Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Karlnet\]\s+bandwidth\s+management\s*$/: 22 ]

Total 22 documents matching your query.

1. Re[2]: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: Slobodan Popovic <spopovic@wireless.org.yu>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 01:17:36 +0200
So, if I set "Satellites default to" under TC Interface Advanced options to 256, that will give 256 kbit/s to each and every client on my base, NOT 256 kbit/s total, right? Slobodan -- Slobodan Popov
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-09/msg00012.html (9,661 bytes)

2. [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: LaRoy McCann <lmccann@roachconveyors.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:36:49 -0500
What are everyone's opinion on bandwidth control. Is it better to do it on each cpe or to have a single point at the head end to manage all bandwidth for users? What type of hardware/software is bein
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00115.html (8,256 bytes)

3. RE: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: "Andy Henckel" <andy@multibandcom.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:54:53 -0600
Once you get 250 customers on the same bridged wireless network, I'd say throttling at cpe is a must. One single unit presents a single point of failure, and the inability to isolate network problems
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00116.html (9,072 bytes)

4. RE: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: "Kevin Knuth" <kknuth@karlnet.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:39:02 -0500
Time for me to learn something here: My question about Bandwidth Control Units is this: How do they limit the amount of bandwidth a customer gets? Does it actually stop the wireless device from tryin
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00119.html (10,212 bytes)

5. RE: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: "Andy Henckel" <andy@multibandcom.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:05:50 -0600
More of a question for the programmers than I. My own conclusions are: Although the AP and CPE has no idea that there is a BWM, the BWM itself seems to limit the air time by allowing the customer to
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00120.html (12,392 bytes)

6. Re: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Hrbek" <bhrbek@jagwireless.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:00:22 -0500
The RF is just the physical layer. It's transmissions are controlled at the transport layer. All people seem to need data processing Application Presentation Session Transport Network Data Physical h
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00122.html (11,807 bytes)

7. RE: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: "Kevin Knuth" <kknuth@karlnet.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:16:40 -0500
Right, But the BCU is a Layer 2 bridge. It could not stop two wireless devices on the same network from unlimited use. All it can throttle is outbound bandwidth. Correct? Kevin The RF is just the phy
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00124.html (12,579 bytes)

8. Re: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Hrbek" <bhrbek@jagwireless.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:29:39 -0500
on the the if of to on
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00125.html (14,147 bytes)

9. RE: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: Thomas Giger TGC <thomas.giger@tgc.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 06:11:18 +0200
Kevin, if you answer my question below, I'll answer yours :) The answer for you is: Bandwidth management ought to be done before the traffic hits the segment that you want to manage, i.e. on the outg
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00132.html (14,565 bytes)

10. RE: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: "Kevin Knuth" <kknuth@karlnet.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:19:34 -0500
The answer to your question is "NO". Sorry, our bandwidth is just backward of what you would expect! The engineers are trying to find a way to correct this. This is because you are setting OVER THE A
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00133.html (15,397 bytes)

11. RE: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: "Charles Chia Sheng Wu" <cwu@cwlab.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:25:58 -0500
bingo -Charles
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00138.html (8,764 bytes)

12. RE: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: LaRoy McCann <lmccann@roachconveyors.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:03:16 -0500
The information on the BCU states that it controls both the up and down speeds. If this is the case, then does it matter that the wireless devices talk to each other at full speed if the BCU controls
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00139.html (10,646 bytes)

13. Re: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Hrbek" <bhrbek@jagwireless.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:13:14 -0500
I believe the point they are trying to make is that two wireless devices can communicate at full speed without the BCU interacting. devices on -- -- -- --
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00140.html (11,853 bytes)

14. RE: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: "Kevin Knuth" <kknuth@karlnet.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:13:07 -0500
That would control the OVERALL effective bandwidth. It DOES NOT stop 2 cpe's talking to a base to use unlimited bandwidth to communicate with each other. And you are still filling the air with beacon
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00141.html (11,066 bytes)

15. RE: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: Thomas Giger TGC <thomas.giger@tgc.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:55:20 +0200
As I said before, at this position in the datastream, a BCU can only throttle TCP based applications (like for example SMTP messages going out and POP3 download data coming downstream) because TCP wa
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00142.html (12,207 bytes)

16. RE: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: LaRoy McCann <lmccann@roachconveyors.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:23:45 -0500
Thomas, Thanks for the info. This has opened my eyes as to understanding the bandwidth control issue. LaRoy. At 08:55 PM 7/16/2003 +0200, you wrote: As I said before, at this position in the datastre
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00143.html (10,675 bytes)

17. RE: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: "Andy Henckel" <andy@multibandcom.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:55:36 -0600
Well .. that's partly true. We run different subnets on the same bridged wireless network. (by way of passing bad ethernet source, and adding secondary ip address to cisco router fastethernet0/0) Tha
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00158.html (9,284 bytes)

18. RE: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: helio@compuland.com.br
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:08:36 -0300
Ok Kevin, just to clear things up: If I set a limit of 256K in the ethernet and 256K in the radio slot (RG Unit) AND 256K in the AP I'll get 256K each way or lower ? In the tests I've done on prior r
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00160.html (10,047 bytes)

19. RE: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: "Kevin Knuth" <kknuth@karlnet.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:29:34 -0500
Yes! That is correct. Kevin --Original Message-- From: karlnet-bounces@WISPNotes.com [mailto:karlnet-bounces@WISPNotes.com]On Behalf Of helio@compuland.com.br Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 2:09 PM To
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00162.html (10,437 bytes)

20. RE: [Karlnet] bandwidth management (score: 1)
Author: "Kevin Knuth" <kknuth@karlnet.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:31:06 -0500
WAIT- The answer is YES. BUT- if you have the Wireless on the RG set to 256, there is no need to set the AP. Setting the AP would control the total amount of bandwidth at the Base! Kevin --Original M
/archives//html/Karlnet/2003-07/msg00163.html (10,468 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu