I've had 180 Mbps on Nano M5s over 6 Miles, I think 300m is well within earshot.
Air Fibre is awesome kit but requires some decent mounting and alignment and will attract the attention of the local tree huggers unless you can't locate it out of the obvious view.
As it currently stands I have two buildings each with distinct networks. What I want to do is merge both networks into one network.
Building A will host the internet connection, servers, content filter and half our clients
Building B will host the other half of the clients. Building B will have a switch connected to the wifi for all the clients.
This is an area I don't have a lot of experience in but I'm just going on the basis that more speed = faster network connectivity. The internet (fiber optic) will also be carried across this link.
This would allow us to drop one of our internet connections and servers while cutting the management of two networks in half. Providing this idea I have in my head works like I think it should. :p
Whilst you are correct in your thoughts, your topology is flawed being wholly reliant on the single point of failure being the Wireless Bridge.
Even Air Fibre, fast as it is, being the only route between both sites and the Internet means that you have a lot of traffic determined to get across it all day long. It will become the busiest link on your LAN
Isn't that true for any point to point link even ethernet or fiber optic cable? Would a site/domain trust be better over the wifi link? keeping 2 internet connections and also 2 content filters? I'm not even sure how that would work.
I'd still need two DCs.
I'm just trying to reduce the amount of network devices's actually needed.
Absolutely, but your plan involves jumping from two networks with independent gateways to a single network with one gateway.
Originally Posted by Gaz
You need to carefully plan for this.
The killers (apart from the obvious Internet traffic) are profiles, logins, DNS internal, print spooling etc etc you could easily find yourself sending high levels of traffic using the link that you never imagined.
Should the networks be a separate routed subnet rather than a single bridged LAN?
Are you better off keeping specific servers each side of the link to localise traffic only soliciting Internet traffic across the bridge?
Consolidation into a single AD is great, bridging the LANs on a single collision domain not so great.
Simple things like having a print server at each site to keep printing traffic off the bridge link, local DNS servers at each site, DC at each site etc etc... You soon see the sense in subnetting each site and routing across the link instead.
You have plenty of options though, how many users/devices will there be on the remote network and what resources are needed on the local network?
100Mbps P2P Bridging is fine for the odd classroom, Single Gigabit link might be fine for an entire building with some Internet traffic but two fully operational school sites using a single internet breakout may be a big ask!
Throw in some VoiP across the link and you enter a whole new world.
I have one remote office that's now down to a single gigabit fibre link, there are around 50 users at the far end, when the VoiP is in full use and the LAN busy we get complaints that the Internet is slow and it takes too long to open a word file... This is as the QOS kicks in.
As soon as the phones hang up the LAN is fine.
When don't have the issue where the links are trunked.
You won't do any better than Air Fibre for the price, just don't ditch your other routes or Internet connections until you have worked out the traffic profile and are satisfied that a single Gigabit will be enough.
I have a large site with two schools Upper/Lower on a single domain with all resources on site A and have a 4 x Gigabit Fibre Trunk to link them.
On another site a 1 Gigabit MPLS works fine. It all depends on the traffic flow requirements.
I Think airfiber is still the way to go, but I shall definately take on board keeping the current infrastructure and just routing some traffic between the link such as server syncing.
We have around 80 endpoints between the two buildings.
Really thick question, but so long as there's a line of site does it matter if one antenna is 5m off the ground and the other 10m for example? I've been given a similar project which is approx. 250m away. Is it easy to set up? Which make/model would you guys suggest for that distance? Ideally need 100Mbps minimum.
We were going to use the airfibre but then found out that they don't really work well below 100m. we cannot get our link over 100m without something in the way! We have been quoted for a Giga-Laser Link that will work at the 80m distance, gives us 1GB per second link, but will cost us £7,800. A lot of money but considerably less than trying to dig the car park and lay a cable.
I was also quoted laser a long time ago but they can be affected by weather quite a lot and given the amount of rain/fog/snow we get around here it wasn't really viable.
Originally Posted by cmpwat
Where did you find that from? I can't find any reference to minimum distances in their docs only maximum.
Originally Posted by cmpwat