With Canopy, you can decide how much bandwidth you want to set aside for ARQ. It has its own slice of the overhead and you can limit it to 2 kbps if you want. Most pick 20 kbps. But it really isn't a factor. With 120 on an AP at 5.8 with most of them subscribing to 512 Kbps 10.2 Mbps burst they do get 7 mS latency and everyone is happy.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The other big factor is ARQ. (ps. dont say Canopies don't need arq because > their C/I allows them to not have interference :-) > The benefits of ARQ are well proven and justifed, which is why Canopy and > Trango supports it. If there are ARQ retransmissions, latency WILL rise. > You > won;t see it from the AP side because the Pings go our right away, but > from > the client, The ARQ needs to wait for its next time slice to retransmit. > > Again, I don't want to get into which manufacturer's ARQ is a better > implementation. Just pointing out that ARQ is one of hte factors that > prevents an ISP from knowing exactly what the latency is that the customer > is experiencing, without testing from the customer side. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
