<div dir="auto">Although for my day job I represent a specific hardware vendor, from a services standpoint we will weploy multi vendor if it's the right tool for the job. What we do is try to limit the number of ad hoc differences. So I'd definitely be in support with the idea of using the 3.4 or 10 as a pure bridge. That way most of the skill/knowledge for the hard bits (ie layer 3) is still microtik centric.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 17:38 Kenny Richards, <<a href="mailto:richark@gmail.com">richark@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">Another possible benefit, if we figure out how to make the 3.4Ghz solution work between Beacon/CP, is it could be re-used between CP and Queen Anne. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">I totally understand Bart's point, having common standards is important and has benefits. I think what Doug is suggesting is that maybe this is a case where we need a new standard. We have hit a situation that the old approaches are not working, so lets look for a new one.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Doug Kingston <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dpk@randomnotes.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">dpk@randomnotes.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">First, about access: ACS has full access, round the clcck to Beacon and Capitol Park limited only by our COMT's (Mark, Carl, Doug, Randy, Casey) availability. Bringing third parties requires about a week to establish a training mission number. If we can do the work ourselves, then only our schedules are factors.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Thank you Nigel for your detailed response on the reuse point. I am guessing from this that there is no objection in principle to trying to put this link in place. We just need to fine the most compatible and affordable solution. Randy has started researching this but we should double down on this.</div><span class="m_-5229361435417209949HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">-Doug-</div></font></span></div><div class="m_-5229361435417209949HOEnZb"><div class="m_-5229361435417209949h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Bart Kus <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:me@bartk.us" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">me@bartk.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Well, since you asked "why not":<br>
<br>
One of the advantages we've found with keeping things on a compatible band is the ad-hoc ability to link dishes to sectors during emergencies, or use dishes and sectors for spectral analysis on the one common band.<br>
<br>
Another advantage is the uniformity of config / interface / automation by using the same vendor. Don't need to train folks on special procedures or write exceptions into automation.<span class="m_-5229361435417209949m_-1492075230564456577HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
--Bart</font></span><span class="m_-5229361435417209949m_-1492075230564456577im m_-5229361435417209949m_-1492075230564456577HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/29/2018 4:45 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 3/29/18 7:38 PM, Doug Kingston wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)?<br>
</blockquote>
Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles<br>
across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s.<br>
<br>
3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for<br>
the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span><div class="m_-5229361435417209949m_-1492075230564456577HOEnZb"><div class="m_-5229361435417209949m_-1492075230564456577h5">
_______________________________________________<br>
PSDR mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">PSDR@hamwan.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
PSDR mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">PSDR@hamwan.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
PSDR mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">PSDR@hamwan.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr</a><br>
</blockquote></div>