[AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

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 | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Josh Luthman]

I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to it in
the future.

I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't see
us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.

12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.  Sure
would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios after
it gets 24v, though.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> 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 | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Jeremy]

I don't use Cambium, but we only have two sites with a rack, and 23 sites
with DIN rail in smaller boxes.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to it
> in the future.
>
> I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't see
> us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.
>
> 12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.  Sure
> would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios after
> it gets 24v, though.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> li...@packetflux.com> 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 | http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

What's the most you have radio-wise at these sites?

My thought is something along the lines of..

If I have up to 4 radios at a site, I'd buy 1 syncinjector-sized din power
injectors with 4 ports each for 1X the cost and 1X the space requirement
If I have 5 - 8 radios at a site, I'd buy 2 syncinjector-sized din power
injectors with 4 ports each for 2X the cost and 2x the space requirement,
since this is a lower-cost and easier to spare option than below

If I have 8 or more radios at a site, would people rather:

a) buy a double syncinjector sized din power injector with 12 ports for 3x
the cost and 2x the space requirement
b) Just buy a 1U rackmount unit since the entire site is rackmount anyways,
at about 3x the cost or maybe just a touch more (to pay for the metal
enclosure)

For me, once I got to a site where I had that many radios, it seems to me
that I'd be in a rackmount enclosure of some sort with a rackmount switch
or router so the rackmount solution would be better.

It sounds like Josh would use the din power injector


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Jeremy  wrote:

> I don't use Cambium, but we only have two sites with a rack, and 23 sites
> with DIN rail in smaller boxes.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:
>
>> I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to it
>> in the future.
>>
>> I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't
>> see us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.
>>
>> 12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.
>> Sure would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios
>> after it gets 24v, though.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
>> li...@packetflux.com> 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 | http://www.packetflux.com
>>> 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Adam Moffett]

Ah, but you're putting the DIN on a panel inside an enclosure I assume.
With a lot of rackmount items, you can rotate the angle brackets 90 
degrees to panel mount them.  OR you get one of those 4U patch panel 
racks that mounts on a wall and screw that to your panel.


What I'm saying is, as long as the depth and/or height of the rack mount 
item is limited to common enclosure depths, then you can still panel 
mount it.  I don't know about you, but I go for at least 8" depth.



On 3/11/2016 4:25 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to 
it in the future.


I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't 
see us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.


12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.  
Sure would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp 
radios after it gets 24v, though.



Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) 
mailto:li...@packetflux.com>> 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  |
http://www.packetflux.com 

 

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Josh Luthman]

a!!!  buy ONE unit for ALL towers, one model spare for all the things

People can already buy a DIN product and put it in a rack.  You can't go
the other way.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> What's the most you have radio-wise at these sites?
>
> My thought is something along the lines of..
>
> If I have up to 4 radios at a site, I'd buy 1 syncinjector-sized din power
> injectors with 4 ports each for 1X the cost and 1X the space requirement
> If I have 5 - 8 radios at a site, I'd buy 2 syncinjector-sized din power
> injectors with 4 ports each for 2X the cost and 2x the space requirement,
> since this is a lower-cost and easier to spare option than below
>
> If I have 8 or more radios at a site, would people rather:
>
> a) buy a double syncinjector sized din power injector with 12 ports for 3x
> the cost and 2x the space requirement
> b) Just buy a 1U rackmount unit since the entire site is rackmount
> anyways, at about 3x the cost or maybe just a touch more (to pay for the
> metal enclosure)
>
> For me, once I got to a site where I had that many radios, it seems to me
> that I'd be in a rackmount enclosure of some sort with a rackmount switch
> or router so the rackmount solution would be better.
>
> It sounds like Josh would use the din power injector
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Jeremy  wrote:
>
>> I don't use Cambium, but we only have two sites with a rack, and 23 sites
>> with DIN rail in smaller boxes.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Luthman <
>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to it
>>> in the future.
>>>
>>> I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't
>>> see us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.
>>>
>>> 12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.
>>> Sure would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios
>>> after it gets 24v, though.
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
>>> li...@packetflux.com> 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 | http://www.packetflux.com
 
   


>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Mathew Howard]

+1 to what Josh said... we don't do rackmount.

It's going to be pretty rare for us to ever care about sync on more than 8
radios at a site, but it's not at all uncommon for us to have 10-12 radios
total, and I do like the idea of just having one POE box for everything.

