How about some of us Alpha/Beta test the stuff? I would like to know more info... current status.. development notes.. etc etc...
I'll sign a NDA on it. I've already signed them from everyone from Cisco to McData to Hitachi and back to Sun. One more won't make a dent.. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Nish Park Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 23:13 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Here I come from ETSI land Shawn, You are absolutely right. Your suggestions matche with our new direction with Nexus. Over past few weeks while responding to specific queries, we keep making references to this mysterious platform. And understandably you guys would like to know more details. But it is little bit difficult for us to share much details at this time. For the fear of competitive reasons. In addition we are not sure if certain things we are trying will actually work out. In which case it would be like over promising and not deliver. We are in the midst of negotiating certain strategic interests with the major component suppliers, and it would be pre-mature to announce who the "winners" are. Hope this explains why we are tight lipped about this. Nish -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shawn Mitchell Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 10:16 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Here I come from ETSI land 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 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
