[129790] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Specifications for Internet services on public frequency
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dennis Burgess)
Mon Sep 20 09:26:39 2010
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:27:14 -0500
From: "Dennis Burgess" <dmburgess@linktechs.net>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
UBNT is fine if you need a bridged network, using them in junction to =
MikroTik's RouterBOARDs will give you all of the tools you will need to =
be successful as well. Routing, traffic shaping etc. Contact me =
off-list if you need pre-built / configured solutions with either =
hardware. =20
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer=20
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS"
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Lyon [mailto:jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net]=20
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 1:33 AM
To: Jared Mauch
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Specifications for Internet services on public frequency
Another +1 UBNT. We're using the NanoStation2 to deliver 802.11g to =
remote camps in Afghanistan. They advertise a 60 deg LOS signal but it =
seems to do much better. Supposedly they will reach 15 km but we've =
never tried to use them that far. What's really neat is they come ready =
to mount with some heavy duty zip ties.
I'm also a fan of the Cisco Aironet 1310, but we're using the built-in =
omni-directional antennae so the range isn't as nice as the Ubiquity and =
they cost about five times as much. The terminations are RG6 and the =
mount kit comes with the cable and weather strips to protect the =
terminations. The Ubiquity by comparison is all PoE so you'll want to =
use loom to protect the ethernet cable.
I would venture to say that the UBNT omni-directional devices (eg.
PicoStation2HP) have better range than the aforementioned Aironet 1310.
Jeff
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> =
wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2010, at 2:59 PM, John Gammons wrote:
>
>> Ubiquiti Networks - www.ubnt.com
>>
>> I have deployed numerous rural wireless provider nets with a variety=20
>> of technologies and vendors and this is by far, the most cost=20
>> effective and reliable last mile solution.
>>
>> IMHO, based on testing and real life lessons learned, unlicensed is=20
>> the only way to go in rural. =A0The benefits of licensed frequencies=20
>> are "typically" lost in rural environments as there aren't many=20
>> contending devices. =A0The above N based equipment performs roughly =
at=20
>> the same level as fixed wimax, without the expense of the wimax=20
>> chipsets. =A0Of course I am generalizing a bit and each deployment =
has=20
>> it's own requirements and challenges to be considered.
>
> +1 UBNT.
>
> Can not beat the price/performance of the equipment. ($160 for a pair =
of dual-pol 802.11n equipment).
>
> - Jared
>
>
>
>
--
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus =
Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
