[CRTech] Christian Radio Tech [MSG 79133]
[Thread Prev] [-- Thread Index --] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [-- Date Index --] [Date Next]
Re: inexpensive but reliable Internet router - does it exist?
To: CRTech <crtech@crtech.org>
Subject: Re: inexpensive but reliable Internet router - does it exist?
From: Pat Wahl <pwahl@wwib.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:23:03 -0600
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wwib-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qDNiiGIwgUtYGnXcTRPpr6GQRHAuYblgrHmibYd9iuY=; b=B9TC60PEX98ge/THK2yqsVdf7HtuwH1Gx9dpBd7HX4MDPiLLQZG3s5nD+XOUVPwQ8X hBfj0umEhRDHsW+T5JEfY2uRw6czR+vleeXYLKwfU11+d6UHzkx2QpimxyV4AXH84JeR WxixmWP4wL4dEiWRg2o0y1asVGlxI2JfgHrragY1R2Pl84E+babjneGeQZZDS4HZPZoB QwqOmi9xUpPDC26Yx/2jztCHAjwWxnDyWkeL4QwWUBjY5s9hlQUioywQ1szzEksayZQd SSB2dT7uINJhb6PXIrSULryYVDXuIJiWQetsE/a9pMcB23dSYOS8o/xm+uy8iC7hLe3t boTw==
In-reply-to: <CAPQBvqqTtykZHd3H_XU5j+aCV7sGwmVP3fOtomFkiTwACve3eQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA8ua=zsPLmxA9OneexoZzcoB8j4hZyekxF_hXtgpnmvH2w2VA@mail.gmail.com> <C75A7180-E0C0-436E-964B-3FF56541A105@ieee.org> <CAA8ua=w6WpQZv7RrkyVuY8TfCLO6mnx1tuJHHFSAXMLZaUcQPA@mail.gmail.com> <4CADC9E2-E6EC-46F0-80AD-3A87EF962A96@ieee.org> <CAPQBvqoRuR=tUCQAjwd09T0CcQAA5KHy6XCdMAQ1uNZBPmD2fQ@mail.gmail.com> <C695E37F-5A67-499D-A79E-90880F1B06F7@ieee.org> <CAPQBvqqTtykZHd3H_XU5j+aCV7sGwmVP3fOtomFkiTwACve3eQ@mail.gmail.com>
This is what we ended up doing. Installed a Ubiquiti EdgeRouter. The local shop pre-configured it (and a spare unit, very inexpensive). They did this because the documentation is really sketchy, so it is nice to have it ready to plug and play. And, that is just what we did.

Thanks for the helpful advice. There are always trade-offs, so it's nice to know what you're in for ahead of time.

Pat

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Mark Croom <markc@newmail.kinshipradio.org> wrote:
Yup, agreed on all points. I would guess somebody who's been "raised" in the Linux networking realm would find they are in a fairly comfortable world when working in the Imagestream user interface. I discovered that much a little later in the process.

I had some interest in learning the platform so I probably put more into it than I would have a few years later when I was spending all my spare time trying to get certified for Windows Server. But the guy I was working for at that point used Cisco for anything like that and I found I had to pick up some of the Cisco networking basics to do a couple of point-to-point links for our clients; that wasn't easy either but thankfully I didn't need to configure VPN or QoS on those so it wasn't too painful.

Sounds like we are of a similar understanding here but I wanted to mention the complexity not so much for Pat's sake (as he has stated he's not looking for a do-everything box) but for others who may be watching the thread and considering alternatives for the future.

Mark
MN



On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Sherrod Munday <smunday@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mar 10, 2017, at 17:51, Mark Croom <markc@newmail.kinshipradio.org> wrote:
> It may have been your recommendation that led me to use Imagestream Transport routers for some T1 P2P WAN links for my previous employer. ...
> Great routers, but not simple to configure by any means.

I wholeheartedly agree.  I actually had that in my prior email, but cut it out to focus more on the concept of "you get what you pay for".  That really should be the take-away message I wanted to highlight.


To your point, Imagestream's user interface is anything but kid-friendly, and I've had two Microsoft IT admins (who worked for me in the past) both look at the Imagestream and give up after spending a while trying to figure it out.  (To be fair, neither one was a Linux sysadmin, and neither was really interested in learning that OS/platform -- and neither was a real networking guy, either.)

You're absolutely right, though -- as I was going to write previously, "Imagestream routers are not for the faint of heart."

But neither is it easy to fly a Boeing 747 or an F-35 fighter plane.  Both are incredibly complex and require extensive training and practice, and they're far more useful than a Cessna -- for a specific purpose.


References: inexpensive but reliable Internet router - does it exist?
(Pat Wahl <pwahl@wwib.com>, 10 Mar 2017 19:56:18 -0000)
Re: inexpensive but reliable Internet router - does it exist?
(Sherrod Munday <smunday@ieee.org>, 10 Mar 2017 20:15:02 -0000)
Re: inexpensive but reliable Internet router - does it exist?
(Pat Wahl <pwahl@wwib.com>, 10 Mar 2017 20:28:34 -0000)
Re: inexpensive but reliable Internet router - does it exist?
(Sherrod Munday <smunday@ieee.org>, 10 Mar 2017 22:31:11 -0000)
Re: inexpensive but reliable Internet router - does it exist?
(Mark Croom <markc@newmail.kinshipradio.org>, 10 Mar 2017 22:51:17 -0000)
Re: inexpensive but reliable Internet router - does it exist?
(Sherrod Munday <smunday@ieee.org>, 10 Mar 2017 23:08:31 -0000)
Re: inexpensive but reliable Internet router - does it exist?
(Mark Croom <markc@newmail.kinshipradio.org>, 10 Mar 2017 23:17:08 -0000)
Prev by date: Re: Cellphones on air flight
(Michael Barnes, 10 Mar 2017 23:22:33 -0000)
Next by date: Re: Cellphones on air flight - was Comrex Remote Connections
(Michael Barnes, 10 Mar 2017 23:46:53 -0000)
Prev by thread: Re: inexpensive but reliable Internet router - does it exist?
(Mark Croom, 10 Mar 2017 23:17:08 -0000)
Next by thread: RE: inexpensive but reliable Internet router - does it exist?
(Dick Parrish, 10 Mar 2017 20:22:18 -0000)
CRTech.org