Waaay to many variables to answer the question. Each deployment is
different and requires proper engineering and experience...
-Mike
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 11:50 PM, Mike Hale
wrote:
> A lot. It's a good point, but not very helpful to those engineers trying
> to design said infrastructure.
>
A lot. It's a good point, but not very helpful to those engineers trying
to design said infrastructure.
On Jun 20, 2015 11:45 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote:
> > Soultimately, what's the answer? A huge number of low cost, low
> > power WAPs? Eager readers want to know. :)
>
> what was unclear
> Soultimately, what's the answer? A huge number of low cost, low
> power WAPs? Eager readers want to know. :)
what was unclear about the following?
Randy Bush wrote:
> From: Randy Bush
> Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
> To: Mike Lyon
> C
Soultimately, what's the answer? A huge number of low cost, low
power WAPs? Eager readers want to know. :)
On Jun 20, 2015 10:30 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote:
> > My understanding is that the most recent NANOG had issues with clients
> > picking channels sequentially vs by signal strength. Th
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:06:29 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Valdis Kletnieks"
> > I wonder how many of us are old enough to remember what that environment
> > variable *used* to be called before political correctness became
> > important.
>
> There are so many
> My understanding is that the most recent NANOG had issues with clients
> picking channels sequentially vs by signal strength. There may have
> been other issues but when all devices use 149 because that's the
> first they can and they get link that's not good.
we're lucky those mean vicious bad
On 6/20/2015 11:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
My understanding is that the most recent NANOG had issues with clients
picking channels sequentially vs by signal strength. There may have
been other issues but when all devices use 149 because that's the
first they can and they get link that's not good.
> My understanding is that the most recent NANOG had issues with clients
> picking channels sequentially vs by signal strength. There may have
> been other issues but when all devices use 149 because that's the
> first they can and they get link that's not good.
>
> If people know of tricks to sol
They've been getting 5150 - 5250 approval. DFS, IIRC, has yet to happen. Well,
in their AirMax line, of which the UniFi will be similar internally. They
didn't have any problem with their airFiber line, which is completely FPGA.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://ww
On Jun 20, 2015, at 7:27 PM, James Hartig wrote:
>> The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't
>> support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
>
> The UniFi UAP-AC unit has not been cleared for DFS but looks like the UAP
> Outdoor has. I own
On Jun 20, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I've never run Xirrus personally, but I think they were used for the
>> last NANOG conference.
>
> and how did that work out? [ though i do not know it was the xirrus
> units ]
My understanding is that the most recent NANOG had issues with clie
> The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't
> support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
The UniFi UAP-AC unit has not been cleared for DFS but looks like the UAP
Outdoor has. I own a few UAP-AC v2's and I can confirm with the latest
firmwa
> Ive used Xirrus for a few festivals and hack-a-thons and they worked great.
>
> Ive also used UBNT UniFi with great success at numerous events, mainly at
> the old SF Mint (completely made out of Granite and concrete) and RF
> penetration was awesome.
>
> Cisco is nothing to write home about an
> Ive also used UBNT UniFi with great success at numerous events, mainly
> at the old SF Mint (completely made out of Granite and concrete) and
> RF penetration was awesome.
'fess up. it worked because of bluebottle next door
randy
- Original Message -
> From: "Valdis Kletnieks"
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 11:32:53 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
> > - Original Message -
> >
> > > - use the posix-right timezone files
> >
> > What; not posixly-correct?
>
> I wonder how many of us are old enough to remember what that env
Ive used Xirrus for a few festivals and hack-a-thons and they worked great.
Ive also used UBNT UniFi with great success at numerous events, mainly at
the old SF Mint (completely made out of Granite and concrete) and RF
penetration was awesome.
Cisco is nothing to write home about and is over pric
I've actually never made it out to a NANOG conference, so I'm not sure. I
was just told this by peers who attended.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I've never run Xirrus personally, but I think they were used for the
> > last NANOG conference.
>
> and how did that work ou
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 11:32:53 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
> - Original Message -
>
> > - use the posix-right timezone files
>
> What; not posixly-correct?
I wonder how many of us are old enough to remember what that environment
variable *used* to be called before political correctness became
> I've never run Xirrus personally, but I think they were used for the
> last NANOG conference.
and how did that work out? [ though i do not know it was the xirrus
units ]
randy
At 10:41 20/06/2015 +, Sina Owolabi wrote:
http://www.extricom.com/ specializes in hi-density Wifi.
