Simon - I'd only add a couple things - first is that you can avoid the -R version (which usually gouges you an extra $100 call it the connector tax) and buy the captive antenna version. You need a "security torx" bit to open up the cisco (and violate your warantee so make sure they work first) - you can find these at the cable box websites or tool shops -nothing special - it's like a torx with a hole drilled in the middle of the bit to mate with a pin in the screw - the purpose is to keep people out. You can even make your own security torx bit by putting a normal torx bit in a drill press vise and using a carbide drill to hollow out the center of the bit. Do a google search on "security torx" for more info.
Next open the box, remove the captive antenna (cheap version) - remove the rubber o-ring around the antenna which gives it friction to rotate - then pry apart the two halves of the antenna. cut off the antenna from the coax cable and crimp on an amphenol male BNC connector (about $3). You can just leave it hanging out of the box, or you can dress it up with a female version that fits where the reverse connector would have gone (they use the same box) - a friend of mine did that trick. I use the pc board loose and toss the plastic, so for me it doesn't matter. You have less loss this way in the cable and don't have to deal with the dumb reverse thread or polarity tnc cables (and I'm sure there will be someone saying it's illegal to do this - so make sure you always drive 65 mph or less on the freeway too) - I'm not going to discuss legality here - get an attorney if you're worried. It's a connector - and a piece of coax cable - it's not worth the price difference in the -R and the -C (i think) captive antenna versions. Most of my APs and WGBs get taken out of the box completely and mounted just as bare pcboards inside a NEMA 4+ enclosure - with dc/dc converters soldered to the pcb to convert 48VDC down to 5 or 12 depending on model. I violate my warantee as soon as I know the product works - cost of doing business - and I've never had to make a return on a unit! Plus I've got a box full of their wall warts because I use 48VDC instead of 110 VAC. Anyone want a cisco wall wart? Also - cisco has a killer receiver in it - yea the 100 mW is nice too, but they have proven to be better receivers over long links, often working where other brands that "should" work didn't (we're talking over 7 mile links so don't let it concern you in the short hop range). Try to save some money when it comes to routers - often big nets need routers anyways - if not - i've seen people NAT on top of NAT using cheap "DSL routers/NAT boxes" - depends if you need to get a public IP routed to the far end of the radio link (and I suspect with some clever setups of cheap netgear/linksys/dlink/senao hardware you might get around that too!) - I do like cisco APs and WGBs, but I don't like their routers, so I use other brands. I wrote the routing rules on cisco routers for HP's net 15.x.x.x address space - I have alot of experience with their routers - they are good - but definitely over priced. As for cisco's competitors - always remember it's a two-way road. 200 mW vs 100 mW transmit == 3dB of gain. But what about the receiver? My findings have been that cisco under-rates their receive sensitivity (or maybe I just keep getting lucky with good radios that exceed spec). I have a lab to test hardware so I verify I'm getting what I pay for and I'm impressed when I'm getting more. Chances are if your link isn't that far, then you're fine *either* way. If you're doing a long distance link, that's when you test a lot and buy the best. But you have to consider both transmit and receive sides of the link and add (or subtract) them. That's it - good luck with your setup! - oh yea - don't forget if you are totally wireless you can avoid the wgb and use two APs - with the second distant one in repeater mode. If you've got cat-5 at the far end, WGB is the solution if you decide to go cisco. I've seen some vendors that let you pick any of 5 different versions - generic hardware and configurable firmware! They're probably worth a look too. I'm working with a client right now that may not be a cisco install because they can't deal with my particular needs - as a result I'll be testing alot of new hardware over the next few weeks to pick an alternate. I'm realy curious about the atmel cards and how they stack up against cisco's. I just wish these things had stickers saying "atmel inside" or "broadcomm inside" to make life easier! I've been talking privately with people about removing the bandpass filters in some products to improve performance. So there's another test to do! Everett > > Hi folks, just wanted to followup on the thread. Thankf rot all the > info! > > Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.bawug.org/pipermail/wireless/2003-October/013591.html > > > A trick to get around this is use their cheaper "home" (8 mac) hardware > > and stick a router on it, then ROUTE instead of BRIDGE the packets. My > > mountaintop is linked almost 8 miles using just standard (i.e. cheap) > > cisco APs and WGBs - but I run 256 IPs up to the router on the mountain > > using just one MAC (the router's MAC) - it then sends the packets to > > the > > proper AP for the sector where the client is located. The cisco > > hardware > > just sees two MACs talking to each other an awful lot (they're both > > routers!) > > Thanks so much for explaining this! I think I finally understand after > your clear explanation. So basically, I can get an AP-350 and a > WGB-352, and make a link, and use that as a fully functional bridge for > as many people as I like ... provided I put a router at each end. And > we all know how expensive a router is ... ;-) > > Good! I can save a ton of money and avoid the "bridge tax" now and > still use Cisco 350s which was my hope to start with. In my pricing I > noticed something important - I have to get the models ending in -R (as > opposed to -C) because they have an RP-TNC connection. I need that to > connect to the external antennas I'm going to use. > > > THe main competitor seems to be the Demarc Reliawave. It's a bit > cheaper, and 200 mW ! Any comments on Cisco 350 vs. Reliawave as a > bridge? Are they any good? > > > I looked also at HyperLink, but I got confused about turbocell and some > reports in google that they won't bridge with non-turbocell radios. I > don't wnat to use any kind of proprietary dead-end system, so that's > scratched. > > The Orinoco AP-2000 attracted my interested until I discovered it's max > 50 mW. No thanks. > > The smartBridges airBridge is intriguing sort of... but IIRC there are > interop problems with other radios, and I don't know, I just feel kind > of iffy about a product like that that's clearly aimed at ISPs, that > makes me nervous. > > simon > > -- > www.simonwoodside.com :: www.openict.net :: www.semacode.org > 99% Devil, 1% Angel > > -- > general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> > [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