That said, I don't know how often we'd actually end up using the 12 port,
since most of the time, 8 ports should be enough.


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> a!!!  buy ONE unit for ALL towers, one model spare for all the things
>
> People can already buy a DIN product and put it in a rack.  You can't go
> the other way.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
>> What's the most you have radio-wise at these sites?
>>
>> My thought is something along the lines of..
>>
>> If I have up to 4 radios at a site, I'd buy 1 syncinjector-sized din
>> power injectors with 4 ports each for 1X the cost and 1X the space
>> requirement
>> If I have 5 - 8 radios at a site, I'd buy 2 syncinjector-sized din power
>> injectors with 4 ports each for 2X the cost and 2x the space requirement,
>> since this is a lower-cost and easier to spare option than below
>>
>> If I have 8 or more radios at a site, would people rather:
>>
>> a) buy a double syncinjector sized din power injector with 12 ports for
>> 3x the cost and 2x the space requirement
>> b) Just buy a 1U rackmount unit since the entire site is rackmount
>> anyways, at about 3x the cost or maybe just a touch more (to pay for the
>> metal enclosure)
>>
>> For me, once I got to a site where I had that many radios, it seems to me
>> that I'd be in a rackmount enclosure of some sort with a rackmount switch
>> or router so the rackmount solution would be better.
>>
>> It sounds like Josh would use the din power injector
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Jeremy  wrote:
>>
>>> I don't use Cambium, but we only have two sites with a rack, and 23
>>> sites with DIN rail in smaller boxes.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Luthman <
>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>
 I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to
 it in the future.

 I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't
 see us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.

 12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.
 Sure would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios
 after it gets 24v, though.


 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373

 On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
 li...@packetflux.com> 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 | http://www.packetflux.com
> 
>   
>
>

>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Bill Prince]

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


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  | 
http://www.packetflux.com 
 
 

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[George Skorup]

I have a site w/ 13 radios right now. 4x90 5GHz 450 cluster. 4x90 900 
FSK cluster. Various other stuff, mostly PTP.


So I'd say +1 to whoever said to make the rack-mount version shallow 
enough and ears allowed to be rotated 90 degrees for wall/panel 
mounting. But that would really only work if the chassis isn't the full 
19" wide. We're doing mostly the fiberglass 18x16x8" enclosures now. If 
it was all up to me, we'd be putting in outdoor 19" rack cabinets 
everywhere, but I don't write the checks. Only larger sites where we get 
access to the shelters have racks. I would still use the double wide 
12-port DIN mount injectors at the mid sized sites. It's always like, 
shit! I need a 9th injector, so I have to throw in a 4-port POE module 
or something like that.


On 3/11/2016 4:46 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

+1 to what Josh said... we don't do rackmount.

It's going to be pretty rare for us to ever care about sync on more 
than 8 radios at a site, but it's not at all uncommon for us to have 
10-12 radios total, and I do like the idea of just having one POE box 
for everything.


That said, I don't know how often we'd actually end up using the 12 
port, since most of the time, 8 ports should be enough.



On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:


a!!!  buy ONE unit for ALL towers, one model spare for all the things

People can already buy a DIN product and put it in a rack.  You
can't go the other way.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account)
mailto:li...@packetflux.com>> wrote:

What's the most you have radio-wise at these sites?

My thought is something along the lines of..

If I have up to 4 radios at a site, I'd buy 1
syncinjector-sized din power injectors with 4 ports each for
1X the cost and 1X the space requirement
If I have 5 - 8 radios at a site, I'd buy 2 syncinjector-sized
din power injectors with 4 ports each for 2X the cost and 2x
the space requirement, since this is a lower-cost and easier
to spare option than below

If I have 8 or more radios at a site, would people rather:

a) buy a double syncinjector sized din power injector with 12
ports for 3x the cost and 2x the space requirement
b) Just buy a 1U rackmount unit since the entire site is
rackmount anyways, at about 3x the cost or maybe just a touch
more (to pay for the metal enclosure)

For me, once I got to a site where I had that many radios, it
seems to me that I'd be in a rackmount enclosure of some sort
with a rackmount switch or router so the rackmount solution
would be better.

It sounds like Josh would use the din power injector


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Jeremy
mailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I don't use Cambium, but we only have two sites with a
rack, and 23 sites with DIN rail in smaller boxes.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Luthman
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:

I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not
looking forward to it in the future.

