ork I've managed,
> anything sub 1ms is acceptable.
>
> Dylan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John van Oppen [mailto:jvanop...@spectrumnet.us]
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:22 PM
> To: 'Andrew McConachie'; Marshall Eubanks
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject
day, March 31, 2012 2:22 PM
To: 'Andrew McConachie'; Marshall Eubanks
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: RE: airFiber
We actually have a lot of the old gigabeam radios in service, they are faster
than the published specs of the airfiber links (1G full duplex vs 750 mbit/sec
fd) and lower laten
We actually have a lot of the old gigabeam radios in service, they are faster
than the published specs of the airfiber links (1G full duplex vs 750 mbit/sec
fd) and lower latency due to their very simplistic design. To be honest,
from a network engineering standpoint, the gigabeams were conv
> Often such a feature is an option within the radio configuration. Where wired
> side
> link follows wireless link. To me that never seemed like a good idea because
> I need
> to get into the radio during a wireless link-down situation. Maybe if there
> was
> an OOB ethernet port it could wor
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 7:14 AM, ML wrote:
> Often such a feature is an option within the radio configuration. Where
> wired side
> link follows wireless link. To me that never seemed like a good idea
> because I need
> to get into the radio during a wireless link-down situation. Maybe if there
On 3/31/2012 6:14 AM, ML wrote:
Often such a feature is an option within the radio configuration.
Where wired side
link follows wireless link. To me that never seemed like a good idea
because I need
to get into the radio during a wireless link-down situation. Maybe if
there was
an OOB ether
On 3/31/2012 6:12 AM, Andrew McConachie wrote:
Is this any different than what GigaBeam tried before they went bankrupt.
http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=177145
Their website only shows a control panel login now so I think they've
gone completely out of business. The only reaso
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
>
> http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber
Claims are actually "Up to 1.4 Gbps" and "Up to 13 km"; those two
conditions probably cannot be satisfied together.
1.4 Gbps is actually
>> Nick Olsen
>> Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
>>
>> ----
>> From: "Drew Weaver"
>> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM
>> To: "Jared Mauch" , "Eugen Leitl"
>> Subject: RE: air
ursday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM
> To: "Jared Mauch" , "Eugen Leitl"
> Subject: RE: airFiber
>
> I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes
> tricky.
>
> Thanks,
> -Drew
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jare
n
> them.
>
> Nick Olsen
> Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
>
>
> From: "Drew Weaver"
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM
> To: "Jared Mauch" , "Eugen Leitl"
> Subject: RE: airFiber
7;t.
Greg
>
> Dylan
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:18 PM
> To: Oliver Garraux
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
>
>
> On Mar 29, 2012, at
that are synced, that is transmitters
belonging to the same system. Someone else's system won't be synced with yours
and you won't see that benefit. So if you're thinking that's going to help
between competitors it won't.
Greg
>
> Dylan
>
> -Origina
com]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:18 PM
To: Oliver Garraux
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
>> Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace).
>> Nothing stops everyone e
On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
>> Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace).
>> Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're
>> drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like
>> what's h
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> Cost will continue to drop, fact of the matter is the beam width is
> rather narrow and they attenuate rather well so you can have a fair
> number of them deployed without co-channel interference. if you pack a
> tower full of them you're goin
On 3/29/12 21:53 , Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
>> I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're
>> saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
>> never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
> I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're
> saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
> never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They are seeing 24 Ghz
> as only for backhaul - no c
Probably it will be a good alternate to FSO based laswer links for
backhual. Probably cheaper & more reliable solution then hanging lasers
between towers for backhaul?
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Oliver Garraux wrote:
> > Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace)
> Also keep in mind this is unlicensed gear (think unprotected airspace).
> Nothing stops everyone else in town from throwing one up and soon you're
> drowning in a high noise floor and it goes slow or doesn't work at all. Like
> what's happened to 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz in a lot of places. There's f
Respectfully, the claim isn't a "decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth
between 10 and 100 times", the claim is "Operators will be able to get 10 to
100 times more data throughput for the same dollar." which granted is a very
good thing, but it does not imply how much more money one would hav
On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Josh Baird wrote:
> Anyhow, check the
> video out on ubnt.com for an introduction and technical overview -
> it's worth watching.
The claim is a huge decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth for wisps between
10 and 100 times. I have just finished the preparation
sday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM
To: "Jared Mauch" , "Eugen Leitl"
Subject: RE: airFiber
I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes
tricky.
Thanks,
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Th
They are taking pre-orders now for a (hopefully) June delivery. I'm
at a conference now and got the rundown yesterday from Ubiquiti. This
product was designed completely from the ground up by the former
Motorola Canopy 100 team. It -should- deliver ~700mbit in both
directions @ full duplex. Not
Drew Weaver (drew.weaver) writes:
> I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes
> tricky.
>
> Thanks,
> -Drew
Define perfect line of sight ? How is this different from any other
wireless
link and the associated Fresnel zone ?
http://en.wik
I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes
tricky.
Thanks,
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:45 PM
To: Eugen Leitl
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: airFiber
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:34:21PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
>
> http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber
Yeah, I got this note the other day. I am very interested in
hearing about folks experience with this hardware once it
27 matches
Mail list logo
