From tcwug-list-admin at archives.real-time.com Fri Sep 27 17:00:03 2002 From: tcwug-list-admin at archives.real-time.com (tcwug-list-admin@archives.real-time.com) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:33:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] 1 tcwug-list admin request(s) waiting Message-ID: <200209272200.g8RM03d29162@sprite.real-time.com> The tcwug-list@tcwug.org mailing list has 1 request(s) waiting for your consideration at: https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/admindb/tcwug-list Please attend to this at your earliest convenience. This notice of pending requests, if any, will be sent out daily. Pending posts: From: boxoffice@ticketinbox.com on Thu Sep 26 10:55:47 2002 Cause: Post by non-member to a members-only list From tcwug-list-admin at archives.real-time.com Mon Sep 30 17:00:32 2002 From: tcwug-list-admin at archives.real-time.com (tcwug-list-admin@archives.real-time.com) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:33:22 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] 1 tcwug-list admin request(s) waiting Message-ID: <200209302200.g8UM0WK13320@sprite.real-time.com> The tcwug-list@tcwug.org mailing list has 1 request(s) waiting for your consideration at: https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/admindb/tcwug-list Please attend to this at your earliest convenience. This notice of pending requests, if any, will be sent out daily. Pending posts: From: boxoffice@ticketinbox.com on Thu Sep 26 10:55:47 2002 Cause: Post by non-member to a members-only list From tcwug-list-admin at archives.real-time.com Thu Sep 26 17:00:35 2002 From: tcwug-list-admin at archives.real-time.com (tcwug-list-admin@archives.real-time.com) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:33:22 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] 1 tcwug-list admin request(s) waiting Message-ID: <200209262200.g8QM0Xd09457@sprite.real-time.com> The tcwug-list@tcwug.org mailing list has 1 request(s) waiting for your consideration at: https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/admindb/tcwug-list Please attend to this at your earliest convenience. This notice of pending requests, if any, will be sent out daily. Pending posts: From: boxoffice@ticketinbox.com on Thu Sep 26 10:55:47 2002 Cause: Post by non-member to a members-only list From jethro at freakzilla.com Sun Sep 1 03:42:14 2002 From: jethro at freakzilla.com (Yaron) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:36 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Linksys WMP11 Message-ID: Yes, I have finally joined the Wonderful World of Wireless! Ok, so far I have three wireless devices. A Netgear accesspoint/broadband router/firewall (useful; had cable up for 10 hours, already been portscanned 6 times), my laptop with a builtin Orinoco card, and then I got a Linksys WMP11 for my wife's desktop because I don't feel like running Cat5 into the attic. I downloaded the drivers from Linksys, compiled the Prism2.5 PCI support, and got it to see the card, finally. I had to give it the commands manually because for some reason the init scripts they provide don't seem to read their own configuration. Problem is, I've got WEP on and I can't find where/how you stick the @#&%@(& key in this thing. So, two questions: 1) Am I doing this right, with the drivers from Linksys, or did I miss a builtin driver in the 2.4.* kernel tree? 2) How do you get the darn WEP key in there? TIA, -Yaron -- PS I did see some TCWUG discussions regarding the WMP11, through Google search, but can't seem to find a TCWUG Mailing List Archive Search... so apologies if this is an Old Topic. From sulrich at botwerks.org Sun Sep 1 10:42:38 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:36 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] meeting - twin cities wireless users group: 3-Sept-2002 Message-ID: <20020901102923.A3884@botwerks.org> hello all - it's time for the monthly meeting of the twin cities wireless group (TCWUG), same bat time, same bat channel. we're trying something a bit different this month with a brief technical presentation on a wireless technology of interest to the group before we digress into our network building discussions. we have some elements of interest to discuss, notably the moos tower survey and other potential locations. this promises to be an interesting meeting. agenda ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * introductions / misc. administravia * matthew hallacy (poptix) has graciously offered to give an overview of kismet and its operation. some information regarding the configuration and operation of kismet as well as some of more interesting mapping features that it provides will be presented. Q: what is kismet? A: kismet is a wireless network auditing tool which is capable of sniffing out wireless networks and logging their presence (and location when used with a GPS). this is a handy tool for auditing corporate networks and discovering rogue access points. as well as generating propagation maps for various wireless applications. though perhaps it's most famous for being the premier wardriving tool available. * discussion and planning for the moos tower survey to take place saturday, september 7, 2002. many from the group will be working to determine what the effective coverage of a moos tower node will be. courtesy of REI, kinkos and a little cash we have some maps we can use for our discussions and for planning the coverage survey. * further discussion regarding other potential backbone node locations and resources for hotspot providers. * open discussion * plans for the next meeting, review of any actionable items from this meeting. upcoming technology presentations (similar to matt's presentation but on different topics of interest to the group.) *LOGISTICS* ----------- time ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 6:30 PM - tuesday, september 3, 2002 location ---------------------------------------------------------------------- cisco systems - bloomington office international plaza 7900 international drive suite 400 bloomington, mn 55425 directions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- from the north -------------- * take 35w south * take 494 east to the 34th avenue exit, turn right * immediately veer right and take the next right at the light onto 80th street. * take the next immediate right onto international drive. from the south -------------- just like coming from the north except you take 35w north to 494. from the (east|west) -------------------- reaching 35w and following the above directions is left as an exercise for the reader/attendee. after you make it onto international drive ... * international plaza is the large blue glass building to your left. * you may park in the ramp and take the ramp elevators to level 1. proceed through the glass doors to your right and down the lobby foyer the main bank of elevators. take the elevator to level 4 note: you will need to sign in at the guard desk and indicate that you are there for the wireless users group meeting in the cisco office in suite 400. -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From hick0088 at tc.umn.edu Thu Sep 5 11:52:45 2002 From: hick0088 at tc.umn.edu (Mike Hicks) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:36 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] WAP11 and SNMP on Unix Message-ID: <1031238775.32132.139.camel@3po.dhs.org> Do many people use Linksys WAP11 access points these days? I was playing with the Linux SNMP tools and finally managed to talk to the AP we have at my place. For whatever reason, the one we have doesn't like to be snmpwalk-ed. I worked my way through the MIB definition from http://gwap11.sourceforge.net/files/AT76C510.mib though there's a bunch of stuff in there that doesn't exist on the APs anymore, seems to have changed format, etc. I've documented what works on my AP, though some major things seem to be missing (listing/changing the authorized MAC addresses, etc). I suppose I could try looking at the traffic between the AP and the Windows SNMP client.. Anyway, I'm thinking of working on a small perl utility to access the WAP11. I was just curious if others would be interested in it or not.. FYI: the gwap11 project appears to be just a GUI interface, but there doesn't appear to be any real code behind it. The wap11gui project (http://wap11gui.sourceforge.net/) seems to be more substantial, but I still couldn't get it to work with the AP we have here. -- _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ May I please be excused? My / \/ \(_)| ' // ._\ / - \(_)/ ./| ' /(__ Brain is full. \_||_/|_||_|_\\___/ \_-_/|_|\__\|_|_\ __) [ Mike Hicks | http://umn.edu/~hick0088/ | mailto:hick0088@tc.umn.edu ] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20020905/d7583933/attachment.pgp From kbongers at infinetivity.com Thu Sep 5 12:25:29 2002 From: kbongers at infinetivity.com (Karl Bongers) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:36 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Do DWL-520 PCI & DWL-650 PCMCIA work on Linux? Message-ID: <20020905111158.A1572@me.localdomain> Hi All, Just bought a Dlink DWL-520 PCI card(w/external antenna), and a DWL-650 PCMCIA adapter($50 and $40 officemax). It will take me a while to learn/install wireless on Linux, and I wanted to ask if anyone can comment on using them under Linux. My main concern is that I find out soon in case I need to return them if they are bricks under Linux. A quick google search shows that some people are using them, so looks like I might be in luck. Also, I am assuming I can get similiar functionality from the PCI card as a more expensive "access point"? (generally speaking that is...) Thanks for any comments in advance for a Wi-Fi newbie. Karl. From kbongers at infinetivity.net Thu Sep 5 12:25:33 2002 From: kbongers at infinetivity.net (Karl Bongers) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:36 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Re: Do DWL-520 PCI & DWL-650 PCMCIA work on Linux? Message-ID: <20020905120259.A1085@me.localdomain> Hi All, Just bought a Dlink DWL-520 PCI card(w/external antenna), and a DWL-650 PCMCIA adapter($50 and $40 officemax). It will take me a while to learn/install wireless on Linux, and I wanted to ask if anyone can comment on using them under Linux. My main concern is that I find out soon in case I need to return them if they are bricks under Linux. A quick google search shows that some people are using them, so looks like I might be in luck. Also, I am assuming I can get similiar functionality from the PCI card as a more expensive "access point"? (generally speaking that is...) Thanks for any comments in advance for a Wi-Fi newbie. Karl. From andyw at pobox.com Thu Sep 5 12:28:23 2002 From: andyw at pobox.com (Andy Warner) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:36 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] WAP11 and SNMP on Unix In-Reply-To: <1031238775.32132.139.camel@3po.dhs.org>; from hick0088@tc.umn.edu on Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 10:12:55AM -0500 References: <1031238775.32132.139.camel@3po.dhs.org> Message-ID: <20020905120657.N1735@florence.linkmargin.com> Mike Hicks wrote: > Do many people use Linksys WAP11 access points these days? I was > playing with the Linux SNMP tools and finally managed to talk to the AP > we have at my place. For whatever reason, the one we have doesn't like > to be snmpwalk-ed. There are several firmware revisions that react badly (read stop moving packets) if you snmpwalk them. Upgrading fixed these problems in the recent past. > I worked my way through the MIB definition from > http://gwap11.sourceforge.net/files/AT76C510.mib though there's a bunch > of stuff in there that doesn't exist on the APs anymore, seems to have > changed format, etc. I've documented what works on my AP, though some > major things seem to be missing (listing/changing the authorized MAC > addresses, etc). I suppose I could try looking at the traffic between > the AP and the Windows SNMP client.. A lot may depend on what version of the WAP11 you have. Pre 2.0 versions used the AT76C510, I believe 2.0 versions use a different chipset (but I can't find my notes now.) > Anyway, I'm thinking of working on a small perl utility to access the > WAP11. I was just curious if others would be interested in it or not.. What functionality do you have in mind ? I've got a WAP11-on-a-stick here (ruggedised, mounted on the roof), remote control/logging from perl/cron might be useful. -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 From andyw at pobox.com Thu Sep 5 12:54:32 2002 From: andyw at pobox.com (Andy Warner) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:36 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Do DWL-520 PCI & DWL-650 PCMCIA work on Linux? In-Reply-To: <20020905111158.A1572@me.localdomain>; from kbongers@infinetivity.com on Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 11:11:58AM -0500 References: <20020905111158.A1572@me.localdomain> Message-ID: <20020905124259.O1735@florence.linkmargin.com> Karl Bongers wrote: > Hi All, > > Just bought a Dlink DWL-520 PCI card(w/external antenna), > and a DWL-650 PCMCIA adapter($50 and $40 officemax). > > It will take me a while to learn/install wireless on Linux, > and I wanted to ask if anyone can comment on using them > under Linux. My main concern is that I find out soon in > case I need to return them if they are bricks under Linux. > A quick google search shows that some people are using > them, so looks like I might be in luck. > > Also, I am assuming I can get similiar functionality > from the PCI card as a more expensive "access point"? > (generally speaking that is...) You have a choice of drivers/approaches: 1. use the linux-wlan-ng driver (http://www.linux-wlan.com/linux-wlan) and configure both cards in ad-hoc mode. 2. use the linux-wlan-ng driver for the client/pcmcia card (see above) and the hostap driver (http://hostap.epitest.fi/) for the PCI card, and make that box act like a real AP. Personally, I'd recommend door number 2 as your ultimate goal, but you can take door number 1 first. -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 From hick0088 at tc.umn.edu Thu Sep 5 19:48:53 2002 From: hick0088 at tc.umn.edu (Mike Hicks) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:36 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] WAP11 and SNMP on Unix In-Reply-To: <20020905120657.N1735@florence.linkmargin.com> References: <1031238775.32132.139.camel@3po.dhs.org> <20020905120657.N1735@florence.linkmargin.com> Message-ID: <1031272709.21804.35.camel@3po.dhs.org> On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 12:06, Andy Warner wrote: > Mike Hicks wrote: > > Do many people use Linksys WAP11 access points these days? I was > > playing with the Linux SNMP tools and finally managed to talk to the AP > > we have at my place. For whatever reason, the one we have doesn't like > > to be snmpwalk-ed. > > There are several firmware revisions that react badly (read stop > moving packets) if you snmpwalk them. Upgrading fixed these problems > in the recent past. Yeah, this one (hardware version 1.1, firmware 1.4i.1) doesn't stop passing packets, the snmpwalk command just times out without getting any response. > A lot may depend on what version of the WAP11 you have. Pre 2.0 versions > used the AT76C510, I believe 2.0 versions use a different chipset (but > I can't find my notes now.) I guess I've heard that the newer WAP11s only have a web interface anyway. Not sure if SNMP went away or not. > > Anyway, I'm thinking of working on a small perl utility to access the > > WAP11. I was just curious if others would be interested in it or not.. > > What functionality do you have in mind ? > > I've got a WAP11-on-a-stick here (ruggedised, mounted on the roof), remote > control/logging from perl/cron might be useful. Well, I'd like to get as much functionality as possible. I know that my wireless card has not played nicely with the AP in the past (strangely seems to be negotiating a speed about ISDN level), so being able to reset it without wandering into the closet would be nice. Other than that, I think it would just be a neat thing to have ;-) -- _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ The Matrix has you. / \/ \(_)| ' // ._\ / - \(_)/ ./| ' /(__ \_||_/|_||_|_\\___/ \_-_/|_|\__\|_|_\ __) [ Mike Hicks | http://umn.edu/~hick0088/ | mailto:hick0088@tc.umn.edu ] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20020905/4eec5f69/attachment.pgp From spencer at autonomous.tv Thu Sep 5 23:11:38 2002 From: spencer at autonomous.tv (SpencerUnderground) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:36 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Re: Do DWL-520 PCI & DWL-650 PCMCIA work on Linux? In-Reply-To: <20020905120259.A1085@me.localdomain> References: <20020905120259.A1085@me.localdomain> Message-ID: <20020906033831.GO31709@tcopensys.com> On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 12:02:59PM -0500, Karl Bongers wrote: >Hi All, > >Just bought a Dlink DWL-520 PCI card(w/external antenna), >and a DWL-650 PCMCIA adapter($50 and $40 officemax). > >It will take me a while to learn/install wireless on Linux, >and I wanted to ask if anyone can comment on using them >under Linux. My main concern is that I find out soon in >case I need to return them if they are bricks under Linux. >A quick google search shows that some people are using >them, so looks like I might be in luck. > >Also, I am assuming I can get similiar functionality >from the PCI card as a more expensive "access point"? >(generally speaking that is...) > >Thanks for any comments in advance for a Wi-Fi newbie. > >Karl. You have many,many option to get these working under Linux. I am unfamiliar with the the 520 card, but I am 90% positive it is supported. Basically you have these drivers at your disposale. 1) kernel wlan_cs drivers 2) wlan-ng drivers 3) hostap_cs drivers I am just tickled pink with the hostap drivers. They are very flexible and use the wireless-tools useland tools. The wlan-ng drivers are ok, just a bit "convultued". The kernel drivers are stable. -- --*--SpencerUnderground--*-- http://autonomous.tv/ spencer@autonomous.tv Key fingerprint = 173B 8760 E59F DBF8 6FD2 68F8 ABA2 AB08 49C7 4754 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20020905/bbc5ae74/attachment.pgp From cncole at earthlink.net Fri Sep 6 13:54:01 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:36 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] almost on topic.. cell antennas at 1.9GHz Message-ID: <007501c255d3$d0098360$6401a8c0@HPZT> Anybody got a commercial high gain directional cell band antenna (1.9GHz, not 2.4GHz for WiFi) and some flavor of patch antenna for this band? I'd like to borrow them for just a day or two to make some simple tests. --- Chuck Cole If you don't like the news, go out and make some. From sulrich at botwerks.org Sat Sep 7 12:52:55 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:37 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] meeting notes (09-03-2002) Message-ID: <20020907155138.GA47655@botwerks.org> sorry for the delay, here are the meeting notes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- we followed the agenda pretty closely so i'm going to insert the notes inline with the agenda items. * introductions / misc. administravia we had a good turnout for this meeting. several new faces were in attendance as well as most of the regulars. couple of points to note for future meetings. - we're researching the options available for creating a legal entity for the group in the form of a non/not-for profit entity. this looks to be a pretty straightforward endeavor but there are some nuances which we may want to make ourselves aware of. mike creglow has volunteered/been coaxed into researching the options available to the group and the relative merits therein. - based on a poll of little / no scientific value there seems to be a fair amount of interest in having a topical presentation at the beginning of our meeting to provide some more information on topics of general interest to the group. matt's presentation at the meeting was the first of these. andy warner has graciously volunteered to do a radio technology primer for october's meeting. - we're still activly soliciting input for future sessions like these. if you have an interest in topic that you think would make for a good presentation along these lines please speak up. some of the topics we're looking at are listed below - antenna design and comparison of application and the relative merits of the main antenna types. - tools for doing antenna design - discussions on outdoor router design * technical presentation - kismet - matt hallacy did a deep dive on kismet and how to make it work. advice on configuration and the relative merits of kismet vs. other wireless auditing tools was provided as well as a demonstration of the various features and potential pitfalls of building and configuring kismet. these meeting notes are not the place to describe all that was covered but i understand that matt is working on a tutorial and additional information discussing much of this for putting online. matt has also published his maps online [1] for folks to peruse. perusal is encouraged. i'm sure matt will let us know when he's got the documentation online. * discussion and planning for the moos tower survey. - ben kochie and andy warner led a discussion and facilitated the planning of the moos tower survey (taking place today). interested parties should contact ben or andy if they want more information or want to help out. - further discussion was had regarding what other locations we might be able to find in order to create a backbone. folks are encouraged to keep on the lookout for locations which might be good candidates for the placement of nodes. items for our next meeting -------------------------- - review the results of the moos tower survey and discuss any other locations which might have been discovered. - there was a lot of additional detail which was discussed which these meeting notes will never be able to elicit. the suggestion was made to record the meetings to insure that folks can catch up on what was discussed. to that end arragements have been made to record subsequent meetings. we hope to get these online for folks to download. -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From becky at pihl.us Sat Sep 7 18:48:17 2002 From: becky at pihl.us (Becky Lynn Pihl) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:37 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Thank you for Moos survey & photos of same Message-ID: <000501c256c6$c62322e0$0200000a@iaxs.net> Andy Isaacson, Dylan Palmer & Ben Kochie: Thank you for the TCWUG.org survey event at Moos tower, and and two extra (& early) thank yous to both Dylan for the digital photos and to Andy for the (at least preliminary) location on his web site, hexapodia.org (and for bringing Dylan with!). Once I got home, I pulled out my old (copyrighted 1989) wall/road map of the Twin Cities published by Hudson. The map does not indicate if Up-Down is along the TRUE North-South or the MAGNETIC North-South. (Do any of you know how the city streets are laid out?) I drew a line between my house and Moos, and a vertical line parallel to the vertical axis of the printed map. If my memory is correct, North is at 0 degrees and East is at 90 degrees. I used a protractor and figured out that my house's bearing is at roughly 85 degrees to Moos Tower. I could not find a reference to (one of) the Maplewood watertowers on my map. If my recollection of where it is is correct, then that tower would be at roughly 76 degrees. I eagerly await the photos' temporary home at www.hexapodia.org , and hope to see them soon at the TCWUG.org web site. Sincerely yours, Leif O. Pihl 651-774-7445 From poptix at techmonkeys.org Sat Sep 7 19:46:35 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:37 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Moos tower survey Message-ID: <20020907191649.A32447@techmonkeys.org> Could everyone that did any driving please contact me, regardless of what they were using (netstumbler, kismet, etc). I'd like to get a map out of what the coverage was like ASAP. -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From jeff at digitalguy.net Sat Sep 7 23:14:19 2002 From: jeff at digitalguy.net (Jeff Lehman) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:37 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] moos tower pics Message-ID: <20020907221654.A7220@sarah.digitalguy.net> Moos tower pics are up at http://www.digitalguy.net/moos/ Feel free to copy and do whatever you want with em. From dave at davedash.com Sun Sep 8 01:44:34 2002 From: dave at davedash.com (Dave Dash) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:37 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] moos tower pics In-Reply-To: <20020907221654.A7220@sarah.digitalguy.net> Message-ID: nifty:) thanks On Saturday, September 7, 2002, at 10:16 PM, Jeff Lehman wrote: > Moos tower pics are up at http://www.digitalguy.net/moos/ From jrv at scc.net Sun Sep 8 11:25:20 2002 From: jrv at scc.net (Jack Vanatta) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:37 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Moos tower survey References: <20020907191649.A32447@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <000401c25752$3f08a0a0$6401a8c0@manx> Equipment: Toshiba Laptop (Running on batteries) Orinoco Card (No Antenna) Netstumbler Very strong connection to