I need to install wireless internet access for an RV campground. The
area that needs to be covered is approximately 750'x350'.
This is an aerial view of the campground. http://www.brigan.com/images/map.jpg
Not many trees, but like I said, lots of RVs.
I work in the IT field but have no experience putting in wireless
outdoors.
Coverage is part of the issue.... how many WAPs or outdoor antennas to
use, etc.
But as you can see from the photo, there is a paved road all through
the area that I need to cover. I don't want to have to get into a
situation that we have to run conduit/cabling under that road.
Internet access will originate from the clubhouse shown in the
pictures. I could run an underground cable down one side of the
campground, for a WAP or antenna. And then see what kind of coverage
I get in the other side of the campground.
But my question is; what do I have for options, in getting the signal
to the other side of the campground? Without tunneling under the
paved road.
I've heard of devices, for inside a house, that uses the electrical
wiring to extend a wired connection. Can that be used outdoors?
There's power all through the campground.
Is something like a WiFi extender a possibility for outdoor use?
We (my wife and I) stay at a RV park in Silver City, NM where I do
most of the work on the WIFI system. It consists of a D-Link
DWL-2700AP access point mounted on a 20 foot metal pipe at the rear of
the Club House. The distance to the furthermost site is probably 700
or so feet. This box is fed via cat5 cable (POE) from a 2Wire DSL
modem in the club house.
The lot we were in last year is the greatest distance from the
antenna. Our Toshiba laptop connected we ease (as long as we didn't
have the metal window blinds closed) from inside the trailer.
We run the DWL-2700AP at about 70% power. You can just barely see the
antenna (below the "b" in the Club House label. Link to the web page.
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:13:02 -0800 (PST), JohnB <jbrigan@gmail.com>
wrote:
>I need to install wireless internet access for an RV campground. The
>area that needs to be covered is approximately 750'x350'.
>This is an aerial view of the campground.
>http://www.brigan.com/images/map.jpg
>Not many trees, but like I said, lots of RVs.
>
>I work in the IT field but have no experience putting in wireless
>outdoors.
>Coverage is part of the issue.... how many WAPs or outdoor antennas to
>use, etc.
>
>But as you can see from the photo, there is a paved road all through
>the area that I need to cover. I don't want to have to get into a
>situation that we have to run conduit/cabling under that road.
>
>Internet access will originate from the clubhouse shown in the
>pictures. I could run an underground cable down one side of the
>campground, for a WAP or antenna. And then see what kind of coverage
>I get in the other side of the campground.
>
>But my question is; what do I have for options, in getting the signal
>to the other side of the campground? Without tunneling under the
>paved road.
>I've heard of devices, for inside a house, that uses the electrical
>wiring to extend a wired connection. Can that be used outdoors?
>There's power all through the campground.
>
>Is something like a WiFi extender a possibility for outdoor use?
>
>Any help or input is appreciated.
>Thanks
>
JohnB wrote:
> I need to install wireless internet access for an RV campground. The
> area that needs to be covered is approximately 750'x350'.
> This is an aerial view of the campground.
> http://www.brigan.com/images/map.jpg
> Not many trees, but like I said, lots of RVs.
>
> I work in the IT field but have no experience putting in wireless
> outdoors.
> Coverage is part of the issue.... how many WAPs or outdoor antennas to
> use, etc.
>
> But as you can see from the photo, there is a paved road all through
> the area that I need to cover. I don't want to have to get into a
> situation that we have to run conduit/cabling under that road.
>
> Internet access will originate from the clubhouse shown in the
> pictures. I could run an underground cable down one side of the
> campground, for a WAP or antenna. And then see what kind of coverage
> I get in the other side of the campground.
>
> But my question is; what do I have for options, in getting the signal
> to the other side of the campground? Without tunneling under the
> paved road.
> I've heard of devices, for inside a house, that uses the electrical
> wiring to extend a wired connection. Can that be used outdoors?
> There's power all through the campground.
>
> Is something like a WiFi extender a possibility for outdoor use?
>
> Any help or input is appreciated.
> Thanks
didn't look at the link, but are there power/utility posts/pedastals at the
various spots?
unfortunately, first time you get an RF opaque RV (airstreams/silver
bullets/etc are notorious for blocking wirelss signals for neighbors) your
coverge plan will go to heck in a handbasket, so plan on way more coverage
than you need, and multiple sources from different directions....
(marinas have a similar problem, metal hulled boats block signals real good
too, and you never know what will pull into a slip search online for marina
wifi planning for some good info/links)
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:13:02 -0800 (PST), JohnB <jbrigan@gmail.com>
wrote:
>I need to install wireless internet access for an RV campground. The
>area that needs to be covered is approximately 750'x350'.
>This is an aerial view of the campground.
>http://www.brigan.com/images/map.jpg
>Not many trees, but like I said, lots of RVs.
In numbers, about 100 spaces, if I counted correctly.
>
>I work in the IT field but have no experience putting in wireless
>outdoors.
>Coverage is part of the issue.... how many WAPs or outdoor antennas to
>use, etc.
One AP in the middle on a pole would probably provide coverage to all
100 spaces.
Or, from looking at your arial view, a hi-gain panel antenna, mounted
as high as possible, at the front of the Club House would provide a
_lot_ of coverage. That would be a very good starting point.
>
>But as you can see from the photo, there is a paved road all through
>the area that I need to cover. I don't want to have to get into a
>situation that we have to run conduit/cabling under that road.
>
>Internet access will originate from the clubhouse shown in the
>pictures. I could run an underground cable down one side of the
>campground, for a WAP or antenna. And then see what kind of coverage
>I get in the other side of the campground.
If you start with an AP mounted at the Club House you can see how the
coverage goes. Your internet connection is at the Club House & it
would be quite easy to maintain with everything in one location.
Any additional pole mounted APs that might be needed (maybe 1 or 2)
could be installed at the bottom of the Areal View, close to the road,
so you never have to cross the road.
I would consider using a panel antenna(s) on any AP(s) installed in
this manner, instead of an omni. A panel antenna will provide much
greater coverage in one direction, which is what is needed when you
are not at a central location.
>
>But my question is; what do I have for options, in getting the signal
>to the other side of the campground? Without tunneling under the
>paved road.
If you find that you really need APs located at the far side of the
campground, just go under the road where needed.
>
>I've heard of devices, for inside a house, that uses the electrical
>wiring to extend a wired connection. Can that be used outdoors?
>There's power all through the campground.
Possible - using powerline networking - see these threads:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/browse_thread/thread/ff16f1b0fb34e724?q=getting+wifi+to+the+dead+zones+ of+a+big+house#1b8aea90239a6573>
getting wifi to the dead zones of a big house
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/browse_thread/thread/2d50b27d38bae6d1?q=powerline+networking++navas#437 de917081b0f64>
How to boost our Linksys WRT150N's signal -- across the house?
