Long-range link question (long)

I want to link two wired networks. The principal uses for the link
will be remotely monitoring security cameras at one location and
sharing a high-speed internet link that is only available at one site.

I need to have fairly decent security, but it doesn't have to pass DOD
standards.

I'm looking at the D-Link DWL-2100AP for use at both sites, mainly
because of the features it claims to offer.

The distance will be around 2 miles, and I will need about 40 foot
masts at both ends to clear some obstructions.

I plan on using 24 dB gain parabolic antennas, both for their gain, as
well as for the narrow beam-width (which I assume should help limit
"outside" contact with the link). I also plan on placing the AP's in
a weatherproof box on the antenna mast adjacent to the antenna and
using POE to get power to the units, and just a short pigtail between
the AP and antenna.

Does anyone know if there is a hack for the D-Link 2100 AP (for
increasing the power)?

According to the formulas I've been pointed to, the D-link units at
32mw should handle the link, even including consideration of fresnel
zones, but I want the links to be solid (even in rain if possible),
and I'd like enough signal strength to get better than "b" throughput
speeds since real-time monitoring of multiple cameras will take a bit
of bandwidth. I'd prefer to avoid the extra expense, complexity, and
likely illegality of adding amplifiers to these units.

One of the main reasons I'm looking at the DWL-21000 is the fact that
it handles WPA (or so they say), as well as the link type I want to
use. There is a remote possibility that I will eventually want to use
one of the sites as point-to-multipoint (with a different antenna),
although the other site will never be used for anything other than
point-to-point. I've never used D-link wireless equipment, but have
always had good luck with their wired products.

Are their any other units I should be considering before the D-link
units? Any brands/models anyone would recommend?

I figure if I eventually want to use vpn tunneling between the 2 sites
I will still need routers at each end that support this? The networks
at each end are a mish-mash of different versions of Windows,
including ME, W2K, and XP, and due to certain software requirements,
need to remain in their current bastardized configurations.

Any info is appreciated, and thanks for reading this tome.

Bob

Bubba <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Does anyone know if there is a hack for the D-Link 2100 AP (for
> increasing the power)?

Not really a hack, but a WiFi Amplifier:

http://www.rflinx.com/

Not sure if these products are any good.


> Are their any other units I should be considering before the D-link
> units? Any brands/models anyone would recommend?

Netgate makes high powered WiFi equipment (200mw!):

http://www.netgate.com/

> I figure if I eventually want to use vpn tunneling between the 2 sites
> I will still need routers at each end that support this?

Yes, you'll need a router capable of VPN tunnels, or you can run a
software VPN tunnel in Windows 2000/XP.

Dlink does have a Wireless Router/AP + VPN built into one unit:

http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=274


--
Lucas Tam ((E-Mail Removed))
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 09:26:12 -0500, Bubba wrote:


> Any info is appreciated, and thanks for reading this tome.
>
> Bob

If this link is of any importance whatsoever, praytell, why in the world
are you even contemplating doing it with off-the-shelf consumer "stuff"?

vg

In one word, cost.

I'm entirely open to suggestions in regards to professional solutions.

In our little, isolated neck of the woods, the best I've been able to
find thus far in terms of pro equipment roughly follows:

Professional site survey -- minimum of $1,500 to tell me what I
already know.

Professional equipment AND install around $8,000 per site (multiply
this times 2). The "Pros" around here aren't even willing to use
customer installed masts and insist on installing their own preferred
version of tower.

Licensing fees (they aren't telling at this point, but if I want or
need anything above the unlicensed 32mw units, they tell me there will
be additional licensing fees (AND equipment costs). I can get 32 to
200 mw units on my own, sans licensing fee, and although of
questionable legality considering the antennas I will be using, I can
also get the amps for much less than the "pros" will charge for them.

Sooo, for something like 17.5K, plus any licensing fees, I should have
a functional link, but the "pros" responsibility stops at the cable
(or ethernet) entrance, and they don't even consider making the link
work with the networks, just guaranteeing the presence of a functional
link.

I've considered the "enterprise" level outdoor AP's that run around 1k
apiece, but the ones I've seen are "b" units" (and if possible, I want
more than "b" throughput), and the ones that I've seen don't yet offer
WPA, and I don't think I've even seen one with VPN tunneling. Still
need masts and antennas for these, and there is no guarantee that they
will work for my purposes.