I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two
bands.  I don't see us ever being able to utilize all
of that bandwidth in this area.

12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about
sync'ing them.  Sure would be nice to have one POE
that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios after it gets
24v, though.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian
(List Account) mailto:li...@packetflux.com>> 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
p

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Matt]

I have started using small wall mount racks at many locations.  Outdoor
cabinets with racks at others.  Mikrotik Switches mount in racks neatly.
At one location I am working on cleaning up I have:

1 SAF Licensed link
6 Canopy FSK 2.4 AP's
1 Canopy FSK 900 AP
4 Canopy 450 3.6 AP's
5 Canopy PTP230's being upgraded too PTP450i's likely
1 Canopy 450i AP, more coming...
Thats 18 ports and growing...

I have several sites like this and all the DIN mount sync injectors and
there power cords are quite a mess.  I use the ~$100 DIN too rack adapter
many places.

DIN is really nice for very small sites in a small Hoffman enclosure.
Seems like all sites run out of bandwidth and keep growing and I usually
have to keep the old stuff going tell everyone is moved to the new.

Another thing that would be nice on the sync injectors would be a daisy
chain on the power connector.  A power in and power out so it is easier to
put in 5 sync injectors or so.  We always initially put in a power supply
that is larger then needed since we anticipate growth and its not that much
more expensive.  A DIN mount ~8 port Mikrotik would be nice too.


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to it
> in the future.
>
> I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't see
> us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.
>
> 12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.  Sure
> would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios after
> it gets 24v, though.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> li...@packetflux.com> 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 | http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Based on current plans, the rackmount version is going to be available in
either 4, 8, 12 or 16 port versions or 6, 12 or 18 port versions, depending
on whether I end up with 4 or 6 ports per 'chunk'.all of these will be
upwardly expandable.

So I think that handles pretty much anyone who wants a rackmounted unit.
Hopefully this will make everyone who wants one happy.

On the 'smaller units', I of course have the 4 today.   Mechanically 12
ports fit into the same space as two of the 4 port units, since I only need
one set of input and output jacks for the injector, so that's why I'm
thinking that way.  I could go to 8 instead, but that opens up a whole can
of worms (as an example, just shrinking the case triggers the potential
need for a different din rail mounting kit).

It sounds like 4 is too few and 12 is fine, although 8 would probably work
for many, if not most sites.   Is that fair?





On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

> 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
> 
>
>
> 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 |  
> http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>
>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Josh Luthman]

I'd rather but a dozen 12 ports than 6 of one and 6 of another.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mar 11, 2016 8:38 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> Based on current plans, the rackmount version is going to be available in
> either 4, 8, 12 or 16 port versions or 6, 12 or 18 port versions, depending
> on whether I end up with 4 or 6 ports per 'chunk'.all of these will be
> upwardly expandable.
>
> So I think that handles pretty much anyone who wants a rackmounted unit.
> Hopefully this will make everyone who wants one happy.
>
> On the 'smaller units', I of course have the 4 today.   Mechanically 12
> ports fit into the same space as two of the 4 port units, since I only need
> one set of input and output jacks for the injector, so that's why I'm
> thinking that way.  I could go to 8 instead, but that opens up a whole can
> of worms (as an example, just shrinking the case triggers the potential
> need for a different din rail mounting kit).
>
> It sounds like 4 is too few and 12 is fine, although 8 would probably work
> for many, if not most sites.   Is that fair?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> 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
>> 
>>
>>
>> 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 |  
>> http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

If you've got racks ... just buy one or two of the new rackmount injectors
when they start shipping.

The daisy chain thing for power, I've looked at a few times.  There are
issues with doing this that would take way too long to explain.  The
biggest issue is how quickly you run over the current limits of the jacks.
There's other issues related to fusing and similar.

With the new 4 port injector there's no more room for additional jacks
unless I did it with a sub-board, then you have to figure out how to move
12A to the second board.