MOOS11 from atop the tower. Fair connection to MOOS6 from atop the tower. I was unable to establish two way communication from anywhere that I drove. I detected about 30 access points within a 1/4 mile of the tower. I could not even detect MOOS6 or MOOS11 while standing on the Franklin Ave. bridge. Jack Vanatta jrv@scc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew S. Hallacy" To: ; Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 7:16 PM Subject: [TCWUG] Moos tower survey > Could everyone that did any driving please contact me, regardless of what > they were using (netstumbler, kismet, etc). I'd like to get a map out of > what the coverage was like ASAP. > > -- > Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified > http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From spencer at autonomous.tv Sun Sep 8 14:11:40 2002 From: spencer at autonomous.tv (SpencerUnderground) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:37 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Moos tower survey In-Reply-To: <000401c25752$3f08a0a0$6401a8c0@manx> References: <20020907191649.A32447@techmonkeys.org> <000401c25752$3f08a0a0$6401a8c0@manx> Message-ID: <20020908171249.GG7395@tcopensys.com> On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 11:10:22AM -0500, Jack Vanatta wrote: >Equipment: > > Toshiba Laptop (Running on batteries) > Orinoco Card (No Antenna) > Netstumbler > >Very strong connection to MOOS11 from atop the tower. >Fair connection to MOOS6 from atop the tower. > >I was unable to establish two way communication from anywhere that I drove. >I detected about 30 access points within a 1/4 mile of the tower. >I could not even detect MOOS6 or MOOS11 while standing on the Franklin Ave. >bridge. I was _only_ able to see moos6 from the franklin bridge and for a second on university. I was able to see moos6 in the parking lot across from the parking ramp by the EE/CI building. The only I time I saw moos11 was on higway55 and 26th street. I have my logs and will be making them available for analyses. > >Jack Vanatta >jrv@scc.net > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Matthew S. Hallacy" >To: ; >Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 7:16 PM >Subject: [TCWUG] Moos tower survey > > >> Could everyone that did any driving please contact me, regardless of what >> they were using (netstumbler, kismet, etc). I'd like to get a map out of >> what the coverage was like ASAP. >> >> -- >> Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified >> http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 >> _______________________________________________ >> Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, >Minnesota >> http://www.tcwug.org >> tcwug-list@tcwug.org >> https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >http://www.tcwug.org >tcwug-list@tcwug.org >https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list -- --*--SpencerUnderground--*-- http://autonomous.tv/ spencer@autonomous.tv Key fingerprint = 173B 8760 E59F DBF8 6FD2 68F8 ABA2 AB08 49C7 4754 From jeff at digitalguy.net Sun Sep 8 14:31:40 2002 From: jeff at digitalguy.net (Jeff Lehman) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:37 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] initial radiation maps Message-ID: <20020908133503.A12230@sarah.digitalguy.net> I was playing around this morning with my data and made a few maps with only the data that Chuck and I gathered. We were running kismet with an orinoco card (I screwed up the cisco drivers :( ) and a 12dbi omni on the trunk of the car. I've used gpsmap to filter out all other AP's except for moos6 and moos11. I believe the gpsmap command line options are --filter -I So here is just my data. Chuck and I focused mainly on the north part of the tower which is why we didn't get much traffic from moos11 and the fact that I didn't have it configured right in the beginning :( The small circles are packets from either moos6 or moos11 depending upon which map you're looking at. http://www.digitalguy.net/moos6-mappoint.png http://www.digitalguy.net/moos6-terra.png http://www.digitalguy.net/moos11-mappoint.png http://www.digitalguy.net/moos11-terra.png From adi at hexapodia.org Sun Sep 8 18:29:30 2002 From: adi at hexapodia.org (Andy Isaacson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:37 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Moos skyline survey Message-ID: <20020908173845.B23356@hexapodia.org> Dylan took a bunch of photos from the top of Moos tower on Saturday, and I've placed them online at http://web.hexapodia.org/~adi/pix/moos-survey/ The links go to a file named "dsc0001-small.jpg". These are fairly small JPEG files (800x600, with JPEG compression turned up a bit). The full-resolution, uncompressed (straight from the camera) pictures are named "dsc0001.jpg"; you'll have to edit the URL manually to get the full-res version. (If this is a big problem, I can put up a tarball somewhere, but I figure you can probably write a shell script using wget as easily as I can make the tarball.) There are two sequences of skyline pictures; Dylan changed the focus and lens parameters halfway through the shoot to improve quality. I've put the better ones closer to the top of the page. -andy From dieman at ringworld.org Mon Sep 9 11:47:02 2002 From: dieman at ringworld.org (Scott Dier) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:37 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] [Fwd: (forw) (Fwd) IEEE TC-SPC: September 18th - Free Lunchtime Session] Message-ID: <1031587205.26233.45.camel@runabout> -- Scott Dier http://www.ringworld.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Scott M. Dier" Subject: (forw) (Fwd) IEEE TC-SPC: September 18th - Free Lunchtime Session Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:52:34 -0500 Size: 5704 Url: http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20020909/afafa1f1/attachment.mht From poptix at techmonkeys.org Wed Sep 11 04:13:59 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:37 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Moos tower maps are completed. Message-ID: <20020911030800.I32447@techmonkeys.org> I assume that nobody else has any data for me, so here we go: http://www.mn-linux.org/members/poptix/moos/ Note that the images are around 200KB each, with the exception of the satellite and topo images, which are about 2M each. Feedback is appreciated. -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From adi at hexapodia.org Wed Sep 11 11:44:03 2002 From: adi at hexapodia.org (Andy Isaacson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:37 2005 Subject: how to measure contact (was Re: [TCWUG] Moos tower maps are completed.) In-Reply-To: <20020911030800.I32447@techmonkeys.org>; from poptix@techmonkeys.org on Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 03:08:00AM -0500 References: <20020911030800.I32447@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <20020911112600.A28523@hexapodia.org> Is there anyone on moos@nerp.net that isn't on tcwug-list, and wants to continue to be included in these discussions? If not, I suppose the alias can go away. On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 03:08:00AM -0500, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > I assume that nobody else has any data for me, so here we go: > > http://www.mn-linux.org/members/poptix/moos/ > > Note that the images are around 200KB each, with the exception of the > satellite and topo images, which are about 2M each. > > Feedback is appreciated. This is all very interesting, but a radio friend of mine made a good point when I was discussing the Moos Event with him. In general, the AP is going to have a better transmit side than the NIC; it has more power to work with, a better antenna system, etc. Conversely, the NIC probably has lower transmit power and a lesser antenna. Furthermore, an AP on Moos is going to be barraged with noise, since it has LOS to just about every radio source in Hennepin and Ramsey counties, while the NIC can hear the AP and any other radiators in its immediate vicinity, but not much else. These points suggest that we should do more than just running Kismet to test connectivity between Moos and a mobile station. Kismet is a fabulous tool, but it explicitly does NOT test the host-to-AP side of the connection (please correct me if I'm wrong in this claim). We should also find out how well mobile nodes can associate with the AP, and do some round-trip tests, to ensure that the radio round-trip is usable. I don't know of any pointy-clicky tools that make this easy, but I'm sure we can whip something up if need be. Does anybody out there have any experience doing this kind of connectivity testing? If so, are you willing to share your experience with the group? [Aside: The NIC has one potential significant advantage over the AP -- the NIC can use a directional antenna, while (in our current configuration) the AP must use an omni.] -andy From poptix at techmonkeys.org Wed Sep 11 12:09:37 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:37 2005 Subject: how to measure contact (was Re: [TCWUG] Moos tower maps are completed.) In-Reply-To: <20020911112600.A28523@hexapodia.org>; from adi@hexapodia.org on Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 11:26:01AM -0500 References: <20020911030800.I32447@techmonkeys.org> <20020911112600.A28523@hexapodia.org> Message-ID: <20020911115633.M32447@techmonkeys.org> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 11:26:01AM -0500, Andy Isaacson wrote: > Is there anyone on moos@nerp.net that isn't on tcwug-list, and wants to > continue to be included in these discussions? If not, I suppose the > alias can go away. > Yeah, I wanted the extra attention to this post. > This is all very interesting, but a radio friend of mine made a good > point when I was discussing the Moos Event with him. > > In general, the AP is going to have a better transmit side than the NIC; > it has more power to work with, a better antenna system, etc. > Conversely, the NIC probably has lower transmit power and a lesser > antenna. > > Furthermore, an AP on Moos is going to be barraged with noise, since it > has LOS to just about every radio source in Hennepin and Ramsey > counties, while the NIC can hear the AP and any other radiators in its > immediate vicinity, but not much else. > Actually moos-6 was a 12db antenna on what I believe was a 100mw output cisco AP, I was using a 15db antenna (yes, on my truck) with a 100mw cisco PC card, i'd say they were about equal =) Of course, this is an unusual setup, but I'm really not concerned with tower->ground connectivity at this point. (This is what sector antennas are good for) > These points suggest that we should do more than just running Kismet to > test connectivity between Moos and a mobile station. Kismet is a > fabulous tool, but it explicitly does NOT test the host-to-AP side of > the connection (please correct me if I'm wrong in this claim). We > should also find out how well mobile nodes can associate with the AP, > and do some round-trip tests, to ensure that the radio round-trip is > usable. I associated in multiple locations to make sure the signal readings weren't false, in most locations the signal was _very_ good, it was simply a matter of getting out from behind houses/trees/etc. > > I don't know of any pointy-clicky tools that make this easy, but I'm > sure we can whip something up if need be. > > Does anybody out there have any experience doing this kind of > connectivity testing? If so, are you willing to share your experience > with the group? > swap to another VT, kismet_unmonitor (leave kismet running, but take the card out of monitor mode) iwconfig eth0 essid moos6 dhcpcd eth0 ping (mmkay, we have signal houston) kismet_monitor drive off. > [Aside: The NIC has one potential significant advantage over the AP -- > the NIC can use a directional antenna, while (in our current > configuration) the AP must use an omni.] > > -andy -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From andyw at pobox.com Wed Sep 11 13:25:21 2002 From: andyw at pobox.com (Andy Warner) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:37 2005 Subject: how to measure contact (was Re: [TCWUG] Moos tower maps are completed.) In-Reply-To: <20020911112600.A28523@hexapodia.org>; from adi@hexapodia.org on Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 11:26:01AM -0500 References: <20020911030800.I32447@techmonkeys.org> <20020911112600.A28523@hexapodia.org> Message-ID: <20020911125752.F22165@florence.linkmargin.com> Andy Isaacson wrote: > [...] > This is all very interesting, but a radio friend of mine made a good > point when I was discussing the Moos Event with him. > > In general, the AP is going to have a better transmit side than the NIC; > it has more power to work with, a better antenna system, etc. > Conversely, the NIC probably has lower transmit power and a lesser > antenna. > > Furthermore, an AP on Moos is going to be barraged with noise, since it > has LOS to just about every radio source in Hennepin and Ramsey > counties, while the NIC can hear the AP and any other radiators in its > immediate vicinity, but not much else. All this is true, very true. The directional antenna at the remote sites helps keep the spurious rx somewhat under control at that end of the link. There are going to be two major sources of in-band rx interference at Moos: 1 - general RF (including 802.11b transmissions in adjacent channels.) This is going to have the effect of increasing the baseline noise (aka noise floor) that the receiver(s) have to deal with. Note that packet error rates correlate with Signal to Noise ratios, meaning that we need more signal to acheive the same error rate in the presence of increase noise. 2 - 802.11b transmissions on the same channel. This is going to require a remote site to "capture" the receiver, meaning that a particular signal exceed competing signals by some measured amount (usually measured in dB.) In addition to classic hidden-node (which is somewhat solveable by configuring RTS/CTS) we may see truncated packets because some other node captures the receiver during receipt of a packet. The good news is that DSSS modulations generally boast pretty good capture ratios. Obviously people are successfully doing similar things in the metro area (e.g. Implex - http://www.implex.net/services/access/wireless-area.cfm, [I'd take that map with a grain of salt] though they are using sectorised antennas, and karlnet firmware rather than vanilla 802.11b.) Anyone from Implex on the list ? Care to share your perspective ? Correct my description of your solution ? > These points suggest that we should do more than just running Kismet to > test connectivity between Moos and a mobile station. Kismet is a > fabulous tool, but it explicitly does NOT test the host-to-AP side of > the connection (please correct me if I'm wrong in this claim). We > should also find out how well mobile nodes can associate with the AP, > and do some round-trip tests, to ensure that the radio round-trip is > usable. Ack. Agreed 100%. Thanks for doing the somewhat thankless task of collating the info and making the maps, Matt. I have, however, noticed a slight inconsistancy in the posted maps. The SE corner of the moos6 coverage seems to move from Hwy5 & 35W (moos-survey1.png) to Hwy5 and Randolph (moos-survey4.png.) I'm interested in what kind of connectivity was achieved at this location (whichever it is.) The effect of that corner of the coverage envelope adds several square miles to the actual coverage area (moos-survey3.png.) > Does anybody out there have any experience doing this kind of > connectivity testing? If so, are you willing to share your experience > with the group? I've never used kismet for a site survey. I've always associated, moved data and measured throughput, but I've never tried general coverage mapping of a moos-tower like substance using 802.11b. I suspect a script that continually looped associating with a central site, capturing stats with iwconfig or /proc, dhcp request, move some data, dhcp release, all the time snarfing gpsd data would be useful. -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 From poptix at techmonkeys.org Wed Sep 11 14:52:37 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:38 2005 Subject: how to measure contact (was Re: [TCWUG] Moos tower maps are completed.) In-Reply-To: <20020911125752.F22165@florence.linkmargin.com>; from andyw@pobox.com on Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 12:57:52PM -0500 References: <20020911030800.I32447@techmonkeys.org> <20020911112600.A28523@hexapodia.org> <20020911125752.F22165@florence.linkmargin.com> Message-ID: <20020911135019.O32447@techmonkeys.org> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 12:57:52PM -0500, Andy Warner wrote: > Obviously people are successfully doing similar things in the metro area > (e.g. Implex - http://www.implex.net/services/access/wireless-area.cfm, > [I'd take that map with a grain of salt] though they are using sectorised > antennas, and karlnet firmware rather than vanilla 802.11b.) Anyone from > Implex on the list ? Care to share your perspective ? Correct my description > of your solution ? I hope they are, I somewhat know a few of the guys up there, and spoke to them about the TCWUG at the strictly business expo. > Ack. > Agreed 100%. > > Thanks for doing the somewhat thankless task of collating the > info and making the maps, Matt. I have, however, noticed a slight > inconsistancy in the posted maps. The SE corner of the moos6 coverage > seems to move from Hwy5 & 35W (moos-survey1.png) to Hwy5 and Randolph > (moos-survey4.png.) I'm interested in what kind of connectivity was > achieved at this location (whichever it is.) The effect of that > corner of the coverage envelope adds several square miles to the > actual coverage area (moos-survey3.png.) You're probably seeing is another network, in moos-survey1 (and all the others) the networks are colored by what channel they're on, another AP on the same channel is totally overlapping the range for the AP we had up. (probably implex, I'm going to contact them today to see if I can get some MAC addresses for their equipment, and perhaps provide them with maps.. frequency coordination, or at least minimizing interference would be nice) > > > Does anybody out there have any experience doing this kind of > > connectivity testing? If so, are you willing to share your experience > > with the group? > > I've never used kismet for a site survey. I've always associated, moved data > and measured throughput, but I've never tried general coverage mapping of > a moos-tower like substance using 802.11b. I suspect a script that continually > looped associating with a central site, capturing stats with iwconfig or /proc, > dhcp request, move some data, dhcp release, all the time snarfing gpsd data > would be useful. The signal levels are the same, regardless of being associated, or being in monitor mode, but yes, actually associating to test is ideal, unfortunately kismet will not do this anytime in the near future, the author feels that this would push too close to being a tool used to gain access to networks you're not supposed to be on. Maybe I'll automake something, I plan on making (very small) bootable linux distro from CD or floppy that contains all the drivers and programs for doing this sort of thing, I could easily include the above functionality. > -- > andyw@pobox.com > > Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From poptix at techmonkeys.org Wed Sep 11 15:17:13 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:38 2005 Subject: how to measure contact (was Re: [TCWUG] Moos tower maps are completed.) In-Reply-To: <20020911125752.F22165@florence.linkmargin.com>; from andyw@pobox.com on Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 12:57:52PM -0500 References: <20020911030800.I32447@techmonkeys.org> <20020911112600.A28523@hexapodia.org> <20020911125752.F22165@florence.linkmargin.com> Message-ID: <20020911151005.P32447@techmonkeys.org> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 12:57:52PM -0500, Andy Warner wrote: > Thanks for doing the somewhat thankless task of collating the > info and making the maps, Matt. I have, however, noticed a slight > inconsistancy in the posted maps. The SE corner of the moos6 coverage > seems to move from Hwy5 & 35W (moos-survey1.png) to Hwy5 and Randolph > (moos-survey4.png.) I'm interested in what kind of connectivity was > achieved at this location (whichever it is.) The effect of that > corner of the coverage envelope adds several square miles to the > actual coverage area (moos-survey3.png.) After re-reading that a few times, and looking at the maps, I see now what you're talking about.. basicly when making maps with kismet, it takes all the data points, averages out the range, and draws a circle. this leads to data points outside of that circle existing (ie, it doesn't just plot the edges of the range at the outermost datapoints), in moos-survey4 it's putting points at the outermost datapoints (hull map) which gives you a better idea of what the actual range is (based on what the datapoints actually were, not guestimating) You can see in moos-survey6-6 that the datapoints on highway 5 were very few, unfortunately this is because I drove a little bit before I noticed the laptop had locked up (again) from overheating (check out the gap between those datapoints and Hwy 149 south of the river on moos-survey2, you can see the long-ish break in the driving track =/) I would like to do another survey soon, but before we do it i'd like to run through a quick check on everyones system and help out anyone that needs help. perhaps this is where my mini distro can come in handy.. I'd also like to go out further, to the higher points on the map (moos-topo.png) > -- > andyw@pobox.com > > Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From hick0088 at tc.umn.edu Wed Sep 11 16:00:06 2002 From: hick0088 at tc.umn.edu (Mike Hicks) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:39 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Moos skyline survey In-Reply-To: <20020908173845.B23356@hexapodia.org> References: <20020908173845.B23356@hexapodia.org> Message-ID: <1031777409.13767.98.camel@3po.dhs.org> Would anyone mind sharing with the people on the mailing list a little more information on what all of the activity on Moos is for? Is there an intention to put some APs up there year round? I haven't been going to any meetings, so it was unclear to me what was going on last weekend, and I don't know what your future plans are. -- _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ Ever notice how fast / \/ \(_)| ' // ._\ / - \(_)/ ./| ' /(__ Windows runs? Neither did I \_||_/|_||_|_\\___/ \_-_/|_|\__\|_|_\ __) [ Mike Hicks | http://umn.edu/~hick0088/ | mailto:hick0088@tc.umn.edu ] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20020911/65cc80db/attachment.pgp From andyw at pobox.com Wed Sep 11 22:31:47 2002 From: andyw at pobox.com (Andy Warner) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:39 2005 Subject: how to measure contact (was Re: [TCWUG] Moos tower maps are completed.) In-Reply-To: <20020911135019.O32447@techmonkeys.org>; from poptix@techmonkeys.org on Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 01:50:19PM -0500 References: <20020911030800.I32447@techmonkeys.org> <20020911112600.A28523@hexapodia.org> <20020911125752.F22165@florence.linkmargin.com> <20020911135019.O32447@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <20020911221723.L22165@florence.linkmargin.com> Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > [...] > The signal levels are the same, regardless of being associated, or being in > monitor mode, but yes, actually associating to test is ideal, unfortunately > kismet will not do this anytime in the near future, the author feels that The point I (and others) keep plugging away at here is that kismet measures one half of a bi-directional link, and there are many cases where link performance is not going to be reciprocal. Ultimately, you have to move data both ways to see how good things are going to be for any non-trivial install. It is an excellent tool, but a little caution interpreting the results is probably very wise. -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 From poptix at techmonkeys.org Wed Sep 11 23:15:45 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:39 2005 Subject: how to measure contact (was Re: [TCWUG] Moos tower maps are completed.) In-Reply-To: <20020911221723.L22165@florence.linkmargin.com>; from andyw@pobox.com on Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 10:17:23PM -0500 References: <20020911030800.I32447@techmonkeys.org> <20020911112600.A28523@hexapodia.org> <20020911125752.F22165@florence.linkmargin.com> <20020911135019.O32447@techmonkeys.org> <20020911221723.L22165@florence.linkmargin.com> Message-ID: <20020911230046.S32447@techmonkeys.org> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 10:17:23PM -0500, Andy Warner wrote: > Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > > The point I (and others) keep plugging away at here is that kismet measures > one half of a bi-directional link, and there are many cases where link > performance is not going to be reciprocal. Ultimately, you have to move > data both ways to see how good things are going to be for any non-trivial > install. > > It is an excellent tool, but a little caution interpreting the results is > probably very wise. I was referring to functionality that allows you to select a network to associate to, then spawning an external script that did the things that were listed (dhcp, ping, ftp, dhcp release). I fully understand that this isn't broadcast TV where everything is fine and dandy as long as I can get a signal with a coat hangar. Kismet can continue to run while you associate with a network. > -- > andyw@pobox.com > > Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From andyw at pobox.com Thu Sep 12 02:12:53 2002 From: andyw at pobox.com (Andy Warner) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:39 2005 Subject: how to measure contact (was Re: [TCWUG] Moos tower maps are completed.) In-Reply-To: <20020911230046.S32447@techmonkeys.org>; from poptix@techmonkeys.org on Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 11:00:46PM -0500 References: <20020911030800.I32447@techmonkeys.org> <20020911112600.A28523@hexapodia.org> <20020911125752.F22165@florence.linkmargin.com> <20020911135019.O32447@techmonkeys.org> <20020911221723.L22165@florence.linkmargin.com> <20020911230046.S32447@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <20020912002742.M22165@florence.linkmargin.com> Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > [...] > I was referring to functionality that allows you to select a network to associate > to, then spawning an external script that did the things that were listed (dhcp, > ping, ftp, dhcp release). I fully understand that this isn't broadcast TV where > everything is fine and dandy as long as I can get a signal with a coat hangar. > > Kismet can continue to run while you associate with a network. I think some add-ons/local-hacks like you mention might be an extremely powerful idea. My wish-list includes a command that will cease hopping and jump to the channel used by the highlighted AP, allowing you to focus in on the behaviour of a particular node without playing russian roulette with what packets you'll hear. Another keystroke to resume hopping. My caution intepreting graphs and daydreaming about the resulting networks was aimed at the entire mailing list, not intended as any criticism of you or the results you have so painstakingly produced. Apologies if I gave the wrong impression. -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 From dave at davedash.com Fri Sep 13 14:47:54 2002 From: dave at davedash.com (Dave Dash) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:39 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] nocat help? Message-ID: Hey guys, I was wondering if someone can help me (i.e. email back and forth) figure out why my nocat gateway isn't working. I wanted to start simple, so I setup everything on one machine (following samemachine.txt), but then I decided, I'd just use it in open mode (because it wasn't working at all). I'm running everything on a Pentium 100, running Debian (mostly unstable), using a wmp-11 with hostap_pci. Here's what I get when I startup: depot:/usr/local/nocat/gw# bin/gateway [2002-09-13 13:43:10] Resetting firewall. modprobe: Can't locate module ipt_LOG iptables v1.2.6a: Bad MARK value `nonauth' Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more information. iptables v1.2.6a: Bad MARK value `nonauth' Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more information. iptables v1.2.6a: Bad MARK value `nonauth' Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more information. iptables v1.2.6a: Bad MARK value `nonauth' Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more information. [2002-09-13 13:43:15] Binding listener socket to 0.0.0.0 my nocat.log: depot:/usr/local/nocat/gw# cat nocat.log [2002-09-11 09:52:52] Gateway running on port 5280. [2002-09-11 09:53:52] Gateway running on port 5280. [2002-09-13 05:59:22] Gateway running on port 5280. [2002-09-13 06:40:36] Gateway running on port 5280. [2002-09-13 07:03:40] Gateway running on port 5280. [2002-09-13 07:10:43] Gateway running on port 5280. [2002-09-13 13:43:15] Gateway running on port 5280. my nocat.conf: Verbosity 10 GatewayName Depot GatewayMode Open GatewayLog /usr/local/nocat/gw/nocat.log LoginTimeout 600 HomePage http://nocat.net/ DocumentRoot /usr/local/nocat/gw/htdocs SplashForm splash.html StatusForm status.html TrustedGroups Any AuthServiceAddr auth.nocat.net AuthServiceURL https://$AuthServiceAddr/cgi-bin/login LogoutURL https://$AuthServiceAddr/logout.html ExternalDevice eth0 InternalDevice wlan0 LocalNetwork 10.0.66.0/24 AllowedWebHosts nocat.net ExcludePorts 25 So I associated with it using my laptop, and then tried opening a page, and it wouldn't be able to connect. I could ping my gateway, I think. A few times I was able to get it to connect to nocat.net, and that's about it... no capturing is happening though :( and the logs don't seem verbose any help is appreciated -dd From list at slushpupie.com Mon Sep 16 11:14:50 2002 From: list at slushpupie.com (Jay Kline) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:39 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Auto network attach Message-ID: <200209161053.07426.list@slushpupie.com> I have redhat 7.3 setup on my laptop, and use the Orinoco silver card. Without having to change anything it just works (makes my life easy). However, I go between 2 different networks, one using WEP, the other wide open. Is there a configuration file somewhere in redhat that I can have it detect what network is being used, and supply the correct keys for it? This works in windows, so it must be possible somehow. Jay From joel at helgeson.com Tue Sep 17 07:56:49 2002 From: joel at helgeson.com (Joel R. Helgeson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:39 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay Message-ID: <000001c25e46$cc00a070$2802a8c0@SECURITY> I have a design question for a project that I am working on for my work. I would like to run it past my friends here in the TCWUG to see if you can see any flaws in my thinking or my design. Any feedback will be valuable. I am currently designing a Wireless Bridge between Fridley & Brooklyn Park. The total distance of the bridge is 4.45 miles. We cannot obtain direct line of site between the two sites without building a 200' tall tower at the site in BP, but both have a clear line of sight to a water tower in BP. The distance from Fridley to the BP Water Tower is 3.88 miles; the distance from the BP site to the Water Tower is .941 miles. I will be using 21dbi Parabolic Dish antennas at each site. The design I am proposing is to use a passive antenna array atop the water tower, just take two 21dbi Parabolic Dish antennas and connect them back to back using a lightning arrestor, having one dish point to Fridley and the other to the BP office. I figure I could pull this off because of the short distances involved, and the customer doesn't want to pay monthly rental fees to put a radio atop the tower (paying for electricity & all), much less suffer the throughput loss (from 11mbps to 5.5mbps) that one does by using a radio relay. I think this could work, but is there something I'm missing? Has anyone else done this before? I'd hate to recommend something that won't work. Thank you for your help in advance, Joel R. Helgeson Director of Networking & Security Services SymetriQ Corporation, www.symetriq.com 8500 Normandale Lake Boulevard, Suite 1670 Bloomington, Minnesota 55437-3813 Office: (952) 921-8869 Cell: (651) 270-7521 "An investment in knowledge pays the best dividends." - Benjamin Franklin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20020917/fc862e9e/attachment.html From cncole at earthlink.net Tue Sep 17 10:21:36 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:39 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay In-Reply-To: <000001c25e46$cc00a070$2802a8c0@SECURITY> Message-ID: <000701c25e59$fc81cae0$6901a8c0@HPZT> Estimating path loss will indicate how feasible this may be. Some handbooks have graphs for this. The transmitter power is radiated into the solid angle of the antenna pattern and is received by the area of the next antenna. Assume that the passive link has zero dB loss. Then the next segment has an area loss also. The loss for the longer segment alone looks like more than 60dB, or around 80dB overall. I don't know what the receiver requires as signal level, but it might be -120dBm. With all these assumptions, the path would be +20dBm power with -80dB losses or -60dBm signal at the receiver site which should be plenty... in clear weather. My numbers are VERY rough approximations meant only to indicate the method of determining this feasibility. This may have adequate "fade margin" even with real numbers. > I am currently designing a Wireless Bridge between Fridley & > Brooklyn Park. The total distance of the bridge is 4.45 > miles. We cannot obtain direct line of site between the two > sites without building a 200' tall tower at the site in BP, > but both have a clear line of sight to a water tower in BP. > The distance from Fridley to the BP Water Tower is 3.88 > miles; the distance from the BP site to the Water Tower is > .941 miles. I will be using 21dbi Parabolic Dish antennas at > each site. > > The design I am proposing is to use a passive antenna array > atop the water tower, just take two 21dbi Parabolic Dish > antennas and connect them back to back using a lightning > arrestor, having one dish point to Fridley and the other to > the BP office. I figure I could pull this off because of the > short distances involved, and the customer doesn't want to > pay monthly rental fees to put a radio atop the tower (paying > for electricity & all), much less suffer the throughput loss > (from 11mbps to 5.5mbps) that one does by using a radio relay. > > I think this could work, but is there something I'm missing? > Has anyone else done this before? I'd hate to recommend > something that won't work. Chuck From bgilbertson at stonel.com Tue Sep 17 11:05:52 2002 From: bgilbertson at stonel.com (Bob Gilbertson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:39 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay References: <000001c25e46$cc00a070$2802a8c0@SECURITY> Message-ID: <3D873729.8080701@stonel.com> Joel, Depending on the angles involved to the tower, and the tower shape you may be able to just bounce the signal off the tower itself. Wouldn't take much to try it. 21 dB over isotropic is aiming quite a bit of signal in the desired direction. Same concentrating effect is seen on the receive side. If you're driving, say, 100mW into the antenna this would give about 10 Watts ERP, which is a robust signal at 2.4 Ghz. 73, Bob KA0Q Joel R. Helgeson wrote: > I have a design question for a project that I am working on for my > work. I would like to run it past my friends here in the TCWUG to see > if you can see any flaws in my thinking or my design. Any feedback will > be valuable. > > > I am currently designing a Wireless Bridge between Fridley & Brooklyn > Park. The total distance of the bridge is 4.45 miles. We cannot obtain > direct line of site between the two sites without building a 200? tall > tower at the site in BP, but both have a clear line of sight to a water > tower in BP. The distance from Fridley to the BP Water Tower is 3.88 > miles; the distance from the BP site to the Water Tower is .941 miles. > I will be using 21dbi Parabolic Dish antennas at each site. > > > > The design I am proposing is to use a passive antenna array atop the > water tower, just take two 21dbi Parabolic Dish antennas and connect > them back to back using a lightning arrestor, having one dish point to > Fridley and the other to the BP office. I figure I could pull this off > because of the short distances involved, and the customer doesn?t want > to pay monthly rental fees to put a radio atop the tower (paying for > electricity & all), much less suffer the throughput loss (from 11mbps to > 5.5mbps) that one does by using a radio relay. > > > > I think this could work, but is there something I?m missing? Has anyone > else done this before? I?d hate to recommend something that won?t work. > > > > Thank you for your help in advance, > > > > Joel R. Helgeson > > Director of Networking & Security Services > > SymetriQ Corporation, www.symetriq.com > > 8500 Normandale Lake Boulevard, Suite 1670 > > Bloomington, Minnesota 55437-3813 > > Office: (952) 921-8869 > > Cell: (651) 270-7521 > > > > > > "An investment in knowledge pays the best dividends." - Benjamin Franklin > > > From natecars at real-time.com Tue Sep 17 11:56:02 2002 From: natecars at real-time.com (Nate Carlson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:39 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay In-Reply-To: <000001c25e46$cc00a070$2802a8c0@SECURITY> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Joel R. Helgeson wrote: > I am currently designing a Wireless Bridge between Fridley & Brooklyn > Park. The total distance of the bridge is 4.45 miles. We cannot > obtain direct line of site between the two sites without building a > 200' tall tower at the site in BP, but both have a clear line of sight > to a water tower in BP. The distance from Fridley to the BP Water > Tower is 3.88 miles; the distance from the BP site to the Water Tower > is .941 miles. I will be using 21dbi Parabolic Dish antennas at each > site. > > The design I am proposing is to use a passive antenna array atop the > water tower, just take two 21dbi Parabolic Dish antennas and connect > them back to back using a lightning arrestor, having one dish point to > Fridley and the other to the BP office. I've never actually done this before; about half the people I've heard talking about it say it works fine, the other half say that they couldn't get it to work. So, I have no idea. :) Let us know how it goes if you try it. > I figure I could pull this off because of the short distances > involved, and the customer doesn't want to pay monthly rental fees to > put a radio atop the tower (paying for electricity & all), much less > suffer the throughput loss (from 11mbps to 5.5mbps) that one does by > using a radio relay. You could always use two radios.. then you shouldn't suffer any speed loss, right? But, if they don't want to pay for power, that's not much of an option.. (well, unless you can go solar, but then if it's dark for a month, you're screwed. :) -- Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 From leaf at real-time.com Tue Sep 17 12:03:56 2002 From: leaf at real-time.com (Rick Tanner) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:39 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Newspaper reporter inquiry on Wi-Fi hot spots Message-ID: FYI - for the group... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:43:19 -0500 From: "Ojeda-Zapata, Julio" Hi, I may be writing a story for my paper on publicly available (for fee or for free) wireless Internet access for Minnesota computer users. One goal is to compile a comprehensive list of Wi-Fi hot spots in the Twin Cities and outstate Minnesota. Can you help? Thanks -- Julio Ojeda-Zapata, consumer-technology editor St. Paul Pioneer Press/Knight Ridder newspapers 345 Cedar Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55101-1004 U.S.A. 651-228-5467 651-222-6129 (fax) jojeda@pioneerpress.com http://www.twincities.com From jojeda at pioneerpress.com Tue Sep 17 13:23:02 2002 From: jojeda at pioneerpress.com (Ojeda-Zapata, Julio) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:39 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] one of those damn reporters asks... Message-ID: Hi, I've been lurking on this list, and I'm very impressed with the expertise and ideas I've read. Kudos on that. A question: Can you guys point me to currently operational, publicly available (for free or for a fee) Wi-Fi hotspots in the Twin Cities or outstate Minnesota? I'm aware of several such as those at the public airport and one in downtown St. Paul, but I'm looking to compile a comprehensive list of hotspots that are available to the public in one way or another. This is for a story I'm preparing. Any help is appreciated. Suggest you e-mail me directly: jojeda@pioneerpress.com -- Julio Ojeda-Zapata, consumer-technology editor St. Paul Pioneer Press/Knight Ridder newspapers 345 Cedar Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55101-1004 U.S.A. 651-228-5467 651-222-6129 (fax) jojeda@pioneerpress.com http://www.twincities.com From cncole at earthlink.net Tue Sep 17 15:16:45 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:40 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay In-Reply-To: <3D873729.8080701@stonel.com> Message-ID: <000a01c25e66$e1b58500$6901a8c0@HPZT> > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > Behalf Of Bob Gilbertson > > Depending on the angles involved to the tower, and the tower > shape you may > be able to just bounce the signal off the tower itself. > Wouldn't take much > to try it. 21 dB over isotropic is aiming quite a bit of > signal in the > desired direction. Same concentrating effect is seen on the > receive side. > If you're driving, say, 100mW into the antenna this would > give about 10 Watts > ERP, which is a robust signal at 2.4 Ghz. Those numbers don't go together to make a path estimate. ERP doesn't affect actual watts per square meter field strength at the tower: it's only saying that a bigger transmitter on a dipole would do the same as the 100mW on a parabolic. The tower is probably cylindrical which is dispersive and thus a lossy reflector at best, and its vertical angle isn't good for a bounce either. The receiving antenna's area is the only concentrating effect there: square meters for an incoming wavefront of some watts per square meter power density, so the result is some microwatts down the coax pipe. Might work, but looks feeble. Chuck From joel at helgeson.com Tue Sep 17 15:47:51 2002 From: joel at helgeson.com (Joel R. Helgeson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:40 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay In-Reply-To: <000a01c25e66$e1b58500$6901a8c0@HPZT> Message-ID: <000001c25e88$5d1e8680$2802a8c0@SECURITY> Are you stating here that using the tower itself as a repeater would be feeble? If so I agree. That is NOT my intent. My intent is to use two parabolic dishes to redirect the signal. Joel -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Cole Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:24 AM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: RE: [TCWUG] Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > Behalf Of Bob Gilbertson > > Depending on the angles involved to the tower, and the tower > shape you may > be able to just bounce the signal off the tower itself. > Wouldn't take much > to try it. 21 dB over isotropic is aiming quite a bit of > signal in the > desired direction. Same concentrating effect is seen on the > receive side. > If you're driving, say, 100mW into the antenna this would > give about 10 Watts > ERP, which is a robust signal at 2.4 Ghz. Those numbers don't go together to make a path estimate. ERP doesn't affect actual watts per square meter field strength at the tower: it's only saying that a bigger transmitter on a dipole would do the same as the 100mW on a parabolic. The tower is probably cylindrical which is dispersive and thus a lossy reflector at best, and its vertical angle isn't good for a bounce either. The receiving antenna's area is the only concentrating effect there: square meters for an incoming wavefront of some watts per square meter power density, so the result is some microwatts down the coax pipe. Might work, but looks feeble. Chuck _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From cncole at earthlink.net Tue Sep 17 19:40:33 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:40 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay In-Reply-To: <000001c25e88$5d1e8680$2802a8c0@SECURITY> Message-ID: <001301c25e98$717f8e20$6901a8c0@HPZT> > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > Behalf Of Joel R. Helgeson > > Are you stating here that using the tower itself as a > repeater would be > feeble? If so I agree. That is NOT my intent. My intent is > to use two > parabolic dishes to redirect the signal. > Bob suggested using the tower itself. I commented that his numbers don't make a path estimate and that I didn't expect tower alone to work. My earlier reply was to you and that path estimate indicated that the passive repeater should work with my numbers, but you should use your real data to run better numbers than my example that uses guessed numbers. > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org > [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On > Behalf Of Chuck Cole > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org > [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > > Behalf Of Bob Gilbertson > > > > Depending on the angles involved to the tower, and the tower > > shape you may > > be able to just bounce the signal off the tower itself. > > Wouldn't take much > > to try it. 21 dB over isotropic is aiming quite a bit of > > signal in the > > desired direction. Same concentrating effect is seen on the > > receive side. > > If you're driving, say, 100mW into the antenna this would > > give about 10 Watts > > ERP, which is a robust signal at 2.4 Ghz. > > > Those numbers don't go together to make a path estimate. ERP doesn't > affect > actual watts per square meter field strength at the tower: it's only > saying > that a bigger transmitter on a dipole would do the same as > the 100mW on > a > parabolic. The tower is probably cylindrical which is dispersive and > thus a > lossy reflector at best, and its vertical angle isn't good > for a bounce > either. The receiving antenna's area is the only concentrating effect > there: square meters for an incoming wavefront of some watts > per square > meter power density, so the result is some microwatts down the coax > pipe. > > > Might work, but looks feeble. > > > Chuck > > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From andyw at pobox.com Tue Sep 17 21:28:02 2002 From: andyw at pobox.com (Andy Warner) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:40 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay In-Reply-To: <000701c25e59$fc81cae0$6901a8c0@HPZT>; from cncole@earthlink.net on Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 09:51:32AM -0500 References: <000001c25e46$cc00a070$2802a8c0@SECURITY> <000701c25e59$fc81cae0$6901a8c0@HPZT> Message-ID: <20020917210742.A22513@florence.linkmargin.com> Chuck Cole wrote: > > Estimating path loss will indicate how feasible this may be. Some handbooks > have graphs for this. The transmitter power is radiated into the solid > angle of the antenna pattern and is received by the area of the next > antenna. Assume that the passive link has zero dB loss. Then the next > segment has an area loss also. The loss for the longer segment alone looks > like more than 60dB, or around 80dB overall. I don't know what the receiver > requires as signal level, but it might be -120dBm. With all these Assuming that Joel is thinking of using Aironet stuff, Cisco claims the following: 1 Mbps: -94 dBm 2 Mbps: -91dBm 5.5 Mbps: -89 dBm 11 Mbps: -85 dBm (source: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/witc/ao350ap/prodlit/a350a_ds.htm) So, for a 20dB output radio, you've got a total link budget of 105dB to maintain 11 Megs. Add a fudge factor of at least 10dB and you've got 95dB of budget to deal with. Might work, might not - only one way to really tell :) Certainly no way for us armchair critics to tell with greater certainty from the data provided. -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 From bgilbertson at ieee.org Tue Sep 17 23:11:53 2002 From: bgilbertson at ieee.org (Bob Gilbertson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:40 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay References: <000a01c25e66$e1b58500$6901a8c0@HPZT> Message-ID: <3D87983C.6000706@ieee.org> Well, my point wasn't to do an exhaustive engineering analysis, just point out what may be an overlooked solution. Putting stuff on the tower may be difficult with permits, permission, rent and liability if something flies off in a wind. Securing permits to erect a 200' tower may be interesting also, which was another option he mentioned. Given the distance involved and the antenna gain stated it seems possible. Kinda depends on what kind of link reliability they require too. Just suggesting to try the easy stuff first. Bob Chuck Cole wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On >>Behalf Of Bob Gilbertson >> >>Depending on the angles involved to the tower, and the tower >>shape you may >>be able to just bounce the signal off the tower itself. >>Wouldn't take much >>to try it. 21 dB over isotropic is aiming quite a bit of >>signal in the >>desired direction. Same concentrating effect is seen on the >>receive side. >>If you're driving, say, 100mW into the antenna this would >>give about 10 Watts >>ERP, which is a robust signal at 2.4 Ghz. > > > > Those numbers don't go together to make a path estimate. ERP doesn't affect > actual watts per square meter field strength at the tower: it's only saying > that a bigger transmitter on a dipole would do the same as the 100mW on a > parabolic. The tower is probably cylindrical which is dispersive and thus a > lossy reflector at best, and its vertical angle isn't good for a bounce > either. The receiving antenna's area is the only concentrating effect > there: square meters for an incoming wavefront of some watts per square > meter power density, so the result is some microwatts down the coax pipe. > > > Might work, but looks feeble. > > > Chuck From cncole at earthlink.net Wed Sep 18 02:05:41 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:40 