Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[Matt]

Any chance a PTP450i or PTP450 could talk to a PTP430?  Would make some
pending upgrades SO much easier.


On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Aaron Schneider <
aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:

> Yes, just be aware that for 430 to talk to 450i AP in its native mode, the
> 430's will need to be the latest 13.4.1 Open Beta.  Otherwise, you'll have
> to enable the "legacy mode" on the 450i AP to let the older SW register.
> Enabling this mode limits the radio HW Queue depths to be compatible with
> the older SW.
>
>
>
> The SMs need to be upgraded to be able to detect these new depths and
> adapt automatically during registration.  For 430, 13.4.1 was the first
> load which supports this, and for 450, 13.3 was the first load which
> supports this (it originally came with 5ms Frame support, which was/is a
> 450/450i only feature).
>
>
>
> You can find this option on the 450i AP's Radio Configuration page:
>
>
>
>
>
> This is only there for you to use for migration of SW releases – it is not
> meant to be on indefinitely once all of your SMs are on acceptable releases
> (which is now 14.1.1 for 450i/450 sectors, including 450/430 SMs), as
> having it on will impact the performance capability of the 450i AP.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sriram Chaturvedi
> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 1:06 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP
>
>
>
> Yes you can, Mark.
>
>
>
> 
>
> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <
> m...@amplex.net>
>
> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 12:35 PM
>
> To: af@afmug.com
>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP
>
>
>
> We have a number of towers to convert from 4 450’s with 90 degree sectors
> to 6 AP’s with 60 degree sectors.   Most of these are already at 80-90% 450
> SM’s.   I was asking if I can go directly to 450i AP’s without having to
> finish collecting the 430’s.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
> sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Hi Chuck, I was directly responding to Mark’s question on 430 “upgrade”
> project where I assumed he was eventually going to upgrade his 430 SMs to
> 450/450i. Perhaps it was an incorrect assumption. Believe it or not, my
> responses aren’t loaded when I post here.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> "right away" sounds ominous
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> -Original Message- From: Sriram Chaturvedi
>
> >> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM
>
> >> To: af@afmug.com
>
> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP
>
> >>
>
> >> 450i AP will interop with 430 SMs. You don't need to swap the SMs out
> right away.
>
> >>
>
> >> Thanks,
>
> >> Sriram
>
> >>
>
> >> 
>
> >> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <
> m...@amplex.net>
>
> >> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM
>
> >> To: af@afmug.com
>
> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP
>
> >>
>
> >> How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 450i
> instead of 450 for 430 upgrade projects.  Do I have to get all of the 430
> SM�s swapped first?
>
> >>
>
> >> Mark
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider <
> aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> It should work, but at the moment I can�t recall if/when we tried
> this with PTP mode.  I�ll let you know.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> 450i - 450 isn�t really an �interop� situation like 430 - 450
> was.  430 - 450 was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to MIMO
> with the way we did MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for data).
> 450i - 450 is much more similar, and we have been using that combination
> internally for a long time.  It wasn�t part of the initial release of
> 450i due to needing to focus on the HW release itself.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I�ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow you
> to upgrade a PTP link one end at a time.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Regards,
>
> >>> -Aaron
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup" 
> >>> <af-boun...@afmug.com
> on behalf of geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> I thought interop was only for PMP?
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:
>
> >>>>> Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[George Skorup]

When are we looking at 13.4.1 official? It would be nice to bring up all 
of the FSK to 13.4.1 official and 450 to 14.1.1 at the same time.


On 11/30/2015 11:49 AM, Aaron Schneider wrote:


Yes, just be aware that for 430 to talk to 450i AP in its native mode, 
the 430's will need to be the latest 13.4.1 Open Beta.  Otherwise, 
you'll have to enable the "legacy mode" on the 450i AP to let the 
older SW register. Enabling this mode limits the radio HW Queue depths 
to be compatible with the older SW.


The SMs need to be upgraded to be able to detect these new depths and 
adapt automatically during registration.  For 430, 13.4.1 was the 
first load which supports this, and for 450, 13.3 was the first load 
which supports this (it originally came with 5ms Frame support, which 
was/is a 450/450i only feature).


You can find this option on the 450i AP's Radio Configuration page:

This is only there for you to use for migration of SW releases � it is 
not meant to be on indefinitely once all of your SMs are on acceptable 
releases (which is now 14.1.1 for 450i/450 sectors, including 450/430 
SMs), as having it on will impact the performance capability of the 
450i AP.


Regards,

-Aaron

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sriram Chaturvedi
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 1:06 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

Yes you can, Mark.