The link is important, but NOT critical, and I've been a confirmed
(and generally very successful) tinkerer for most of my life. While
important to me, the link is not more important in terms of cost than
both of the networks that it will be connecting, which would be the
case using the professional solutions I've been able to find in my
region thus far.

Bob

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 11:26:25 -0600, Valentín Guillén
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 09:26:12 -0500, Bubba wrote:
>
>
>> Any info is appreciated, and thanks for reading this tome.
>>
>> Bob
>
>If this link is of any importance whatsoever, praytell, why in the world
>are you even contemplating doing it with off-the-shelf consumer "stuff"?
>
>vg

With the system you described you don't need any amplifiers or
anything else. I will explain as follows.

2 mile distance path loss equals about 110.4 dB
32 mW power equals about +15 dB
Antenna gain equals 24 dB
Cable loss with access point mounted at antenna equals no more then 2
dB

total equals something like this.

+15 -2 +24 -110.4 +24 -2 = -51.6 RSSI

With everything aligned properly you should receive a signal strength
of about -51.6 dBm at your receiver. Even poor consumer equipment can
function very well at this level. Cisco equipment has a receive spec
of about -86 for 11 mbits and - 95 for 1 mbit performance.




Bubba <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>. ..
> I want to link two wired networks. The principal uses for the link
> will be remotely monitoring security cameras at one location and
> sharing a high-speed internet link that is only available at one site.
>
> I need to have fairly decent security, but it doesn't have to pass DOD
> standards.
>
> I'm looking at the D-Link DWL-2100AP for use at both sites, mainly
> because of the features it claims to offer.
>
> The distance will be around 2 miles, and I will need about 40 foot
> masts at both ends to clear some obstructions.
>
> I plan on using 24 dB gain parabolic antennas, both for their gain, as
> well as for the narrow beam-width (which I assume should help limit
> "outside" contact with the link). I also plan on placing the AP's in
> a weatherproof box on the antenna mast adjacent to the antenna and
> using POE to get power to the units, and just a short pigtail between
> the AP and antenna.
>
> Does anyone know if there is a hack for the D-Link 2100 AP (for
> increasing the power)?
>
> According to the formulas I've been pointed to, the D-link units at
> 32mw should handle the link, even including consideration of fresnel
> zones, but I want the links to be solid (even in rain if possible),
> and I'd like enough signal strength to get better than "b" throughput
> speeds since real-time monitoring of multiple cameras will take a bit
> of bandwidth. I'd prefer to avoid the extra expense, complexity, and
> likely illegality of adding amplifiers to these units.
>
> One of the main reasons I'm looking at the DWL-21000 is the fact that
> it handles WPA (or so they say), as well as the link type I want to
> use. There is a remote possibility that I will eventually want to use
> one of the sites as point-to-multipoint (with a different antenna),
> although the other site will never be used for anything other than
> point-to-point. I've never used D-link wireless equipment, but have
> always had good luck with their wired products.
>
> Are their any other units I should be considering before the D-link
> units? Any brands/models anyone would recommend?
>
> I figure if I eventually want to use vpn tunneling between the 2 sites
> I will still need routers at each end that support this? The networks
> at each end are a mish-mash of different versions of Windows,
> including ME, W2K, and XP, and due to certain software requirements,
> need to remain in their current bastardized configurations.
>
> Any info is appreciated, and thanks for reading this tome.
>
> Bob

So, in theory at any rate, I should be able to achieve "G" speeds with
the DWL-2100AP I'm looking at??

Per specs at D-Link's site, this AP is supposed to give 54mbps at - 66
dBm. Assuming I am able to achieve something close to the calculated
-51.6 dBm with my installation, should the additional 15 dBm handle
"average" rain fade, etc., or am I nuts trying for more than "B"
speeds on this link?

