c: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Wireless bridge
No, you are not pushing a stable '54mbps over the link without issue'.
More likely, if you cared to look, you are getting somewhere around
30-35mbps, HALF DUPLEX. The '54mbps' advertised on the shiny sales
brochure, is a signali
No, you are not pushing a stable '54mbps over the link without issue'.
More likely, if you cared to look, you are getting somewhere around
30-35mbps, HALF DUPLEX. The '54mbps' advertised on the shiny sales
brochure, is a signaling rate and not a measure of thruput.
Mike-
Bret Clark wrote:
Peter Boone wrote:
I purchased 2x Ubiquity Bullet2's (2.4 GHz) and utilized our existing
antennas. It has been working extremely well, pushing a stable 54 Mbps over
the link without issue. Signal strength is consistently -40 dBm +/- 2 dBm,
from about -80 dBm before! Total cost included 2x Bull
They have worked very well through
conditions that our last setup would not.
Thanks again for the input everyone!
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Peter Boone [mailto:na...@aquillar.com]
Sent: June-18-09 9:46 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Wireless bridge
OK, from reading al
You've got to recall that the genesis of this is dicsussion was the
replacement of a pair for open-wrtized linksys wrt-54g routers, which
have 30mW 2.4ghz radios being used for an 800meter link... There are a
vast continuum (both in terms of performance and cost) of solutions
between that and a pai
> Also for this kind of link, 60 GHz gear is often cheaper and easier to deal
> with, so what I would recommend.
I'd also take a look at 60GHz, check http://www.bridgewave.com/,
I believe they have some sort of promotion going on for 60/80GHz gear.
My .02
Matthew Walster wrote:
I'd heartily recommend giving infra-red FSO a go, no Fresnel zone...
A nitpick, but there's nothing special about infra-red that makes it not
electromagnetic just like microwave. So there's still a Fresnel zone,
only smaller in diameter.
Also for this kind of link, 60
2009/6/19 Peter Boone
>
> - Get off the 2.4 GHz range. Move up to 5. As for licensed vs. unlicensed,
> I'm getting mixed input. I'm fairly certain that if the price is right and
> the frequency is 5GHz+, it won't be a factor. Also, I'll be very glad to
> separate the bridge from the client access
Hello -
On this same topic does anyone have any experience with the Linksys
WAP200E?
thanks and regards
Hugh
On 19 Jun 2009, at 20:19, Bret Clark wrote:
Justin Sharp wrote:
I didn't read through all of the replies to see if this was
suggested, apologies if it was.
http://www.solecte
asystems.com
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
http://www.vectordatasystems.com
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:46:08 -0400
From: "Peter Boone"
Subject: RE: Wireless bridge
To:
Message-ID: <23ab01c9f07f$b7aa6480$26ff2d...@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-asci
Justin Sharp wrote:
I didn't read through all of the replies to see if this was suggested,
apologies if it was.
http://www.solectek.com/products.php?prod=sw7k&page=feat
I implemented a PTP link at about 3 miles using these Solectek radios.
I get 40Mbps consistently with TCP traffic and ~100Mb
I didn't read through all of the replies to see if this was suggested,
apologies if it was.
http://www.solectek.com/products.php?prod=sw7k&page=feat
I implemented a PTP link at about 3 miles using these Solectek radios. I
get 40Mbps consistently with TCP traffic and ~100Mbps UDP. This PTP link
Peter Boone wrote:
> - Get a unit with radio/antenna integrated, PoE from inside the building
> (outdoor rated cat5, shielded I assume),
Actually shielding doesn't matter so much and it requires that the rj45
connector and socket be similarly sheilded to be effective, the salient
points are: uv s
OK, from reading all the excellent feedback I've got on and off list I've
attempted to compile a "quick" summary of findings/ideas/products so far.
- RouterBoard is no good for this type of application.
- Get a unit with radio/antenna integrated, PoE from inside the building
(outdoor rated cat5,
Once upon a time, Peter Boone said:
> I'll double check
> grounding on the poles but I'm somewhat afraid to turn it into a lightning
> rod.
If it is a high point on a roof, it is a lightning rod already. You
ground the antenna and mount to give the lightning a better path to
ground than running
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 09:34 -0700, John van Oppen wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Huffman [mailto:t...@bobbroadband.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:27 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Wireless bridge
>
> > The line of sight is all clear, no
WISPA list is a great resource for help with projects like this.
Patrick Shoemaker
Vector Data Systems LLC
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
http://www.vectordatasystems.com
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:13:17 -0400
From: Curtis Maurand
Subject: Re: Wireles
Peter Boone wrote:
From: Michael Dillon [mailto:wavetos...@googlemail.com]
(for example, after a good thunderstorm, the wireless link will be
down for
at least 12 hours, but will fix itself eventually.
Sounds like there are trees in the line of sight, and maybe they ar
2.4 and 5GHz license-free Wifi is license free because the frequencies
are shared with the ISM (Industrial/Scientific/Medical) services. In an
industrial area, competing WiFi is the least of your worries. These
frequencies are also used by industrial grade heating units. Got anyone
in the neigh
+1 for Ubnt gear!