From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on 
behalf of Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net <mailto:m...@amplex.net>>


Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 12:35 PM

To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

We have a number of towers to convert from 4 450�s with 90 degree 
sectors to 6 AP�s with 60 degree sectors.   Most of these are already 
at 80-90% 450 SM�s.   I was asking if I can go directly to 450i AP�s 
without having to finish collecting the 430�s.


Mark

> On Nov 28, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Sriram Chaturvedi 
<sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com 
<mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:


>

> Hi Chuck, I was directly responding to Mark�s question on 430 
�upgrade� project where I assumed he was eventually going to upgrade 
his 430 SMs to 450/450i. Perhaps it was an incorrect assumption. 
Believe it or not, my responses aren�t loaded when I post here.


>

>

>> On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com 
<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:


>>

>> "right away" sounds ominous

>>

>>

>> -Original Message- From: Sriram Chaturvedi

>> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM

>> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>

>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

>>

>> 450i AP will interop with 430 SMs. You don't need to swap the SMs 
out right away.


>>

>> Thanks,

>> Sriram

>>

>> 

>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on 
behalf of Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net <mailto:m...@amplex.net>>


>> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM

>> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>

>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

>>

>> How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 
450i instead of 450 for 430 upgrade projects.  Do I have to get all of 
the 430 SM�s swapped first?


>>

>> Mark

>>

>>

>>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider 
<aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com 
<mailto:aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:


>>>

>>> It should work, but at the moment I can�t recall if/when we 
tried this with PTP mode. I�ll let you know.


>>>

>>> 450i - 450 isn�t really an �interop� situation like 430 - 
450 was.  430 - 450 was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to 
MIMO with the way we did MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for 
data).  450i - 450 is much more similar, and we have been using that 
combination internally for a long time.  It wasn�t part of the 
initial release of 450i due to needing to focus on the HW release itself.


>>>

>>> I�ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow 
you to upgrade a PTP link one end at a time.


>>>

>>> Regards,

>>> -Aaron

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup" 
<af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of geo...@cbcast.com 
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com%20on%20behalf%20of%20geo...@cbcast.com>> 
wrote:


>>>

>>>> I thought interop was only for PMP?

>>>>

>>>> On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:

>>>>> Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?

>>>>

>>

>

>

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[Aaron Schneider]

Yes, just be aware that for 430 to talk to 450i AP in its native mode, the 
430's will need to be the latest 13.4.1 Open Beta.  Otherwise, you'll have to 
enable the "legacy mode" on the 450i AP to let the older SW register.  Enabling 
this mode limits the radio HW Queue depths to be compatible with the older SW.



The SMs need to be upgraded to be able to detect these new depths and adapt 
automatically during registration.  For 430, 13.4.1 was the first load which 
supports this, and for 450, 13.3 was the first load which supports this (it 
originally came with 5ms Frame support, which was/is a 450/450i only feature).



You can find this option on the 450i AP's Radio Configuration page:



[cid:image002.jpg@01D12B65.35FCDB70]



This is only there for you to use for migration of SW releases - it is not 
meant to be on indefinitely once all of your SMs are on acceptable releases 
(which is now 14.1.1 for 450i/450 sectors, including 450/430 SMs), as having it 
on will impact the performance capability of the 450i AP.



Regards,

-Aaron





-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sriram Chaturvedi
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 1:06 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP



Yes you can, Mark.





From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of Mark 
Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net<mailto:m...@amplex.net>>

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 12:35 PM

To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP



We have a number of towers to convert from 4 450's with 90 degree sectors to 6 
AP's with 60 degree sectors.   Most of these are already at 80-90% 450 SM's.   
I was asking if I can go directly to 450i AP's without having to finish 
collecting the 430's.



Mark



> On Nov 28, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Sriram Chaturvedi 
> <sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com<mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>>
>  wrote:

>

> Hi Chuck, I was directly responding to Mark's question on 430 "upgrade" 
> project where I assumed he was eventually going to upgrade his 430 SMs to 
> 450/450i. Perhaps it was an incorrect assumption. Believe it or not, my 
> responses aren't loaded when I post here.

>

>

>> On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Chuck McCown 
>> <ch...@wbmfg.com<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:

>>

>> "right away" sounds ominous

>>

>>

>> -Original Message- From: Sriram Chaturvedi

>> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM

>> To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>

>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

>>

>> 450i AP will interop with 430 SMs. You don't need to swap the SMs out right 
>> away.

>>

>> Thanks,

>> Sriram

>>

>> 

>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of 
>> Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net<mailto:m...@amplex.net>>

>> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM

>> To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>

>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

>>

>> How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 450i 
>> instead of 450 for 430 upgrade projects.  Do I have to get all of the 430 
>> SM�s swapped first?

