After, when the 802.11n are approved, we think about 802.11n but if not is supported in few months the adsl2+ or the cable, damage the image of wisp, and one client lost, cost recover twice more.
Sorry for my English
Support for 802.11n
The support of 802.11n is need now, not in four months or one year, because the advance of adsl technologies is bigger that the wireless mikrotik connexion, because adsl2+ can reach “20 Mbps” and the actual wireless technologies (802.11b , 802.11g, 802.11a) not can compete against the adsl2+, and the solution is pre802.11n now.
After, when the 802.11n are approved, we think about 802.11n but if not is supported in few months the adsl2+ or the cable, damage the image of wisp, and one client lost, cost recover twice more.
Sorry for my English
After, when the 802.11n are approved, we think about 802.11n but if not is supported in few months the adsl2+ or the cable, damage the image of wisp, and one client lost, cost recover twice more.
Sorry for my English
-
-
MyThoughts
Member Candidate
- Posts: 218
- Joined:
If you followed any pre-802.11n testing you would find its not going to achieve those data rates. In fact most pre-802.11n equipment in practice (not theoretical) can barely better if at all better then the current wireless standards.
Mikrotik should not waste effort in adding 'standards' that are not even standard yet.
Besides the biggest problem I see with achieving very high data rates with 802.11b,g and even the pre-n to multiple customers, is the CDMA backoff. And currect testing of pre-n equip shows this problem is even worse the with 802.11b,g
I would much rather see effort in leveraging current technology with Mikrotik only 'standards' ie Nstreme, and Nstreme2, CDMA backoff options, Atheros extended range support, realtime compression ability
I would rather see 802.11n style abilities ie. MIMO, that are Mikrotik to Mikrotik only
Besides you don't need to compete with ADSL2 if people can't get it.
Mikrotik should not waste effort in adding 'standards' that are not even standard yet.
Besides the biggest problem I see with achieving very high data rates with 802.11b,g and even the pre-n to multiple customers, is the CDMA backoff. And currect testing of pre-n equip shows this problem is even worse the with 802.11b,g
I would much rather see effort in leveraging current technology with Mikrotik only 'standards' ie Nstreme, and Nstreme2, CDMA backoff options, Atheros extended range support, realtime compression ability
I would rather see 802.11n style abilities ie. MIMO, that are Mikrotik to Mikrotik only
Besides you don't need to compete with ADSL2 if people can't get it.
Yes, with 802.11a is possible 20Mb, but if you want give 10Mb connexion is impossible with 20Mb for all the wlan.
I know two Minipci 802.11n,
http://www.wneweb.com/wireless/wireless_mini-pci.htm
http://www.sparklan.com/product_details.php?prod_id=115
The actual rate is about 100Mb/s on ideal situation, is that say the inform http://www.atheros.com/news/Interop_test_doc053106.pdf between the compatibility of Broadcom and atheros chipsets .
And if all companies (Intel,dlink,netgear,etc…) launch pre802.11n, some advantage have the pre802.11n, and the upgrade to final 802.11n maybe can do (I have serious doubts about this), but if I can use pre802.11n I can stop the advance of the adsl2+, that my clients can get it (20Mb by 20€, though the rate average is 8Mb).
I know two Minipci 802.11n,
http://www.wneweb.com/wireless/wireless_mini-pci.htm
http://www.sparklan.com/product_details.php?prod_id=115
The actual rate is about 100Mb/s on ideal situation, is that say the inform http://www.atheros.com/news/Interop_test_doc053106.pdf between the compatibility of Broadcom and atheros chipsets .
And if all companies (Intel,dlink,netgear,etc…) launch pre802.11n, some advantage have the pre802.11n, and the upgrade to final 802.11n maybe can do (I have serious doubts about this), but if I can use pre802.11n I can stop the advance of the adsl2+, that my clients can get it (20Mb by 20€, though the rate average is 8Mb).
We still expect the differences to be resolved in time for a second draft to be completed this November with a letter ballot going out in January of 2007. If this is approved we can expect final ratification in late 2007. If it is not approved we estimate there will be a Draft 3.0 in the spring with final ratification in early 2008. However, the products released that meet an approved and final Draft 2.0 or 3.0 specifications are almost certain to be fully compliant with the final 802.11n amendments.
We are never going to beat the DSL and cable co on speed. So you should never think you can.
I have gone to 10mhz bandwidth to add more APs with smaller sectors so that I can run less customers per AP. Then I look at the customers usage and try to balance them the best that I can.
If I talk to a new customer and feel like they may be a bandwidth hog I send them to the cable company.
I have gone to 10mhz bandwidth to add more APs with smaller sectors so that I can run less customers per AP. Then I look at the customers usage and try to balance them the best that I can.
If I talk to a new customer and feel like they may be a bandwidth hog I send them to the cable company.
That's not the way your wisp gets big. Get another pipe, get a licensed backhaul, try to get a 3ghz or 6ghz license with controller ros licenses. There are many solutions to many problems in the wireless world. Shoot, even get copper or fiber to your towers if you can get that many small-profile sectors to support more clients. More money paid per month overall is better than slow predictable growth. Also, if in your SLA its all best-faith and they hit a burst you can advertize higher. Or, go with as lame asymmetric links like the telcos and cablecos.We are never going to beat the DSL and cable co on speed. So you should never think you can.
I have gone to 10mhz bandwidth to add more APs with smaller sectors so that I can run less customers per AP. Then I look at the customers usage and try to balance them the best that I can.
If I talk to a new customer and feel like they may be a bandwidth hog I send them to the cable company.
-
-
BrianHiggins
Forum Veteran
- Posts: 720
- Joined:
- Location: Norwalk, CT
- Contact:
[quote="MyThoughts"]Besides the biggest problem I see with achieving very high data rates with 802.11b,g and even the pre-n to multiple customers, is the CDMA backoff. [\quote]
you mean CSMA/CA
turning off the CSMA/CA subsystem should give us significant performance gains over standard NStream links, there is no reason you should not be able to have a consistant 20-25mbps link any time your signal strength allows in a/g...
you mean CSMA/CA
turning off the CSMA/CA subsystem should give us significant performance gains over standard NStream links, there is no reason you should not be able to have a consistant 20-25mbps link any time your signal strength allows in a/g...
> there is no reason you should not be able to have a consistant 20-25mbps link any time your signal strength allows in a/g...
you can't be sure about that, forepoint. Actual throughput heavily depends on general interference, and I have feeling you expect miracles after switching off csma/cd in nstreme links. It won't be that easy... you will not kick off your competitors from air just with this.
you can't be sure about that, forepoint. Actual throughput heavily depends on general interference, and I have feeling you expect miracles after switching off csma/cd in nstreme links. It won't be that easy... you will not kick off your competitors from air just with this.
-
-
BrianHiggins
Forum Veteran
- Posts: 720
- Joined:
- Location: Norwalk, CT
- Contact:
no, I'm not sure of that, but the main reason interference causes 802.11x problems (assuming signal strength is good) is not because of signal corruption but because the radio's wait to transmit until the interference is gone. Turning off CSMA/CA would prevent the radio from waiting to transmit. no you're not getting rid of interference, but if you have a SNR of 25db, the othe noise on the chanel is un-likley to affect your signal at all, so throughput should be near the maximum capable speed. note I said 20-25mbps, if interference was not any problem at all, you should see speeds of 28-30mbps or higher.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: pvdplaat and 3 guests