Depending on budget I can mention a number of alternatives.
Check out the Motorola Canopy - or perhaps a Tranzeo unit.
Low cost - and you can push 110mb plus over these units depending on
what one you get.
I like the Moto units because they are not the normal 802.11..x stuff
On Dec 1,
Michel Servaes a écrit :
I can only think of using a switch, being capable of port bonding...
802.3ad capable switches like HP Procurve 1800's can link multiple ports
for better speed.
Don't know how they end up, using wireless bridges though ;-)
Thanks for your input, but the last line is
Chris Bagnall a écrit :
We are currently using vlans because we have VoIP services going through
this and different kind of users. Everything is working OK as of now.
However, the max bandwidth of one WiFi link like that is about 10 mbps.
To increase the total bandwidth, we want to add another
Hi,
Can somebody please explain to me exactly how this works. I am having an
argument with my superior. He is insistent on setting the monitor IP
addresses in my load balancer pool to the same IP address. In his mind it
makes sense, as that way it will pick up which line is the fastest to the
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Mike Lever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Can somebody please explain to me exactly how this works. I am having an
argument with my superior. He is insistent on setting the monitor IP
addresses in my load balancer pool to the same IP address. In his mind it
Thanks for the explanation Bill.
Can you please elaborate where you mention:
You'll actually lose link failure detection
What exactly is link failure detection ? I understand the meaning of the
words in isolation but can you elaborate in the load balancing / Pfsense
context ?
Whichever link
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Mike Lever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have 5 WAN ports. The load balancer will constantly ping WAN1, WAN2,WAN3,
WAN4 WAN5 simultaneously. Depending on which has the quickest response and
is not currently transmitting packets, it will utilise.
What Bill said is
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Mike Lever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the explanation Bill.
Can you please elaborate where you mention:
You'll actually lose link failure detection
What exactly is link failure detection ? I understand the meaning of the
words in isolation but can
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Chris Buechler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Mike Lever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have 5 WAN ports. The load balancer will constantly ping WAN1, WAN2,WAN3,
WAN4 WAN5 simultaneously. Depending on which has the quickest response and
Great, thank you very much Bill.
One point for clarification purposes... please define a flow ?
Best regards,
Mike
Mike Lever
+27 82 903 8613 - Mobile
+27 11 807 0100 - Telephone
+27 11 807
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Mike Lever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great, thank you very much Bill.
One point for clarification purposes... please define a flow ?
Any given TCP connection (from connection setup, to teardown). Or UDP
(say a VOIP call) stream of sufficient packet frequency to
IPSEC with shrewsoft has been working great and all of a sudden I cant
bring the tunnel up with the following log in pfsense.Nothing has
changed that I could point to
racoon: *[Self]*: INFO: 66.x.x.x[500] used as isakmp port (fd=20)
Dec 2 00:24:55 racoon: INFO:
12 matches
Mail list logo
