[AFMUG] Nanostation M2s rebooting

[Jason McKemie]

I have a couple of repeater sites with Nanostation M2s acting as APs.  The
Nanostations are connected to Mikrotik Powerbox Pros.  The Nanostations
randomly reboot, while everything else at the site including the Powerboxes
stay online.  Is anyone else seeing anything similar?
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] question re: Mikrotik PPPoE server and MRU/MTU

[chuck]

They booked all those disks as assets.

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:41 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] question re: Mikrotik PPPoE server and MRU/MTU

I’m a boomer and I wouldn’t use AOL.  I remember when they mailed out tons of 
signup discs though, that people used as Christmas tree ornaments and drink 
coasters.

 

But yeah, he’s an older gent.  I was impressed though, his computer was on 
Windows 10.  I was expecting 98 or Vista or something.

 

Remember when people would launch the AOL software instead of using IE or 
Netscape?


 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steven Kenney
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 11:29 AM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] question re: Mikrotik PPPoE server and MRU/MTU

 

All modern devices yes.  But in the past I've seen it on older windows machines 
I had to manually set it.  Especially if you are talking about someone still 
using AOL they must be a boomer :) 

 

-- 
Steven Kenney
Network Operations Manager
WaveDirect Telecommunications
http://www.wavedirect.net
(519)737-WAVE (9283)

 




From: "Ken Hohhof" 
To: "af" 
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 4:32:04 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] question re: Mikrotik PPPoE server and MRU/MTU

 

I don’t think anyone changes settings on the Ethernet or WiFi connection on 
their PC, the router is responsible for rewriting the advertised MSS in the TCP 
SYN packets.  So the PC advertises MSS=1460, that gets changed to 1452 or 
lower.  (MSS = MTU-40)

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steven Kenney
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 1:57 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] question re: Mikrotik PPPoE server and MRU/MTU

 

Something to consider.  Their operating system and devices also need to be set 
lower.  If the PC is still at 1492 and the router is lower it will cause 
issues.  I've seen this before. 

 

How these routers are using anything lower than 1492 is interesting. 

 

-- 
Steven Kenney
Network Operations Manager
WaveDirect Telecommunications
http://www.wavedirect.net
(519)737-WAVE (9283)

 




From: "Ken Hohhof" 
To: "af" 
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 2:28:04 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] question re: Mikrotik PPPoE server and MRU/MTU

 

We have used both Mikrotik and Cisco tower routers as PPPoE servers for several 
years, but have recently been swapping out the remaining Ciscos.  I have run 
into a strange problem that I’m hoping somebody here knows the answer.

 

We have the max MTU and MRU set to 1492 on the PPPoE server, but in the list of 
dynamically created interfaces some of them show up as 1480, 1454, etc.  I 
didn’t think much of this because I know some router manufacturers have those 
as default settings.  If the client router wants a lower MTU, that should be OK 
as long as it clamps MSS advertisements to the lower value.  (I don’t want to 
get into MSS clamping at the server side.)

 

But I ran into a customer with an old DLink router and he was unable to get to 
www.aol.com, other websites and speedtests worked OK.  Grasping at straws, I 
had him log into his DLink to see what the MTU setting was.  It was set 
manually to 1492, the menu did not have an option to negotiate MTU 
automatically.  I had him change it to 1480 and that solved his problem.

 

I don’t want to get too deep into solving a problem with an old DLink router, 
but I’m wondering if I’ve got something configured wrong.

 

I assume if the Mikrotik PPPoE server has the PPPoE virtual interface MRU set 
to 1480, that means it won’t receive packets larger than 1480 (plus PPPoE 
headers).  Why are a few sessions getting MRU lower than 1492?  I assume that 
is what the client insists on during PPPoE negotiation?  And if so, why would a 
router with MTU set to 1492, and that appears to be doing MSS clamping based on 
1492, negotiate 1480 with the server?

 

 

And why would Mikrotik be handling this different than Cisco?  I don’t think I 
ever saw an MTU different from 1492 in the Cisco virtual interface properties.