Thanks,



On 8 Apr 2004 09:48:44 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (K Bloch) wrote:

>With the system you described you don't need any amplifiers or
>anything else. I will explain as follows.
>
>2 mile distance path loss equals about 110.4 dB
>32 mW power equals about +15 dB
>Antenna gain equals 24 dB
>Cable loss with access point mounted at antenna equals no more then 2
>dB
>
>total equals something like this.
>
>+15 -2 +24 -110.4 +24 -2 = -51.6 RSSI
>
>With everything aligned properly you should receive a signal strength
>of about -51.6 dBm at your receiver. Even poor consumer equipment can
>function very well at this level. Cisco equipment has a receive spec
>of about -86 for 11 mbits and - 95 for 1 mbit performance.
>
>
>
>
>Bubba <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>. ..
>> I want to link two wired networks. The principal uses for the link
>> will be remotely monitoring security cameras at one location and
>> sharing a high-speed internet link that is only available at one site.
>>
>> I need to have fairly decent security, but it doesn't have to pass DOD
>> standards.
>>
>> I'm looking at the D-Link DWL-2100AP for use at both sites, mainly
>> because of the features it claims to offer.
>>
>> The distance will be around 2 miles, and I will need about 40 foot
>> masts at both ends to clear some obstructions.
>>
>> I plan on using 24 dB gain parabolic antennas, both for their gain, as
>> well as for the narrow beam-width (which I assume should help limit
>> "outside" contact with the link). I also plan on placing the AP's in
>> a weatherproof box on the antenna mast adjacent to the antenna and
>> using POE to get power to the units, and just a short pigtail between
>> the AP and antenna.
>>
>> Does anyone know if there is a hack for the D-Link 2100 AP (for
>> increasing the power)?
>>
>> According to the formulas I've been pointed to, the D-link units at
>> 32mw should handle the link, even including consideration of fresnel
>> zones, but I want the links to be solid (even in rain if possible),
>> and I'd like enough signal strength to get better than "b" throughput
>> speeds since real-time monitoring of multiple cameras will take a bit
>> of bandwidth. I'd prefer to avoid the extra expense, complexity, and
>> likely illegality of adding amplifiers to these units.
>>
>> One of the main reasons I'm looking at the DWL-21000 is the fact that
>> it handles WPA (or so they say), as well as the link type I want to
>> use. There is a remote possibility that I will eventually want to use
>> one of the sites as point-to-multipoint (with a different antenna),
>> although the other site will never be used for anything other than
>> point-to-point. I've never used D-link wireless equipment, but have
>> always had good luck with their wired products.
>>
>> Are their any other units I should be considering before the D-link
>> units? Any brands/models anyone would recommend?
>>
>> I figure if I eventually want to use vpn tunneling between the 2 sites
>> I will still need routers at each end that support this? The networks
>> at each end are a mish-mash of different versions of Windows,
>> including ME, W2K, and XP, and due to certain software requirements,
>> need to remain in their current bastardized configurations.
>>
>> Any info is appreciated, and thanks for reading this tome.
>>
>> Bob

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:22:16 -0500, Bubba wrote:

> Per specs at D-Link's site, this AP is supposed to give 54mbps at - 66
> dBm. Assuming I am able to achieve something close to the calculated
> -51.6 dBm with my installation, should the additional 15 dBm handle
> "average" rain fade, etc., or am I nuts trying for more than "B"
> speeds on this link?
>
> Thanks,

With all due respect, I think you *still* don't get it!

Regardless of what's "doable in theory", if you're not willing to spend to
do it right, you'll regret spending the money you DO spend.

What about wind-loading factors; rain-fade; equipment aging and frequency
drifting; moisture infiltration into cables; and perhaps the bigest bugabo
of all -- signal inferference? If you're not using dedicated frequencies,
but instead are using the ISM band, you HAVE NO FREQENCY &
FREQENCY-INTERFERENCE PROTECTION!!

Now I should be perfectly clear here: I'm NOT saying you shouldn't do it,
nor am I saying it can't be done. What I'm saying is to eveluate with the
principles involved, exactly how important the link IS. If you're still
insistent that YOU can do it, hire a professional consultant to design the
system. You probably won't get a written guarantee of performance unless
they purchase and install!

The most likely outcome here is that you'll insist upon doing it, it will
underperform/not perform, and we'll see your posts here in a month with
pleas for assistance. Are you both an RF AND networking engineer? Leave
it to the professionals, unless this link is nothing more than a hobby and
a learning experience. In the latter case, have at it!

