1 / 24

Deploying Wifi on Lampposts

Deploying Wifi on Lampposts. The Ozone way…. Nicolas MECHIN Ozone EU-Mesh’s Heraklion meeting 07/08. Playground. « free » access to lampposts in Paris city center Permanent power available Aesthetic constraints Devices deployed need to be very discrete

kateb
Download Presentation

Deploying Wifi on Lampposts

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Deploying Wifi on Lampposts The Ozone way… Nicolas MECHIN Ozone EU-Mesh’s Heraklion meeting 07/08

  2. Playground • « free » access to lampposts in Paris city center • Permanent power available • Aesthetic constraints • Devices deployed need to be very discrete • No big directionnals or patch antennas… • No land lines for internet backhaul • Backhaul through Ozone’s wireless 5GHz network • Idea is to offer seamless wifi roaming (sort of…) within the coverage area

  3. Area to be covered 1,4 km long

  4. Architecture Lamppost n+1 Lamppost n Radio Link Radio Link Ethernet POE POE 220 V Powerlines About 100 m OZONE Lamppost n+2…

  5. Hardware • Mikrotik RB532 • MIPS architecture • 3 Mini-PCI slots • 3 * CM9 wifi cards • Atheros chipset • Dual-band antennas • 4,5 dB @ 2.4GHz • 7 dB @ 5GHz

  6. What it looks like

  7. Actual Deployment • 10 LampPosts • 4 directly connected to Ozone’s network • 6 through other lamppost • All links use 5 GHz (5480 Hz – 5700 Hz) • 3 different connecting point to ozone’s 5GHz network

  8. Actual Deployment 500 m 730 m

  9. Coverage achieved • Over 160 000 m² covered

  10. Coverage achieved

  11. Coverage achieved • Focus on the « Hotel de Ville » area • « seamless » wifi mobility within this area • 14 000 m²

  12. First impressionscf. EU-MESH Benefits and Performance Metrics • Low cost deployment : Yes • Wireless backhaul : no heavy cost for deploying fixed lines • Relatively cheap hardware • 200 € / AP (all included) • Still have to climb the lamppost… • Fast deployment : Not so much • we missed easy to use tools to know whether the signal was good enough, what was the best position for antennas. Mass deployment not ready • Radio settings and IP addressing had no be prepared • Reliability, flexibility, reliability ...No • Static routing and static radio configuration • No self healing…

  13. First impressionscf. EU-MESH Benefits and Performance Metrics • EU-Mesh should provide us with an answer to these shortcomings • Easy deployment : auto-configuration, tools for controlling radio signal at deployment • Considering « low skills » technicians are to deploy the network • Mesh technologies can provide self healing networks • Wheread today we have a static network with static radio configuration, static IP adressing and routing…

  14. Tests planned • Performances of radio backhaul • Performances of inter lamppost radio hops • Considering « dedicated » radio interface and not single radio scenario • Throughput • RTTs

  15. ResultsFocus on radio performances

  16. ResultsFocus on radio performances • Relatively poor radio signal in NoLOS scenario • Trees do affect a lot the radio link • The higher the frequency, the higher the attenuation • Very good results in LOS situations • 19 Mb/s with a 700m radio link • Throughput degradation at each hop • Despite the use of separate dedicated radios • Degradation isn’t 50% as in a 1 radio scenario, but still around 30 to 40%

  17. ResultsWithin Eu-Mesh • Tests already done : benchmark for EU-Mesh enhancements • Many further tests can be done • Playing with frequencies allocations • Changing power settings • Whatever you want to test …and see the impact on performances…

  18. MobilityThe problem • Goal is to offer the client a seamless experience • Even if he is moving • pedestrian or « car-in-paris-traffic-jam » speed • he doesn’t care which AP he is connected to, and even less which backhaul this AP is using • Lamppost may be backhauled by different Ozone’s aggregation point • 3 in our case, with IP addressing specific to each of them • Lampposts may be backhauled by other technology • DSL, Fiber, 3G, Wimax (all of these from Neuf Cegetel / SFR) • Lampposts may be backhauled by other providers

  19. MobilityOur solution : tunneling + Transparent to the user No need to deploy third party software on clients devices + Simplify provisionning of AAA and captive portal Only need to allow each AP to connect to the network (affect IP address and gateway) : tunnels go live automaticaly - Has an impact on available throughput Overhead of tunnels : from 10% to 40% today, depending on adopted solution

  20. MobilityOur Tunnel solution : OpenVPN + Very easy to configure Available for a very large number of hardware platforms and OSs + Can handle NAT without any problem GRE can’t, IP-Sec needs Nat-traversal + Can handle No MTU Problems - ??

  21. MobilityArchitecture • All tunnels are bridged at the controller • No IP change for the client when changing association • Roaming possible between various lampposts

  22. MobilityArchitecture • Roaming also possible between lampposts and DSL « box »

  23. MobilityFirst conclusions • Roaming times depend on client’s wifi driver implementation • When they consider a signal is too weak and switch to a better one • Tunnels may deliver this feature • Efficiency depends on Wifi reassociation times • …but has a non negligeable impact on performances • 8 to 10 % in our current solution (OpenVPN on UDP, no encryption) • And is dependent on network architecture • Tunnels will be shut down if mesh architecture changes ; need to be able to go live very fast after such a change • … just a transitionary solution to « real mobility » features • To be developped within EU-Mesh (Wioptimo…)

  24. MonitoringTools and how-to exploit them • Classical monitoring tools • Cacti • Nagios • Netflow exploitation • Nfsen • Able to compare usage of « fixed-wireless » clients vs « Mobile » clients • On protocol, ports, type of application… • Might be interesting within EU-Mesh as an input on what usage is made of a wireless (mesh) network, and impact this usage has on the network

More Related