See:
http://www.extricom.com/category/large-venues
http://www.extricom.com/category/Event_Installations
-Hank
Thanks everybody. I've been corrected on density... I've been informed that
it'
They also do it on the enterprise side. We have a number of sites with 4G
as a backup WAN, we give them the SIM info and they allow us to assign a
static v4 IP or they will also give us a 1918 d address and tunnel it back
to us.
Overall it works good most of the time the only complaint really is th
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 14:16 Harlan Stenn wrote:
>
> shawn wilson writes:
> > ... I mean letting computers figure out slower earth rotation on the
> > fly would seem more accurate than leap seconds anyway. And then all of
> > us who do earthly things and would like simpler libraries could live
> >
shawn wilson writes:
> ... I mean letting computers figure out slower earth rotation on the
> fly would seem more accurate than leap seconds anyway. And then all of
> us who do earthly things and would like simpler libraries could live
> in peace.
Really? Have you looked in to those calculations,
On Jun 19, 2015 2:05 PM, "Saku Ytti" wrote:
>
> On (2015-06-19 13:06 -0400), Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> > The IERS will be adding a second to time again on my birthday;
> >
> > 2015-06-30T23:59:60
>
> Hopefully this is last leap second we'll ever see. Non-monotonic time is
an
> abomination a
I'd be grateful for any information on how to calculate for large scale
wifi deployment
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 2:01 PM Ray Soucy wrote:
> Compared to the old model of just providing coverage, it's definitely
> higher density. I think the point I was trying to make is that the old
> high densit
- Original Message -
> - use the posix-right timezone files
What; not posixly-correct?
Cheers,
-- jr ':-)' a
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Assoc
That's interesting, I will take a look. Thanks!
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Marco Teixeira
wrote:
> Rafael,
> At some scales, the WiFi standard alone will not cut it... Research on
> MERUNETWORKS virtual cell tecnology. I have done a trial with them. All the
> others are far behind on densi
"Joe Abley" writes:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet-02
>
> There are privacy concerns, here. But we might posit that you've
> already in the business of trading privacy for convenience if you're
> using a public resolver.
Personally, I've always thought the p
Compared to the old model of just providing coverage, it's definitely
higher density. I think the point I was trying to make is that the old
high density is the new normal, and what most on list would consider high
density is more along the lines of stadium wireless. I wouldn't really
focus on th
On Sat 2015-06-20T10:48:17 +0300, Saku Ytti hath writ:
> You're right. Hopefully POSIX will become monotonic next year, by removal of
> leaps from UTC.
Probably not. The ITU-R has outlined four methods for this issue, see
http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Spectrum/Spectrum-planning/International-pl
Rafael,
At some scales, the WiFi standard alone will not cut it... Research on
MERUNETWORKS virtual cell tecnology. I have done a trial with them. All the
others are far behind on density. Check their case studies.
Em 20/06/2015 13:02, "Rafael Possamai" escreveu:
> I don't think there's an actual
[ Tried this over on mailop; no response, so now trying here. ]
I've noticed that one of my servers has been unable to establish port 25
connections to hosts such as mx00.emig.gmx.net for over a week...and I'm
entirely puzzled as to why, since it only sends a trickle of traffic
to a handful of use
Thanks everyone for your responses.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Rafael Possamai wrote:
> Would anyone in the list be able to recommend a SIP trunk provider in the
> Chicago area? Not a VoIP expert, so just looking for someone with previous
> experience.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
I don't think there's an actual standard for density, at least I am not
aware of one. Independent of the vendor you use, this guide should be valid
at 80% of implementations:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-1250-series/design_guide_c07-693245.html
On Meraki's web
Thanks everybody. I've been corrected on density... I've been informed that
it's to be a minimum of 1000 users per building.
That's 8,000 users. (8 buildings, not counting walkways and courtyards,
admin, etc.)
Does this qualify as high-density?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:33 AM Ray Soucy wrote:
>
On (2015-06-19 21:53 +), Harlan Stenn wrote:
> It's a problem with POSIX, not UTC.
>
> UTC is monotonic.
You're right. Hopefully POSIX will become monotonic next year, by removal of
leaps from UTC.
--
++ytti
Mel Beckman writes:
> Harlan,
>
> This is cisco's recommended workaround, the ultimate conclusion of an exhau=
> stive study of all Cisco firmware and after detailed post mortem analysis o=
> f two previous Leap seconds:
>
> https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCut33302
Fair enough. And I'v
37 matches
Mail list logo
