I do...it used to say his Motorola Startac... Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappydsl.net> wrote: > ...now for a little bit of a distraction... > >>>>>>>> Sent from a Apple Newton > > Every time I see the above tag line on Gino's email... I cannot help but > crack a smile... > > now how many folks know what an Apple Newton was ? > > > > > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > 7266 SW 48 Street > Miami, Fl 33155 > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 > Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net > > On 10/13/2012 11:33 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: >> It can be done with Mk and Canopy, both support qinq >> >> Sent from a Apple Newton >> >> >> On Oct 13, 2012, at 11:29 AM, "Tim Densmore" >> <tdensm...@tarpit.cybermesa.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Fred, >>> >>> I think a lot of the confusion here comes from the fact that you're >>> using generic terms like "switching" and "VLAN" to describe complex >>> Metro-E/Carrier-E scenarios. Standard VLANs break up broadcast domains, >>> but they don't create virtual circuits or provide total isolation - this >>> is one of the reasons I initially asked what you were describing. >>> Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently than >>> standard packet switched ethernet "dot1q" VLANs in that regard. I'd >>> reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart enough to >>> keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up. >>> >>> Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are >>> trying to figure out what I'm talking about. >>> >>> I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent metro-e >>> roll-out with ubnt and mt. In the WISP world, I'd expect single-tagged >>> dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer traffic, even in >>> large-ish MPOP scenarios. How many POPs generally hang off a single >>> network segment before hitting a router? >>> >>> Thanks for the interesting discussion! >>> >>> TD >>> >>> On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: >>>> I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. It is allowing only >>>> the VLAN to go from A to B, while nothing else goes to A or B, and the >>>> VLAN is invisible to everyone else. Which is really virtual circuit >>>> behavior; VLAN is the legacy name of the VC ID. >>>> >>>> In CE switching, then, the VLAN receives no broadcasts from anyone >>>> else on the switch or network, and sends no broadcasts outside. What >>>> goes onto that mapped port, or onto a VLAN pre-tagged to go to that >>>> port, is totally and completely invisible to all other users. So it's >>>> secure enough for public safety use on a shared PMD. This is >>>> different from a bridge, where broadcasts go everywhere. One type of >>>> MEF service (EP-LAN) does actually emulate a LAN with >2 ports and >>>> broadcasts among them, but the more common EPL and EVPL would not know >>>> a broadcast frame from anything else, since they just pass the MAC >>>> addresses transparently. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wireless mailing list >>> Wireless@wispa.org >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