I regularly shoot WiFi 802.11x signals in excess of ten miles, but I'm
both an RF and networking engineer, and I know what I'm doing. So I'm not
saying that this is not doable. I'm saying to sit back with decision and
budget makers, and decide how vital this link is. Then proceed in the
appropriate manner.......

Best Regards,

vg

What he asked for is what else he may need. For 802.11b speeds the
distance/loss/antenna combo is more then adequate. Adding amplifiers
as others suggested usually causes more problems then its worth.
Unless the Amp is very very good it cannot switch fast enough from TX
to RX in the presence of noise to operate well.

Now a link speed of 11 mbits per second should be able to yield about
5 to 6 mbits of total throughput. For most home and business users
this is a more then adequate link speed. The questions is still what
is the link going to be used for. If it is to provide internet and
email access on a netowrk with a T1 to the internet it should be more
then adequate. If you are trying to use it for VOIP services it will
probably have trouble being that it is a half duplex media with a high
rate of packet retries (anything above 1/1000 is high in my opinion)

Valentín Guillén <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed) >...
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:22:16 -0500, Bubba wrote:
>
> > Per specs at D-Link's site, this AP is supposed to give 54mbps at - 66
> > dBm. Assuming I am able to achieve something close to the calculated
> > -51.6 dBm with my installation, should the additional 15 dBm handle
> > "average" rain fade, etc., or am I nuts trying for more than "B"
> > speeds on this link?
> >
> > Thanks,
>
> With all due respect, I think you *still* don't get it!
>
> Regardless of what's "doable in theory", if you're not willing to spend to
> do it right, you'll regret spending the money you DO spend.
>
> What about wind-loading factors; rain-fade; equipment aging and frequency
> drifting; moisture infiltration into cables; and perhaps the bigest bugabo
> of all -- signal inferference? If you're not using dedicated frequencies,
> but instead are using the ISM band, you HAVE NO FREQENCY &
> FREQENCY-INTERFERENCE PROTECTION!!
>
> Now I should be perfectly clear here: I'm NOT saying you shouldn't do it,
> nor am I saying it can't be done. What I'm saying is to eveluate with the
> principles involved, exactly how important the link IS. If you're still
> insistent that YOU can do it, hire a professional consultant to design the
> system. You probably won't get a written guarantee of performance unless
> they purchase and install!
>
> The most likely outcome here is that you'll insist upon doing it, it will
> underperform/not perform, and we'll see your posts here in a month with
> pleas for assistance. Are you both an RF AND networking engineer? Leave
> it to the professionals, unless this link is nothing more than a hobby and
> a learning experience. In the latter case, have at it!
>
> I regularly shoot WiFi 802.11x signals in excess of ten miles, but I'm
> both an RF and networking engineer, and I know what I'm doing. So I'm not
> saying that this is not doable. I'm saying to sit back with decision and
> budget makers, and decide how vital this link is. Then proceed in the
> appropriate manner.......
>
> Best Regards,
>
> vg

The planned uses for the link is sharing of a broadband wireless
connection that caps out at around 1.5 mbps, remote file sharing, most
likely using terminal services, between point A & B, and I'd like the
ability to occassionally monitor 3 different wired IP-based cameras in
real time and at decent resolution, preferably at the same time. I
realize that the file sharing, and any incident file transfers as well
as sharing of the broadband connection would be more than adequate at
the estimated throughput of a poorer-grade "b" link. The terminal
server and IP cameras are located at site B, and the broadband
connection based at site A. Through a gift of geography, the
broadband link is unavailable at site B, and will likely always remain
so. If I were able to get the wireless broadband at both sites, I
could try tunneling between the sites via the broadband ISP, but this
would still likely not suit streaming video since the upload speeds
are capped at 400kbps, but I rarely ever see better than 200 kbps, and
only in brief bursts. I've discussed the idea of a repeater installed
by them at my expense that would get around the obstructions between
site B and the broadband provider's sector array, but they have no
interest as I would be the only potential customer that would
benefit/come onboard as the result of such a repeater, and yes, I
realize that said repeater would further drop the link speed, unless
the provider upped the BW for that link on their end.

