I figure most new TVs use it, my laptop does, my phone does.
I think that’s probably the more important part.
1 Like
Fair, if its a requirement its a requirement. Well hey look you can buy a single ruckus that linus had. I think its 6E? let me look at their deal. Linus has a 6000 sqft house and one managed okay. You have no where near close to that. One ruckus might do and might be economical enough? Just tossing the option back out there
1 Like
I mean, it’s $1300, and a U6 enterprise is $250.
I don’t think there’s a debate to be had here.
2 Likes
172 gang checking in
2 Likes
OHHHH shit I just saw that price… DAMN LINUS be rollllllinn down the bank
Yeah U6 ENT might be your thing then.
2 Likes
I really wish there was a RFC for networking best practices.
Thou shalt put VPN on 172
Thou shalt not put VPN on 192
Thou shalt not put home networks on 10
Something like that.
Maybe I’ll etch it in some stone tablets and throw it through the Cisco corporate office front door. Is that how you get an RFC approved?
6 Likes
Well shit, I thought that thing was a few hundred. TIL.
2 Likes
Same here. Ruckus really do be out there collecting scalps.
1 Like
You haven’t gotten your CCNA have you, Squidward?
2 Likes
that would be the most colossal shit show on the surface of the planet. Do you know how many networking nerds would engage in an all out nerd rage ootism battle over that? LOL
I forgot… did you get the 6 pro with the extra cameras and stuff like I did or just the 6?
Make the meme so #1
1 Like
1 Like
No, I haven’t.
At this point in my career, I’m just resisting picking up certifications on principal.
Build a Colosseum, fill it with switches and IBM keyboards and have them fight to the death. Whoever comes out on top gets to define the new RFC.
2 Likes
Ahh cool they didnt skimp like they do with the As and the differences of the XLs… Nice… yeah you do have 6 GHZ support. We both do. Im sad to say ill never use this feature over the life of the phone likely.
this is suitably barbaric. I approve
2 Likes
Why would they make a second IC just for less features?
1 Like
Alternative solution:
Force them to configure a 42u network rack in a room that’s filling up with water, except there are no circuit breakers.
2 Likes
Thats true they moved in house for this. It used to be the XLs had the better processor… the As lacked a lot of onboard stuff and relied on the google cloud for picture processing etc.
The openBaSeD team would win and we would be sitting on 54g wireless dude
Jokes aside. Seriously. an RFC on this would be a disaster and I think you know why
Well, to be fair. Things have changed a bit.
… back in the days when there were no subnet masks and the private 192.168.x networks were Class C networks, limited to 255 machines. 172.x were Class B networks with up to 65535 addresses.
So a home network wasn’t supposed to be broken up like
192.16.0.x
192.16.1.x
192.16.2.x
192.16.3.x
You could subnet but then you’d have a /25 and even less addresses and it looks really weird.
So thats why the books say to use 172 if you need anything larger or more complicated than what a /24 can provide.
Enterprises all use the /8 so I don’t run that so none of my stuff interferes with vpns and other unforeseen junk.
2 Likes
Wow I just learned something. BRB rearchitecting. I was using 10.x.x.x