![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/36399fc29024032427048ee1f4fb75eb.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hi All, Has anyone else had any problems with Clear's 802.11 wireless internet service (http://www.clear.net.nz/services/tempest.html) as a source of interference? They have just done a rollout in Rotorua and totally stoped 3 separate wireless networks that had been running together nicely for the past year or two. Clear have told me that Rotorua is the only place that this has happened in and are being very slow to do anything about it so if this has happened to you could you let me know. Neil Fincham Integral LTD.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c8b07e6470c2405d49929e19de4abba0.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
I was chatting to one of our contractors today, he was saying that Clear had successfully trashed some of his clients networks in Chch recently, and that he was having to put in bigger aerials to compensate. I also know that we've had to do similar things to a couple of our links in Wgtn recently, although I couldn't say that that was definitely Clear (there's a lot of wireless in Wellington, and we didn't spend too much time tracking down what the problem was). Cheers Si On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 04:18:56PM +1200, Neil said:
Has anyone else had any problems with Clear's 802.11 wireless internet service (http://www.clear.net.nz/services/tempest.html) as a source of interference? They have just done a rollout in Rotorua and totally stoped 3 separate wireless networks that had been running together nicely for the past year or two.
Clear have told me that Rotorua is the only place that this has happened in and are being very slow to do anything about it so if this has happened to you could you let me know.
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/eed6c9f0db70dfff062963349b8cef3a.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
"I have a bigger aerial than you." Good strapline for C L E A R, no? -- Juha :: -----Original Message----- :: From: owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz :: [mailto:owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Simon Blake :: Sent: Monday, 13 August 2001 19:21 :: To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz :: Subject: Re: CLEAR Net Tempest :: :: :: I was chatting to one of our contractors today, he was :: saying that Clear :: had successfully trashed some of his clients networks in :: Chch recently, :: and that he was having to put in bigger aerials to compensate. I also :: know that we've had to do similar things to a couple of our links in :: Wgtn recently, although I couldn't say that that was definitely Clear :: (there's a lot of wireless in Wellington, and we didn't :: spend too much :: time tracking down what the problem was). :: :: Cheers :: Si --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f5870bfcee4d49025e7c2c57fe069465.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
This is the problem with "Public" Frequencies. As long as your not over the
Maximum Wattage (there is no way of really telling unless you have some
fancy equipment (But you can guess if you know the right formulas etc) there
is nothing your neighbors can do against you about your interference.
Anyone know where to get the "Rules" about this type of thing?
Thanks
Craig Whitmore
Orcon Internet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juha Saarinen"
"I have a bigger aerial than you."
Good strapline for C L E A R, no?
--
Juha
:: -----Original Message----- :: From: owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz :: [mailto:owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Simon Blake :: Sent: Monday, 13 August 2001 19:21 :: To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz :: Subject: Re: CLEAR Net Tempest :: :: :: I was chatting to one of our contractors today, he was :: saying that Clear :: had successfully trashed some of his clients networks in :: Chch recently, :: and that he was having to put in bigger aerials to compensate. I also :: know that we've had to do similar things to a couple of our links in :: Wgtn recently, although I couldn't say that that was definitely Clear :: (there's a lot of wireless in Wellington, and we didn't :: spend too much :: time tracking down what the problem was). :: :: Cheers :: Si
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f5870bfcee4d49025e7c2c57fe069465.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
This is the problem with "Public" Frequencies. As long as your not over
Maximum Wattage (there is no way of really telling unless you have some fancy equipment (But you can guess if you know the right formulas etc)
I think I found the rules....
http://www.med.govt.nz/rsm/publications/equip_specs/rfs29.pdf
Unless there is a newer one..(which I could not find)
With the 2.4 "public freq" the Maximum allowed is 1W
Anyone know the proper way to figure out how much you are transmitting..
Something to do with:
A= X mw from Cards
B= db of Antenna
C= Loss of Cable/M * Number of Metres
D= Loss per connector * Number Connector
Thanks
Craig Whitmore
Orcon Internet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Whitmore"
is nothing your neighbors can do against you about your interference.