One trouble with powerline networking is noise that gets onto the
powerline may degrade or completely stop some devices from
functioning. Since you have no control over what someone plugs into
the power, it seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
>
>Is something like a WiFi extender a possibility for outdoor use?
The only thing I might suggest using consumer products would be a
remote mounted client (receiver) directly connected to another AP -
two radios at the remote location, but on different channels. The
client radio has a directional antenna to the antenna at the Club
House & the AP would have a panel antenna pointed to the "RVs".
Really, if multiple APs are needed, cabling them directly to the Club
House would be the easiest to maintain & should be the most reliable
connection you could get.
>
>Any help or input is appreciated.
>Thanks
>
What quality of service does the client want to provide? This seems to
be the real starting question as there are so many variables involved.
Professional consulting services may be able to ask the "right"
questions & then provide a detailed list of options to choose from.
<rmiers@pinalinternet-net.net - delete -net> wrote in message
news:mmvcn41n7f90bjdfp3f2n7i3uecmti1bq1@4ax.com...
> We (my wife and I) stay at a RV park in Silver City, NM where I do
> most of the work on the WIFI system. It consists of a D-Link
> DWL-2700AP access point mounted on a 20 foot metal pipe at the rear of
> the Club House. The distance to the furthermost site is probably 700
> or so feet. This box is fed via cat5 cable (POE) from a 2Wire DSL
> modem in the club house.
>
> The lot we were in last year is the greatest distance from the
> antenna. Our Toshiba laptop connected we ease (as long as we didn't
> have the metal window blinds closed) from inside the trailer.
>
> We run the DWL-2700AP at about 70% power. You can just barely see the
> antenna (below the "b" in the Club House label. Link to the web page.
>
> http://www.manzanosrvpark.com/manzano7_002.htm
>
>
> In numbers, about 100 spaces, if I counted correctly.
>>
Oh man, you counted!! I recently created a website for them
(www.wildfrontiercampground.com), so I know from that, that you're very
close. 104 sites
>
> One AP in the middle on a pole would probably provide coverage to all
> 100 spaces.
> Or, from looking at your arial view, a hi-gain panel antenna, mounted
> as high as possible, at the front of the Club House would provide a
> _lot_ of coverage. That would be a very good starting point.
>>
I talked to the campground owner and he told me that they used to have
wireless in there, but got rid of it because it was unreliable and it didn't
cover the entire campground. The system was installed about 5 years ago.
And some of the equipment that they installed is still there. There's 2
antennas on the clubhouse that they installed. With thick coax running from
them to a box mounted on the side of the building. I don't know what the
different kinds of antenna's are called but, one is a flat metal panel,
maybe 6"x6", mounted to a pole. They're both on the end of the building,
farthest from the campground, but closest to the demark. One antenna, a 3'
foot pole, is mounted in the edge of the roof, towards the top, and the
other is on the edge, about half way down. So I'm guessing one is a "panel
antenna", that you refer to. My concern is; is this something that I can
re-use? My guess is not... since it didn't work well to begin with. And
that it's older technology.
..
>
> If you start with an AP mounted at the Club House you can see how the
> coverage goes. Your internet connection is at the Club House & it
> would be quite easy to maintain with everything in one location.
>
> Any additional pole mounted APs that might be needed (maybe 1 or 2)
> could be installed at the bottom of the Areal View, close to the road,
> so you never have to cross the road.
>
> I would consider using a panel antenna(s) on any AP(s) installed in
> this manner, instead of an omni. A panel antenna will provide much
> greater coverage in one direction, which is what is needed when you
> are not at a central location.
>>
This is the AP I'm considering: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...gtCjCVRqCjCVRq
So is that considered a panel antenna?
What I will probably do, provided the owner wants to spring for a good
lightning superssion system, is run conduit/wire underground from the
clubhouse, along the perimeter of the campgroud, which would be left of the
clubhouse in the photo, and install a 15' pole as far as possible from the
clubhouse, while being under the 100 meter max.
> One trouble with powerline networking is noise that gets onto the
> powerline may degrade or completely stop some devices from
> functioning. Since you have no control over what someone plugs into
> the power, it seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
>>
I agree. What they don't need is another unreliable solution.
> Really, if multiple APs are needed, cabling them directly to the Club
> House would be the easiest to maintain & should be the most reliable
> connection you could get.
>>
Yup, agreed.
>
> Professional consulting services may be able to ask the "right"
> questions & then provide a detailed list of options to choose from.
>
They got a quote from a "professional", and it was much more than they want
to spend. But I really think the biggest possible problem is lightning, and
what to do about it.
Well that's odd. There was a good reply on here about lightning
suppression, but it got deleted!!
"Kim Clay" <kimclay@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:ej3fn4hoa5t19gahhltgg12744t571uvhb@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:13:02 -0800 (PST), JohnB <jbrigan@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I need to install wireless internet access for an RV campground. The
>>area that needs to be covered is approximately 750'x350'.
>>This is an aerial view of the campground.
>>http://www.brigan.com/images/map.jpg
>>Not many trees, but like I said, lots of RVs.
>
> In numbers, about 100 spaces, if I counted correctly.
>>
>>I work in the IT field but have no experience putting in wireless
>>outdoors.
>>Coverage is part of the issue.... how many WAPs or outdoor antennas to
>>use, etc.
>
> One AP in the middle on a pole would probably provide coverage to all
> 100 spaces.
> Or, from looking at your arial view, a hi-gain panel antenna, mounted
> as high as possible, at the front of the Club House would provide a
> _lot_ of coverage. That would be a very good starting point.
>>
>>But as you can see from the photo, there is a paved road all through
>>the area that I need to cover. I don't want to have to get into a
>>situation that we have to run conduit/cabling under that road.
>>
>>Internet access will originate from the clubhouse shown in the
>>pictures. I could run an underground cable down one side of the
>>campground, for a WAP or antenna. And then see what kind of coverage
>>I get in the other side of the campground.
>
> If you start with an AP mounted at the Club House you can see how the
> coverage goes. Your internet connection is at the Club House & it
> would be quite easy to maintain with everything in one location.
>
> Any additional pole mounted APs that might be needed (maybe 1 or 2)
> could be installed at the bottom of the Areal View, close to the road,
> so you never have to cross the road.
>
> I would consider using a panel antenna(s) on any AP(s) installed in
> this manner, instead of an omni. A panel antenna will provide much
> greater coverage in one direction, which is what is needed when you
> are not at a central location.
>>
>>But my question is; what do I have for options, in getting the signal
>>to the other side of the campground? Without tunneling under the
>>paved road.
>
> If you find that you really need APs located at the far side of the
> campground, just go under the road where needed.
>>
>>I've heard of devices, for inside a house, that uses the electrical
>>wiring to extend a wired connection. Can that be used outdoors?
>>There's power all through the campground.
