[AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230
Hi, Has anyone tried v13.2 on a ptp230 5.4GHz link ? This link goes down regularly since the upgrade, and I'm seeing events like this : CPU Utilization (Cur/Max): (100%/100%) Total Time : 1975809 us TASK TASK % RT Tot TASK Tot S T A C K Task PC NAME PRI RT MAX Cyc Preempt CtxSw (Sz/Cur%/Max%)OV Status Addr - SYNC 4 ( 0%) 834 6725 0 9 (12284/ 2%/30%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 WDOG 5 ( 0%) 51 243 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Ready 0xa29b1c LEDT 6 ( 0%) 72 347 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 DIAG 10 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 APMT 11 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 trap 14 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/32%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SESS 15 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/47%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SOCK 16 ( 0%) 235 757 4 8 (12284/ 6%/26%) Suspend 0x67ed4 COMM 17 ( 0%) 67 67 0 1 (12284/ 2%/29%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 VLAN 20 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x11 APPT 22 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 ctic 23 ( 0%) 534 3666 8 28 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 Inet 24 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/24%) Suspend 0x67ed4 BDMT 27 ( 0%) 51 96 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 BDQT 28 ( 0%) 474 2146 0 20 (12284/ 2%/12%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 AUTH 31 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SNMP 32 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 teln 34 ( 0%) 66 213 0 4 (12284/ 6%/25%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL1 35 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL2 36 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL3 37 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL4 38 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 FTPs 39 ( 0%) 53 199 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 ROOT 46 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 UPDM 47 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 UPDT 48 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 HTTP 50 ( 0%) 53 206 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 PROX 51 ( 0%) 278 633 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TFT0 53 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) PendQ 0x67ed4 nvrm 55 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 PING 56 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 LLDT 57 ( 0%) 185 350 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 STAT 60 (16%) 19251 341146 6 24 ( 8192/ 3%/14%) Ready 0x67ed4 IDLE 61 (80%) 49944 1619015 68 68 ( 8192/523272%/14%) Ready 0x67cb4 PRI PC ID or **System Startup** System Reset Exception -- Watchdog Reset Software Version : CANOPY 13.2 BHUL-DES Board Type : P11 Device Setting : 5.4GHz SISO OFDM - Backhaul - Timing Slave - 0a-00-3e-b0-48-35 FPGA Version : 082914 FPGA Features : DES, Sched; 01/01/2011 : 00:00:02 UTC : : Bridge/OS Core : FatalError() NULL exception reset 01/01/2011 : 00:00:02 UTC : Stack Dump information: Current context Task: IDLE Current Stack: 3% Max Stack: 14% then **System Startup** System Reset Exception -- Watchdog Reset Software Version : CANOPY 13.2 BHUL-DES Board Type : P11 Device Setting : 5.4GHz SISO OFDM - Backhaul - Timing Slave - 0a-00-3e-b0-48-35 FPGA Version : 082914 FPGA Features : DES, Sched; 11/19/2014 : 15:06:07 UTC : : Bridge/OS Core : Time Set
Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230
Looks like my port is flapping on my switch From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mano via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:32 AM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Just tried it on ptp 230 5.7Ghz and both sides never came back up…updated the slave side first never registered back so I upgraded the master side can’t even ping that anymore From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathieu via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:16 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Hi, Has anyone tried v13.2 on a ptp230 5.4GHz link ? This link goes down regularly since the upgrade, and I'm seeing events like this : CPU Utilization (Cur/Max): (100%/100%) Total Time : 1975809 us TASK TASK % RT Tot TASK Tot S T A C K Task PC NAME PRI RT MAX Cyc Preempt CtxSw (Sz/Cur%/Max%)OV Status Addr - SYNC 4 ( 0%) 834 6725 0 9 (12284/ 2%/30%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 WDOG 5 ( 0%) 51 243 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Ready 0xa29b1c LEDT 6 ( 0%) 72 347 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 DIAG 10 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 APMT 11 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 trap 14 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/32%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SESS 15 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/47%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SOCK 16 ( 0%) 235 757 4 8 (12284/ 6%/26%) Suspend 0x67ed4 COMM 17 ( 0%) 67 67 0 1 (12284/ 2%/29%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 VLAN 20 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x11 