|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] wireless/ricochet
|
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Kevin Brosius wrote:
> Hmm. I think you need ricochet's equivalent of dns running for the
> poletop to route modem signals. As I mentioned earlier on the list, I
sort-of. Every ricochet modem has an ID (a MAC), but also a name can be
assigned. The "Name server" in Philadelphia has been decomissioned. The
actual pole-tops are still active. From what I've read about the
protocol, you don't need a nameserver to route signals by mac. poletops
find each other, and the radios by automatic discovery.
> was able to use my modems across the poletop network even after they
> disabled the network access portion. The modem to modem routing worked
> for about a month. After that time, I could still detect poletop radios
> with the modems, but they no longer route traffic for me.
Yes, but afaik, they just disabled this ability in the poletops. They had
contracts they they still had to provide this for some customers, so they
allow/deny based on modem MAC. What's worse, they didn't like people
using the modems for LANs at some point, so they set up the sameserver to
lie to all new modems and return their PPP service for ALL names
requested. Again, they would get in trouble if they screwed existing
customers, so they started adding the MACs of new modems to a list that
would have this labotomized name service. I heard eventually they were
thinking about taking the p2p firmware out of the modems. Isn't it sad
how marketing can remove all sorts of cool stuff engineering could think
up?
> Which type of pole mount radio's did you get? Are they the single
> antenna 'poletop', or the wired access point (WAP, 2-3 antenna) type?
single antenna poletop - though I would be interested in a WAP some time
;)
> My reading suggested only the WAP model had the 2.4G support (top
> antenna, on the 3 antenna model.) Also, note that the 2.4G band is
> licensed spectrum, so using it puts you at the risk of dealing with the
> FCC.
The 2.4 was used only asymmetrically from WAP to poletops. I would have
to review my documentation to be sure about the other part you just said,
but I remember the poletops being able to communicate at 2.xghz between
themselves. (One of the 2.xghz bands used it ISM just like the 900mhz
used on the radio-poletop connection, another is the licensed band).
btw, there is lots of good stuff in the docs from their bankruptcy
proceedings, including a very detailed radio map of phile.
> Kevin
>
>
> Noah silva wrote:
> >
> > This isn't an eradio for a WAP, it is a poletop (repeater) radio, so I
> > don't think it has an ethernet port. I am going to try to configure it to
> > repeat signals from the normal consumer radios though. Then, f.e. I can
> > put it on my roof and power it up. I can use one ricochet modem in my
> > house, and one down the street. Because of the elevation, the poletop may
> > be able to repeat the signal where the modems might not get a direct
> > connection. The poletops were originally programmed to do this, as they
> > offered private network service. Later, they decided to offer only
> > internet service, so they disabled this feature ;(
> >
> > Also, the poletops can communicate between themselves at 2.4 ghz. With
> > two of them, I could set one up on top of my house, one at a
> > friend's. We should have fairly good ricochet coverage between and around those
> > locations.
> >
> > But, we'll see when I have time to actually play.
> >
> > -- noah silva
> >
> > On Fri, 17 May 2002, Jeyes, David (371) wrote:
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Kevin Brosius [mailto:kbrosius@kns.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11:39 AM
> > > > To: plug@lists.phillylinux.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [PLUG] wireless/ricochet
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, okay, so did I... But then I considered how much time it might
> > > > take to reverse engineer the thing trying to get it to route traffic
> > > > again. I decide I wasn't up for the task. Now if we got
> > > > ahold of some
> > > > tech documentation about the command protocol for routing... That's a
> > > > different story.
> > > >
> > > It's my understanding (after talking to one of the guys that threw the
> > > radios up there. . . ) that the radio is simply a transmitter that receives
> > > information from a standard switch and broadcasts it on a particular
> > > frequency. So, other than overcoming authentication, which just may mean
> > > having one of their modems, you should be able to plug and play.
> > >
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
> Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
> General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|