And so on...Let's just say I keep looking at this, and haven't found a good
solution.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Matt  wrote:

> I have started using small wall mount racks at many locations.  Outdoor
> cabinets with racks at others.  Mikrotik Switches mount in racks neatly.
> At one location I am working on cleaning up I have:
>
> 1 SAF Licensed link
> 6 Canopy FSK 2.4 AP's
> 1 Canopy FSK 900 AP
> 4 Canopy 450 3.6 AP's
> 5 Canopy PTP230's being upgraded too PTP450i's likely
> 1 Canopy 450i AP, more coming...
> Thats 18 ports and growing...
>
> I have several sites like this and all the DIN mount sync injectors and
> there power cords are quite a mess.  I use the ~$100 DIN too rack adapter
> many places.
>
> DIN is really nice for very small sites in a small Hoffman enclosure.
> Seems like all sites run out of bandwidth and keep growing and I usually
> have to keep the old stuff going tell everyone is moved to the new.
>
> Another thing that would be nice on the sync injectors would be a daisy
> chain on the power connector.  A power in and power out so it is easier to
> put in 5 sync injectors or so.  We always initially put in a power supply
> that is larger then needed since we anticipate growth and its not that much
> more expensive.  A DIN mount ~8 port Mikrotik would be nice too.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:
>
>> I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to it
>> in the future.
>>
>> I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't
>> see us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.
>>
>> 12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.
>> Sure would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios
>> after it gets 24v, though.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
>> li...@packetflux.com> 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 | http://www.packetflux.com
>>> 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

So, what I'm hearing you say is that you just want to buy a whole bunch of
12 port injectors and standardize on that?


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> I'd rather but a dozen 12 ports than 6 of one and 6 of another.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> On Mar 11, 2016 8:38 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
>> Based on current plans, the rackmount version is going to be available in
>> either 4, 8, 12 or 16 port versions or 6, 12 or 18 port versions, depending
>> on whether I end up with 4 or 6 ports per 'chunk'.all of these will be
>> upwardly expandable.
>>
>> So I think that handles pretty much anyone who wants a rackmounted unit.
>> Hopefully this will make everyone who wants one happy.
>>
>> On the 'smaller units', I of course have the 4 today.   Mechanically 12
>> ports fit into the same space as two of the 4 port units, since I only need
>> one set of input and output jacks for the injector, so that's why I'm
>> thinking that way.  I could go to 8 instead, but that opens up a whole can
>> of worms (as an example, just shrinking the case triggers the potential
>> need for a different din rail mounting kit).
>>
>> It sounds like 4 is too few and 12 is fine, although 8 would probably
>> work for many, if not most sites.   Is that fair?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 |  
>>> http://www.packetflux.com
>>> 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

I really wanted the ears to be able to do this

My desire was a 17" wide box, with removable ears which could mount either
way to wall mount.

After a dozen or so scary quotes and not finding any standard manufacturer
which would do this, I gave up.  The new enclosure has fixed ears...
however, I may check with my newly-found enclosure vendor and see if we
could get a modified version of the product to support this configuration.

And back on the 12 port unit  it sounds like there's enough need out
there for the 12 port unit that it's staying on the roadmap.   I mainly
wanted to make sure that I hadn't killed the demand for it with the
rackmount product.

-forrest

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:22 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> I have a site w/ 13 radios right now. 4x90 5GHz 450 cluster. 4x90 900 FSK
> cluster. Various other stuff, mostly PTP.
>
> So I'd say +1 to whoever said to make the rack-mount version shallow
> enough and ears allowed to be rotated 90 degrees for wall/panel mounting.
> But that would really only work if the chassis isn't the full 19" wide.
> We're doing mostly the fiberglass 18x16x8" enclosures now. If it was all up
> to me, we'd be putting in outdoor 19" rack cabinets everywhere, but I don't
> write the checks. Only larger sites where we get access to the shelters
> have racks. I would still use the double wide 12-port DIN mount injectors
> at the mid sized sites. It's always like, shit! I need a 9th injector, so I
> have to throw in a 4-port POE module or something like that.
>
> On 3/11/2016 4:46 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> +1 to what Josh said... we don't do rackmount.
>
> It's going to be pretty rare for us to ever care about sync on more than 8
> radios at a site, but it's not at all uncommon for us to have 10-12 radios
> total, and I do like the idea of just having one POE box for everything.
>
> That said, I don't know how often we'd actually end up using the 12 port,
> since most of the time, 8 ports should be enough.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:
>
>> a!!!  buy ONE unit for ALL towers, one model spare for all the things
>>
>> People can already buy a DIN product and put it in a rack.  You can't go
>> the other way.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
>> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What's the most you have radio-wise at these sites?
>>>
>>> My thought is something along the lines of..
>>>
>>> If I have up to 4 radios at a site, I'd buy 1 syncinjector-sized din
>>> power injectors with 4 ports each for 1X the cost and 1X the space
>>> requirement
>>> If I have 5 - 8 radios at a site, I'd buy 2 syncinjector-sized din power
>>> injectors with 4 ports each for 2X the cost and 2x the space requirement,
>>> since this is a lower-cost and easier to spare option than below
>>>
>>> If I have 8 or more radios at a site, would people rather:
>>>
>>> a) buy a double syncinjector sized din power injector with 12 ports for
>>> 3x the cost and 2x the space requirement
>>> b) Just buy a 1U rackmount unit since the entire site is rackmount
>>> anyways, at about 3x the cost or maybe just a touch more (to pay for the
>>> metal enclosure)
>>>
>>> For me, once I got to a site where I had that many radios, it seems to
>>> me that I'd be in a rackmount enclosure of some sort with a rackmount
>>> switch or router so the rackmount solution would be better.
>>>
>>> It sounds like Josh would use the din power injector
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Jeremy < 
>>> jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 I don't use Cambium, but we only have two sites with a rack, and 23
 sites with DIN rail in smaller boxes.

