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? >> >>>> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >