuous testing afterwords. The end result... We left the StarOS installed for a perfect link, and defined many possible options should interference need to be battled in the future. We saved a bunch on hardware, costing us under $1000 in equipment for the link, and delivered the highest quality link, as any gear could offer. But this brings me to my point of this post. What was the true cost of this job? I spent a day installing Trango PTMP. I spent a day isntalling StarOS, both with two engineers. I lost a months revenue, delaying my trips between upgrades and tests. At a price, All these headaches could have been avoided. Most likely Trango Atlas PTP would have solved the problem and given us the benefits of Trango testing tools, and OFDM, and price under $3000. But there was some risk in trying that solution. In the past we've had difficulty in high noise environments, and/or to high of RSSI. We did not have an Atlas on hand to test. We took the time to do a test with Alvarion B40 that we had on hand. The Alvarion picked up the noise in its survey. The Alvarion gave us accurate SNR readings that we could use to best plan the link configuration. And the link quality was perfect as well using the 28dbi and 23 dbi antennas. So had I used the Alvarion VL to begin with, I would have saved our company two days in labor, and would have had all the tools that I needed to install the link easilly the first time and to adapt in the future. Alvarion clearly would have been the winning choice. It gave me confidence that in future jobs IF I had to design a link in advance blind, I could order an Alvarion, and it likely would best be qualified to complete the job successfuly. I ended up keeping the StarOS in place. The reason was two fold. 1) I already spent the time, so why not save the money on equipment. And secondly, at the AP side, I wanted to add a second radio card. Because I switched the link to PTP, the other client that was being served via the PtMP, still needed to be served. For $100, I was able to add the second card, and install a second sector to serve that subscriber still. (two sectors for the price of one). Every product has its value. You be the judge on what product will best suit your next project. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:48 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon Patrick, ditto on the 3650 band. However the reality is that self and external interference in the UL world is all too common. You say UL bands or at least VL doesn't need GPS capability because of so much capacity. If you want I can get you a list of wifi/trango/etc.-to-Canopy 'converts' that will tell you otherwise. Licensed carriers use GPS to greatly diminish what we experience as common day interference problems. IMO I can't blame the FCC for not giving more spectrum than they have as we've already trashed what we've been given. Lastly, what Moto did was brought GPS sync to the UL world however as standard option and in very economical form factor, not expensive chassis and such. If you haven't already, get your VL guys with your WIMAX guys and you could have a clear winner down the road! :) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Quoting Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jon, > > For sure I'm all over GPS for all licensed (world of small channels) and > when there is a small amount of spectrum to work with in UL. For > example, in the coming 3650MHz band, GPS should be a must for PMP. Same > with scaled 900 (we offer it there). It is just not needed with VL. What > for? It already gives massive capacity without any re-use. Even with GPS > and re-use I do not think Canopy can get close to the amount of capacity > VL can offer. Frankly, even if we had it for VL no one would buy it. > > No argument from me on the scheduled MAC front, except to the extent > that in UL it needs to come with good interference mitigation (not > talking about self-inflicted interference) techniques to make it useful. > > Patrick > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jon Langeler > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:37 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs -- Jon > > Hey Patrick, GPS...there's many reasons and it's not a canopy vs > alvarion debate from my standpoint, more so a scheduled mac(canopy, > wimax, 3G...) vs unscheduled(wifi, VL, currently Trango). I'd predict > that as wisp education progresses, they will realize the power of > scheduled mac and GPS support. By then maybe the rest of the BreezeMAX > code will have made way to the VL engineers and everyone can be happy > :-) > > Jon Langeler > Michwave Tech. > > Patrick Leary wrote: > >> Jon, >> >> Why is that the case? You really think GPS on Canopy is some cool >> feature? Canopy must have GPS to function. Without it, it kills itself. >> It is all to prevent self-inflicted interference (remember, Canopy does >> not even have ATPC) and to allow for channel re-use. Other systems, > like >> VL, do not need it. It provides far more capacity than Canopy, so it >> does not need to re-use channels and with basic channel planning you >> don't have issues with self-interference. >> >> Patrick Leary >> AVP WISP Markets >> Alvarion, Inc. >> o: 650.314.2628 >> c: 760.580.0080 >> Vonage: 650.641.1243 >> >> > > -- > 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(42). > ************************************************************************ > ************ > > > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** ******** > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & > computer viruses. > **************************************************************************** ******** > > > > -- > 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/2006 -- 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/