>>

>> Mark

>>

>>

>>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider 
>>> <aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com<mailto:aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com>>
>>>  wrote:

>>>

>>> It should work, but at the moment I can�t recall if/when we tried this 
>>> with PTP mode.  I�ll let you know.

>>>

>>> 450i - 450 isn�t really an �interop� situation like 430 - 450 was.  
>>> 430 - 450 was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to MIMO with the 
>>> way we did MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for data).  450i - 450 
>>> is much more similar, and we have been using that combination internally 
>>> for a long time.  It wasn�t part of the initial release of 450i due to 
>>> needing to focus on the HW release itself.

>>>

>>> I�ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow you to 
>>> upgrade a PTP link one end at a time.

>>>

>>> Regards,

>>> -Aaron

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup" 
>>> <af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of 
>>> geo...@cbcast.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com%20on%20behalf%20of%20geo...@cbcast.com>>
>>>  wrote:

>>>

>>>> I thought interop was only for PMP?

>>>>

>>>> On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:

>>>>> Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?

>>>>

>>

>

>

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[Ken Hohhof]

How soon will we be asking if our 450i SMs work with the new 460 APs?

More QAMs!  More frequencies!  Fiber+DC!  Active antennas!  Pull more 
rabbits out of the hat!



-Original Message- 
From: Chuck McCown

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 10:36 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

Just trolling... ;-)

-Original Message- 
From: Sriram Chaturvedi

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 9:35 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

Hi Chuck, I was directly responding to Mark�s question on 430 
�upgrade�

project where I assumed he was eventually going to upgrade his 430 SMs to
450/450i. Perhaps it was an incorrect assumption. Believe it or not, my
responses aren�t loaded when I post here.



On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

"right away" sounds ominous


-Original Message- From: Sriram Chaturvedi
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

450i AP will interop with 430 SMs. You don't need to swap the SMs out 
right away.


Thanks,
Sriram


From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh 
<m...@amplex.net>

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 450i 
instead of 450 for 430 upgrade projects.  Do I have to get all of the 430 
SM�s swapped first?


Mark


On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider 
<aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:


It should work, but at the moment I can�t recall if/when we tried this 
with PTP mode.  I�ll let you know.


450i - 450 isn�t really an �interop� situation like 430 - 450 was. 
430 - 450 was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to MIMO with 
the way we did MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for data). 
450i - 450 is much more similar, and we have been using that combination 
internally for a long time.  It wasn�t part of the initial release of 
450i due to needing to focus on the HW release itself.


I�ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow you to 
upgrade a PTP link one end at a time.


Regards,
-Aaron




On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup" 
<af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:



I thought interop was only for PMP?

On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:

Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[Sriram Chaturvedi]

450i AP will interop with 430 SMs. You don't need to swap the SMs out right 
away.

Thanks,
Sriram


From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 450i instead 
of 450 for 430 upgrade projects.  Do I have to get all of the 430 SM’s swapped 
first?

Mark


> On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider 
> <aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>
> It should work, but at the moment I can’t recall if/when we tried this with 
> PTP mode.  I’ll let you know.
>
> 450i - 450 isn’t really an “interop” situation like 430 - 450 was.  430 - 450 
> was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to MIMO with the way we did 
> MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for data).  450i - 450 is much more 
> similar, and we have been using that combination internally for a long time.  
> It wasn’t part of the initial release of 450i due to needing to focus on the 
> HW release itself.
>
> I’ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow you to 
> upgrade a PTP link one end at a time.
>
> Regards,
> -Aaron
>
>
>
>
> On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup" <af-boun...@afmug.com 
> on behalf of geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:
>
>> I thought interop was only for PMP?
>>
>> On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:
>>> Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[Chuck McCown]

"right away" sounds ominous


-Original Message- 
From: Sriram Chaturvedi

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

450i AP will interop with 430 SMs. You don't need to swap the SMs out right 
away.


Thanks,
Sriram


From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh 
<m...@amplex.net>

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 450i 
instead of 450 for 430 upgrade projects.  Do I have to get all of the 430 SM�s 
swapped first?


Mark


On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider 
<aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:


It should work, but at the moment I can�t recall if/when we tried this 
with PTP mode.  I�ll let you know.


450i - 450 isn�t really an �interop� situation like 430 - 450 was.  430 - 
450 was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to MIMO with the way 
we did MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for data).  450i - 450 is 
much more similar, and we have been using that combination internally for 
a long time.  It wasn�t part of the initial release of 450i due to needing 
to focus on the HW release itself.


I�ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow you to 
upgrade a PTP link one end at a time.


Regards,
-Aaron




On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup" 
<af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:



I thought interop was only for PMP?

On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:

Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[Chuck McCown]

Just trolling... ;-)

-Original Message- 
From: Sriram Chaturvedi

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 9:35 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

Hi Chuck, I was directly responding to Mark�s question on 430 �upgrade� 
project where I assumed he was eventually going to upgrade his 430 SMs to 
450/450i. Perhaps it was an incorrect assumption. Believe it or not, my 
responses aren�t loaded when I post here.




On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

"right away" sounds ominous


-Original Message- From: Sriram Chaturvedi
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

450i AP will interop with 430 SMs. You don't need to swap the SMs out 
right away.


Thanks,
Sriram


From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh 
<m...@amplex.net>

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 450i 
instead of 450 for 430 upgrade projects.  Do I have to get all of the 430 
SM�s swapped first?


Mark


On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider 
<aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:


It should work, but at the moment I can�t recall if/when we tried this 
with PTP mode.  I�ll let you know.


450i - 450 isn�t really an �interop� situation like 430 - 450 was. 
430 - 450 was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to MIMO with 
the way we did MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for data). 
 450i - 450 is much more similar, and we have been using that combination 
internally for a long time.  It wasn�t part of the initial release of 
450i due to needing to focus on the HW release itself.


I�ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow you to 
upgrade a PTP link one end at a time.


Regards,
-Aaron




On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup" 
<af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:



I thought interop was only for PMP?

On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:

Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[Sriram Chaturvedi]

Hi Chuck, I was directly responding to Mark’s question on 430 “upgrade” project 
where I assumed he was eventually going to upgrade his 430 SMs to 450/450i. 
Perhaps it was an incorrect assumption. Believe it or not, my responses aren’t 
loaded when I post here. 


> On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
> 
> "right away" sounds ominous
> 
> 
> -Original Message- From: Sriram Chaturvedi
> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP
> 
> 450i AP will interop with 430 SMs. You don't need to swap the SMs out right 
> away.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sriram
> 
> 
> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net>
> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP
> 
> How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 450i instead 
> of 450 for 430 upgrade projects.  Do I have to get all of the 430 SM�s 
> swapped first?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider 
>> <aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>> 
>> It should work, but at the moment I can�t recall if/when we tried this 
>> with PTP mode.  I�ll let you know.
>> 
>> 450i - 450 isn�t really an �interop� situation like 430 - 450 was.  
>> 430 - 450 was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to MIMO with the 
>> way we did MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for data).  450i - 450 
>> is much more similar, and we have been using that combination internally for 
>> a long time.  It wasn�t part of the initial release of 450i due to needing 
>> to focus on the HW release itself.
>> 
>> I�ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow you to 
>> upgrade a PTP link one end at a time.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> -Aaron
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup" <af-boun...@afmug.com 
>> on behalf of geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I thought interop was only for PMP?
>>> 
>>> On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>> Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?
>>> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[Mark Radabaugh]

How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 450i instead 
of 450 for 430 upgrade projects.  Do I have to get all of the 430 SM’s swapped 
first?

Mark


> On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider 
>  wrote:
> 
> It should work, but at the moment I can’t recall if/when we tried this with 
> PTP mode.  I’ll let you know.  
> 
> 450i - 450 isn’t really an “interop” situation like 430 - 450 was.  430 - 450 
> was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to MIMO with the way we did 
> MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for data).  450i - 450 is much more 
> similar, and we have been using that combination internally for a long time.  
> It wasn’t part of the initial release of 450i due to needing to focus on the 
> HW release itself.
> 
> I’ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow you to 
> upgrade a PTP link one end at a time.
> 
> Regards,
> -Aaron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup"  on behalf of geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:
> 
>> I thought interop was only for PMP?
>> 
>> On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:
>>> Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?
>> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[Mark Radabaugh]

We have a number of towers to convert from 4 450’s with 90 degree sectors to 6 
AP’s with 60 degree sectors.   Most of these are already at 80-90% 450 SM’s.   
I was asking if I can go directly to 450i AP’s without having to finish 
collecting the 430’s. 