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b5f1567b677d729395d8c1d64073d09f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
There isnt really a 'correct' way to calculate loss, the loss in the cable and connectors varies according to the frequency. For example on the VHF tv band the rough rule of thumb was 1db per connector and 1db per metre in RG-6 Cable. I once calculated that with my 5W Amateur VHF transmitter running into 14m of Coax before the antenna I was only getting about 2.5W of actual RF at the Antenna - and that didnt count the two adaptors and any loss in the antenna itself... Mark. (aka ZL1VMF) At 21:07 13/08/2001 +1200, Craig Whitmore wrote:
I think I found the rules....
http://www.med.govt.nz/rsm/publications/equip_specs/rfs29.pdf
Unless there is a newer one..(which I could not find) With the 2.4 "public freq" the Maximum allowed is 1W Anyone know the proper way to figure out how much you are transmitting.. Something to do with:
A= X mw from Cards B= db of Antenna C= Loss of Cable/M * Number of Metres D= Loss per connector * Number Connector
Thanks Craig Whitmore Orcon Internet
----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Whitmore"
To: "Juha Saarinen" ; "'Simon Blake'" ; Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 7:46 PM Subject: Re: CLEAR Net Tempest This is the problem with "Public" Frequencies. As long as your not over the Maximum Wattage (there is no way of really telling unless you have some fancy equipment (But you can guess if you know the right formulas etc) there is nothing your neighbors can do against you about your interference.
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc598d7e934d7cc6fd32c0fa442cd18e.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
FYI, http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/63/nbar_acl_codered.shtml --- Terence C. Giufre-Sweetser +---------------------------------+--------------------------+ | TereDonn Telecommunications Ltd | Phone +61-[0]7-32369366 | | 1/128 Bowen St, SPRING HILL | FAX +61-[0]7-32369930 | | PO BOX 1054, SPRING HILL 4004 | Mobile +61-[0]414-663053 | | Queensland Australia | http://www.tdce.com.au | +---------------------------------+--------------------------+ --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f5870bfcee4d49025e7c2c57fe069465.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
I've saw that a while back...
Most of us have 10M+ links to us and looking at every bit of data going into
an interface would probably kill it :-(
Has anyone tried it with a large amount of real data without killing their
Router...
Thanks
Craig Whitmore
Orcon Internet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terence"
FYI,
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/63/nbar_acl_codered.shtml
--- Terence C. Giufre-Sweetser
+---------------------------------+--------------------------+ | TereDonn Telecommunications Ltd | Phone +61-[0]7-32369366 | | 1/128 Bowen St, SPRING HILL | FAX +61-[0]7-32369930 | | PO BOX 1054, SPRING HILL 4004 | Mobile +61-[0]414-663053 | | Queensland Australia | http://www.tdce.com.au | +---------------------------------+--------------------------+
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cc344bf718696361c8b6e38d27e9ae1a.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
no comment On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 09:01:48PM +1200, Craig Whitmore wrote:
I've saw that a while back...
Most of us have 10M+ links to us and looking at every bit of data going into an interface would probably kill it :-( Has anyone tried it with a large amount of real data without killing their Router...
Thanks Craig Whitmore Orcon Internet
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cc344bf718696361c8b6e38d27e9ae1a.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Actually there was a thread on nanog on this recently http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg06158.html On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 09:49:25PM +1200, Dean Pemberton wrote:
no comment
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 09:01:48PM +1200, Craig Whitmore wrote:
I've saw that a while back...
Most of us have 10M+ links to us and looking at every bit of data going into an interface would probably kill it :-( Has anyone tried it with a large amount of real data without killing their Router...
Thanks Craig Whitmore Orcon Internet
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/59fd0a782bee1eb4e4a6dfdb11b5ace1.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Nope. Under 10% CPU on my 7200 at the moment... I guess you'd impact performance if you tried this on a box with insufficient CPU. If you use smaller routers, you'd probably be better off setting one up with 2 F/E ints and just use it for traffic policing, or do as Steve did and use a layer 4 switch. Cheers, Gordon Smith Network Operations Manager MoreNet Ltd. Fingerprint: 4093 91BC 0055 46B9 1B1A EDBA 45AD 2381 7B1D E4BE
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz]On Behalf Of Craig Whitmore Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2001 21:02 To: Terence; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: Code Red Filters...
I've saw that a while back...