>
> Possible - using powerline networking - see these threads:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/browse_thread/thread/ff16f1b0fb34e724?q=getting+wifi+to+the+dead+zones+ of+a+big+house#1b8aea90239a6573>
> getting wifi to the dead zones of a big house
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/browse_thread/thread/2d50b27d38bae6d1?q=powerline+networking++navas#437 de917081b0f64>
> How to boost our Linksys WRT150N's signal -- across the house?
>
> One trouble with powerline networking is noise that gets onto the
> powerline may degrade or completely stop some devices from
> functioning. Since you have no control over what someone plugs into
> the power, it seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
>>
>>Is something like a WiFi extender a possibility for outdoor use?
>
> The only thing I might suggest using consumer products would be a
> remote mounted client (receiver) directly connected to another AP -
> two radios at the remote location, but on different channels. The
> client radio has a directional antenna to the antenna at the Club
> House & the AP would have a panel antenna pointed to the "RVs".
>
> Really, if multiple APs are needed, cabling them directly to the Club
> House would be the easiest to maintain & should be the most reliable
> connection you could get.
>>
>>Any help or input is appreciated.
>>Thanks
>>
> What quality of service does the client want to provide? This seems to
> be the real starting question as there are so many variables involved.
>
> Professional consulting services may be able to ask the "right"
> questions & then provide a detailed list of options to choose from.
>
> my 2c worth
>
> kc
In <4978eca0$0$17049$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.c om> "JohnB" <jbrigan@yahoo.com> writes:
[snip]
>They got a quote from a "professional", and it was much more than they want
>to spend. But I really think the biggest possible problem is lightning, and
>what to do about it.
One serious possibility (don't laugh...) is to use standard,
mass market, consumer items, along with a regular "surge suppressor".
It'll cost you, perhaps, one hundred fifty or so dollars and
another hundred or so for enclosures.
Treat it as disposable... A nearby lightning hit might take
it out every other year - which is still cheaper than "doing
it right". Have a spare in the closet ready to plug in.
The commodity surge suppressor won't protect against a lightning
strike a hundred feet away, but it should guard against one
that hits a mile or two down the road. Remember that the latter
are both far more frequent, and also weaker... (inverse square
or other funky exponential stuff).
--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:01:02 -0500, "JohnB" <jbrigan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In numbers, about 100 spaces, if I counted correctly.
>>>
>Oh man, you counted!! I recently created a website for them
>(www.wildfrontiercampground.com), so I know from that, that you're very
>close. 104 sites
20 across the top & guessed the bottom was about the same, plus 5
columns of abut 13 each = 105 - 100 for round numbers.
Before I make some comments, has anyone thought about what quality of
service the customer (campground owner) wants to provide? One quality
AP might handle 100 clients doing e-mail & maybe some slow web surfing
but one client uploading all the pics they took for the day will stop
almost everything - or someone starts sharing via bit-torrent - same
thing, the whole system halts.
All my (previous) comments were made thinking about the minimum
required to get coverage to the area, not at all about providing
"quality" wireless to more than 5 ot 10 clients generally (at one
time).
>
>>
>> One AP in the middle on a pole would probably provide coverage to all
>> 100 spaces.
>> Or, from looking at your arial view, a hi-gain panel antenna, mounted
>> as high as possible, at the front of the Club House would provide a
>> _lot_ of coverage. That would be a very good starting point.
>>>
>I talked to the campground owner and he told me that they used to have
>wireless in there, but got rid of it because it was unreliable and it didn't
>cover the entire campground.
I'll leave out my comments!
>The system was installed about 5 years ago.
>And some of the equipment that they installed is still there.
Five year old equipment (not abused) may be reusable - It may be
802.11b only though as thats about the right time frame.
>There's 2
>antennas on the clubhouse that they installed. With thick coax running from
>them to a box mounted on the side of the building.
Sounds like LMR-400 coax - good stuff if its in good condition. http://www.wlanparts.com/product/LMR..._the_foot.html
>I don't know what the
>different kinds of antenna's are called but, one is a flat metal panel,
>maybe 6"x6", mounted to a pole.
A small panel antenna.
This page will give you an idea of what is available: http://www.wlanparts.com/c=nTM4gVs01...gory/antennas/
>They're both on the end of the building,
>farthest from the campground, but closest to the demark.
Close to the demark only makes it easier for the installer.
>One antenna, a 3'
>foot pole, is mounted in the edge of the roof, towards the top,
Sounds like an omni
>and the
>other is on the edge, about half way down. So I'm guessing one is a "panel
>antenna", that you refer to.
Yup!
The omnidirectional antenna, mounted at a corner of where the coverage
should be = >75% of the radiated power is going away from the desired
coverage area.
Then when that didn't perform well someone thought a panel antenna
would work better & proceeded to install the (almost) smallest panel
antenna they could find at a (seemingly) even lower position.
My idea, to even attempt _any_ coverage from the Club House, would be
to get at least a 19dBi panel antenna & get it at least 20' off the
ground, pointed towards the sites.
>My concern is; is this something that I can
>re-use? My guess is not... since it didn't work well to begin with. And
>that it's older technology.
The antennas are reusable, as is the coax, but maybe not for this
installation (well maybe the omni). As long as they were designed for
2.4GHz.
>.
>>
>> If you start with an AP mounted at the Club House you can see how the
>> coverage goes. Your internet connection is at the Club House & it
>> would be quite easy to maintain with everything in one location.
>>
>> Any additional pole mounted APs that might be needed (maybe 1 or 2)
>> could be installed at the bottom of the Areal View, close to the road,
>> so you never have to cross the road.
>>
>
>> I would consider using a panel antenna(s) on any AP(s) installed in
>> this manner, instead of an omni. A panel antenna will provide much
>> greater coverage in one direction, which is what is needed when you
>> are not at a central location.
>>>
>This is the AP I'm considering:
>http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...gtCjCVRqCjCVRq
>So is that considered a panel antenna?
per the pdf: http://static.tigerdirect.com/pdf/E1...-Datasheet.pdf
"Embedded 10dBi panel antenna with external connector for optional
omni antenna"
>
>What I will probably do, provided the owner wants to spring for a good
>lightning superssion system,
I think the best one can do is to shunt lightning to ground giving it
a path where it will do the least damage.
>is run conduit/wire underground from the
>clubhouse, along the perimeter of the campgroud, which would be left of the
>clubhouse in the photo, and install a 15' pole as far as possible from the
>clubhouse, while being under the 100 meter max.
After looking at the campground layout again I would say that, at a
minimum, your going to need two APs mounted in the center of the
campground area. Split the long length in half & put one AP in the
middle of each of the smaller squares.
These would need to be mounted at least 20' off the ground.
This seems to be the very basic minimum as I see the situation.
There are probably 100-500 details associated with an install of the
type! Feed the APs via fiber? Not a bad idea in a lightning prone
area. All the metal in the park, when it gets full, will make wireless
very difficult.
When the park is full you're talking about 50 clients on each AP
(assuming 2 APs, evenly distributed).
