He sounds like some of our city know it all's lolIf he is the captain of this ship why dont he have a channel plan in place a dictate available spectrum for you? The one thing I do not like about boastful IT guys is their ability to know everything but know nothing at the same time LOL
On 9/24/2014 12:46 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:
He had the same issue when he went to the lower 5ghz bandsthis started IMMEDIATELY after they replaced the radios. the remote side got struck by lightningthe minute they turned the radios up there were problemspower levels fluctuating and not mathmatically matching up are by no means an indicator of interference. I could see if there had been an issue with the prior ptp500, but there wasnt.I change the channel on the UBNT and the ptp650 spectrum shows a drop in the noise matching exactly the channel size of the ubnt channel. The antenna they have at this site is a radiowaves 2' HP antenna, so i could just about point the UBNT directly at it.This boils down to the blame game of a guy not wanting to have to deal with the aftermath of shoddy workmanship. When a path profile says you should be at -61 with 18 db power cap and youre at -78 with a 21 db output, thats shoddy workmanship. It was still on symmetric channels for gods sake. If you cant get a link to stabilize, the last thing you want to do is to try to run both sides on the same channel.If it werent for the douchey NDA this customer (our landlord)(they actually required that when I remoted in I did it as a contractor under him to be under the NDA he has) has I would post the screenshots and it would be obvious the primary issue here is not a single colocated radio. When your H/V is way off, that alone tells you you didnt do your job.The first thing that needs done is to fix the screaming physical issues, then mitigate the ambient interference, then, if there is still an issue, look into the radio that has been there for years as a tertiary source of problems.He actually got pissed when I started investigating all the radios, he said all I was supposed to do was log in and do channelization, I dont know how the fuck he thinks you can do a channel plan without even knowing what channels the radios are on.A note, this guy is also the same intermediary who said you absolutely can only have BGP on a single router in a networkOn Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:30 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a receiver front-end overload. This happens far too often on Rocket radios. Isn't the 650 a whole-band radio, like 4.9-5.9? I hope it would have some spectacular filtering for the fify brazillion $ they want for it. I would shut your stuff down for 10 minutes and see what happens. On 9/24/2014 12:00 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!! On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote: Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of the woods. No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but it absolutely crushes anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and freq-use range. Atheros radios outside of the band also get overloaded and CCQ tanks. AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5... kinda not a fan at this point. Same for just about every -AC radio from every manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa does though, I am mildly interested in those. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com> On 09/23/2014 08:29 PM, David Milholen via Af wrote:Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the new 650 units. Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low if the power requirements are not being met. I have had ubiquity on my tower colo'd with a ptp230 5.4 unit and I set the ubiquity in the 5.2 range and it completely knocked off our ptp230 link. I had to turn the power way down below even min power levels before the 230 would come back up. If by turning your system down and levels do return to normal for them. Then I would take a closer look at your config on your AP to see if you can tweak it to meet standards and at the same time not mess with them. I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using ubiquity and the Out of band noise was incredible. I had 50' sep and andrew dish with at least 120 deg out of center. The Ns5 was the one with 3' dish. Another thing to try is to get someone who make gutters and use sheet metal to make an extended shield placed between the ubiquity and the 600s On 9/23/2014 7:05 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:but i do really like the interface on the 650 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:04 PM, That One Guy <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote: This is really beginning to irritate me, Now the guy who replaced the gear is still blaming us for the problems here, I moved the ubnt gear clear down to like 5.1 or whatever the lowest channel is, the spectrum at this and the remote site are deplorable. The Signal/Noise ratio is moving around on the ptp650 and the Vector Errors are off the chart, but he still wants to blame our equipment. I can tell you it boils down to an improper system repair post disaster. I pulled screen shots, both before and after I moved our channels, showed them the issue with their own colocated radios, turned on assymetric channels, yes, they were running symmetric in a high noise environment, nothing could go wrong there, right? Now tomorrow, my boss is going there to unplug our radio, taking our customers down. Im betting some utter nonsense like capacitant power or our antenna shape ends up being to blame here. I know ubnt is shit and bleeds noise allover, this particular radio is a rocket m5 with the 30db dish and the shield kit. The link is 90 degrees off both of theirs (ours is west, they have one north and one south) I believe we have 30 foot vertical sep between it and their closest radio. I can see how a rocket would magically destroy the whole 5ghz spectrum and not have performance issues itself.I even cycled the UBNT radios to make sure that they actually did change channels. ATPC power ranging not matching current TX output and RX doesnt make any sense to me. Interference alone will not alter RX power unless its very very notable. And then to top it off its said it would be better to move completely off the band to 3ghz since it cant interfere. Yeah, great fucking idea, lets take the only semi clean spectrum left and burn it on a backhaul thats performing as it should because other people dont know how to troubleshoot their own damn gear. But the kicker to that would be "oh, you must still be interfering, that m365 is actually a 5ghz radio downconverted how bout this, climb the damn tower and fix the fuckup fucking meh On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:04 PM, That One Guy via Af <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote: Im not doing anything, this is a not my chair not my problem issue. This strike blew everything on the tower, if it was electronic, it cooked, the switch was sitting on back of the APC and welded to it even tripped the breaker Im just curious with these if theres any issue with the ATPC on these bas boys On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:42 PM, David via Af <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote: Inspect the cables or at lease switch one or both out at one end and see if a prevalent change is made. Could be a feed horn but unlikely I would shoot for pigtails first. On 09/23/2014 02:38 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:I just got done troubleshooting a 650 link for our landlord we are coloed with on a couple towers. I had not looked at the ptp interface since the 500. This thing is freaking beautiful, and I never compliment anybody, especially on a web gui. Sooooo much information, so easy to find. one question though, They have atpc set to -35 on these, does that basically turn atpc off, or could it cause a problem? Im pretty sure they have a loose antenna or damaged feedhorn/patch cables (this was a lighnting replacement of a ptp500, reusing the cables/feedhorn) The system statistics showed a variation of received power ranging from -47 to -78 with a peak of -110 , -78ish being current. Transmit powers show a variation of -15dBm up to 21 dBm (I did not notice the negative value at first). This would account for the range of Received power except When the Status screenshots were taken, the transmit power on both units was at 21 dBm with a 77/78 receive power on each side. If the output power is accurate, the receive power on the remote end would be at the peak, not the mean.-- All parts should go together without forcing.You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925-- All parts should go together without forcing. Youmust remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925-- All parts should go together without forcing. You mustremember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925-- All parts should go together without forcing. You mustremember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925---- All parts should go together without forcing. You must rememberthat the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925--All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
--