Mark

> On Nov 28, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Sriram Chaturvedi 
> <sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chuck, I was directly responding to Mark’s question on 430 “upgrade” 
> project where I assumed he was eventually going to upgrade his 430 SMs to 
> 450/450i. Perhaps it was an incorrect assumption. Believe it or not, my 
> responses aren’t loaded when I post here. 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>> 
>> "right away" sounds ominous
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message- From: Sriram Chaturvedi
>> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP
>> 
>> 450i AP will interop with 430 SMs. You don't need to swap the SMs out right 
>> away.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Sriram
>> 
>> 
>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP
>> 
>> How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 450i 
>> instead of 450 for 430 upgrade projects.  Do I have to get all of the 430 
>> SM�s swapped first?
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider 
>>> <aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It should work, but at the moment I can�t recall if/when we tried this 
>>> with PTP mode.  I�ll let you know.
>>> 
>>> 450i - 450 isn�t really an �interop� situation like 430 - 450 was.  
>>> 430 - 450 was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to MIMO with the 
>>> way we did MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for data).  450i - 450 
>>> is much more similar, and we have been using that combination internally 
>>> for a long time.  It wasn�t part of the initial release of 450i due to 
>>> needing to focus on the HW release itself.
>>> 
>>> I�ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow you to 
>>> upgrade a PTP link one end at a time.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> -Aaron
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup" 
>>> <af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I thought interop was only for PMP?
>>>> 
>>>> On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>>> Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?
>>>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[Ken Hohhof]

The other possibility would be to offer a super cheap tier for people who 
don't want to watch video, like maybe just for the kids to do homework.  If 
the customer radio was essentially free, it might become feasible to sell 
something like 1M service for $20 or $25/mo.  We still have some older 
customers who literally just use it to check email, don't even know how to 
do anything else.  They end up paying the same as people on the 3M tier who 
watch 250GB of Netflix per month.



-Original Message- 
From: Mark Radabaugh

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 5:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

Very much like that already.

We watch frame utilization and as it gets high we hunt down high usage 430's 
and swap those out, and fix any 450's running with poor signals.


There isn't a lot of point to swapping out low usage 430's so it's nice that 
we are able to leave them if we decide to deploy 450i


Mark


On Nov 28, 2015, at 5:40 PM, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:

I imagine at some point, the 430 SMs will be like the old P8 SMs. You will 
want to get them off of the network to keep the overall sector capacity in 
check.



On 11/28/2015 1:05 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi wrote:
Yes you can, Mark.


From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh 
<m...@amplex.net>

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 12:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

We have a number of towers to convert from 4 450�s with 90 degree 
sectors to 6 AP�s with 60 degree sectors.   Most of these are already 
at 80-90% 450 SM�s.   I was asking if I can go directly to 450i AP�s 
without having to finish collecting the 430�s.


Mark

On Nov 28, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Sriram Chaturvedi 
<sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:


Hi Chuck, I was directly responding to Mark�s question on 430 
�upgrade� project where I assumed he was eventually going to upgrade 
his 430 SMs to 450/450i. Perhaps it was an incorrect assumption. Believe 
it or not, my responses aren�t loaded when I post here.




On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

"right away" sounds ominous


-Original Message- From: Sriram Chaturvedi
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

450i AP will interop with 430 SMs. You don't need to swap the SMs out 
right away.


Thanks,
Sriram


From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh 
<m...@amplex.net>

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 450i 
instead of 450 for 430 upgrade projects.  Do I have to get all of the 
430 SM�s swapped first?


Mark


On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider 
<aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:


It should work, but at the moment I can�t recall if/when we tried 
this with PTP mode.  I�ll let you know.


450i - 450 isn�t really an �interop� situation like 430 - 450 
was.  430 - 450 was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to 
MIMO with the way we did MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for 
data).  450i - 450 is much more similar, and we have been using that 
combination internally for a long time.  It wasn�t part of the 
initial release of 450i due to needing to focus on the HW release 
itself.


I�ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow you 
to upgrade a PTP link one end at a time.


Regards,
-Aaron




On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup" 
<af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:


I thought interop was only for PMP?


On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:
Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[George Skorup]

But the problem remains. That P8/430/low mod 450 kills the sector 
efficiency every time they talk / the AP talks to them. Maybe the thing 
Aaron was just talking about (air-time scheduling or de-prioritizing low 
mod SMs) could help.


On 11/28/2015 5:42 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
The other possibility would be to offer a super cheap tier for people 
who don't want to watch video, like maybe just for the kids to do 
homework.  If the customer radio was essentially free, it might become 
feasible to sell something like 1M service for $20 or $25/mo.  We 
still have some older customers who literally just use it to check 
email, don't even know how to do anything else.  They end up paying 
the same as people on the 3M tier who watch 250GB of Netflix per month.



-Original Message- From: Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 5:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

Very much like that already.

We watch frame utilization and as it gets high we hunt down high usage 
430's and swap those out, and fix any 450's running with poor signals.