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay In-Reply-To: <3D87983C.6000706@ieee.org> Message-ID: <001e01c25ee0$23043a00$6901a8c0@HPZT> Bob, this is a business proposal Joel is doing, not a Sunday experiment. With no estimate of performance there is no case, and I think the basic info looks bad for your suggestion of just bouncing off the tower. We haven't gotten anywhere close to an analysis of Joel's model yet because these numbers (mine anyway) are just rough-order-of-magnitude estimates. The water tower (assuming it's a cylinder - worse if a sphere) is dispersive, so that "reflector" would look kinda like extending the path by about 10-15 miles. However, there would be SOME signal in the right direction where there is none (ie, blockage) in the direct line of sight. Hams usually can just use more power and swamp out loss with a 100 or more watt transmitter and not be too worried about some holes in the coverage pattern or fades on a bad day. > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > Behalf Of Bob Gilbertson > > > Well, my point wasn't to do an exhaustive engineering analysis, just > point out what may be an overlooked solution. > Putting stuff on the tower may be difficult with permits, > permission, rent > and liability if something flies off in a wind. > Securing permits to erect a 200' tower may be interesting > also, which was > another option he mentioned. > > Given the distance involved and the antenna gain stated it > seems possible. > Kinda depends on what kind of link reliability they require too. > > Just suggesting to try the easy stuff first. > > Bob > > Chuck Cole wrote: > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org > [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > >>Behalf Of Bob Gilbertson > >> > >>Depending on the angles involved to the tower, and the tower > >>shape you may > >>be able to just bounce the signal off the tower itself. > >>Wouldn't take much > >>to try it. 21 dB over isotropic is aiming quite a bit of > >>signal in the > >>desired direction. Same concentrating effect is seen on the > >>receive side. > >>If you're driving, say, 100mW into the antenna this would > >>give about 10 Watts > >>ERP, which is a robust signal at 2.4 Ghz. > > > > > > > > Those numbers don't go together to make a path estimate. > ERP doesn't affect > > actual watts per square meter field strength at the tower: > it's only saying > > that a bigger transmitter on a dipole would do the same as > the 100mW on a > > parabolic. The tower is probably cylindrical which is > dispersive and thus a > > lossy reflector at best, and its vertical angle isn't good > for a bounce > > either. The receiving antenna's area is the only > concentrating effect > > there: square meters for an incoming wavefront of some > watts per square > > meter power density, so the result is some microwatts down > the coax pipe. > > > > > > Might work, but looks feeble. > > > > > > Chuck > From cncole at earthlink.net Wed Sep 18 02:25:30 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:40 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay - oops Message-ID: <001f01c25ee1$c24b9120$6901a8c0@HPZT> Typo: 2 watts is only 13 dB boost, not 23. Still probably enough boost. I think I also saw some 23 dB (20watt) boosters, but at higher price. I didn't see anything about what happens to licensing in order to use higher power in this service. > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Cole [mailto:cncole@earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:11 AM > To: 'tcwug-list@tcwug.org' > Subject: RE: [TCWUG] Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay > > > I saw some active boosters of about 2 > watts (about $300) that could be used at the site more > distant from the tower (ie, the 3.88 mile leg) for an extra > 23 or so dBm onto the passive repeater. ... > From cncole at earthlink.net Wed Sep 18 02:40:43 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:40 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay In-Reply-To: <20020917210742.A22513@florence.linkmargin.com> Message-ID: <001d01c25eda$4effe5b0$6901a8c0@HPZT> Thanks for the data, Andy. The longer path to the tower is the worst case. The shorter link puts much more power onto the passive repeater (about 40dB) so that path may have a very good margin. I saw some active boosters of about 2 watts (about $300) that could be used at the site more distant from the tower (ie, the 3.88 mile leg) for an extra 23 or so dBm onto the passive repeater. If the actual path loss numbers are as marginal as I think, that extra boost at the client's site should be enough to make it all quite reliable (ie, with suitable margins). Joel.. for a small fee like lunch and a great deal on a Cisco card I'll help you run the numbers and do a field test if things look OK. > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > Behalf Of Andy Warner > > Chuck Cole wrote: > > > > Estimating path loss will indicate how feasible this may > be. Some handbooks > > have graphs for this. The transmitter power is radiated > into the solid > > angle of the antenna pattern and is received by the area of the next > > antenna. Assume that the passive link has zero dB loss. > Then the next > > segment has an area loss also. The loss for the longer > segment alone looks > > like more than 60dB, or around 80dB overall. I don't know > what the receiver > > requires as signal level, but it might be -120dBm. With all these > > Assuming that Joel is thinking of using Aironet stuff, Cisco > claims the following: > > 1 Mbps: -94 dBm > 2 Mbps: -91dBm > 5.5 Mbps: -89 dBm > 11 Mbps: -85 dBm > > (source: > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/witc/ao350ap/prodlit/a3 > 50a_ds.htm) > > So, for a 20dB output radio, you've got a total link budget > of 105dB to maintain 11 Megs. Add a fudge factor of at least 10dB > and you've got 95dB of budget to deal with. > > Might work, might not - only one way to really tell :) Certainly > no way for us armchair critics to tell with greater certainty from > the data provided. A real calculation with antenna spec data would produce a good path loss prediction. I'm sure that data can be had but it hasn't been posted here. That calculation is worth doing, but it's only an estimate since "lumps in the beam" can upset real accuracy (ie, real antennas aren't perfect, etc). --- Chuck From nkras at nkras.dsl.visi.com Wed Sep 18 22:07:09 2002 From: nkras at nkras.dsl.visi.com (Neal) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:40 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay Message-ID: <1179737251-47741618@nkras.dsl.visi.com> If it's for your work, I'd think you should seriously consider getting a path loss analysis done, professionally if you can. Designing a data communications link by what it appears to be a brute force method is a hell of a way to take a chance with business (read: potentially critical) data. It may work, it may not, it may work, maybe. Sometimes. Are you willing to take that chance? Since you are in what is a environmentally dense metropolitan area, calculating a simple line-of-site path is just the beginning of your calculations There are many more factors involved. Neal: nkras@nkras.dsl.visi.com ---------- From: "Joel R. Helgeson" To: Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay Date: Tue, Sep 17, 2002, 7:36 AM I have a design question for a project that I am working on for my work. I would like to run it past my friends here in the TCWUG to see if you can see any flaws in my thinking or my design. Any feedback will be valuable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20020918/96a91739/attachment.htm From ben at nerp.net Tue Sep 24 10:51:03 2002 From: ben at nerp.net (Ben Kochie) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:40 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] moos news Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I just got preliminary approval for the installation of a wireless AP on moos tower. There are a couple things I should mention. University polotics say that facilities are available to U affiliated groups. To make it easier to get the install up there, I have asked to install the radio equipment as part of a Gopher amature radio club project. U facilities has no problem with this. It would have been very hard to get in as a TCWUG project. That said, I will need to start coordinating with people who want to help out with getting the equipment. I allready discussed a specific design with the facilities people. I figured out that the easiest install will be on the moos11 location, with antennas mounted on either side of the stairwell structure. and the access point cabinet mounted outside at the base of the structure. what do people have for sources to get: Antenna mounting brackets for install against the concrete Outdoor, weatherproof radio enclosures feed lines, antennas, lightning protection, etc radio ideas. I have been talking to several people, and this accesspoint was mentioned: http://www.demarctech.com/products/reliawave-rwz/reliawave-rwz-180mw-ap.html the extra power output would benefit the omnidirectional antenna. I was also thinking about mounting a pair of 90 degree sector antennas. the Pacific Wireless 95 degree 12dBi seemed like a good option, the one thing I noticed was that it is horizontal polorization, which could be a good thing for point to multi-point wireless. since most common equipment is setup for vertical polorization, it would cut down on the noise picked up on the roof. It also has a 10 degree downtilt, and 18 degree beamwidth.. this is optimal for our type of installation. Atleast that's my understanding.. I could be wrong. http://www.fab-corp.com/P1.htm I was also looking at this antenna, since it's signifigantly cheaper.. tho not as easy to mount as the Pac Wireless one. http://www.demarctech.com/products/antennas/SPDG14F.html - -ben "Unix is user friendly, Its just picky about its friends." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9kIVIflzKmtpiQEMRAj1uAJ4/XN/xQ0BKmwr3t3tsoIXYCDuoogCfeweS ituO1H5E6ILTswdU+Nh5Xqo= =ceFR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu Tue Sep 24 13:07:27 2002 From: mgenelin at ieee.umn.edu (mgenelin@ieee.umn.edu) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:40 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] moos news In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4490.128.101.171.207.1032889616.squirrel@www.ieee.umn.edu> hey Ben- Wow. $50.00 for a sectorized antenna on one of the sites you linked to below. Amazing how cheap this stuff has gotten. Nice work here. What would you estimate (in hours) you have put into this project since September 1st? Please include meetings (TC-WUG) and (W0YC) that you attended. I am keeping track of volunteer hours for the W0YC club. =) Regards, ---Matthew Genelin--- > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I just got preliminary approval for the installation of a wireless AP on > moos tower. There are a couple things I should mention. University > polotics say that facilities are available to U affiliated groups. To > make it easier to get the install up there, I have asked to install the > radio equipment as part of a Gopher amature radio club project. U > facilities has no problem with this. It would have been very hard to > get in as a TCWUG project. That said, I will need to start coordinating > with people who want to help out with getting the equipment. I allready > discussed a specific design with the facilities people. I figured out > that the easiest install will be on the moos11 location, with antennas > mounted on either side of the stairwell structure. and the access point > cabinet mounted outside at the base of the structure. > > what do people have for sources to get: > Antenna mounting brackets for install against the concrete > Outdoor, weatherproof radio enclosures > feed lines, antennas, lightning protection, etc > radio ideas. > > I have been talking to several people, and this accesspoint was > mentioned: > http://www.demarctech.com/products/reliawave-rwz/reliawave-rwz-180mw-ap.html > > the extra power output would benefit the omnidirectional antenna. > > I was also thinking about mounting a pair of 90 degree sector antennas. > the Pacific Wireless 95 degree 12dBi seemed like a good option, the one > thing I noticed was that it is horizontal polorization, which could be a > good thing for point to multi-point wireless. since most common > equipment is setup for vertical polorization, it would cut down on the > noise picked up on the roof. It also has a 10 degree downtilt, and 18 > degree > beamwidth.. this is optimal for our type of installation. > Atleast that's my understanding.. I could be wrong. > http://www.fab-corp.com/P1.htm > > I was also looking at this antenna, since