hehe... A switch is a switch is a switch... and then there are switches
with additional functionality built in...
The question here is what is this 'other functionality' are we talking
about ?
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
While this is your opinion, others have a different opinion...
For what is it worth, It would be nice to have Radius attributes for
provisioning the radio..It currently shows it to be on their todo list.
As for your other item, I believe DHCP relay is built into the new
firmware .
As far as NAT
MT makes Software and also Hardware (routerboard)
Blanket statements like the one below do not make sense Every Mfg.
has a range of limits that their products do a very good job for, it you
try to use them out of that range they fall flat..
Care to put a context to your statement ?
:)
Well yes it is, but I believe the cable industry has it setup the best. It's
easy for the end user to BYOD and the ISP remains hand-off. The WISP industry
makes it difficult to do so. Currently everything I do is NATed at the CPE, but
I'd like to make that optional, not a requirement. Obviously
The RB250GS is possibly the worst incarnation of a managed switch I have ever
seen. SNMP continually fails. The VLAN configuration is terrible. You can't
have tagged and untagged VLANs on a single interface.
With RouterOS based switching chips you gain some additional power, but you
lose
How would you have an untagged VLAN?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote:
The RB250GS is possibly the worst incarnation of a managed switch I have
ever
What most people are thinking of when they are thinking of a switch is
something that applies to the enterprise and lower markets. The carrier level
switches introduce a whole suite of features designed for the provisioning and
deployment of services to others. Many times some of those features
Standard Ethernet without the VLAN tag. One example is to support devices that
do and do not support VLANs on a given network segment. Let's say in a given
area, I have a dumb switch that just passes whatever frames it receives. Off of
that I have a PC which requires the Ethernet to be in
That's painfully stupid. What a worthless device.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote:
Standard Ethernet without the VLAN tag. One example is to support
If I have multiple UniFis or PCs, I would need to use multiple ports on the
250GS going to multiple dumb switches, one that is the untagged VLAN for the
PCs and the other with the UniFis, only I would have to use an additional VLAN
to transport the local traffic from the UniFi to the 250GS,
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
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
With RouterOS based switching chips you gain some additional power, but you
lose per-interface information and control when you enable the switching and
you still have to use bridging to do anything beyond whatever ports happen to
be on the switch chip. Therefore, to use any of the RouterOS
...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
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
At 10/13/2012 11:27 AM, Tim Densmore 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
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,
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:
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 09:02 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
Cisco, Dell and Extreme Networks (my current favorite) have
almost unlimited power and granular control. They don't have
some of the features of RouterOS, but teaming one of them with
something running RouterOS is just as effective as
Does anyone know how to centrally manage bandwidth shaping on tranzeo
cpq and sl2 series radios?
--
Jay DeBoer
Chief Engineer
Summit Digital, Inc.
100 N Roland St, Suite B
McBain, MI 49657
Office: 231-825-2500
Direct: 231-908-0033
jdeb...@summitdigital.us
Hi Gino,
Pardon my ignorance, but what's Mk?
TD
On 10/13/2012 09:33 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
It can be done with Mk and Canopy, both support qinq
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 12:30 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
I've enjoyed it. I still hope somebody at some point figures out
just how close you can get to an MEF-type switch using RouterOS or
AirOS. Or EdgeOS, Real Soon Now. (They're all Linux under the skin,
after all.)
It can be done
Butch, thanks for that information! I've marked that message
priority high so I don't lose it in my mailing list archive.
I do get your point, that RouterOS was optimized for routing; there's
just nothing else that fits its price points and form factors
(especially outdoor Routerboards), so
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 17:33 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
I do get your point, that RouterOS was optimized for routing; there's
just nothing else that fits its price points and form factors
(especially outdoor Routerboards), so even if it's a little
inefficient, it may still be
You can do tag swapping and other fancy VLAN tricks in AirOS by
creating VLAN subints and mapping them to each other using bridge
interfaces.
The Linux bridge interface behaves more like a switch than a bridge
in that you can control mac aging, learning, etc so it doesn't blindly
forward traffic.
Can we also move all Mikrotik and Canopy related posts to their respective
lists since I use neither?
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:11 PM, LTI - Dennis Burgess gmsm...@gmail.comwrote:
Here here! Move it to the UBNT list!
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Victoria Proffer
Personally, I'd like to see responses on these lists to be 'hey, this is
more relevant over on the X list', where the topic IS appropriate for the X
list.
-forrest
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Elton Wilson el...@alohabroadband.netwrote:
Can we also move all Mikrotik and Canopy related
You mean upload from the radio?
yeah, you can use curl to do this.
Take a look at tranzeofaq.com the autoconfig.txt file:
http://tranzeofaq.com/autoconfig.txt
You could shape things like this:
I dunno about that.. While I can understand everyone wanting to have only
relevant discussion on the main list..., having a crap load of other lists also
has the risk ofone missing an interesting / possible relevant discussion
about one of the other products..
I can give two very concrete
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 23:43 -0400, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
I dunno about that.. While I can understand everyone wanting to have
only relevant discussion on the main list...
Question is, what do those who complain consider relevant? Every list
I'm on has the same set of topics to some degree.
Actually, NIB they're $1800 - $5k or more. Used, under $200 shipped with
warranty.
Of course they fit the networks they're capable of, because they're capable of
so little. ;-) I'm honestly working to remove all the RB250s from my house's
network as they've become too annoying. I'll have to
On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 23:16 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
Of course they fit the networks they're capable of, because
they're capable of so little. ;-) I'm honestly working to
remove all the RB250s from my house's network as they've
become too annoying. I'll have to home-run some more cable,
I was actually being somewhat sarcastic. I don't really mind seeing threads
about other products I don't use, Its just that every once in a while
someone complains about the amount of ubiquiti threads, but no one mentions
the mikrotik or Cabrium/Canopy threads that seem just as prevalent.
I
33 matches
Mail list logo
