Re: [Aironet] Arrrghhh!! No Cisco gear in the WISP market!!

[<lo...@pe...>]

I realy hate to play devils advocate, but, it is interesting to note that
on even old 900 MHz aironet there was a distinct LACK of Timeoute interval
as related to distance.. Take for example the 630 Access Point. It is the
eact same hardware platform as the 640, yet, due to software, didn't give
the user control over the ACK-expect time window. Moving to the 640, (the
bridge product) the user then got "max distance" control enabled on the
root node...

It may be that Cisco is merely just continuning on in Aironet/Telxon
tradition.

AS far as solving your point to point needs, here's what I've been doing,
and so has another very intersting company called Haven Co. I happen to
converse time to time with the CTO of that company, and durring one such
conversation we talked about their long-haul links that are essentialy
IBSS/Ad-Hoc links supported by PCMCIA WaveLAN cards in PCI slot
risers. The host OS is FreeBSD. They route over the links, not bridge.

Please note, firmware version 6.1.6 seems to be the golden version of
WaveLAN firmware vintage. 

Also, if you need to support 802.11 AP's style areas, you can use the
Linux version of AP code for PrismII/IIi cards. The URL is
http://www.linux-wlan.com/

At Defcon this year I got to see a demo of that project; for all intents
and purposes, my client deivces saw a real BSS. The host card was a $110
dollar linksys card. My jaw dropped. I have to say, I am very pleased with
open-source developement of AP code. In the mean time though, IBSS woks
very well for HavenCo, and I would recommend that method for other
point-to-point links, especialy where there is very little reason to trust
the vendor's hardware quality, features, and integrity.

-Lostxam


On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Brian Capouch wrote:

> My quest to find out why I was having range problems using my phalanx of
> Aironet 34X gear has just ended, at the Cisco TAC.
> 
> The response I just received verifies what I have been being told by a
> number of people: Cisco has designed the firmware in their cards in such
> a way that both the NICs and the access points are unusable, at least
> officially, past one mile out.  The only product that supports
> long-range communications is the bridge.
> 
> Two separate vendors with great presence in the market had previously
> advised me to dump my Cisco gear and replace it with Lucent, which I
> will soon begin to speedily do.
> 
> I know I'm inviting myself to be roasted to a crisp for this, but those
> vendors also told me this, which is consistent with the information I
> have in hand from Cisco: "The decision to make the timeout period for
> the ACK fixed and not programmable in the WICs and access points was
> primarily made to force customers to purchase much higher-margin
> equipment.  Competitors, most notably Lucent, have decided not to try to
> protect their access equipment in this manner, and you'll find yourself
> having no problems going 15 or 20 miles out with a very low cost Lucent
> PCMCIA wireless card."
> 
> So I am open to offers for the following Cisco equipment, all either new
> or in the barest state of use:
> 
> Two 342 Access Points
> 4 PCI342
> 2 LCM342
> 2 LCM352
> 3 PCI352
> 2 PCM342
> 
> If anyone has any information contrary to this about range limitations I
> sure would be obliged to hear it before going through the trouble of
> dumping this equipment.
> 
> If it is in fact true, hopefully this will save someone else from
> committing the same error as I have.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> B.
> _______________________________________________
> Aironet mailing list  -  Ai...@cs...
> http://csl.cse.ucsc.edu/mailman/listinfo/aironet
>