Technically, the support files said
status: slave-registering
rxpower0: -66
rxpower1: -77
rxcapacity: 3840
In most cases, this kind of chain imbalance means alignment or bad pigtail.
We know Josh Luthman knows how to align radios ;), so still waiting to see
if replacing it with a spare fixes it.
If it does, this would be the first case we've heard about w/ these
symptoms, and thousands have been installed successfully, with great
feedback.
Either way, let us know what you find...
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>
wrote:
> Support files said the slave heard the master at -66. Doubt it.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> On Jun 11, 2015 8:13 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:
>
>> New EIRP rules biting you in the ass?
>>
>> *From:* Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 6:56 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Force110 PTP links
>>
>>
>> EPTP mode fills the latency fix.
>>
>> My first attempt at AF5x and it won't even register. I'm trying to
>> replace Rockets that link up at -66. I'm told that there's a path issue or
>> bad radio.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> On Jun 11, 2015 7:45 PM, "George Skorup" <geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why exactly? Just asking. I'm wondering if we should be doing cheap PTP
>>> with ePMP or AF5x. I have several Force110 links up (just SMs, not PTP)
>>> operating all across the 5GHz bands. And one 10 mile link with Laird 2'
>>> dishes using connectorized non-GPS radios. Other than some oddities like
>>> intermittent increases in latency, they have all been working very well.
>>> Most are still running 2.3.3 and I don't want to touch them because they're
>>> working just fine. I'm leaning towards the Force110 PTP radios and whatever
>>> antennas required for new links since it fits with all the other Canopy and
>>> ePMP stuff (power injection, etc). But the AFs sure are nice when you can
>>> do FDD (except the 5X!) and get very low latency like licensed.
>>>
>>> On 6/11/2015 6:32 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>
>>> Honestly I think they're better than AF5x at this point.
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>> On Jun 11, 2015 7:25 PM, "joseph marsh" <bwireless...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I got 2 links ready to deploy just sitting the office waiting to go up
>>>> on the tower
>>>> On Jun 11, 2015 5:34 PM, "Josh Luthman" <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Uhm...I guess? It hears noise better than Ubnt for sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Josh Luthman
>>>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>>>> Suite 1337
>>>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>>> On Jun 11, 2015 6:23 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the force auto select a clean frequency?
>>>>>> On Jun 11, 2015 5:13 PM, "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> containerized... that must be when you buy a cheap router from
>>>>>>> walmart in put it on a tower in a rubbermaid container.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You mean connectorized?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bp
>>>>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2015 2:21 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The containerized 5 GHz radios do the same throughput
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