>
>> One trouble with powerline networking is noise that gets onto the
>> powerline may degrade or completely stop some devices from
>> functioning. Since you have no control over what someone plugs into
>> the power, it seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
>>>
>I agree. What they don't need is another unreliable solution.
>
>> Really, if multiple APs are needed, cabling them directly to the Club
>> House would be the easiest to maintain & should be the most reliable
>> connection you could get.
>>>
>Yup, agreed.
>
>>
>> Professional consulting services may be able to ask the "right"
>> questions & then provide a detailed list of options to choose from.
>>
>They got a quote from a "professional", and it was much more than they want
>to spend.
OK - On the first install, it seems they got what they paid for, but
I'm kinda guessing :)
>But I really think the biggest possible problem is lightning, and
>what to do about it.
The biggest problem is what does the customer want. The owner of the
campgroung. What quality of service does he want to provide? Who is
going to maintain the install? What happens when one client hogs all
the bandwidth with bit-torrent? What sort of backhaul is going to
provide the bandwidth.
The campgroung owner probably doesn't know what he really wants. He
just wants to provide wireless & be done with the situation.
>
>Thanks
>
Here are a couple of suppliers I know of. I've never worked with any
of them, but others have used their products & they are at least OK
(or so I hear):
Perhaps snoop around on their sites & read their information. When you
have some idea of your needs I'm sure a sales rep would direct to to
the type of product that would do what you ask for - well I hope so!
Obviously.... I could buy it from someone that does have it in stock.
"Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote in message
news:_aCdnT0sBYg7keTUnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> JohnB wrote:
>>>>
>> This is the AP I'm considering:
>> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...gtCjCVRqCjCVRq
>
>
> but it's currently unavailable.... what's your plan B?
>
On Jan 23, 8:13*am, "JohnB" <jbri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Politics:
You have a fairly large undertaking and I think that it would be best
right off to define what success is and how you will deal with the
public end of things.
I'd come in and say "just like distance to the bathrooms or good shade
or views, some spots are going to be better than others for wifi and
guests will have to accept and sort that out by arrival and their own
priorities. Also, the biggest problem is that RVs are shields for
WIFI.
I'd specify any solution for the owners as aiming for 75-90% coverage
or somesuch and anyway that's still dependent on RV orientation and
individual client positions and solutions. People may expect to sit
outside behind their RV (in relation the antennas) and do their email
- it won't work. Place a laptop in a window facing the antenna and it
might work. More saavy travelers will have their own client
adapters already for mounting in a window or on the roof.
It might be a good idea to offer a sheltered hotspot with good
coverage for those who can't make it work in their space.
You might make up a brochure that shows the antenna locations and the
coverage and RV issues (metal shielding) as well as suggesting the
hotspot as an alternative.
Could also offer a cheap USB (with 15' extension) or alternative
client device (powerline?) that could be bought or rented while at
the RV park and placed according to general instructions.
Coverage:
Your existing gear sounds usable, but I'd be selective. One idea
might be to use the main router (pro quality or else consumer running
alternative firmware?) to feed that panel antenna on the (likely) LMR
400 cable you already have. Get the beam pattern for it and do some
tests with it mounted at the clubhouse. Point it differently, from
same and try different mounting locations all over by moving the
router around with it for testing. Of course you will have to get a
cable (possibly powerline adapter)to any other AP locations as you are
alredy well aware. That would limit my testing to certain areas.
After testing decide where the panel will do it's job well and you
have a start.
For additional antennas, probably go with the directional outdoor APs
that are already being suggested. The Ubiquiti Nanostation2 looks
like a good inexpensive candidate that would allow you to place
several while staying on budget.
but I'm biased towards that product line lately (still haven't used
one- I'm waiting for some LoCos to ship).
Anyway, use those Outdoor APs perhaps in router mode for running
subnets. That way you can use your main router for perhaps 20-50
clients including one or more outdoor APs. The APs could then handle
20-50 clients each on subnets?
As always, I look forward to hearing what Jeff has to say about this,
especially handing possibly 75 clients at any given time and using
subnets...
I'm curious, not an in stock/out of stock question.... That one is 600 mw,
twice the legal max (here in the us) who sell's a 600 mw unit legally? That
one has/had twice the power (600mw vs 300 mw) of others, and that will
effect your range calculations.... (it's in the name of it on that page
Engenius EOC-2610 AccessPoint - 802.11b / g, 600 mW power, PoE Compliant)
so again, I wonder, where are you gonna find a unit that is legal in its
power output, and what happens when it (or any other 600 mW unit) dies? Will
you be able to get a replacement other one that has as much power as that,
so you can use the antennas etc you already have, or do you want to do
coverage/range tests/stats with a legal/300 mW unit instead?
JohnB wrote:
> Obviously.... I could buy it from someone that does have it in stock.
>
>
> "Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote in message
> news:_aCdnT0sBYg7keTUnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
>> JohnB wrote:
>>>>>
>>> This is the AP I'm considering:
>>> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...gtCjCVRqCjCVRq
>>
>>
>> but it's currently unavailable.... what's your plan B?
"ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote in message
news:ko5el.10908$W06.8505@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> <rmiers@pinalinternet-net.net - delete -net> wrote in message
> news:mmvcn41n7f90bjdfp3f2n7i3uecmti1bq1@4ax.com...
>> We (my wife and I) stay at a RV park in Silver City, NM where I do
>> most of the work on the WIFI system. It consists of a D-Link
>> DWL-2700AP access point mounted on a 20 foot metal pipe at the rear of
>> the Club House. The distance to the furthermost site is probably 700
>> or so feet. This box is fed via cat5 cable (POE) from a 2Wire DSL
>> modem in the club house.
>>
>> The lot we were in last year is the greatest distance from the
>> antenna. Our Toshiba laptop connected we ease (as long as we didn't
>> have the metal window blinds closed) from inside the trailer.
>>
>> We run the DWL-2700AP at about 70% power. You can just barely see the
>> antenna (below the "b" in the Club House label. Link to the web page.
>>
>> http://www.manzanosrvpark.com/manzano7_002.htm
>>
>>
>
> is this the area ? - or just a mailing address ?
>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...=18&iwloc=addr
>
>
Hmmm... I didn't know that it exceeded the U.S. limit. I don't even know
what that limit is.
I found out today that the campground has coax cable TV at every site. I've
got to look into using that infrastructure as an option.
Based on my concerns and everyone's comments here, the big issue is not just
lighting but, coverage. And the campground owner is against digging under
the campground roads. I liked the idea of putting an AP on a pole, as far
from the clubhouse as possible, while not going under a road. And running
fiber to it will prevent the need for lightning suppression at the
clubhouse, which there is none. And I don't think the owner wants to invest
in that. Which just leaves, the need for lightning suppression at the pole
for the AP.... simplifies and lowers the cost for such suppression. But...
if that AP isn't enough, for coverage... what next. How do I stay within
the 100 meter limit, and also, not have to dig under a road. That's a big
obstacle to overcome.
