You're all a bunch of young whippersnappers with all that newfangled gear. At 10/13/2012 12:34 PM, you wrote: >Lol... startac is my phone, newton is my ipad.... > >Gino A. Villarini >g...@aeronetpr.com >Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >787.273.4143 >-----Original Message----- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick - Lists >Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 12:28 PM >To: fai...@snappydsl.net; WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers > >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.
Sent from my PDP-11 via DECWRL Mail-11 to TCP/IP gateway _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
