John, Check out the Ubiquiti NanoBridge or NanoStation M5 (5.8Ghz) or M2 (2.4Ghz) units. Easy to configure and sub $100 each. Set one unit as an AP, other as a Station and enable WDS (Transparent Bridge Mode), add the other necessary settings and encryption key and you are good to go. You'll probably need to crank the output power down if you're only running 100 yards but they'll provide exceptional throughput for the price. We have 30 or so links running on these for short hauls between buildings, have been using them for a couple of years now, lost one early this year to a lightning strike, but very trouble free otherwise. There are counterfeit units on the market, so buy from one of their partner vendors which are listed on their website.
Dennis From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Micheal Espinola Jr Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 4:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Wireless Bridge Equip / Vendor Recommendations 1. Please start a new unique thread, and not reply-to (aka hijack) an existing one. 2. Please don't include political messages in your signature. This is a large list, and will only attract conflict to or avoidance of your posts. 3. In simplest terms: If you can establish clear line of site between the points, you simply need two directional antennas and repeating/bridging devices with enough power to broadcast over that distance. If its truly 100yds with CLoS, you may be able to use a high-end CoTS device (repeater between $200-300 not including antennas). I've purchased similar products at Fry's for residential installs. Otherwise, my short-range distance experience is with Cisco Aironet bridges for commercial.. -- Espi On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:35 PM, John Bonner <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Good Afternoon Full Disclosure: I am a software engineer so I understand generally this field but I am not as well versed in the particulars as you guys are. A friend who owns a very large dairy has broadband coming into one building and would like to beam wireless to their house across the street ~100 yards away. I was looking for advice as well as what equipment / where to buy. It *seems* to me this is not needing a complex solution. They will not be uploading much just downloading. So any advice would be greatly appreciated JB Homeschooled kids don't lack socialization . . . but socialism. Homeschooling represents a microcosm of traditional Americana and a rebuke of government meddling. Hence liberals hate it. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2013/01/22/want-to-tell-the-state-to-stick-it-homeschool-your-kids/ ________________________________ Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 13:58:47 -0500 Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] AD groups - Global, or Universal? From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Universal is typically used more for inter-forest ACL's IIRC. Reason #1 I can think of for Global vs. Uni is your GC's have to replicate any change to Uni group membership. This probably explains it better than I did: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/231273 That said for your size, and the administrative effort to make the change it's probably not worth it. - WJR On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 1:09 PM, David Lum <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I seem to think it was from this list that helped me decide to no use Global groups in AD but I have an SE pointing me to MS articles and it looks like I should be using Global instead on Universal, - currently I use Domain local and Universal groups, but we're pretty small (600-users) and have two forests, but the majority of the accesses I am concerned about are users from DOMAIN1 getting access to local resources (file shares and servers) in DOMAIN1. Is there a compelling reason to use Global vs. Universal? Somehow I was thinking global as much for backward-compatibility, but am not finding anything online saying as much. David Lum Sr. Systems Engineer // NWEATM Office 503.548.5229 // Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764