 On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Luthman <
 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

> I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to
> it in the future.
>
> I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't
> see us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.
>
> 12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.
> Sure would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios
> after it gets 24v, though.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> li...@packetflux.com> 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 po

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Mathew Howard]

I think sticking with 4 port and 12 port for the DIN rail version makes the
most sense. If we only need 8 ports, we can just use two 4 ports, since it
doesn't sound like an 8 port version would save much in the way of space or
cost over two 4 ports anyway.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> Based on current plans, the rackmount version is going to be available in
> either 4, 8, 12 or 16 port versions or 6, 12 or 18 port versions, depending
> on whether I end up with 4 or 6 ports per 'chunk'.all of these will be
> upwardly expandable.
>
> So I think that handles pretty much anyone who wants a rackmounted unit.
> Hopefully this will make everyone who wants one happy.
>
> On the 'smaller units', I of course have the 4 today.   Mechanically 12
> ports fit into the same space as two of the 4 port units, since I only need
> one set of input and output jacks for the injector, so that's why I'm
> thinking that way.  I could go to 8 instead, but that opens up a whole can
> of worms (as an example, just shrinking the case triggers the potential
> need for a different din rail mounting kit).
>
> It sounds like 4 is too few and 12 is fine, although 8 would probably work
> for many, if not most sites.   Is that fair?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> 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
>> 
>>
>>
>> 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 |  
>> http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[George Skorup]

More ports is *never* bad. And if I don't use them all, so what. 
Something always comes up, like that micro-POP you never thought would 
grow. I have about a dozen sites which started out with 900 and 2.4 FSK 
omnis. They've grown to needing a full 4x90 cluster of both. Then I need 
a backhaul port, and potentially a second backhaul port, so we're at 
9-10 ports easily. Yes, FSK days are dwindling, but it still exists. 
Probably won't go away for another 2-3 years.


On 3/11/2016 8:49 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
I think sticking with 4 port and 12 port for the DIN rail version 
makes the most sense. If we only need 8 ports, we can just use two 4 
ports, since it doesn't sound like an 8 port version would save much 
in the way of space or cost over two 4 ports anyway.


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) 
mailto:li...@packetflux.com>> wrote:


Based on current plans, the rackmount version is going to be
available in either 4, 8, 12 or 16 port versions or 6, 12 or 18
port versions, depending on whether I end up with 4 or 6 ports per
'chunk'.all of these will be upwardly expandable.

So I think that handles pretty much anyone who wants a rackmounted
unit.  Hopefully this will make everyone who wants one happy.

On the 'smaller units', I of course have the 4 today.  
Mechanically 12 ports fit into the same space as two of the 4 port

units, since I only need one set of input and output jacks for the
injector, so that's why I'm thinking that way.  I could go to 8
instead, but that opens up a whole can of worms (as an example,
just shrinking the case triggers the potential need for a
different din rail mounting kit).

It sounds like 4 is too few and 12 is fine, although 8 would
probably work for many, if not most sites.   Is that fair?





On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Prince mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:

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


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  |
http://www.packetflux.com

 







-- 
*Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com  |
http://www.packetflux.com 

 

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Brandon Yuchasz]

That’s what I am saying even though I had not said it yet.

