[151885] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: airFiber
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dylan Bouterse)
Mon Apr 2 09:39:59 2012
From: Dylan Bouterse <dylan@corp.power1.com>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 13:38:49 +0000
In-Reply-To: <AF24AE2D4A4D334FB9B667985E2AE76327C6CDAF@mail1-sea.office.spectrumnet.us>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
What published specs have you seen on the airFiber latency? I asked one of =
the UBNT guys and they said it's microsecond. On any network I've managed, =
anything sub 1ms is acceptable.
Dylan
-----Original Message-----
From: John van Oppen [mailto:jvanoppen@spectrumnet.us]=20
Sent: Saturday, 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 fast=
er than the published specs of the airfiber links (1G full duplex vs 750 mb=
it/sec fd) and lower latency due to their very simplistic design. To be=
honest, from a network engineering standpoint, the gigabeams were convenin=
et as path issues would show up as ethernet errors that can be used to trig=
ger reroutes or other events. That being said, we did not have a large v=
ariety of switches as the microwave side of our house is made up entirely o=
f just a couple of cisco models. The gigabeams also have a pure OOB mana=
gement setup.
John