There isn't a lot of point to swapping out low usage 430's so it's 
nice that we are able to leave them if we decide to deploy 450i


Mark


On Nov 28, 2015, at 5:40 PM, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:

I imagine at some point, the 430 SMs will be like the old P8 SMs. You 
will want to get them off of the network to keep the overall sector 
capacity in check.



On 11/28/2015 1:05 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi wrote:
Yes you can, Mark.


From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh 
<m...@amplex.net>

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 12:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

We have a number of towers to convert from 4 450�s with 90 degree 
sectors to 6 AP�s with 60 degree sectors.   Most of these are 
already at 80-90% 450 SM�s.   I was asking if I can go directly to 
450i AP�s without having to finish collecting the 430�s.


Mark

On Nov 28, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Sriram Chaturvedi 
<sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:


Hi Chuck, I was directly responding to Mark�s question on 430 
�upgrade� project where I assumed he was eventually going to 
upgrade his 430 SMs to 450/450i. Perhaps it was an incorrect 
assumption. Believe it or not, my responses aren�t loaded when I 
post here.




On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

"right away" sounds ominous


-Original Message- From: Sriram Chaturvedi
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

450i AP will interop with 430 SMs. You don't need to swap the SMs 
out right away.


Thanks,
Sriram


From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh 
<m...@amplex.net>

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 
450i instead of 450 for 430 upgrade projects. Do I have to get all 
of the 430 SM�s swapped first?


Mark


On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider 
<aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:


It should work, but at the moment I can�t recall if/when we 
tried this with PTP mode.  I�ll let you know.


450i - 450 isn�t really an �interop� situation like 430 - 
450 was.  430 - 450 was quite a bit different, needing SISO to 
talk to MIMO with the way we did MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both 
channels for data).  450i - 450 is much more similar, and we have 
been using that combination internally for a long time. It 
wasn�t part of the initial release of 450i due to needing to 
focus on the HW release itself.


I�ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow 
you to upgrade a PTP link one end at a time.


Regards,
-Aaron




On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup" 
<af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:


I thought interop was only for PMP?


On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:
Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[Sriram Chaturvedi]

Yes you can, Mark. 


From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 12:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

We have a number of towers to convert from 4 450’s with 90 degree sectors to 6 
AP’s with 60 degree sectors.   Most of these are already at 80-90% 450 SM’s.   
I was asking if I can go directly to 450i AP’s without having to finish 
collecting the 430’s.

Mark

> On Nov 28, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Sriram Chaturvedi 
> <sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Chuck, I was directly responding to Mark’s question on 430 “upgrade” 
> project where I assumed he was eventually going to upgrade his 430 SMs to 
> 450/450i. Perhaps it was an incorrect assumption. Believe it or not, my 
> responses aren’t loaded when I post here.
>
>
>> On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>
>> "right away" sounds ominous
>>
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Sriram Chaturvedi
>> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP
>>
>> 450i AP will interop with 430 SMs. You don't need to swap the SMs out right 
>> away.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sriram
>>
>> 
>> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP
>>
>> How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 450i 
>> instead of 450 for 430 upgrade projects.  Do I have to get all of the 430 
>> SM�s swapped first?
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider 
>>> <aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It should work, but at the moment I can�t recall if/when we tried this 
>>> with PTP mode.  I�ll let you know.
>>>
>>> 450i - 450 isn�t really an �interop� situation like 430 - 450 was.  
>>> 430 - 450 was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to MIMO with the 
>>> way we did MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for data).  450i - 450 
>>> is much more similar, and we have been using that combination internally 
>>> for a long time.  It wasn�t part of the initial release of 450i due to 
>>> needing to focus on the HW release itself.
>>>
>>> I�ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow you to 
>>> upgrade a PTP link one end at a time.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -Aaron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup" 
>>> <af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I thought interop was only for PMP?
>>>>
>>>> On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:
>>>>> Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?
>>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[huge uge]

Hello Chuck,
a bit off subject for most posts Ive seen here,  i was trying to do the
Cambium 13.4, pmp 100 update for our equipment (11/09/15), I keep getting
this message:

 "Error occurred while updating device: AP-DES: null 11/15/15 03:05:58
WARN: Host:  . . . .   ;ESN: 0A003E910EBE;Message: Invalid File
Image(status:211).

 and another freakish event took place  : Thanksgiving morning, a raven was
pecking at our Memory Link GHR 5011 timing slave/ backhaul, and succeeded
at knocking the antenna off of the unit. I tried repairing the connector
(the keeper/ internal snap ring was dislodged from the collar) but the stub
extension will not stay in position once the winds here pick up.  I also do
not know how to access the Memory Link unit, since the previous events I no
longer can access any equipment downstream from  T 1 ( T 2 and T 3 ), If I
am on site with an SM or CMM registered with T2 or T3I can access
everything downstream of T1 as long as the unit I am plugged into is
downstream of T1,  logic says : T1 and T2  have an issue with a timing
master or timing slave or both,  I don't know where to find more resources
to expand my peanut (brain) possibly due to frustration but I need to
trouble shoot this issue our network is down and Cambium generally takes
too long. so far, every instance of Cambium support has been an education
in what doesn't work,  and after 2 or three reads of the card provided
procedures I spend two to three weeks undoing their support.  Cambium
Updater could  have been the cause,  the program locked up and did nothing
for three days, which led to having restore the PC due to corrupt or
missing files, of which I am still finding.  My redheaded temper and lack
of patients has me in a spin,  any body familiar with Memory link
procedures i.e default/reset  access for configuration ? thanks  HAGD

Chedder

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote:

> We have a number of towers to convert from 4 450’s with 90 degree sectors
> to 6 AP’s with 60 degree sectors.   Most of these are already at 80-90% 450
> SM’s.   I was asking if I can go directly to 450i AP’s without having to
> finish collecting the 430’s.
>
> Mark
>
> > On Nov 28, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
> sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Chuck, I was directly responding to Mark’s question on 430 “upgrade”
> project where I assumed he was eventually going to upgrade his 430 SMs to
> 450/450i. Perhaps it was an incorrect assumption. Believe it or not, my
> responses aren’t loaded when I post here.
> >
> >
> >> On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> "right away" sounds ominous
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message----- From: Sriram Chaturvedi
> >> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM
> >> To: af@afmug.com
> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP
> >>
> >> 450i AP will interop with 430 SMs. You don't need to swap the SMs out
> right away.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Sriram
> >>
> >> ____
> >> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <
> m...@amplex.net>
> >> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM
> >> To: af@afmug.com
> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP
> >>
> >> How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 450i
> instead of 450 for 430 upgrade projects.  Do I have to get all of the 430
> SM�s swapped first?
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider <
> aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It should work, but at the moment I can�t recall if/when we tried
> this with PTP mode.  I�ll let you know.
> >>>
> >>> 450i - 450 isn�t really an �interop� situation like 430 - 450
> was.  430 - 450 was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to MIMO
> with the way we did MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for data).
> 450i - 450 is much more similar, and we have been using that combination
> internally for a long time.  It wasn�t part of the initial release of
> 450i due to needing to focus on the HW release itself.
> >>>
> >>> I�ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow you
> to upgrade a PTP link one end at a time.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> -Aaron
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup" <
> af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I thought interop was only for PMP?
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:
> >>>>> Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[George Skorup]

I imagine at some point, the 430 SMs will be like the old P8 SMs. You 
will want to get them off of the network to keep the overall sector 
capacity in check.


On 11/28/2015 1:05 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi wrote:

Yes you can, Mark.


From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 12:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

We have a number of towers to convert from 4 450�s with 90 degree sectors to 
6 AP�s with 60 degree sectors.   Most of these are already at 80-90% 450 
SM�s.   I was asking if I can go directly to 450i AP�s without having to 
finish collecting the 430�s.

Mark


On Nov 28, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Sriram Chaturvedi 
<sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:

Hi Chuck, I was directly responding to Mark�s question on 430 �upgrade� 
project where I assumed he was eventually going to upgrade his 430 SMs to 
450/450i. Perhaps it was an incorrect assumption. Believe it or not, my 
responses aren�t loaded when I post here.



On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

"right away" sounds ominous


-Original Message- From: Sriram Chaturvedi
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

450i AP will interop with 430 SMs. You don't need to swap the SMs out right 
away.

Thanks,
Sriram


From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 450i instead 
of 450 for 430 upgrade projects.  Do I have to get all of the 430 SM�s 
swapped first?

Mark



On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider 
<aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:

It should work, but at the moment I can�t recall if/when we tried this with 
PTP mode.  I�ll let you know.

450i - 450 isn�t really an �interop� situation like 430 - 450 was.  430 - 
450 was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to MIMO with the way we did 
MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for data).  450i - 450 is much more 
similar, and we have been using that combination internally for a long time.  
It wasn�t part of the initial release of 450i due to needing to focus on the 
HW release itself.

I�ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow you to 
upgrade a PTP link one end at a time.

Regards,
-Aaron




On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup" <af-boun...@afmug.com on 
behalf of geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:


I thought interop was only for PMP?

On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:

Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[huge uge]

sorry miss typed the update  13.4 DES PMP 100

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:29 AM, huge uge <hugeuge1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Chuck,
> a bit off subject for most posts Ive seen here,  i was trying to do the
> Cambium 13.4, pmp 100 update for our equipment (11/09/15), I keep getting
> this message:
>
>  "Error occurred while updating device: AP-DES: null 11/15/15 03:05:58
> WARN: Host:  . . . .   ;ESN: 0A003E910EBE;Message: Invalid File
> Image(status:211).
>
>  and another freakish event took place  : Thanksgiving morning, a raven
> was pecking at our Memory Link GHR 5011 timing slave/ backhaul, and
> succeeded at knocking the antenna off of the unit. I tried repairing the
> connector (the keeper/ internal snap ring was dislodged from the collar)
> but the stub extension will not stay in position once the winds here pick
> up.  I also do not know how to access the Memory Link unit, since the
> previous events I no longer can access any equipment downstream from  T 1 (
> T 2 and T 3 ), If I am on site with an SM or CMM registered with T2 or T3
>I can access everything downstream of T1 as long as the unit I am
> plugged into is downstream of T1,  logic says : T1 and T2  have an issue
> with a timing master or timing slave or both,  I don't know where to find
> more resources to expand my peanut (brain) possibly due to frustration but
> I need to trouble shoot this issue our network is down and Cambium
> generally takes too long. so far, every instance of Cambium support has
> been an education in what doesn't work,  and after 2 or three reads of the
> card provided procedures I spend two to three weeks undoing their support.
> Cambium Updater could  have been the cause,  the program locked up and did
> nothing for three days, which led to having restore the PC due to corrupt
> or missing files, of which I am still finding.  My redheaded temper and
> lack of patients has me in a spin,  any body familiar with Memory link
> procedures i.e default/reset  access for configuration ? thanks  HAGD
>
> Chedder
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote:
>
>> We have a number of towers to convert from 4 450’s with 90 degree sectors
>> to 6 AP’s with 60 degree sectors.   Most of these are already at 80-90% 450
>> SM’s.   I was asking if I can go directly to 450i AP’s without having to
>> finish collecting the 430’s.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> > On Nov 28, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
>> sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Chuck, I was directly responding to Mark’s question on 430 “upgrade”
>> project where I assumed he was eventually going to upgrade his 430 SMs to
>> 450/450i. Perhaps it was an incorrect assumption. Believe it or not, my
>> responses aren’t loaded when I post here.
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "right away" sounds ominous
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -Original Message- From: Sriram Chaturvedi
>> >> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM
>> >> To: af@afmug.com
>> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP
>> >>
>> >> 450i AP will interop with 430 SMs. You don't need to swap the SMs out
>> right away.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Sriram
>> >>
>> >> 
>> >> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <
>> m...@amplex.net>
>> >> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM
>> >> To: af@afmug.com
>> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP
>> >>
>> >> How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 450i
>> instead of 450 for 430 upgrade projects.  Do I have to get all of the 430
>> SM�s swapped first?
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider <
>> aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> It should work, but at the moment I can�t recall if/when we tried
>> this with PTP mode.  I�ll let you know.
>> >>>
>> >>> 450i - 450 isn�t really an �interop� situation like 430 - 450
>> was.  430 - 450 was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to MIMO
>> with the way we did MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for data).
>> 450i - 450 is much more similar, and we have been using that combination
>> internally for a long time.  It wasn�t part of the initial release of
>> 450i due to needing to focus on the HW release itself.
>> >>>
>> >>> I�ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow you
>> to upgrade a PTP link one end at a time.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> -Aaron
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup" <
>> af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I thought interop was only for PMP?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:
>> >>>>> Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[Aaron Schneider]

It should work, but at the moment I can’t recall if/when we tried this with PTP 
mode.  I’ll let you know.  

450i - 450 isn’t really an “interop” situation like 430 - 450 was.  430 - 450 
was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to MIMO with the way we did 
MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for data).  450i - 450 is much more 
similar, and we have been using that combination internally for a long time.  
It wasn’t part of the initial release of 450i due to needing to focus on the HW 
release itself.

I’ll be in touch on the PTP question.  It is important to allow you to upgrade 
a PTP link one end at a time.

Regards,
-Aaron




On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup"  wrote:

>I thought interop was only for PMP?
>
>On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:
>> Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?
>

[AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[Matt]

Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP

[George Skorup]

I thought interop was only for PMP?

On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote:

Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now?