I think it was you that gave a link to these devices: http://www.netgear.com/Products/Powe...king/Coax.aspx
If campers are already accustom to running a cable out their RV for their
TV.... I'm wondering if there's a way to give them an RJ45 jack at each
site, after utilizing the coax TV wiring and putting high speed internet
over that. With all those metal RV's in there, having a wired connection
would be much more reliable than a wireless connection to the internet.
Anyone have any experience with the device in that link?
A Google aerial view of the campground. To the right of the campground is
an RV dealership. The campground consists of the 5 vertical (on the map)
roads, and the adjoining circle. The existing wireless antennas are on the
far right end of the clubhouse, at the bottom right-hand corner of the park.
Far from the back corner of the RV lot. http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8...num=1&ct=image
"Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote in message
news:V4ydnR2k3s-_Z-TUnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> I'm curious, not an in stock/out of stock question.... That one is 600 mw,
> twice the legal max (here in the us) who sell's a 600 mw unit legally?
> That one has/had twice the power (600mw vs 300 mw) of others, and that
> will effect your range calculations.... (it's in the name of it on that
> page Engenius EOC-2610 AccessPoint - 802.11b / g, 600 mW power, PoE
> Compliant)
>
> so again, I wonder, where are you gonna find a unit that is legal in its
> power output, and what happens when it (or any other 600 mW unit) dies?
> Will you be able to get a replacement other one that has as much power as
> that, so you can use the antennas etc you already have, or do you want to
> do coverage/range tests/stats with a legal/300 mW unit instead?
>
>
>
>
> JohnB wrote:
>> Obviously.... I could buy it from someone that does have it in stock.
>>
>>
>> "Peter Pan" <PeterPanNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote in message
>> news:_aCdnT0sBYg7keTUnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
>>> JohnB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>> This is the AP I'm considering:
>>>> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...gtCjCVRqCjCVRq
>>>
>>>
>>> but it's currently unavailable.... what's your plan B?
>
>
On 23/01/2009 18:12, JohnB wrote:
> Hmmm... I didn't know that it exceeded the U.S. limit. I don't even know
> what that limit is.
It doesn't, the limit is 1 Watt depending on the antenna and purpose.
<http://sujan.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2009/15/247/>
(3) For systems using digital modulation in the 902–928 MHz,
2400–2483.5 MHz, and 5725–5850 MHz bands: 1 Watt. As an alternative
to a peak power measurement, compliance with the one Watt limit can be
based on a measurement of the maximum conducted output power. Maximum
Conducted Output Power is defined as the total transmit power
delivered to all antennas and antenna elements averaged across all
symbols in the signaling alphabet when the transmitter is operating at
its maximum power control level. Power must be summed across all
antennas and antenna elements. The average must not include any time
intervals during which the transmitter is off or is transmitting at a
reduced power level. If multiple modes of operation are possible (e.g.,
alternative modulation methods), the maximum conducted output power
is the highest total transmit power occurring in any mode.
The EOC complies with the rules.
It has an FCC ID U2M-OC26100801
Test report:-
<https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=1049077&native_or_pdf=p df>
The test sample didn't have a level power output across the band and
note the comment about the antenna.
On 23/01/2009 18:26, LR wrote:
> On 23/01/2009 18:12, JohnB wrote:
>> Hmmm... I didn't know that it exceeded the U.S. limit. I don't even know
>> what that limit is.
> It doesn't, the limit is 1 Watt depending on the antenna and purpose.
Perhaps I should have added that if you are only using it as an AP, not
for pt to pt or pt to mpt, and you wish to use the 10dB Antenna then you
will need to tweak the transmit power so that the 1 Watt is not exceeded.
> http://www.netgear.com/Products/Powe...king/Coax.aspx
> If campers are already accustom to running a cable out their RV for their
> TV.... I'm wondering if there's a way to give them an RJ45 jack at each
> site, after utilizing the coax TV wiring and putting high speed internet
> over that. With all those metal RV's in there, having a wired connection
> would be much more reliable than a wireless connection to the internet.
>
> Anyone have any experience with the device in that link?
No. However a look at the wiki
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_over_Coax_Alliance> notes that
you are allowed up to 16 devices for MOCA1.1 and the Netgear item allows
either 8 MOCA1.0 or 16 MOCA1.1 devices. I haven't seen any testing of
the use of multiple channels to increase the number of devices that
could be used so can't comment on that. Amplifiers are apparently a
no-no unless a bypass is used.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:12:15 -0500, "JohnB" <jbrigan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I found out today that the campground has coax cable TV at every site. I've
>got to look into using that infrastructure as an option.
Search Google for "ethernet over coax".
There used to be a company in Sweden called Multilet that sold
ethernet over CATV coax hardware. However, their web pile appears to
be gone and I suspect the compnay has disappeared.
<http://www.mocalliance.org/en/index.asp>
<http://www.vpi.us/eth-coax.html>
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/25313/51/>
<http://gizmodo.com/393743/d+links-dxn+221-brings-ethernet-over-coax-for-easy-home-wiring>
(The DXN-221 looks like it's vaporware).
Verizion FIOS uses Motoroal NIM-100 ethernet to coax bridges.
JohnB wrote:
> Hmmm... I didn't know that it exceeded the U.S. limit. I don't even
> know what that limit is.
us lower 48, 300, most of ak and hi 300 cept some native areas 600, euro
countries, 200, others various from 0 to no limit
at any rate, can't tell from the photos, any chance of say a bathroom area,
or a laundry area at the back with power and an attic?
most rv park power systems have a lightning suppression system on their PDS
already, however, some sites will have 50 amp (2 hots 1 neutral) and some 30
amp (1 hot 1 neutral)... the same hot may not be used for all 30 amp... (so
if you are considering powerline, make sure it's the same hot/neutral combo)
at any rate, while you may do the calcs, and coverage looks good on paper
when the park is empty, murphys law says that someone will pull in and screw
up your plans..... then what? The alternative i used was this in my rv
(lived full time in mine for 6 years, and both used and installed wifi) had
a few of these at the office for people coming in and not getting a good
signal (basically a highly direction usb wifi client for the users to use in
their rv's) http://www.hawkingtech.com/products/...=60&ProdID=379
just to be clear, i don't suggest powerline or coax networking for the end
users, but for the installer to consider instead of running new cables, so
they can have multiple ap's....
you can use a powerline network with a wap/router (i do here, use it as a
bridge to another ap upstairs, and another during good weather in the gazebo
outside, to increase my coverage area, so i can lay on my hammock and still
surf the net :)
most of the places i installed at were combo rv parks and marinas.. The
coming and going of signal blocking/reflecting rv's and boats, and how to
recover/go on/plan for when things go to H, tempered a lot of my
planning/decisions...
good luck, and keep worst case scenarios in mind and plan for them.....