I need to do a more detailed analysis of the network traffic at site
B. I have seen prolonged periods of overall network activity at
around 15-20 mbps on that network when the only significant activity I
can identify is a user monitoring multiple cams (and there is a lot of
activity in the camera fields). That system is secure, currently has
no internet connection available, and there are no unknown users wired
in, and no local wifi equipment. When the IP cams are fully shut
down, the general network activity is what you would expect on a small
network with minimal file sharing and mild to moderate printing to 4
different shared printers (with rarely more than one printer running
at any given time). I realize I need to break down the network
activity per IP, but haven't had the opportunity, and strongly suspect
the IP cams the source of that activity. My needs in terms of the cam
monitoring would likely be lower since at the times I would be
interested in monitoring the cams via the link, there would be little
expected activity in view.

KB, I appreciate your efforts to answer my question, which is whether
or not I could expect to be able to establish some grade of "g" link
at this distance. Your dBm figures closely correspond to those I had
obtained independently.

I appreciate all the time that Valentin's considered responses must
have taken, and want him to know that I "got" it before I ever posted,
and was part of the reason I posted in the first place. As a ham with
over 30 years of active participation, including some microwave work
"in the dark ages", I do have at least a little appreciation of RF
propagation. I'll be the first to admit that I have no experience
with 802.11 equipment, and thus the reason I came to this group. You
are correct in one point - I do consider this a hobby and learning
experience, just as I have computers and wired networking. My
livelihood has no connection with computing, other than using
computers as data management and billing tools. I'm sure that with
your fund of knowledge you'll be the second to get wifi out past
Jupiter (think NASA's BTDT). It's a shame that you would prefer to
dissuade and chest-pound rather than sharing that knowledge.

Regards




On 9 Apr 2004 14:41:53 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (K Bloch) wrote:

>What he asked for is what else he may need. For 802.11b speeds the
>distance/loss/antenna combo is more then adequate. Adding amplifiers
>as others suggested usually causes more problems then its worth.
>Unless the Amp is very very good it cannot switch fast enough from TX
>to RX in the presence of noise to operate well.
>
>Now a link speed of 11 mbits per second should be able to yield about
>5 to 6 mbits of total throughput. For most home and business users
>this is a more then adequate link speed. The questions is still what
>is the link going to be used for. If it is to provide internet and
>email access on a netowrk with a T1 to the internet it should be more
>then adequate. If you are trying to use it for VOIP services it will
>probably have trouble being that it is a half duplex media with a high
>rate of packet retries (anything above 1/1000 is high in my opinion)
>
>Valentín Guillén <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed) >...
>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:22:16 -0500, Bubba wrote:
>>
>> > Per specs at D-Link's site, this AP is supposed to give 54mbps at - 66
>> > dBm. Assuming I am able to achieve something close to the calculated
>> > -51.6 dBm with my installation, should the additional 15 dBm handle
>> > "average" rain fade, etc., or am I nuts trying for more than "B"
>> > speeds on this link?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>>
>> With all due respect, I think you *still* don't get it!
>>
>> Regardless of what's "doable in theory", if you're not willing to spend to
>> do it right, you'll regret spending the money you DO spend.
>>
>> What about wind-loading factors; rain-fade; equipment aging and frequency
>> drifting; moisture infiltration into cables; and perhaps the bigest bugabo
>> of all -- signal inferference? If you're not using dedicated frequencies,
>> but instead are using the ISM band, you HAVE NO FREQENCY &
>> FREQENCY-INTERFERENCE PROTECTION!!
>>
>> Now I should be perfectly clear here: I'm NOT saying you shouldn't do it,
>> nor am I saying it can't be done. What I'm saying is to eveluate with the
>> principles involved, exactly how important the link IS. If you're still
>> insistent that YOU can do it, hire a professional consultant to design the
>> system. You probably won't get a written guarantee of performance unless
>> they purchase and install!
>>
>> The most likely outcome here is that you'll insist upon doing it, it will
>> underperform/not perform, and we'll see your posts here in a month with
>> pleas for assistance. Are you both an RF AND networking engineer? Leave
>> it to the professionals, unless this link is nothing more than a hobby and
>> a learning experience. In the latter case, have at it!
>>
>> I regularly shoot WiFi 802.11x signals in excess of ten miles, but I'm
>> both an RF and networking engineer, and I know what I'm doing. So I'm not
>> saying that this is not doable. I'm saying to sit back with decision and
>> budget makers, and decide how vital this link is. Then proceed in the
>> appropriate manner.......
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> vg

I Read this thread and felt compelled to write this..
I love the part of the thread below from "the RF Networking engineer."
All I can say is I am glad you are not on my team!

