4 ms·
Possibly you know more about it than I do! When I've used it (admittedly only once) it was very susceptible to anything in the air (dust, rain, snow) and was no
by grahamburger 9y ago
Possibly you know more about it than I do! When I've used it (admittedly only once) it was very susceptible to anything in the air (dust, rain, snow) and was not very reliable over even a very short distance (less than 30meters iirc). I guess I can see how it could work with lots of buffering so there's not much packet loss but it seems like that would negatively affect latency.
- nickpsecurity 9y agoWell, they told us they work around a mile or so in good conditions with more in near-perfect conditions. They could miss a lot of packets if weather interference happened. So, they were often paired up with another link (slow wired or fast wireless) as backup for highest-priority stuff. They were also sold as more secure from taps. They were also really expensive back when I studied them. Aside from being low volume, that was probably because (as our course materials said) they were deployed in areas where laying fiber was really, really expensive. So, maximizing profit meant charging significantly less than that but not too much less, ya know? ;) A long time ago, I looked it up again to see what the cheapest, budget setup was. I still have this bookmark of an open design I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RONJA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RONJA Past that, I don't know any more since I just had basic training on it as I said.
- Swannie 9y agoWhoa, RONJA - that's a blast from the past!