>
> I found out today that the campground has coax cable TV at every
> site. I've got to look into using that infrastructure as an option.
>
> Based on my concerns and everyone's comments here, the big issue is
> not just lighting but, coverage. And the campground owner is against
> digging under the campground roads. I liked the idea of putting an
> AP on a pole, as far from the clubhouse as possible, while not going
> under a road. And running fiber to it will prevent the need for
> lightning suppression at the clubhouse, which there is none. And I
> don't think the owner wants to invest in that. Which just leaves,
> the need for lightning suppression at the pole for the AP....
> simplifies and lowers the cost for such suppression. But... if that
> AP isn't enough, for coverage... what next. How do I stay within the
> 100 meter limit, and also, not have to dig under a road. That's a
> big obstacle to overcome.
Where does the clubhouse get it's power? Some have a PDS (Power Distribution
System) for the rv sites that have suppression, and the clubhouse may get
it's power from that, rather than seperate mains that don't have any.....
> I think it was you that gave a link to these devices:
> http://www.netgear.com/Products/Powe...king/Coax.aspx
> If campers are already accustom to running a cable out their RV for
> their TV.... I'm wondering if there's a way to give them an RJ45
> jack at each site, after utilizing the coax TV wiring and putting
> high speed internet over that. With all those metal RV's in there,
> having a wired connection would be much more reliable than a wireless
> connection to the internet.
most rv's aren't metal (too heavy) but some are, and some have big metal
reflectors in em (think they are called fridges)... powerline works very
well in metal hulls/bulkheads (usually boats, they are heavy and have
watertight bulkheads
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:12:15 -0500, "JohnB" <jbrigan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I found out today that the campground has coax cable TV at every
>> site. I've got to look into using that infrastructure as an option.
>
> Search Google for "ethernet over coax".
>
> There used to be a company in Sweden called Multilet that sold
> ethernet over CATV coax hardware. However, their web pile appears to
> be gone and I suspect the compnay has disappeared.
>
> <http://www.mocalliance.org/en/index.asp>
> <http://www.vpi.us/eth-coax.html>
> <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/25313/51/>
> <http://gizmodo.com/393743/d+links-dxn+221-brings-ethernet-over-coax-for-easy-home-wiring>
> (The DXN-221 looks like it's vaporware).
> Verizion FIOS uses Motoroal NIM-100 ethernet to coax bridges.
just to be clear, i don't suggest powerline or coax networking for the end
users, but for the installer to consider instead of running new cables, so
they can have multiple ap's....
I only suggested it as a way to get signal to additional ap's for install
without running new cables, not for the end users to putz with....
Heck, I don't know about your clients, but before i retired, there were
several so dumb, that they couldn't even plug in an AC plug!
On Jan 22, 5:05*pm, "JohnB" <jbri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well that's odd. *There was a good reply on here about lightning
> suppression, but it got deleted!!
View your posting in microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless
entitled "Wireless outdoors".
Dedicated ethernet connections means routers with ports for every
user AND (as defined by the app note in that other newsgroup) a
protector for every wire in each cable to each user. And each cable
must be exterior grade.
Wireless APs are your best solution. With additional wiring so that
more APs may be installed, if load demands, by scattering more APs
throughout the campground.
Don't waste money on the cheap from tigerdirect. Good reasons why
better equipment is cheaper by costing more money. Your AP should
also include 802.11N (not just B & G).
Increasing AP power will do little if the WiFi user's power is also
not increased. Wifi is a bidirectional conversation. Increasing
power on one side does not mean the other side can be heard.
If they really want internet provided, then a narrow (4 inch) trench
across the road to install multiple pipes (one for the internet –
others for future reasons – electric or other) is trivial and easily
patched.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:49:04 -0500, "Peter Pan"
<PeterPanNOSPAM@MarcAlanNOSPAM.info> wrote:
>just to be clear, i don't suggest powerline or coax networking for the end
>users, but for the installer to consider instead of running new cables, so
>they can have multiple ap's....
I'm on the fence. The coax cable goes directly into the trailer
hookup. It would be easy enough to attach yet another box to deliver
internet. However, there's always a catch or three. MoCA was
intentionally designed to limit the number of attached bridges to
prevent users from setting up their own cable ISP. For the same
reason, CMTS boxes and PC based emulators are expensive and hard to
find. However, the big problem is theft. If you give|loan|rent yet
another box to the customer for multiplexing the CATV and
internet/ethernet, then they're going to drive away with it, destroy
it, lose it, or otherwise make life miserable for the park owner.
Unless the bridge were built into the trailer hookup, there's gonna be
trouble. Of course, wireless doesn't have this problem, so it might
be the preferred choice. Toss a coin.
>Heck, I don't know about your clients, but before i retired, there were
>several so dumb, that they couldn't even plug in an AC plug!
I've been doing this for longer than I want to admit. I've noticed
that I can only deal with a relatively narrow range of IQ's and
abilities. Clients that are totally clueless, generate far too much
aggravation for me to tolerate. Clients that are power users, who
only call me when they've created the computer equivalent of the
Gordian Knot, are also time burners. Fortunately, there are a
sufficiently large number in between these extremes to support my
decadent and lavish lifestyle. To the best of my knowledge, all of my
clients and customers can operate an AC plug.
Hint: If you have CATV coax, you probably also have conduit. Run
CAT5 and be done with it.
>On Jan 22, 5:05*pm, "JohnB" <jbri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Well that's odd. *There was a good reply on here about lightning
>> suppression, but it got deleted!!
>
> View your posting in microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless
>entitled "Wireless outdoors".
>
> Dedicated ethernet connections means routers with ports for every
>user AND (as defined by the app note in that other newsgroup) a
>protector for every wire in each cable to each user. And each cable
>must be exterior grade.
>
> Wireless APs are your best solution. With additional wiring so that
>more APs may be installed, if load demands, by scattering more APs
>throughout the campground.
>
> Don't waste money on the cheap from tigerdirect. Good reasons why
>better equipment is cheaper by costing more money. Your AP should
>also include 802.11N (not just B & G).
Surely "N" only matters if the extra bandwidth is useable.
Unless there is a big internet pipe, then N is going to be irrelevant,
since the internet feed will be the bottleneck.
The speed mismatch only gets worse as more APs are added and the
aggregate wireless throughput for the site increases.
Finally - the "N" standard is due end 2009, so what you really mean
right now is "some manufacturers idea of what might be in the 802.11N
standard when we finally get it, and yhey burned into a chip set so
that it at least part of it is frozen and cannot be changed later".
And without a standard that cannot have been tested yet for
compatability with other "N" kit.....
>
> Increasing AP power will do little if the WiFi user's power is also
>not increased. Wifi is a bidirectional conversation. Increasing
>power on one side does not mean the other side can be heard.
>
> If they really want internet provided, then a narrow (4 inch) trench
>across the road to install multiple pipes (one for the internet –
>others for future reasons – electric or other) is trivial and easily
>patched.
--
Regards
On Jan 24, 9:56*am, Stephen <stephen_h...@xyzworld.com> wrote:
> Surely "N" only matters if the extra bandwidth is useable.
If speed was important, than any 802.11 standard was more than fast
enough. 802.11 means access to additional frequencies. That means
more users operating longer distances and the laptop has more choices
to find a frequency that best works for that motorhome.
And finally, 802.11N type hardware has already been available for
one year. It that hardware does not comply with the 802.11N standard,
then a free software download upgrades that 'N' hardware.
The AP should do 802.11 B G & N for numerous reasons.
>On Jan 24, 9:56*am, Stephen <stephen_h...@xyzworld.com> wrote:
>> Surely "N" only matters if the extra bandwidth is useable.
>
> If speed was important, than any 802.11 standard was more than fast
>enough. 802.11 means access to additional frequencies.
Nope - 802.11 b / g use 2.4, a uses 5 GHz. "n" can use 2.4 and 5, but
that is not mandatory in the standard.
A lot of "draft" hardware seems to be 2.4 GHz only, so no real gain
unless you pick the ones with 5 GHz or hardware with dual band radios.
So saying "n" is not enough.
this link gives the 2007 spec for draft 2
If you have 5 GHz only "n" (or configure a dual band that way), then
any client with non 5 GHZ hardware of any standard doesnt get a link.
G uses better modulation and b to get more from the same amount of
frequency band, so you still get 3 mostly non overlapping "lumps".
But the go faster "n" modes eat up more of the available space, so
fewer non overlapping channels, or "n" degrades a lot to share
frequencies with the older standards.
That means
>more users operating longer distances and the laptop has more choices
>to find a frequency that best works for that motorhome.
>
You only get lowest common denominator, so unless the client is "n"
and actually interworks, then you get G or just "b" mode.
> And finally, 802.11N type hardware has already been available for
>one year. It that hardware does not comply with the 802.11N standard,
>then a free software download upgrades that 'N' hardware.
the track record of "draft" equipment being upgraded to full release
by a firmware upgrade is not good.
something in writing that says "commitment to upgrade mandatory", and
"subject to published standard successful test by appropriate
accredited 3rd party" "replacement with compliant hardware on test
failure" is what i would write into a spec at work - but with just a
couple of devices or consumer stuff it will be impractical to make
that stick.
>
> The AP should do 802.11 B G & N for numerous reasons.
i think backward compatibility is supposed to be part of the standard,
so fine.
Maybe the most important bit coming out of this is to actually test it
when installed with a range of clients (preferably more than several
at once, mixed on different standards) just to see what works in
practice.....
--
Regards
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:52:12 +0000, Stephen
<stephen_hope@xyzworld.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:30:33 -0800 (PST), westom1@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Jan 24, 9:56*am, Stephen <stephen_h...@xyzworld.com> wrote:
>>> Surely "N" only matters if the extra bandwidth is useable.
>>
>> If speed was important, than any 802.11 standard was more than fast
>>enough. 802.11 means access to additional frequencies.
>
>Nope - 802.11 b / g use 2.4, a uses 5 GHz. "n" can use 2.4 and 5, but
>that is not mandatory in the standard.
>
>A lot of "draft" hardware seems to be 2.4 GHz only, so no real gain
>unless you pick the ones with 5 GHz or hardware with dual band radios.
>
>So saying "n" is not enough.
>
>this link gives the 2007 spec for draft 2 http://www.wi-fi.org/files/kc/WFA_80...try_June07.pdf
see page 12 for the details of the modes, and the potential speeds,
and the comment about "draft devices implement most of the
standard"....
note devices can be 2.4 GHz only, 5 only or both.
>
>
>
>If you have 5 GHz only "n" (or configure a dual band that way), then
>any client with non 5 GHZ hardware of any standard doesnt get a link.
>
>G uses better modulation and b to get more from the same amount of
>frequency band, so you still get 3 mostly non overlapping "lumps".
>
>But the go faster "n" modes eat up more of the available space, so
>fewer non overlapping channels, or "n" degrades a lot to share
>frequencies with the older standards.
>
>That means
>>more users operating longer distances and the laptop has more choices
>>to find a frequency that best works for that motorhome.
>>
>
>You only get lowest common denominator, so unless the client is "n"
>and actually interworks, then you get G or just "b" mode.
>
>> And finally, 802.11N type hardware has already been available for
>>one year. It that hardware does not comply with the 802.11N standard,
>>then a free software download upgrades that 'N' hardware.
>
>the track record of "draft" equipment being upgraded to full release
>by a firmware upgrade is not good.
>
>something in writing that says "commitment to upgrade mandatory", and
>"subject to published standard successful test by appropriate
>accredited 3rd party" "replacement with compliant hardware on test
>failure" is what i would write into a spec at work - but with just a
>couple of devices or consumer stuff it will be impractical to make
>that stick.
>
>>
>> The AP should do 802.11 B G & N for numerous reasons.
>
>i think backward compatibility is supposed to be part of the standard,
>so fine.
>
>Maybe the most important bit coming out of this is to actually test it
>when installed with a range of clients (preferably more than several
>at once, mixed on different standards) just to see what works in
>practice.....
--
Regards
On Jan 24, 6:52*pm, Stephen <stephen_h...@xyzworld.com> wrote:
> Nope - 802.11 b / g *use 2.4, a uses 5 GHz. "n" can use 2.4 and 5, but
> that is not mandatory in the standard.
And that only supports exactly what I said. The AP point should
support 802.11 B G and N. There are zero reasons for not doing so.
The additional frequencies are just some of the many reasons why the
AP should also support N. Any reputable manufacturer will include
separate transceivers for both frequencies.
Backward compatitiblity, etc are all irrelevent to the OP since that
happens automatically with 802.11 N hardware. OP's AP should support
802.11 N. All that worry about future compatibility is, well, how
many times is hardware out there and working just fine both before and
after the standard's final version is released? USB, Firewall,
Bluetooth, Zigbee... we've been through this too many times without
problems. Just get the AP point that supports 802.11 N from a
reputable manufacturer. Not cheapest hardware sold by tigerdirect.
802.11 N hardware increases reliability now and in the future. And
eliminates potential problems that need not even be discussed here.
Meanwhile, prewire other locations for additional APs should
reliability make them necessary. Best is a dedicated AP connection
each back to the central router. One AP now. More installed as
experience proves the need.
>The AP point should
>support 802.11 B G and N. There are zero reasons for not doing so.
Permit me to supply a reason for not doing so. Enabling 802.11n modes
disables the 802.11b mode. That's because of the huge amount to time
required to aquire (long preamble) an 802.11b packet. If 802.11b were
left enabled, the time left for 802.11n traffic would be so small as
to negate the speed improvements. The manufacturers could have
eliminated the 802.11b compatibility mode, but since it's already in
all the 802.11g chipsets, and there are marketing reasons for leaving
802.11b in the product (customers using the router with 802.11n
disabled), 802.11b is always present.
