A while back we experimented with trunking VLANs over a Mikrotik backhaul,
and *at the same time* putting the Mikrotiks themselves into a tagged 802.1q
management VLAN. We had major problems with that.
But yeah, just bridging 802.1q VLANs over the Mikrotiks while keeping the
radios themselves
Hi Guys,
Asked about this because some people had been mentioning having good
experience with Test-Um cat5 testers. LanRoamer bought Test-Um. If no
takers, I'll go ask LanRoamer.
Have a great morning! (for those on my side of the international date line)
Adam
- Original Message -
The nominating committee for the election of The Board of Directors is
pleased to announce that nominations are now open. Please click on the link
below for more information or to submit your application.
http://nominations.wispa.org/
Nominations will be accepted now thru June 23, 2009 so
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 09:01 -0400, Adam Greene wrote:
A while back we experimented with trunking VLANs over a Mikrotik backhaul,
and *at the same time* putting the Mikrotiks themselves into a tagged 802.1q
management VLAN. We had major problems with that.
I just did this the other day. There
What are the bennefits of running both protocols in the internal
network?
Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
WISPA Wants You! Join
We've just installed a 3 sector 2.4 setup, at 145' with maxrad 120's. I'm
noticing the receive sensitivity on the AP's are about 15-20 db's different
then what I see on the CPE's, tried a Tranzeo/Ubiquity radio. I'm using
Ubiquity AP's, and they work fine on another 3 sector setup I have,
Question on this...
If you simply make the MT bridge the traffic, leaving VLAN tags alone,
could torch see the traffic?
On 6/13/09, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com wrote:
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 09:01 -0400, Adam Greene wrote:
A while back we experimented with trunking VLANs over a Mikrotik
Yea, can't try that until Monday though. Was just sort of wondering if improper
isolation would cause the issue I'm seeing, or if I need to keep looking for
something else.
Regards
Michael Baird
- Original Message -
From: Bob Moldashel lakel...@gbcx.net
To: WISPA General List
If there are adjacent channel rejection issues you can see degradation of the
RSL level.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-Original Message-
From: m...@tc3net.com
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:24:09
To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Radio Seperation
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 16:55 -0400, Josh Luthman wrote:
Question on this...
If you simply make the MT bridge the traffic, leaving VLAN tags alone,
could torch see the traffic?
Yes, that should be no problem.
--
* Butch
What is the acceptable SWR on some Pacwireless 2 foot dishes? Praxym meter
is showing 2:1 SWR on channels 5745 and 5825. These are 5.8ghz feeds. Tested
some dishes on the ground also and was seeing the same 2:1 SWR. I also
tested a 24db Pacwireless flat panel on the ground for reference and SWR on
Run what you require... If you need internal dynamic routing protocol for
your network only just use ospf - bgp on top would be unnecessary and most
likely problematic ran in this fashion.
If you require bgp because you have clients that you want to peer with then
fine...
Scott Carullo
What sort of ubiquiti APs? You'll have serious loss on anything
but a bullet, and I wouldn't put one of them 145' up a tower.
Also see that the firmware is up to date. They've had some issues
misreporting signal in various versions.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 04:09:40PM -0400, m...@tc3net.com
Kurt
The SWR for those is not great.
A Gabriel flat panel 2' will be less than 1.3 accross the 5.2 - 5.8 band.
Anything more than 10% reflected is unacceptable in my book
-B-
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-Original Message-
From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com
Date:
Well I'm using BulletHP's, but I have them on other towers, and they
work fine. I have the Ubiquity 3.4 firmware on them, it's not the
radio's, not the antenna's, it's definitely something with this tower
configuration. The only thing we did differently is use RFlinx Lightning
arrestors
jree...@18-30chat.net wrote:
Yes that will work. I am not sure if the link layer fault detect will
work correctly so you might need to run Spanning Tree also. Something
that can be a issue is if say you have 4 links and one is running 24mbit
modulation and the rest are 54, your going to have
Dynamic route redistribution if your network is sufficiently complex and you
have customers that you are servicing bgp to that you want to protect from
intra-network failure
-Charles
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf
Of
17 matches
Mail list logo
