Hi Michael,
The APPT client bridge mode
requires address 4 field support and is optional in IEEE802.11b, not all
vendors support is so it is not fully supported when you connecting to the
CISCO 350. In this mode, we will recommend you to use sB APPO or APPT for the
both AP and CB modes.
aBT works well with CISCO AP and
it can able to support 64 MAC and does the MAC translation also. So you can go
ahead and use aBT to bridge with Cisco 350 and then feeding aBT ___ aPPO. This
may be better, if you do not want to change the head end CISCO
350.
Thank you & Best regards.
Seeni
sB Tech Support
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael Mee
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 11:59
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [smartBridges] appt vs abt as
bridge?
A
followup to my Cisco 350 question....
If I have an appo set up with an omni servicing a
local area and then wish
to service another area from that same feed, which
would be better:
+
abt -> Cisco 350 AP + omni, or
+
appt in client bridge mode -> Cisco 350 AP + omni
Any big advantages / disadvantages of the abt vs appt
for this scenario
(apart from cost)?
(Bonus points: any idea if I'm likely to hit a 64 user
MAC problem with the
abt, or is the Cisco 350 AP doing MAC translation
anyway?)
cheers, michael
PS: It appears that another scenario is using the
Cisco 350 on the main
omni, then feeding to an abt -> appo, but we've
already swapped the Cisco
350 for the appo when we found the appt wouldn't
bridge to the 350. Only in
hindsight do we realize that an abt would probably
have been sufficient)
----------ANNOUNCEMENT----------
Don't forget to register for WISPCON
IV
http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm
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