 

I know occasionally (very rarely) I’ve had a customer say one particular 
website won’t come up, I think I had somebody complain about Yahoo once.  Now 
I’m wondering if that was an MTU problem also.  But I don’t really see anything 
under my control at the server end to fix this, other than maybe to set max MRU 
lower like 1450 or something.  I don’t really want to do that, because it would 
mean less efficiency (fewer data bytes per packet) for no apparent good reason. 
 All clients should be able to use 1492 (1500 minus 8 overhead bytes), and if 
for some reason they want a lower MTU, that should be OK as long as they clamp 
MSS advertisements to that lower number.

 


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] question re: Mikrotik PPPoE server and MRU/MTU

[Ken Hohhof]

I’m a boomer and I wouldn’t use AOL.  I remember when they mailed out tons of 
signup discs though, that people used as Christmas tree ornaments and drink 
coasters.

 

But yeah, he’s an older gent.  I was impressed though, his computer was on 
Windows 10.  I was expecting 98 or Vista or something.

 

Remember when people would launch the AOL software instead of using IE or 
Netscape?

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steven Kenney
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 11:29 AM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] question re: Mikrotik PPPoE server and MRU/MTU

 

All modern devices yes.  But in the past I've seen it on older windows machines 
I had to manually set it.  Especially if you are talking about someone still 
using AOL they must be a boomer :) 

 

-- 
Steven Kenney
Network Operations Manager
WaveDirect Telecommunications
http://www.wavedirect.net
(519)737-WAVE (9283)

 

  _  

From: "Ken Hohhof" mailto:af...@kwisp.com> >
To: "af" mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 4:32:04 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] question re: Mikrotik PPPoE server and MRU/MTU

 

I don’t think anyone changes settings on the Ethernet or WiFi connection on 
their PC, the router is responsible for rewriting the advertised MSS in the TCP 
SYN packets.  So the PC advertises MSS=1460, that gets changed to 1452 or 
lower.  (MSS = MTU-40)

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Steven Kenney
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 1:57 PM
To: af mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] question re: Mikrotik PPPoE server and MRU/MTU

 

Something to consider.  Their operating system and devices also need to be set 
lower.  If the PC is still at 1492 and the router is lower it will cause 
issues.  I've seen this before. 

 

How these routers are using anything lower than 1492 is interesting. 

 

-- 
Steven Kenney
Network Operations Manager
WaveDirect Telecommunications
http://www.wavedirect.net
(519)737-WAVE (9283)

 

  _  

From: "Ken Hohhof" mailto:af...@kwisp.com> >
To: "af" mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 2:28:04 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] question re: Mikrotik PPPoE server and MRU/MTU

 

We have used both Mikrotik and Cisco tower routers as PPPoE servers for several 
years, but have recently been swapping out the remaining Ciscos.  I have run 
into a strange problem that I’m hoping somebody here knows the answer.

 

We have the max MTU and MRU set to 1492 on the PPPoE server, but in the list of 
dynamically created interfaces some of them show up as 1480, 1454, etc.  I 
didn’t think much of this because I know some router manufacturers have those 
as default settings.  If the client router wants a lower MTU, that should be OK 
as long as it clamps MSS advertisements to the lower value.  (I don’t want to 
get into MSS clamping at the server side.)

 

But I ran into a customer with an old DLink router and he was unable to get to 
www.aol.com  , other websites and speedtests worked OK.  
Grasping at straws, I had him log into his DLink to see what the MTU setting 
was.  It was set manually to 1492, the menu did not have an option to negotiate 
MTU automatically.  I had him change it to 1480 and that solved his problem.

 

I don’t want to get too deep into solving a problem with an old DLink router, 
but I’m wondering if I’ve got something configured wrong.

 

I assume if the Mikrotik PPPoE server has the PPPoE virtual interface MRU set 
to 1480, that means it won’t receive packets larger than 1480 (plus PPPoE 
headers).  Why are a few sessions getting MRU lower than 1492?  I assume that 
is what the client insists on during PPPoE negotiation?  And if so, why would a 
router with MTU set to 1492, and that appears to be doing MSS clamping based on 
1492, negotiate 1480 with the server?

 

 

And why would Mikrotik be handling this different than Cisco?  I don’t think I 
ever saw an MTU different from 1492 in the Cisco virtual interface properties.

 

I know occasionally (very rarely) I’ve had a customer say one particular 
website won’t come up, I think I had somebody complain about Yahoo once.  Now 
I’m wondering if that was an MTU problem also.  But I don’t really see anything 
under my control at the server end to fix this, other than maybe to set max MRU 
lower like 1450 or something.  I don’t really want to do that, because it would 
mean less efficiency (fewer data bytes per packet) for no apparent good reason. 
 All clients should be able to use 1492 (1500 minus 8 overhead bytes), and if 
for some reason they want a lower MTU, that should be OK as long as they clamp 
MSS advertisements to that lower number.

 


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] question re: Mikrotik PPPoE server and MRU/MTU

[Steven Kenney]

All modern devices yes. But in the past I've seen it on older windows machines 
I had to manually set it. Especially if you are talking about someone still 
using AOL they must be a boomer :) 

-- 
Steven Kenney 
Network Operations Manager 
WaveDirect Telecommunications 
http://www.wavedirect.net 
(519)737-WAVE (9283) 


From: "Ken Hohhof"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 4:32:04 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] question re: Mikrotik PPPoE server and MRU/MTU 



I don’t think anyone changes settings on the Ethernet or WiFi connection on 
their PC, the router is responsible for rewriting the advertised MSS in the TCP 
SYN packets. So the PC advertises MSS=1460, that gets changed to 1452 or lower. 
(MSS = MTU-40) 




From: AF  On Behalf Of Steven Kenney 
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 1:57 PM 
To: af  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] question re: Mikrotik PPPoE server and MRU/MTU 





Something to consider. Their operating system and devices also need to be set 
lower. If the PC is still at 1492 and the router is lower it will cause issues. 
I've seen this before. 





How these routers are using anything lower than 1492 is interesting. 





-- 
Steven Kenney 
Network Operations Manager 
WaveDirect Telecommunications 
[ http://www.wavedirect.net/ | http://www.wavedirect.net ] 
(519)737-WAVE (9283) 






From: "Ken Hohhof" < [ mailto:af...@kwisp.com | af...@kwisp.com ] > 
To: "af" < [ mailto:af@af.afmug.com | af@af.afmug.com ] > 
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 2:28:04 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] question re: Mikrotik PPPoE server and MRU/MTU 





We have used both Mikrotik and Cisco tower routers as PPPoE servers for several 
years, but have recently been swapping out the remaining Ciscos. I have run 
into a strange problem that I’m hoping somebody here knows the answer. 



We have the max MTU and MRU set to 1492 on the PPPoE server, but in the list of 
dynamically created interfaces some of them show up as 1480, 1454, etc. I 
didn’t think much of this because I know some router manufacturers have those 
as default settings. If the client router wants a lower MTU, that should be OK 
as long as it clamps MSS advertisements to the lower value. (I don’t want to 
get into MSS clamping at the server side.) 



But I ran into a customer with an old DLink router and he was unable to get to 
[ http://www.aol.com/ | www.aol.com ] , other websites and speedtests worked 
OK. Grasping at straws, I had him log into his DLink to see what the MTU 
setting was. It was set manually to 1492, the menu did not have an option to 
negotiate MTU automatically. I had him change it to 1480 and that solved his 
problem. 



I don’t want to get too deep into solving a problem with an old DLink router, 
but I’m wondering if I’ve got something configured wrong. 



I assume if the Mikrotik PPPoE server has the PPPoE virtual interface MRU set 
to 1480, that means it won’t receive packets larger than 1480 (plus PPPoE 
headers). Why are a few sessions getting MRU lower than 1492? I assume that is 
what the client insists on during PPPoE negotiation? And if so, why would a 
router with MTU set to 1492, and that appears to be doing MSS clamping based on 
1492, negotiate 1480 with the server? 





And why would Mikrotik be handling this different than Cisco? I don’t think I 
ever saw an MTU different from 1492 in the Cisco virtual interface properties. 



I know occasionally (very rarely) I’ve had a customer say one particular 
website won’t come up, I think I had somebody complain about Yahoo once. Now 
I’m wondering if that was an MTU problem also. But I don’t really see anything 
under my control at the server end to fix this, other than maybe to set max MRU 
lower like 1450 or something. I don’t really want to do that, because it would 
mean less efficiency (fewer data bytes per packet) for no apparent good reason. 
All clients should be able to use 1492 (1500 minus 8 overhead bytes), and if 
for some reason they want a lower MTU, that should be OK as long as they clamp 
MSS advertisements to that lower number. 




-- 
AF mailing list 
[ mailto:AF@af.afmug.com | AF@af.afmug.com ] 
[ http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com | 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com ] 

-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] reverse auction

[Dev]

From the FCC:

We opt to allocate this funding through a multi-round, reverse, descending 
clock auction that favors faster services with lower latency and encourages 
intermodal competition in order to ensure that the greatest possible number of 
Americans will be connected to the best possible networks, all at a competitive 
cost. In light of the need to bring service both to consumers in areas wholly 
unserved by 25/3 Mbps, as well as those living in areas partially served, we 
will assign funding in two phases: Phase I will target those areas that current 
data confirm are wholly unserved; and, Phase II will target unserved locations 
within areas that data demonstrates are only partially served, as well as any 
areas not won in Phase I. By relying on a two- phase process, we can move 
expeditiously to commence an auction in 2020 for those areas we already know 
with certainty are currently unserved, while also ensuring that other areas are 
not left behind by holding a second auction once we have identified any 
additional unserved locations through improvements to our broadband deployment 
data collection.

The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I auction will make use of many of the 
rules that made the CAF Phase II auction a success, with some exceptions to 
account for the passage of time and other changed circumstances. Most 
importantly, in addition to the weighting of performance tiers and latency, we 
will assign support in the auction’s clearing round to the bidder with the 
lowest weight. After the auction, we will require Phase I support recipients to 
offer the required voice and broadband service to all eligible homes and small 
businesses within the awarded areas, without regard to the number of locations 
identified by the Connect America Cost Model (CAM), and instead as determined 
subsequently by the Bureau. This approach differs from that used in the CAF 
Phase II auction, which tied the deployment and service obligations to a 
specific number of locations within awarded areas but allowed the recipients to 
demonstrate that their obligations should be reduced (along with a 
corresponding reduction in support) where there were fewer locations than the 
CAM specified. As discussed below, we will use the Commission’s cost model and 
current data to establish initial service milestones and to monitor interim 
progress, but we emphasize that Phase I bidders will be competing for support 
amounts to offer service to all locations ultimately identified in an area, not 
just to the specific number of locations in that area identified prior to the 
auction, without adjusting awarded support amounts.

-

I guess lower latency means no satellite? Service to EVERY location with fixed 
wireless? We’d need a ton more spectrum, no? 
  


> On Feb 4, 2020, at 7:42 AM, Brian Webster  wrote:
> 
> CAF phase II auctions were like that as I recall.
> 
> Thank you,
> Brian Webster
> www.wirelessmapping.com
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 5:52 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] reverse auction
> 
> Normally reverse auctions are giving up subsidy.  One telco says I will 
> serve these areas at $150/month subsidy.  Then you bid $140 etc etc.
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Dev
> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 3:43 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> Subject: [AFMUG] reverse auction
> 
> So the FCC is looking at doing a reverse auction as part of RDOF, does 
> anyone know how that might work in practice? Are there other examples where 
> you’ve been involved in a reverse auction in other contexts? Is it a good 
> idea?
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
> 
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> 
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] reverse auction

[Brian Webster]

CAF phase II auctions were like that as I recall.

Thank you,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com


-Original Message-
From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 5:52 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] reverse auction

Normally reverse auctions are giving up subsidy.  One telco says I will 
serve these areas at $150/month subsidy.  Then you bid $140 etc etc.

-Original Message- 
From: Dev
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 3:43 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: [AFMUG] reverse auction

So the FCC is looking at doing a reverse auction as part of RDOF, does 
anyone know how that might work in practice? Are there other examples where 
you’ve been involved in a reverse auction in other contexts? Is it a good 
idea?
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com