Are you seeing failures on something? Up here near Ft. Worth, we had
routers on tower tops in non-enviromentally controlled conditions
running in 104+ temps with not even a hiccup.
Cameron
On 7/1/2010 3:32 PM, Alan Bryant wrote:
Thank you so much for the suggestions. I was already planning
Are the ethernet ports on the 750 bridged?
Cameron
On 4/30/2010 1:03 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
If you're not getting ARP that's very weird. It is showing 100M FDX on
ether2 right?
Try removing/adding the IP address. Be certain that you put 192.168.1.1/24
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
If the ports are not bridged or in the same switch, they will not talk
on the same subnet. I would put them all in the same switch and then
assign the xxx.xxx.xxx.1 address to the master port (most likely
ether2). Then try pinging again. If you have a public IP on the 750, I'd
be happy to look
How about posting your ip address config and your interface config (ip
addr export and int export)strip out the public's if you don't want
us seeing them. I'll bet you just forgot some small detail that one of
will catch.
Cameron
On 4/30/2010 3:49 PM, Rory McCann wrote:
Here are some
Proxy ARP?
On 4/5/2010 11:23 AM, Chris Gotstein wrote:
I'll give that a try. Just don't understand why it works on all the
other VPNs i've setup.
Chris Gotstein, Sr Network Engineer, UP Logon/Computer Connection UP
http://uplogon.com | +1 906 774 4847 | ch...@uplogon.com
I was able to achieve this in the lab so it is possible. In real world,
the same antennas with the same radios on towers about 2 miles apart
have tested out at over 65 Mbps but I had MT's running the bw tests and
think I reached the processor limits on those devices. I have used the
bullets to
I've got a tower with 2 hops coming into a tower that link other towers
and then ultimately end up at the same internet pipe. I've got an x86 MT
router with 2 ethernet ports. Right now only one of the uW hops is
connected to one ethernet port(eth1) and the other port(eth2) serves the
sectors
7 matches
Mail list logo