 

Best regards,

Brandon Yuchasz

GogebicRange.net

www.gogebicrange.net <http://www.gogebicrange.net/> 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account)
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 7:48 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product 
design.

 

So, what I'm hearing you say is that you just want to buy a whole bunch of 12 
port injectors and standardize on that?

 

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Josh Luthman  
wrote:

I'd rather but a dozen 12 ports than 6 of one and 6 of another.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Mar 11, 2016 8:38 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
 wrote:

Based on current plans, the rackmount version is going to be available in 
either 4, 8, 12 or 16 port versions or 6, 12 or 18 port versions, depending on 
whether I end up with 4 or 6 ports per 'chunk'.all of these will be 
upwardly expandable.

So I think that handles pretty much anyone who wants a rackmounted unit.  
Hopefully this will make everyone who wants one happy.

On the 'smaller units', I of course have the 4 today.   Mechanically 12 ports 
fit into the same space as two of the 4 port units, since I only need one set 
of input and output jacks for the injector, so that's why I'm thinking that 
way.  I could go to 8 instead, but that opens up a whole can of worms (as an 
example, just shrinking the case triggers the potential need for a different 
din rail mounting kit).

It sounds like 4 is too few and 12 is fine, although 8 would probably work for 
many, if not most sites.   Is that fair?





 

 

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

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

 

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 | http://www.packetflux.com

 <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian>   <http://facebook.com/packetflux>   
<http://twitter.com/@packetflux> 

  <http://ws-stats.appspot.com/t/pixel.png?e=setup_page_outlook_compose>   
<http://ws-stats.appspot.com/t/pixel.png?e=setup_page_outlook_active&uid=e965778f9a351fad7a8a860dffc144ce>
   
<http://ws-stats.appspot.com/t/pixel.png?e=setup_page_outlook_active&uid=e965778f9a351fad7a8a860dffc144ce>
 

 




-- 


Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602

 <mailto:forre...@imach.com> 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> 

  <http://ws-stats.appspot.com/t/pixel.png?e=setup_page_outlook_compose>   
<http://ws-stats.appspot.com/t/pixel.png?e=setup_page_outlook_active&uid=e965778f9a351fad7a8a860dffc144ce>
   
<http://ws-stats.appspot.com/t/pixel.png?e=setup_page_outlook_active&uid=e965778f9a351fad7a8a860dffc144ce>
 




-- 


Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602

 <mailto:forre...@imach.com> 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> 

  <http://ws-stats.appspot

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Josh Luthman]

Exactly.  One box to rule them all.  I know what all sites use.

Right now I have POE injector, gig POE injector, and gig sync injector.  We
have the technology to make one universal product.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mar 12, 2016 12:16 AM, "Brandon Yuchasz"  wrote:

> That’s what I am saying even though I had not said it yet.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Brandon Yuchasz
>
> GogebicRange.net
>
> www.gogebicrange.net
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Forrest Christian
> (List Account)
> *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 7:48 PM
> *To:* af
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux
> product design.
>
>
>
> So, what I'm hearing you say is that you just want to buy a whole bunch of
> 12 port injectors and standardize on that?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
> I'd rather but a dozen 12 ports than 6 of one and 6 of another.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Mar 11, 2016 8:38 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
> Based on current plans, the rackmount version is going to be available in
> either 4, 8, 12 or 16 port versions or 6, 12 or 18 port versions, depending
> on whether I end up with 4 or 6 ports per 'chunk'.all of these will be
> upwardly expandable.
>
> So I think that handles pretty much anyone who wants a rackmounted unit.
> Hopefully this will make everyone who wants one happy.
>
> On the 'smaller units', I of course have the 4 today.   Mechanically 12
> ports fit into the same space as two of the 4 port units, since I only need
> one set of input and output jacks for the injector, so that's why I'm
> thinking that way.  I could go to 8 instead, but that opens up a whole can
> of worms (as an example, just shrinking the case triggers the potential
> need for a different din rail mounting kit).
>
> It sounds like 4 is too few and 12 is fine, although 8 would probably work
> for many, if not most sites.   Is that fair?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>
> 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
>
> 
>
>
>
> 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 | http://www.packetflux.com
>
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian>  <http://facebook.com/packetflux>
>   <http://twitter.com/@packetflux>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian>  <http://facebook.com/packetflux>
>   <http://twitter.com/@packetflux>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian>  <http://facebook.com/packetflux>
>   <http://twitter.com/@packetflux>
>
>