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Pair of Ubuquiti power station 2 or 5 bridges, 5 would be preferable,
under $200 per end.
http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/ps5_datasheet.pdf
Peter Boone wrote:
Might I suggest Ubnt.com ?
Or a vendor that I use http://www.wlanparts.com/category/ubiquiti/
Couple of these
http://www.wlanparts.com/product/BULLET2-D13/Ubiquiti_BULLET2_and_13dBi_24GHz_Panel_Antenna__BULLET2D13.html
(100.00 per side or so).
Peter Boone wrote:
Hi NANOG,
I'm lookin
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 11:54 -0400, Peter Boone wrote:
Oh I know. Luckily it's located in an industrial area just on the
outskirts
of the city. There isn't a lot of other WiFi (in my opinion); 3-5
total
SSIDs spread across 2 of the 3 physical channels (1,6,11) depending
> Jason Gurtz wrote:
>
>> Are you sure there's not a moisture problem in the antennae cabling? Get
>> an SWR meter that can handle the 2.4 GHz range and make sure that SWR is
>> very low (approaching 1:1 but certainly less than 2:1). Hook up the
>> meter
>> in-line at the AP. Test this after ev
Jason Gurtz wrote:
Are you sure there's not a moisture problem in the antennae cabling? Get
an SWR meter that can handle the 2.4 GHz range and make sure that SWR is
very low (approaching 1:1 but certainly less than 2:1). Hook up the meter
in-line at the AP. Test this after everything is wet a
> -Original Message-
> From: Lyndon Nerenberg [mailto:lyn...@orthanc.ca]
> Sent: June 18, 2009 12:11 PM
> To: Peter Boone
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Wireless bridge
>
> On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 11:54 -0400, Peter Boone wrote:
> > Oh I know. Luckily
ssage-
From: Tim Huffman [mailto:t...@bobbroadband.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:27 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Wireless bridge
> The line of sight is all clear, no trees. Only one building along the
way
> has a rooftop of similar height, but the antennas are extended far
> The line of sight is all clear, no trees. Only one building along the way
> has a rooftop of similar height, but the antennas are extended far above
> the
> roofline. We have used a rifle scope to confirm line of sight is all clear
> at all angles.
>
Unfortunately, you can't necessarily rely on
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 11:54 -0400, Peter Boone wrote:
> Oh I know. Luckily it's located in an industrial area just on the
> outskirts
> of the city. There isn't a lot of other WiFi (in my opinion); 3-5
> total
> SSIDs spread across 2 of the 3 physical channels (1,6,11) depending on
> which
> roofto
> From: Michael Dillon [mailto:wavetos...@googlemail.com]
> > (for example, after a good thunderstorm, the wireless link will be
> down for
> > at least 12 hours, but will fix itself eventually.
>
> Sounds like there are trees in the line of sight, and maybe they are
> getting
> leafier over the y
> (for example, after a good thunderstorm, the wireless link will be down
> for at least 12 hours, but will fix itself eventually.
Are you sure there's not a moisture problem in the antennae cabling? Get
an SWR meter that can handle the 2.4 GHz range and make sure that SWR is
very low (approachin
We're a WISP, so I have lots of experience with this kind of thing. The problem
with using 2.4GHz equipment is that there's a whole lot of noise out there (run
Network Stumbler sometime on a laptop with a wireless card, and you'll be
shocked by just how many wi-fi APs are floating around).
You
> (for example, after a good thunderstorm, the wireless link will be down for
> at least 12 hours, but will fix itself eventually.
Sounds like there are trees in the line of sight, and maybe they are getting
leafier over the years. The only solution to that is to change the path if
it is possible.
Pair of Ubuquiti power station 2 or 5 bridges, 5 would be preferable,
under $200 per end.
http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/ps5_datasheet.pdf
Peter Boone wrote:
> Hi NANOG,
>
> I'm looking for some equipment recommendations for a wireless bridge between
> two locations approximately 500-800 meters a
Cisco Aironet www.cisco.com
Alvarion www.alvarion.com
Aruba www.arubanetworks.com
bluesocket www.bluesocket.com
I've used all but bluesocket and they all worked pretty well.
bluesocket gets good reviews. These are just a few. There are lots of
them. Try to use one as and access point and
Peter Boone wrote:
Hi NANOG,
I'm looking for some equipment recommendations for a wireless bridge between
two locations approximately 500-800 meters apart. The current setup for this
company has been extremely unstable and slow. I don't have a lot of
experience in this area so I was hoping someo
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:05:56AM -0400, Peter Boone wrote:
> I'm looking for some equipment recommendations for a wireless bridge between
> two locations approximately 500-800 meters apart. The current setup for this
> company has been extremely unstable and slow. I don't have a lot of
> experien
We've used aironet since before cisco owned it. We just recently went fiber
for most of the district, but still running one aironet connection a good
distance apart.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:05:56AM -0400, Peter Boone wrote:
> > Hi NANOG,
>
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:05:56AM -0400, Peter Boone wrote:
> Hi NANOG,
>
> I'm looking for some equipment recommendations for a wireless bridge between
> two locations approximately 500-800 meters apart. The current setup for this
> company has been extremely unstable and slow. I don't have a lo
38 matches
Mail list logo
