In spite of the handful of those that might want a 16 or 18 port
injector, I think you & packetflux would do better with a 12 port; or
maybe even an 8 port. We have only one POP that would need the higher count.
If you made a 16 or 18 port version, I would think rackmount only.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 3/11/2016 1:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port
injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)....
And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well -
up to 16 or 18 ports per 1U
And then we have the item the question is about.
I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail
mountable enclosure. If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on
top of each other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space
- that's what I'm talking about.
I'm wondering how many people would use this last product. My thought
would be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a site,
you're probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution....
Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as
this proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.
How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you
wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?
--
*Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com <mailto:forre...@imach.com> |
http://www.packetflux.com <http://www.packetflux.com/>
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian>
<http://facebook.com/packetflux> <http://twitter.com/@packetflux>
