I was just being factious, but you ran with it. Actually, if Version 7 will install on it (whenever that comes out), a full feed will take 36 megs of RAM and 12 million routes will take about 500 megs of RAM.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Prince via Af" <af@afmug.com> To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:45:28 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy Maximum of 512 MB of memory on the RB230. I don't think that's enough to handle full BGP roues these days. bp On 9/18/2014 6:13 AM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: > I found an RB230 (I think that is the number) on a tower. Can that handle > MPLS\VPLS with full BGP routes? ;-) > > Better pricing? They have to what, cut it in half to be competitive? GigE > radios are something like $7k/link now. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Shayne Lebrun via Af" <af@afmug.com> > To: af@afmug.com > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:09:37 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy > > (gosh, I hope I'm allowed to say all this, but what the hell, they didn't > say 'and don't repeat nothing!' and it's not like other road-show goers > can't ask themselves) > > Oh, I'm sure it'll be user-definable, on the 450, in terms of how to sync. > > The thing is, with the ePMP, you have exactly three options; something like > 75/25, 50/50, and 30/70. Those are all you get for sync options; the > downlink percent. They were very clear that 'max range' is NOT a timing > parameter. > > So, making your 450s sync with your ePMP is going to have some tradeoffs, > and that's to be expected. > > As to the 100/430s, it was pretty unambiguous that those would never sync > with the ePMP. Or have their MTUs increased. Or all sorts of other stuff. > The idea they seem to be moving to, and this is my conclusion rather than a > direct statement, is that the 100 series gets flat-out replaced with ePMP, > you put 450 where you have needs that the 450 meets (no guard bands, smaller > latency, etc etc) and that the 430 is a red-headed stepchild. Don't ask > what the 320 is in that analogy. > > Also, there's a new licensed PTP radio to be announced in a month or so, > which, supposedly, a better pricing structure. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+slebrun=muskoka....@afmug.com] On Behalf Of > George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 6:00 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy > > I was told there will be various options coming soon to make all of this > stuff sync. There will be advantages and disadvantages to each way of doing > things, but at least it will work. As far as the aging PMP/PTP100, I assume > it will do 5ms framing because that's what 900 does today, so it is possible > on the platform, obviously with a latency hit, but what can you do. > > On 9/17/2014 4:23 PM, Peter Kranz via Af wrote: >> This would be a VERY bad thing for people with PMP450 networks.. >> Increasing the frame duration to match the ePMP will double the >> latency of the 450 platform. >> >> Peter Kranz >> Founder/CEO - Unwired Ltd >> www.UnwiredLtd.com >> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 >> Mobile: 510-207-0000 >> pkr...@unwiredltd.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+pkranz=unwiredltd....@afmug.com] On Behalf >> Of Shayne Lebrun via Af >> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:23 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy >> >> 450 is being made to sync with ePMP, by increasing frame duration to > match. >> 100/430/320 will likely see no new changes. This is what I got from >> an ePMP roadshow. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af >> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:25 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy >> >> I am guessing if anything, you will see Canopy (or at least 450) sync >> with ePMP/320. Seems like it would be easier to make the FPGA based >> radio use a longer frame than to make the Atheros based radio use a >> shorter frame. I'm sure they already tried that. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bill Prince via Af >> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:03 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy >> >> George, you ought to be all over that new Proxim WORP stuff like white >> on rice. They claim that it will sync with Canopy. >> >> >> bp >> >> On 9/17/2014 10:41 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: >>> Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP >>> sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded >>> with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and >>> doing its >> thing. >>> Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain >>> to weather seal. >>> >>> When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP >>> latency down, then I'll buy some. >>> >>> On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: >>>> We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. >>>> Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn >>>> N-type connections. >>>> It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All >>>> the specs say H&V. >> > >