I am an RF Networking engineer having designed and deployed thousands of
Microwave Links in both licensed and unlicensed (includes ISM 2.4 band)
links.

In the 2.4 band my longest link was 110 miles. Distance is not a problem
with
this band as long as you have the height to deal with the K factor (curve of
the earth)

Rainfade is not bad at 2.4 either since it is such a large wavelength.. it
is when you exceed
10Ghz that the water molecules exceed the size of the wavelength.

(sounds like the "rf networking engineer" was reading off a WMUX calc! )

In the example below.. the Specs say the RSL (Receive Signal Level)
Threshold for
54Mbit (bandwidth.. probably reality about 20Mbit throughput) is -66dbm

With an RSL of -51.6dbm the fademargin is 14.4db Dealing with True
Rainfade
and other things, I feel safe with 15db of fademargin...

Now this all makes a lot of sense if doing a point to point link... If this
system is
being used in 802.11mode, for a single AP to multiple subscribers, it will
not work
do to hidden node..

"K Bloch" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> What he asked for is what else he may need. For 802.11b speeds the
> distance/loss/antenna combo is more then adequate. Adding amplifiers
> as others suggested usually causes more problems then its worth.
> Unless the Amp is very very good it cannot switch fast enough from TX
> to RX in the presence of noise to operate well.
>
> Now a link speed of 11 mbits per second should be able to yield about
> 5 to 6 mbits of total throughput. For most home and business users
> this is a more then adequate link speed. The questions is still what
> is the link going to be used for. If it is to provide internet and
> email access on a netowrk with a T1 to the internet it should be more
> then adequate. If you are trying to use it for VOIP services it will
> probably have trouble being that it is a half duplex media with a high
> rate of packet retries (anything above 1/1000 is high in my opinion)
>
> Valentín Guillén <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:<(E-Mail Removed) >...
> > On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:22:16 -0500, Bubba wrote:
> >
> > > Per specs at D-Link's site, this AP is supposed to give 54mbps at - 66
> > > dBm. Assuming I am able to achieve something close to the calculated
> > > -51.6 dBm with my installation, should the additional 15 dBm handle
> > > "average" rain fade, etc., or am I nuts trying for more than "B"
> > > speeds on this link?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> >
> > With all due respect, I think you *still* don't get it!
> >
> > Regardless of what's "doable in theory", if you're not willing to spend
to
> > do it right, you'll regret spending the money you DO spend.
> >
> > What about wind-loading factors; rain-fade; equipment aging and
frequency
> > drifting; moisture infiltration into cables; and perhaps the bigest
bugabo
> > of all -- signal inferference? If you're not using dedicated
frequencies,
> > but instead are using the ISM band, you HAVE NO FREQENCY &
> > FREQENCY-INTERFERENCE PROTECTION!!
> >
> > Now I should be perfectly clear here: I'm NOT saying you shouldn't do
it,
> > nor am I saying it can't be done. What I'm saying is to eveluate with
the
> > principles involved, exactly how important the link IS. If you're still
> > insistent that YOU can do it, hire a professional consultant to design
the
> > system. You probably won't get a written guarantee of performance
unless
> > they purchase and install!
> >
> > The most likely outcome here is that you'll insist upon doing it, it
will
> > underperform/not perform, and we'll see your posts here in a month with
> > pleas for assistance. Are you both an RF AND networking engineer?
Leave
> > it to the professionals, unless this link is nothing more than a hobby
and
> > a learning experience. In the latter case, have at it!
> >
> > I regularly shoot WiFi 802.11x signals in excess of ten miles, but I'm
> > both an RF and networking engineer, and I know what I'm doing. So I'm
not
> > saying that this is not doable. I'm saying to sit back with decision
and
> > budget makers, and decide how vital this link is. Then proceed in the
> > appropriate manner.......
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > vg
>