Karlnet
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Karlnet] AP LOCK up/ won't pass ip traffic but link test works

To: Karlnet Mailing List <karlnet@WISPNotes.com>
Subject: Re: [Karlnet] AP LOCK up/ won't pass ip traffic but link test works
From: Travis Mikalson <bofh@terranova.net>
Reply-to: Karlnet Mailing List <karlnet@WISPNotes.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:05:16 -0400
List-post: <mailto:karlnet@WISPNotes.com>
I've also been experiencing a strange problem where these same clients
with poor signals/retrans (couple of long range links, 6 - 10 miles plus a
couple shorter-range clients with not enough height) when they are passing
any significant traffic at all will completely cut off service for SOME
other clients on the AP.

It seems like I have "resistant" and "flaky" clients. The resistant ones
will stay up and pass traffic fine with just a small increase in latency
like 30ms instead of 6 - 8, everything's good, everything's normal. The
flaky ones under no load will be just fine and normal, throughput's good, latency is good right up until one of those clients with poor signal/retrans stats starts passing some traffic. The "flaky" clients will then pretty much stop passing any traffic at all, although wireless link test still works. I've already had to replace a couple of clients' wireless links with DSL because of this, that's pretty embarassing.


The clients in the "flaky" category have good signals, some are KN-50 with
1.20 and some are KN-50 with 1.00, there seems to be no rhyme or reason at
all to them acting like that. It's not their signal strength or retrans or
their particular software version. You can replace their KN-50s +
antennas, try 1.00, try 1.20, no difference. It's like the particular
locations themselves are cursed somehow. One "flaky" client I just
replaced with DSL who was losing connectivity for minutes at a time you
could see the tower with your naked eyes less than 1.5 miles away and had
the most perfect link you've ever seen.

After dealing with show-stopper bugs like this and karlnet's best
802.11b-based offerings under optimal conditions performing at roughly 2/3 the speed of any modern cheap 802.11b AP even in indoor bench tests between KN-200/KN-100, we're phasing karlnet out as much as we can. It just doesn't work well enough to keep me or my clients happy and Karlnet support tries and would keep trying until end of days, but they mostly just end up wasting my time and money. They fixed all of my KN-50s with 1.00 that were rebooting over and over and over again every 15 - 120 seconds by providing me with 1.20, but that's the only success I've ever had fixing a problem. As others have mentioned, clients get frustrated and impatient when this stuff happens day in and day out and have to find alternate solutions.


They had me replace my KN-200 base with a flash base which was no fun to
do since it was the third motherboard until I got it to work with their
software and it had no effect on anything at all. Same interface hangs due
to bugs in their software, not even any increase performance/throughput as
karlnet and I expected with a beefier CPU under it.

It's been a nightmare, seems like I made a poor choice in karlnet,
although the CPE price was right and it provided the range I need. We're
phasing Karlnet out as much as we can.

-T

Caleb Carroll wrote:
Who is still experiencing this "feature" with v4.45 firmware?

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 2004-07-14 at 3:00 PM Dan Metcalf wrote:


Bob,

I agree, if karlnet can't fix this I"ll have no choice... its very
frustrating when 30+ clients call me up (after I received the 30+pages
that they down) and when I do the wireless link test everything is FINE

Dan

-- TerraNovaNet Internet Services - Key Largo, FL Voice: (305)453-4011 x101 Fax: (305)451-5991 http://www.terranova.net/ ---------------------------------------------- Life's not fair, but the root password helps.

_______________________________________________
Karlnet mailing list
Karlnet@WISPNotes.com
http://lists.wispnotes.com/mailman/listinfo/karlnet

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>