APPT 22 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 ctic 23 ( 0%) 534 3666 8 28 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 Inet 24 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/24%) Suspend 0x67ed4 BDMT 27 ( 0%) 51 96 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 BDQT 28 ( 0%) 474 2146 0 20 (12284/ 2%/12%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 AUTH 31 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SNMP 32 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 teln 34 ( 0%) 66 213 0 4 (12284/ 6%/25%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL1 35 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL2 36 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL3 37 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL4 38 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 FTPs 39 ( 0%) 53 199 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 ROOT 46 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 UPDM 47 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 UPDT 48 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 HTTP 50 ( 0%) 53 206 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 PROX 51 ( 0%) 278 633 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TFT0 53 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) PendQ 0x67ed4 nvrm 55 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 PING 56 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 LLDT 57 ( 0%) 185 350 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 STAT 60 (16%) 19251 341146 6 24 ( 8192/ 3%/14%) Ready 0x67ed4 IDLE 61 (80%) 49944 1619015 68 68 ( 8192/523272%/14%) Ready 0x67cb4 PRI PC ID or **System Startup** System Reset Exception -- Watchdog Reset Software Version : CANOPY 13.2 BHUL-DES Board Type : P11 Device Setting : 5.4GHz SISO OFDM - Backhaul - Timing Slave - 0a-00-3e-b0-48-35 FPGA Version : 082914 FPGA Features : DES, Sched; 01/01/2011 : 00:00:02 UTC : : Bridge/OS Core : FatalError() NULL exception reset 01/01/2011 : 00:00:02 UTC : Stack Dump information: Current context Task: IDLE Current Stack: 3% Max Stack: 14% then **System Startup** System Reset Exception -- Watchdog Reset Software Version : CANOPY 13.2 BHUL-DES Board Type : P11 Device Setting : 5.4GHz SISO OFDM - Backhaul - Timing Slave - 0a-00-3e-b0-48-35 FPGA Version : 082914 FPGA Features : DES, Sched; 11/19/2014 : 15:06:07 UTC : : Bridge/OS Core : Time Set
Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230
Tried test pair on shop floor. Updated from 13.1.3 to 13.2 without any issues and they seemed to work fine on 13.2. Hear from others on list that in the field they don't like to have traffic on 13.2 but seem fine without traffic. Plugging each one directly into laptop and downgrading may be your best fix now. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ryan Mano via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Looks like my port is flapping on my switch From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mano via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:32 AM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Just tried it on ptp 230 5.7Ghz and both sides never came back up…updated the slave side first never registered back so I upgraded the master side can’t even ping that anymore From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathieu via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:16 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Hi, Has anyone tried v13.2 on a ptp230 5.4GHz link ? This link goes down regularly since the upgrade, and I'm seeing events like this : CPU Utilization (Cur/Max): (100%/100%) Total Time : 1975809 us TASK TASK % RT Tot TASK Tot S T A C K Task PC NAME PRI RT MAX Cyc Preempt CtxSw (Sz/Cur%/Max%)OV Status Addr - SYNC 4 ( 0%) 834 6725 0 9 (12284/ 2%/30%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 WDOG 5 ( 0%) 51 243 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Ready 0xa29b1c LEDT 6 ( 0%) 72 347 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 DIAG 10 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 APMT 11 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 trap 14 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/32%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SESS 15 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/47%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SOCK 16 ( 0%) 235 757 4 8 (12284/ 6%/26%) Suspend 0x67ed4 COMM 17 ( 0%) 67 67 0 1 (12284/ 2%/29%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 VLAN 20 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x11 APPT 22 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 ctic 23 ( 0%) 534 3666 8 28 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 Inet 24 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/24%) Suspend 0x67ed4 BDMT 27 ( 0%) 51 96 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 BDQT 28 ( 0%) 474 2146 0 20 (12284/ 2%/12%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 AUTH 31 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SNMP 32 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 teln 34 ( 0%) 66 213 0 4 (12284/ 6%/25%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL1 35 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL2 36 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL3 