RE: [smartBridges] Here I come from ETSI land

David Berndt Sat, 12 Jul 2003 21:36:15 -0700

Call me crazy, but I think I have to agree with this guy.

Dave

At 09:16 PM 12/07/2003 -0500, you wrote:

btw.. one quick rant that's been irritating me (sorry, I've been out in the
sun all this week trying to fix sb stuff... I've got a N I C E sun burn...
I'm trying to stay calm)

Don't take this the wrong way..   You guys are great with wireless... but
you suck with IP networks.  20 years ago bridging a network was the only way
to do it when you had protocols like DECnet, IPX/SPX, and every other type
of out dated system (by today's standards).

Cisco has it right.. heck, even Sony has it right...   TCP/IP is a ROUTED
protocol...  IPX/SPX has to be a BRIDGED protocol... NetBEUI, Netbios, etc,
etc, etc have to be a bridged protocol...

I'm very tired of seeing ARP's from one side of the network end up on the
other side.  80% of the trouble shooting you have to do on wireless networks
will go away, you'll be able to see where the problem is with a simple
traceroute...

What I'm getting at... get out of just doing Layer 2.. look at the OSI model
and step up to the next step.  LOOK AT LAYER 3!!!!!  When you give something
an IP address.. it's not the "box", "server", "airbridge", whatever that
your giving the IP address to.. it's suppose to be the interface that you
give the ip address to.

So you give the RF interface 192.168.1.24 and the Ethernet interface
192.168.0.24.  Ok, you can still have giving the box only one IP address,
but make the interface that doesn't get the IP address an
alias/clone/whatever of the interface that does get the ip address.

If you supported routing... you wouldn't have to care how many MAC addresses
are behind the APP, or the AB.  The AP would never see the MAC's from behind
the AB.  Look at the DOCIS standards.

Remember.... routing = better throughput, better reliability, not having to
worry about bridged "loops", packet storms, etc, etc, etc, etc...

Bridging = asking for trouble, worrying about loops, not being able to see
anything between you router and CPE.

Does everyone keep in mind that old rule... remember that your not suppose
to have more than x number of switches between two nodes... otherwise you
scream for trouble...

You can go ahead and flame me if you want... I'm tired of having headache's
of trying to find out where problems are on a BRIDGED network, and trying to
figure out how to setup some type of routing and not have to worry about
accidentally creating a bridged loop.

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Summers
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 16:05
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Here I come from ETSI land

Are there any data sheets or any material to read about some
of the details that will be in Nexus?

Kevin Summers
KISTech Internet Services Inc.
www.kistech.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Nish Park
> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 11:06 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Here I come from ETSI land
>
>
> With the current radio the range can not be lowered below 11.5dB.
> For our new hardware platform Nexus due to be released in Q4 it will be
> possible to do this.
>
> Nish
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leszek Olszewski
> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 1:44 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: [smartBridges] Here I come from ETSI land
>
> Hello,
>
> I come from ETSI land and as most of you know we have legal limits of
> +20dBm EIRP.
>
> The question is - is it possible to reduce Smartbridges radio TX power
> (SB
> in general, I believe radios used in your devices are equal) down to say
>
> +3dBm? By doing this I could use higher gain antena, stay within legal
> EIRP
> limit and achieve longer link.
>
> Now, I do know that there's dial-a-power which allows regulation down to
>
> 11.5dBm. I am also aware that SB units can be managed via generic Atmel
> SNMP configurator and there you can put hex values for each channel to
> manipulate TX power. These guys
> http://www.dcom.cz/docs/wlan/wen2021/vykon2021.htm claim they could
> drive
> similiar device down to -8dBm (!).
>
> Can someone please confirm or deny this and possibly provide some
> further
> explanation why or why not that is possible?
>
> I'll appreciate some in-depth technical answer, if possible.
>
> Regards,
> Leszek
>
> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List
> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe
> smartBridges <yournickname>
> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe
> smartBridges)
> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org
>
>
> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List
> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe
> smartBridges <yournickname>
> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type
> unsubscribe smartBridges)
> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org
The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List
To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe
smartBridges <yournickname>
To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe
smartBridges)
Archives: http://archives.part-15.org

The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://archives.part-15.org

RE: [smartBridges] Here I come from ETSI land

Reply via email to