Firmware Road Map

[mike99]

We were going to put in a DHCP server but decided not, DHCP relay does make more sense so maybe?

Still odd, layer 3 device normally respond to dhcp request (as dhcp server or dhcp agent). Layer 2 device should be switching traffic, not answering it else for management of the device itself.

[sirhc]

We were going to put in a DHCP server but decided not, DHCP relay does make more sense so maybe?

Still odd, layer 3 device normally respond to dhcp request (as dhcp server or dhcp agent). Layer 2 device should be switching traffic, not answering it else for management of the device itself.

That's what I love you about you Mike, you try and keep my grounded in reality or at least common sense!

[sakita]

As long as said layer 3 device is in all VLANs. There is a blurry line where modern switches are really layer 2.5

Take a look at all features and ask yourself what layer they are. It can be surprising.

DHCP relay is still a handy feature...

...once again a balancing act.

[glendale2x]

I see SNMP traps been asked for, so I'll throw my hat in and say I'd like to see SNMP traps too. Traps under a single notify object that sends a string of the trap message is fine. You already have an email feature so it might not be that hard to extend that concept to traps.

SNMP write. I really only personally want IF-MIB::ifAdminStatus so ports can be enabled/disabled by a management system. Unless you already have a RESTful interface that can grudgingly live with the extra work that will require since my existing system is built around SNMP-aware devices.

For RADIUS is it possible to have it look for a reply object to limit access to certain users? Something like "NETONIX-Admin = 1" has to be in the reply in order to allow login.

[nasked]

Some time i need duplicate backhaul in a tower. Ej: A tower with 8 sectors. Then divide 4 sectors connected in a switch (Toghswith 5 ports) and the others sectors connected at other switch (Toughswitch 5 ports).

I wish to unify all sectors and backhauls in only one Netonix switch. We work with VLAN (one for VoIP and one for Internet, Ej TSW-01 VLAN 32,33 TSW-02 VLAN 32,33).

We can't make Link Aggregation because we use WDS, and port isolation is not implemented at Netonix Switch... Can you help me?

Also we controll when we must duplicate a sector or cange a backhaul, because we have toughswitch alarms configured with top Mbps, them we check alams page. This option is not implemented on Netonix . Take Note

[sirhc]

port isolation is not implemented at Netonix Switch... Can you help me?

Go to the Ports Tab and move your mouse on top of the column header ISO you will see this is Port Isolation option check box for the port.

Also we control when we must duplicate a sector or cange a backhaul, because we have toughswitch alarms configured with top

I am not sure what your asking here?

I assure you there is NOTHING a TS5 can do that a WISP Switch can not do but there are TONS of things the WISP Switch does that a TS5 can not do.

[mike99]

As long as said layer 3 device is in all VLANs. There is a blurry line where modern switches are really layer 2.5

Yeah, the're layer2+ switch where a single port can act as layer 3 like on a router. That the case for switch like edgeswitch but not for netonix. I don't think the vitesse chip support layer 3 operation so the CPU would have to handle it. That not a huge task but still make me think that it's not the good device to answer DHCP DISCOVER. Anyway, since you netonix are layer 2 only, you need a router anyway that probably include a DHCP server and / or relay so why have it in the switch instead ? For a isolated VLAN without gateway ?

[tma]

Also we control when we must duplicate a sector or cange a backhaul, because we have toughswitch alarms configured with top

I am not sure what your asking here?

I assure you there is NOTHING a TS5 can do that a WISP Switch can not do but there are TONS of things the WISP Switch does that a TS5 can not do.

He refers to the ability to configure an alarm when a port carries more than X Mbps. Indeed, that seems to be a feature supported on the TSes and could be a useful feature on your switches too. My personal opinion: I'd rather use an NMS for such monitoring purposes.

[sirhc]

Well your right we could add this but as you said if he is using SNMP (we have SNMP and the TS5 does not) his NMS server can generate the alarm?

[nasked]

Ok. thank you for your answer....

Yes i know that NMS is better than alarms...no problem... we have a NMS too.

About isolation port i undestand that then I can make two groups ... untagged ports connect between them and the marked ports are connected between them.

Ej. if you want to understand my question i attach a link about this....:-)

http://www.manualslib.com/manual/534671 ... ml?page=34

Some friends have told me that if I do a port isolation VLANs do not work.

Thanks and regards from Spain...