Most of us have 10M+ links to us and looking at every bit of data going into an interface would probably kill it :-( Has anyone tried it with a large amount of real data without killing their Router...
Thanks Craig Whitmore Orcon Internet
----- Original Message ----- From: "Terence"
To: Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 8:51 PM Subject: Code Red Filters...
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1f1f4137ce0df77dba230ad59541c12a.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Not sure how it would work in practice, but it could be worth spreading the duties of the filtering to two or more routers if possible. If you policy map packets with a destination port of 80 to have a next hop of a deligated 'http checker' cisco as detailed in the document which will then inspect the packet for the extensions in the http data and act accordingly. IMHO this would reduce the load of the edge router because instead of checking every packet for certain http extensions, you're only checking each packet against a destination port then policy routing if it matches port 80. Given that huge proportion of the internet's traffic is http, I doubt this would work where it's prohibitive to even contemplating putting such a list on an interface, but somewhere you'd like to get a smaller CPU load on your edge or core router(s) (depending on where you filter). Cheers, Chris Gordon Smith wrote:
Nope. Under 10% CPU on my 7200 at the moment...
I guess you'd impact performance if you tried this on a box with insufficient CPU. If you use smaller routers, you'd probably be better off setting one up with 2 F/E ints and just use it for traffic policing, or do as Steve did and use a layer 4 switch.
Cheers,
Gordon Smith Network Operations Manager
MoreNet Ltd.
Fingerprint: 4093 91BC 0055 46B9 1B1A EDBA 45AD 2381 7B1D E4BE
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz]On Behalf Of Craig Whitmore Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2001 21:02 To: Terence; nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: Code Red Filters...
I've saw that a while back...
Most of us have 10M+ links to us and looking at every bit of data going into an interface would probably kill it :-( Has anyone tried it with a large amount of real data without killing their Router...
Thanks Craig Whitmore Orcon Internet
----- Original Message ----- From: "Terence"
To: Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 8:51 PM Subject: Code Red Filters... --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e256dd64e8f3228abb399541a0adaf69.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Craig Whitmore wrote:
Unless there is a newer one..(which I could not find) With the 2.4 "public freq" the Maximum allowed is 1W
1W e.i.r.p. Which if you want to be pedantic... E.i.r.p is defined by the Radiocommunications Act 1989 as follows: "E.i.r.p. means the equivalent isotropically radiated power, being the power supplied to the antenna, multiplied by the antenna gain in a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna." http://www.med.govt.nz/rsm/publications/poldocs/Broadcasting_011.pdf David Robb --- Senior Network Engineer DDI +64-9-359-2710 ihug (AS7657) NOC +64-9-359-2708 "The Earth is a single point of failure" --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e8b094b3bf4b7e687dca94f10aff5cdc.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
I had a look around ChCh when i was down last week and noticed that they have fallen into the old trap of building arrays of high gain directional antennas. Its like sticking a 400W speaker inside your ear and shouting over a 1000W Megaphone . On the upside avoiding this kind of interference is relatively easy . Better than the idiot with the 15dbi Omni and the 500mw AMP ... God bless them ! Best Regards Matthew G Brown - Wireless Network Specialist - Tasman Solutions LTD On Monday 13 August 2001 19:21, you wrote:
I was chatting to one of our contractors today, he was saying that Clear had successfully trashed some of his clients networks in Chch recently, and that he was having to put in bigger aerials to compensate. I also know that we've had to do similar things to a couple of our links in Wgtn recently, although I couldn't say that that was definitely Clear (there's a lot of wireless in Wellington, and we didn't spend too much time tracking down what the problem was).
Cheers Si
On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 04:18:56PM +1200, Neil said:
Has anyone else had any problems with Clear's 802.11 wireless internet service (http://www.clear.net.nz/services/tempest.html) as a source of interference? They have just done a rollout in Rotorua and totally stoped 3 separate wireless networks that had been running together nicely for the past year or two.
Clear have told me that Rotorua is the only place that this has happened in and are being very slow to do anything about it so if this has happened to you could you let me know.
--------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
participants (11)
-
Chris Hellberg
-
Craig Whitmore
-
David Robb
-
Dean Pemberton
-
Gordon Smith
-
Juha Saarinen
-
Mark Foster
-
Matthew G Brown
-
Neil
-
Simon Blake
-
Terence