>Backward compatitiblity, etc are all irrelevent to the OP since that
>happens automatically with 802.11 N hardware.
Not really. As I previously noted, enabling 802.11n mode (in a
spatial diversity MIMO style 802.11n router), disabled 802.11b. He
could also disable 802.11g and just run 802.11n for additional speed
improvements.
>All that worry about future compatibility is, well, how
>many times is hardware out there and working just fine both before and
>after the standard's final version is released?
When 802.11g first arrive, there was flurry of Windoze and driver
updates to "fix" various timing and incompatibility issues. The same
things happened when WPA was introduced, and again with WPA2. I still
have client radios that will not work with some AP's running WPA2-AES
despite Wi-Fi alliance certifications of each (seperately). Various
tests on SmallNetBuilder.com of various Per-N harware have
demonstrated that universal compatibility is seriously lacking and
that stuff that works, may not work as well as advertised or expected.
You can assume that all 802.11n devices are compatible, but lets just
say that one should also expect some rough edges.
>USB, Firewall,
>Bluetooth, Zigbee... we've been through this too many times without
>problems.
USB 1.0 to 1.1 conversion was rough. Lots of devices just wouldn't
work. I'm not convinced that all USB 2.0 really do work with 1.1 and
certainly not 1.0. The new and improved prototype USB 2.1 headset I
received refuses to recognize BT profiles that worked with my USB 2.0
stereo headset. Lots more if I want to dig through the notes. Perhaps
you went through these transitions without seeing any problems, but my
customers and I did not.
>Just get the AP point that supports 802.11 N from a
>reputable manufacturer. Not cheapest hardware sold by tigerdirect.
>802.11 N hardware increases reliability now and in the future. And
>eliminates potential problems that need not even be discussed here.
That's not going to work either. Most reputable and disreputable
manufacturers buy their wireless devices from contract manufacturers
in China, Taiwan, and elsewhere. It's not unusual for competing
products to have identical guts with slightly different firmware. It's
also not unusual for a reputable manufacturer to have multiple
mutations of the guts from various sources. Linksys WRT54G is a good
example with about 9 different board variations, all radically
different. The problem is that without knowing something about the
guts, it's very difficult to judge a router by it's cover,
manufacturer, or their reputation.
>Meanwhile, prewire other locations for additional APs should
>reliability make them necessary. Best is a dedicated AP connection
>each back to the central router. One AP now. More installed as
>experience proves the need.
That also might be a problem. One should plan the deployment of AP's
so that they don't overlap coverage and frequencies. For really dense
installation or a central pole mount, I suggest sector antennas.
There's also the problem of leaving channels open for the residents to
use for their own wireless routers. Otherwise, one gets lots of
mutual interference. You can't install AP's at random. Intel had a
nice guide for deployment and channel selection. Archived at:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Intel%20HotSpot%20Guide.pdf>
Well worth reading, studying, or just skimming.
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:lkmnn41ej6fqdc0eppujjliaf155q1u4p4@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:33:18 -0800 (PST), westom1@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>The AP point should
>>support 802.11 B G and N. There are zero reasons for not doing so.
>
> Permit me to supply a reason for not doing so. Enabling 802.11n modes
> disables the 802.11b mode. That's because of the huge amount to time
> required to aquire (long preamble) an 802.11b packet. If 802.11b were
> left enabled, the time left for 802.11n traffic would be so small as
> to negate the speed improvements. The manufacturers could have
> eliminated the 802.11b compatibility mode, but since it's already in
> all the 802.11g chipsets, and there are marketing reasons for leaving
> 802.11b in the product (customers using the router with 802.11n
> disabled), 802.11b is always present.
>
>>Backward compatitiblity, etc are all irrelevent to the OP since that
>>happens automatically with 802.11 N hardware.
>
> Not really. As I previously noted, enabling 802.11n mode (in a
> spatial diversity MIMO style 802.11n router), disabled 802.11b. He
> could also disable 802.11g and just run 802.11n for additional speed
> improvements.
>
>>All that worry about future compatibility is, well, how
>>many times is hardware out there and working just fine both before and
>>after the standard's final version is released?
>
> When 802.11g first arrive, there was flurry of Windoze and driver
> updates to "fix" various timing and incompatibility issues. The same
> things happened when WPA was introduced, and again with WPA2. I still
> have client radios that will not work with some AP's running WPA2-AES
> despite Wi-Fi alliance certifications of each (seperately). Various
> tests on SmallNetBuilder.com of various Per-N harware have
> demonstrated that universal compatibility is seriously lacking and
> that stuff that works, may not work as well as advertised or expected.
> You can assume that all 802.11n devices are compatible, but lets just
> say that one should also expect some rough edges.
>
>>USB, Firewall,
>>Bluetooth, Zigbee... we've been through this too many times without
>>problems.
>
> USB 1.0 to 1.1 conversion was rough. Lots of devices just wouldn't
> work. I'm not convinced that all USB 2.0 really do work with 1.1 and
> certainly not 1.0. The new and improved prototype USB 2.1 headset I
> received refuses to recognize BT profiles that worked with my USB 2.0
> stereo headset. Lots more if I want to dig through the notes. Perhaps
> you went through these transitions without seeing any problems, but my
> customers and I did not.
>
>>Just get the AP point that supports 802.11 N from a
>>reputable manufacturer. Not cheapest hardware sold by tigerdirect.
>>802.11 N hardware increases reliability now and in the future. And
>>eliminates potential problems that need not even be discussed here.
>
> That's not going to work either. Most reputable and disreputable
> manufacturers buy their wireless devices from contract manufacturers
> in China, Taiwan, and elsewhere. It's not unusual for competing
> products to have identical guts with slightly different firmware. It's
> also not unusual for a reputable manufacturer to have multiple
> mutations of the guts from various sources. Linksys WRT54G is a good
> example with about 9 different board variations, all radically
> different. The problem is that without knowing something about the
> guts, it's very difficult to judge a router by it's cover,
> manufacturer, or their reputation.
>
>>Meanwhile, prewire other locations for additional APs should
>>reliability make them necessary. Best is a dedicated AP connection
>>each back to the central router. One AP now. More installed as
>>experience proves the need.
>
> That also might be a problem. One should plan the deployment of AP's
> so that they don't overlap coverage and frequencies. For really dense
> installation or a central pole mount, I suggest sector antennas.
> There's also the problem of leaving channels open for the residents to
> use for their own wireless routers. Otherwise, one gets lots of
> mutual interference. You can't install AP's at random. Intel had a
> nice guide for deployment and channel selection. Archived at:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Intel%20HotSpot%20Guide.pdf>
> Well worth reading, studying, or just skimming.
>
Have we been told what the expected broadband connection is ?
aka - a 1meg DSL line ?
Wireless for RV campground 
Linear Mode
