[MLB-WIRELESS] InnerNorth - LOS to Taylors Lakes?

[Ryan Abbenhuys]

We want to limit the amount of unsightly antennasa the premises as much as
possible.  There are also issues with using amps with two links in closs
proximity as the rx/tx on the other link can inadvertedly trigger the
amplifier. (this happened in the beginning)

I'm afraid WEP won't help with the hidden node issue.

The hidden node issue occurs when a node comes under load, connections with
weak signals get disconnected because they are "drowned out" so to speak. 
The problem with GHO was that whenever any traffic started to go across it,
the link to GDW would disappear, and sometimes the link down to RGsouthern.

This results in links coming and going constantly and some people not being
able to establish a connection at all.

>how about several antenna? each one on a different channel, and routing
>between them. Point each one at different areas of melb. ie west, south
and
>maybe south west. With Galaxy anteanna this should be possible right?
>
> Would WEP cover the hidden node issue? I know WEP is useless, but it
would
>be a detterent to a point and if is fixes the hidden node issue then
that's
>a plus.
>
> Just an idea.....
>
>Regards,
>g at z.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au
>[mailto:owner-melbwireless at wireless.org.au]On Behalf Of Ryan Abbenhuys
>Sent: Thursday, 4 December 2003 12:20 PM
>To: melbwireless at wireless.org.au
>Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] InnerNorth - LOS to Taylors Lakes?
>
>
>I've been contemplating speaking to Darren about turning GHO so that it
>covers less area, in turn picking up less noise and providing better
>performance for the backbone links that will use it.
>
>If GDW can get a better signal to inner north, and inner north get a
better
>signal to south, this may be good, as we could potentially improve the
>signal/bandwidth of GHO to the south, which would then be passed on to
>inner north and GDW through southern nodes.
>
>At the moment GHO picks up a phenominal amount of noise which several
>limits it's usefullness.  If we halve the coverage of GHO we can reduce
the
>noise and increase the performance so that it can handle more than ping
>traffic and route updates.
>
>Even with the amplifier it was a severe bottle neck and at many times
>useless as soon as *any* traffic began to traverse it.
>
>It is also severally affected by the hidden node issue due to the varying
>connections and their strengths.
>
>I'm planning on looking into implementing QoS on it, and also
investigating
>other options such as Frottle.
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'm serious now. :-)  Does anyone in the InnerNorth cluster have LOS to
>>Node GDW in Taylors Lakes?  I understand GDW is putting out a pretty
>>strong signal now, so there must be someone in InnerNorth who can make a
>>link.  It'd be great to get the InnerNorth and Southern clusters linked
>>without necessarily relying on GHO.  The more diverse long-range link
>>routes the better.
>>
>>Get stumbling, people!
>>
>>Dan
>>
>>To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
>>with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
>>
>>
>
>To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
>with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message