Wanting to use Wireless to get VoIP extensions to remote buildings.

[jonnyGURU]

I have about 2000 ft line of site point to multipoint to cover.

I need to get extensions out to about six phones in three remote buildings across this property. I figured if I could get wireless networking to work out to these buildings, I could use VoIP to get them phone access. I guess that the cost of going wireless and VoIP would still be less than digging up Earth, asphalt and concrete and laying all sorts of cable.

Also, this should give everyone Internet access out on the property as well. An added bonus.

Your typical 802.11g isn't enough to go from one end of the property to the other. But I think mp11 is actually OVERKILL. Isn't that good for up to MILES AND MILES?

Is there an in between?

Not to say that mp11 prices aren't reasonable what with a base station costing $650 and subscriber units at $400 each (I'd need three. One for each building.) Is there some sort of bridge that can allow regular 802.11 traffic?

Is 802.16 a viable solution?

I feel like such a n00b!

Help, anyone?

 

[spidey07]

G with good wireless bridges should be just fine.

 

[jonnyGURU]

You know, I thought about using 802.11G with WAP's that could work as repeaters, but three of the building are only about 100 to 200 feet apart from each other and then the fourth is a good 1700 feet on the other side of the property. I don't think I can get good bandwidth with g at 1700 feet.

And then there's the issue of that all being good enough for VoIP......

 

[spidey07]

If you have line of site you can provide wireless coverage with the correct antenna.

And wireless works just fine for voice over IP (if its a good access point - namely Cisco as they're APs are built to support voice) VoIP is very low bandwidth so its not a big deal as long as the quality of service is built-in/configured.

 

[jonnyGURU]

Links? Like to a good outdoor 802.11g antenna or decent access point to use?

Best range I could find is a study done with typical 802.11g equipment, they only got 150 feet of good signal. Of course, we're talking your typical WAP's like Netgear, Linksys, etc.

 

[jonnyGURU]

Is this more simple than I'm thinking it is????

If I take something like this: http://www.trendnet.com/products/TEW-OA24D.htm

And plug it into the wireless router on one end and the WAP on the other end 1700 feet away, I'll probably be fine?

 

[bgroff]

The real question is whether there's a budget for this or not. Like Spidey said, cisco equipment will easily go the distance on G. I've done an outdoor installation that was P2P with LOS of approx 1 mile. We were seeing G speeds. If you're willing to spend the money to get outdoor equipment and ensure LOS between antennas, it will work. If you're looking to use netgear and stick USB wireless adapters in the window, good luck!

 

[spidey07]

I'm talking about "real" access points. Mainly Cisco just because they are pretty darn good.

Just search cisco's site for wireless - all kinds of attenae depending on how much you want to pay and what kind of gain you need. If this is point-2-point a decent yaga directional antenna would work well.

You you need to be able to "see" the other end - no obstructions. Typical installtion is on the top of the building.

 

[jonnyGURU]

http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=303

???

It's $1000 each.

If it costs much more, I might as well go with mp11!

Line of sight probably isn't a problem. The buildings on either end have A-frame roofs and the only thing in between are a bunch of mobile homes.

 

[bgroff]

Cisco Aironet 1300 series. Look at the last link for Antennas. The AIR-ANT24120 would be a good antenna for the base station, and the AIR-ANT2012 would be good for the remote sites to point back at the main base.

 

[jonnyGURU]

Originally posted by: bgroff
If you're looking to use netgear and stick USB wireless adapters in the window, good luck!

If I honestly thought that's all I had to do, I wouldn't have asked.

That said, IF I had a decent outdoor WAP or outdoor antenna at the CO, shouldn't I be able to pick that 802.11g signal up at points in between with typical 802.11g hardware (laptop LAN, WAP, etc.?)

 

[jonnyGURU]

Originally posted by: bgroff
Cisco Aironet 1300 series. Look at the last link for Antennas. The AIR-ANT24120 would be a good antenna for the base station, and the AIR-ANT2012 would be good for the remote sites to point back at the main base.

1 mile @ 45 mbps?? Christ! That's more than I need. What's wrong with the AIR-ANT2506?

 

[jonnyGURU]

Hmm... That ANT2506 is way in budget at about $125. Just under $300 for the ANT2012. That gives me lots of room for a good router and WAP.

I just don't have warm fuzzies about using a Cisco wireless solution with an Avaya telephony solution. Sort of like dropping a Ford Interceptor motor in a Grand National.

 

[bgroff]

Actually, after looking a little harder... The AIR-BR1310G-A-K9-R comes with a 13dbi patch antenna built into the external case. So there's no need for the ANT 2012. Those would work for the remote sites. The only thing you'd need is a AIR-BR1310G-A-K9-R for the main site along with the ANT2506. The Cisco bridges can be configured for QoS, so it would be no problem for your Avaya VoIP solution. Of course, the hard part is still the installation of the devices!

 

[jonnyGURU]

Ok. Only one last point of confusion.....

I'm used to access points as being a means of allowing wireless devices to access a hard-wire network, but in this scenario, I'm using access points to connect back to another network via a wireless connection.

They DO work both ways now?

 

[jonnyGURU]

Ah... I think that the Cisco AIR-BR1310G-A-K9-R answered my question. It's a WAP/Bridge. In the diagrams, the WAP is only being accessed by wireless users. The WAP/Bridge actually connects back to the rest of the network via wireless.

 

[spidey07]

me thinks you should trench. Its always the best answer/solution than something kludgy.

 

[bgroff]

Some yes, some no. In the case of the 1300 Series, it functions as an AP or a wireless bridge. This means you can use it to connect end stations like an AP, or as a wireless switch to connect remote lans. This is not the standard behavior of APs. That's why you pay the big bucks for that functionality. You're paying for the enterprise level of equipment and for the bridge features.

 

[bgroff]

I'm still betting it would be cheaper/easier to do wireless APs that to try and trench fiber all over the place... I'd be curious to hear how the quotes would play out between the two options.

 

[jonnyGURU]

Originally posted by: bgroff
That's why you pay the big bucks for that functionality. You're paying for the enterprise level of equipment and for the bridge features.

The D-Link 802.11g equipment can act as WAP, bridge or as repeaters. They are not "big bucks."

 

[bgroff]

Remember, you get what you pay for...

 

[bgroff]

And if you actually look at the pricing, the Cisco 1300 is nearly identical to the D-Link DWL-2700. I can tell you which I'd be rolling out for the same $$$...

 

[cparker]

Go to: http://www.fab-corp.com/ Then go down the page in the parabolic antenna section. There are 24 db antennas going for 75 bucks or so. If you have line of site you can use these with even a cheap 30 mw linksys G access point and have a link 1700 feet easily with plenty of bandwidth to spare. Think about it. If you have two 24 db antennas looking at each other you have close to 50 db gain between the links. That would be the equivalent of 100,000 increase in power. So your 30 mw becomes equivalent to 3,000 watts. This would cover several miles line of site. You could probably do fine with even an 18 db antenna. They go for around 50 bucks.

 

[cparker]

And here are some quotes:
linksys wap54g costs 43 bucks each at pcconnection.
antenna along with cable/pigtails (assuming antenna close to wireless ap) say 100 bucks total.
Masting, I'll make a guestimate of 50 bucks.

Total would be around 400 bucks per link. Maybe less if you have several antennas on one mast.

You would need two or three links (I'm not sure if you need to connect one base site to three remote buildings or three buildings to each other in which case you might be OK with two.) Also you would need switches and assorted cabling and possibly also other access points that can handle local wireless at each building. So add another 100 bucks per building.

Assuming three links that would be 400 plus 100 times three or 500 dollars per building. This, of course, is for materials only, not for time setting all of this up, aiming the antennas properly, etc. It's also getting things on the cheap. If you don't get rebates (which you might not be eligible for you might have to add another 100-150 bucks per link.) If you paid professionals to set it up for you I suspect this figure would be much higher, but others here who are professionals can tell you more about that.

 

[cparker]

Finally:
Do a feasibility study on the cheap. Get two access points at 1700 feet and see if they can communicate with each other using the 12 db versions of the parabolic antenna "slip on" at www.freeantennas.com. Or you could pick up two cantennas at cantenna.com. Actually they are kind of onsale at computer geeks (I think it's geeks.com or compugeeks.com) for 38 bucks or so, so two of them would go for around 85 or so with shipping. That includes tripods, pigtails and connectors for both the linksys or the other brands. So for between 100 (free antenna version) to 200 (using cantennas) bucks total you can test out how well you do without expensive antennas. By improving the antennas you increase the bandwidth. But at least your investment in equipment and time would be incremental and you would have a chance to test out the concept and be comfortable with it.
I'm done. Hope this is helpful. I just set up a 1000 foot link using the free antenna slip ons (the smaller 9 db version) and it was fun to set up and it works although not at full bandwidth. No question that using a gain antenna of 12 db or higher at both ends would improve things dramatically and certainly extend the range.