home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:07:53 -0700 From: William Petrisko <nanog@wjp.net> To: nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <024A163A-DB51-11D8-B973-000A95D15116@columbia.edu>; from Brandon Pinsky on Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 04:03:18PM -0400 Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 04:03:18PM -0400, Brandon Pinsky wrote: > I just installed a Quickbridge 60 recently. It's pretty nice. The > throughput is good over a .75 mile link. I was able to successfully > push ~20Mbps with an iperf test. Installation was easy relative to > some of the other equipment we have installed. The feed line is UTP > and the radio gets power over the UTP cable. The uplink interface is > 100BaseT which is easy. My only complaint is that it is not remotely > manageable. You have to have direct console to make any config changes > which means taking the link down. We have another .11a system in I believe that this is fixed in the latest release of code... bill > production made by RadioLan and it is plagued by the same design flaw. > Stupid... I'd like to compare it to the Cisco one. I bet it is more > manageable. > > BJ > > On Jul 21, 2004, at 2:01 PM, Eric Brown wrote: > > > > > Anyone have experience with Proxim's tsunami quickbridge for wireless > > connectivity between buildings at line of site distances under 1 mile? > > It's cheaper than Cisco and looks good on paper. Looking for the good > > bad and ugly. Thanks in advance! > > > > -Eric > -- Bill Petrisko
home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |