Couldn't withstand a lightning strike? You totally need to ask for your money back.
I can't believe the garbage manufacturers will put out on the market these days... On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Dennis Hoefer <dhoe...@ufcoop.com> wrote: > 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:* listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto: > listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] *On Behalf Of *Micheal Espinola Jr > *Sent:* Thursday, September 05, 2013 4:20 PM > *To:* ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com > *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 <nfs_j...@hotmail.com> 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: dangerw...@gmail.com > To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com**** > > 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 <david....@nwea.org> 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**** > > **** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