it's signifigantly cheaper.. > tho not as easy to mount as the Pac Wireless one. > http://www.demarctech.com/products/antennas/SPDG14F.html > > - -ben > > "Unix is user friendly, Its just picky about its friends." > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > > iD8DBQE9kIVIflzKmtpiQEMRAj1uAJ4/XN/xQ0BKmwr3t3tsoIXYCDuoogCfeweS > ituO1H5E6ILTswdU+Nh5Xqo= > =ceFR > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From joel at helgeson.com Thu Sep 26 00:08:31 2002 From: joel at helgeson.com (Joel R. Helgeson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:40 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] They said "NO!" [Was Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay] Message-ID: <000001c26515$38751130$027dd8d8@SECURITY> As you know, I am trying to build a wireless bridge by bouncing the signal off a water tower with two parabolic dishes on top. This setup would require no radio. I had contacted the City of Brooklyn Park to inquire about putting an antenna atop their water tower. They stated that they would take my information and discuss it in a committee meeting. Their response just went to prove that they are truly government employees and not capitalists. They said "No". Plain and simple. They stated that they didn't want private companies putting gear atop their water tower for a bridge link. They stated that if they did, they would then have to offer the same thing to all the other businesses in the area and they just didn't have the real estate atop the tower to support hundreds of bridge relays. (?). I told them that if demand increases, that's when they raise the price as the space became at a premium. I was completely flabbergasted by their response. At no price did they want to give us access. They apparently have no problem giving access to big companies such as cellular carriers and WISP's, etc, but as far as the private smaller companies are concerned, you're S.O.L. What are your thoughts on this? Are these people dense? I was astounded by their decision. They stated that if I wanted to appeal the decision, I could take it to the City Council where I would have to explain to these people what a wireless bridge is as they come up with irrelevant arguments regarding their concerns about it interfering with their cellular phone or how it will impact homeland security. Can you believe this?! Joel R. Helgeson Director of Networking & Security Services SymetriQ Corporation, www.symetriq.com 8500 Normandale Lake Boulevard, Suite 1670 Bloomington, Minnesota 55437-3813 Office: (952) 921-8869 Cell: (651) 270-7521 "An investment in knowledge pays the best dividends." - Benjamin Franklin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20020926/5a7ed6fd/attachment.html From cncole at earthlink.net Thu Sep 26 03:30:57 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:41 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] They said "NO!" [Was Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay] In-Reply-To: <000001c26515$38751130$027dd8d8@SECURITY> Message-ID: <006a01c2651f$0a7eaa20$6401a8c0@HPZT> > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > Behalf Of Joel R. Helgeson > They stated that they didn't want private companies putting > gear atop their water tower for a bridge link. They stated > that if they did, they would then have to offer the same > thing to all the other businesses in the area and they just > didn't have the real estate atop the tower to support > hundreds of bridge relays. (?)... Other local cities have both policy and quotas. I may still have the contacts to track that down. > What are your thoughts on this? Are these people dense? They may have good background info from other communities doing this or they may not. I think they are being prudent and conservative, because there are many issues for them. > Can you believe this?! Easily. These organizations have many things trying to expand their agendas, and most merely waste their time. They truly don't have much time to learn about or consider something new unless or until it's a big deal for many of their constituents. I'd bet that you have better technical and organizational options for your immediate business problem, however. --- Chuck From goober at schulte.org Thu Sep 26 04:19:44 2002 From: goober at schulte.org (Alex Hartman) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:41 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] They said "NO!" [Was Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay] References: <000001c26515$38751130$027dd8d8@SECURITY> Message-ID: <001a01c2653a$8674b820$4d4311c7@jennifer> ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel R. Helgeson To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 11:28 PM Subject: [TCWUG] They said "NO!" [Was Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay] As you know, I am trying to build a wireless bridge by bouncing the signal off a water tower with two parabolic dishes on top. This setup would require no radio. I had contacted the City of Brooklyn Park to inquire about putting an antenna atop their water tower. They stated that they would take my information and discuss it in a committee meeting. Their response just went to prove that they are truly government employees and not capitalists. They said "No". Plain and simple. They stated that they didn't want private companies putting gear atop their water tower for a bridge link. They stated that if they did, they would then have to offer the same thing to all the other businesses in the area and they just didn't have the real estate atop the tower to support hundreds of bridge relays. (?). I told them that if demand increases, that's when they raise the price as the space became at a premium. I was completely flabbergasted by their response. At no price did they want to give us access. They apparently have no problem giving access to big companies such as cellular carriers and WISP 's, etc, but as far as the private smaller companies are concerned, you're S.O.L. What are your thoughts on this? Are these people dense? I was astounded by their decision. They stated that if I wanted to appeal the decision, I could take it to the City Council where I would have to explain to these people what a wireless bridge is as they come up with irrelevant arguments regarding their concerns about it interfering with their cellular phone or how it will impact homeland security. Can you believe this?! Joel R. Helgeson Director of Networking & Security Services SymetriQ Corporation, www.symetriq.com 8500 Normandale Lake Boulevard, Suite 1670 Bloomington, Minnesota 55437-3813 Office: (952) 921-8869 Cell: (651) 270-7521 "An investment in knowledge pays the best dividends." - Benjamin Franklin They're smart, on a few counts. Number 1: Insurance. The big WISPs/cell/radio people can afford to pay off the insurance companies if you fall off the 100 foot water tower. Number 2: i'm sure they get inspected by many authorities every year making sure they're within compliance of the numerous mandates set by FCC, and local/state gov't. Number 3: "we don't want private companies using it". Simply put, if they let you, then other people would petition them to do the same thing. It becomes more a hastle than it's worth at the weekly/monthly meetings. Even though you think that putting 2 parabolic dishes atop a water tower seems harmless enough, it's just another lightning rod to them, with potential to damage property. Even though there's no radios up there to generate a signal, you're still putting RF through them, which can, if not aimed properly, bounce through grandma's living room, screwing up her heart monitor system. A risk i'm sure the local health board would love to talk to you about. :) There's so many other factors involved in just simply "putting up a dish". On the other hand, i'm sure many local governments would love a bit of extra income to pay the bills, which confuses me at times. I know of a few people who've worked on water towers, and the towns they're in (*cough matt hallacy cough*) love the fact that they can provide this service to their townspeople. But in the TC area, wireless is now becomming a touchy subject. Lots of people getting into trouble warchalking/driving, and other seemingly harmless things. So, from their perspective, i can understand. It's just simply a liability at this point in the game. Having worked at a college radio station for the past 3 months, and installing obscene antennas atop the Sherburne Hall roof (tallest building between mpls and fargo), and having wap11's get nailed by lightning, it's not fun. I've installed my 24dBi dish on top the roof here at SCSU, aimed at the local WISP, when i installed it (it's for the radio station's webcast, for those who must know) the local people wanted to know what it was, was it a danger, was it gonna mess with KARE-11's camera, was it gonna mess with the FBI tower, was it gonna mess with the airport, etc etc. I had to write to the school commissions that it was in fact installed properly, and not a danger to anything else up there. It's not a pretty process to go through. (the hardest people to convince that it was fine was the FBI. They're not too keen on having it 60 feet away from their only relay radio in central MN) Having said that, i'd suggest calling the local co-op, i'm sure there's somthing tall around there that's rentable for a semi-cheap price. Talk to Matt Hallacy on that one, since the WISP he used to work for was housed off the top of a grain elevator. Just my $.02 -- Alex Hartman - goober@goobe.net - Asst. Engineer KVSC-FM PGP Key fingerprint = 26 41 19 56 19 81 E2 BC EE C8 1D F4 DB B8 ED B8 "Educational, public radio, 88.1 FM KVSC - St. Cloud" From natecars at real-time.com Thu Sep 26 10:55:50 2002 From: natecars at real-time.com (Nate Carlson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:41 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] They said "NO!" [Was Wireless Bridge, Passive Relay] In-Reply-To: <000001c26515$38751130$027dd8d8@SECURITY> Message-ID: On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Joel R. Helgeson wrote: > What are your thoughts on this? Are these people dense? I was > astounded by their decision. They stated that if I wanted to appeal > the decision, I could take it to the City Council where I would have > to explain to these people what a wireless bridge is as they come up > with irrelevant arguments regarding their concerns about it > interfering with their cellular phone or how it will impact homeland > security. Are there any other tall buildings in the area that both sites can see? You may be better off talking to the owner(s) of those buildings, and see if you can swing a deal there. If this link is going to be for 'net access (didn't sound like it from the original post, but you never know), you may even be able to swing a deal by saying "tell you what, if you let us put these contracts on your roof, we'll give you a free 128k metered net connection!" or something similar. 'course, if there are no buildings of that type, well, you gotta go through the government junk. :( > Can you believe this?! Our tax dollars at work. :) -- Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 From sulrich at botwerks.org Mon Sep 30 09:24:03 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:41 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] october 2002 meeting postponed ... Message-ID: <20020930091358.A31174@botwerks.org> all- due to some rather pressing engagements this week i will not be able to host the meeting this week and the other cisco backups that i had lined up to cover for me in the event of this are unavailable as well. andy warner has prepared his RF primer and we're coordinating the alternate meeting dates. more on this as it happens. information on alternate dates for this month that work for folks would be appreciated. my apologies for the snafu this month. -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From adi at hexapodia.org Mon Sep 30 12:28:01 2002 From: adi at hexapodia.org (Andy Isaacson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:41 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] october 2002 meeting postponed ... In-Reply-To: <20020930091358.A31174@botwerks.org>; from sulrich@botwerks.org on Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 09:13:58AM -0500 References: <20020930091358.A31174@botwerks.org> Message-ID: <20020930121619.A18803@hexapodia.org> On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 09:13:58AM -0500, steve ulrich wrote: > andy warner has prepared his RF primer and we're coordinating the > alternate meeting dates. more on this as it happens. information on > alternate dates for this month that work for folks would be > appreciated. Tuesday the 10th seems like a good second choice. -andy