37 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL4 38 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 FTPs 39 ( 0%) 53 199 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 ROOT 46 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 UPDM 47 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 UPDT 48 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 HTTP 50 ( 0%) 53 206 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 PROX 51 ( 0%) 278 633 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TFT0 53 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) PendQ 0x67ed4 nvrm 55 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 PING 56 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 LLDT 57 ( 0%) 185 350 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 STAT 60 (16%) 19251 341146 6 24 ( 8192/ 3%/14%) Ready 0x67ed4 IDLE 61 (80%) 49944 1619015 68 68 ( 8192/523272%/14%) Ready 0x67cb4 PRI PC ID or **System Startup** System Reset Exception -- Watchdog Reset Software Version : CANOPY 13.2 BHUL-DES Board Type : P11 Device Setting : 5.4GHz SISO OFDM - Backhaul - Timing Slave - 0a-00-3e-b0-48-35 FPGA Version : 082914 FPGA Features : DES, Sched; 01/01/2011 : 00:00:02 UTC : : Bridge/OS Core : FatalError() NULL exception reset 01/01/2011 : 00:00:02 UTC : Stack Dump information: Current context Task: IDLE Current Stack: 3% Max Stack: 14% then **System Startup** System Reset Exception -- Watchdog Reset Software Version : CANOPY 13.2 BHUL-DES Board Type : P11 Device Setting : 5.4GHz SISO OFDM - Backhaul - Timing Slave - 0a-00-3e-b0-48-35 FPGA Version : 082914 FPGA Features : DES, Sched; 11/19/2014 : 15:06:07 UTC : : Bridge/OS Core : Time Set
Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230
Sounds like whatever you do don’t upgrade, just a side note, we run all of our 230ptp on 11.2. That is the last stable firmware that I have seen for this product. I have worked with cambium on the no registration problem and gotten no where, its like they gave up on this product. Everything I have tested since 11.2 has registration problems, either they won’t link or they take 10, 20 or whatever they feel like minutes to link. So we just stay on 11.2. I have never seen any issues for us on 11.2. YMMV Craig R. Schmaderer CEO | Skywave Wireless, Inc. Ph: 402-372-1975 | Fax: 402-372-1058 Direct: 402-372-1052 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mano via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:37 AM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Looks like my port is flapping on my switch From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mano via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:32 AM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Just tried it on ptp 230 5.7Ghz and both sides never came back up…updated the slave side first never registered back so I upgraded the master side can’t even ping that anymore From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathieu via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:16 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Hi, Has anyone tried v13.2 on a ptp230 5.4GHz link ? This link goes down regularly since the upgrade, and I'm seeing events like this : CPU Utilization (Cur/Max): (100%/100%) Total Time : 1975809 us TASK TASK % RT Tot TASK Tot S T A C K Task PC NAME PRI RT MAX Cyc Preempt CtxSw (Sz/Cur%/Max%)OV Status Addr - SYNC 4 ( 0%) 834 6725 0 9 (12284/ 2%/30%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 WDOG 5 ( 0%) 51 243 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Ready 0xa29b1c LEDT 6 ( 0%) 72 347 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 DIAG 10 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 APMT 11 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 trap 14 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/32%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SESS 15 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/47%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SOCK 16 ( 0%) 235 757 4 8 (12284/ 6%/26%) Suspend 0x67ed4 COMM 17 ( 0%) 67 67 0 1 (12284/ 2%/29%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 VLAN 20 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x11 APPT 22 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 ctic 23 ( 0%) 534 3666 8 28 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 Inet 24 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/24%) Suspend 0x67ed4 BDMT 27 ( 0%) 51 96 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 BDQT 28 ( 0%) 474 2146 0 20 (12284/ 2%/12%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 AUTH 31 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SNMP 32 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 teln 34 ( 0%) 66 213 0 4 (12284/ 6%/25%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL1 35 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL2 36 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL3 37 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL4 38 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 FTPs 39 ( 0%) 53 199 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 ROOT 46 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 UPDM 47 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 UPDT 48 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 HTTP 50 ( 0%) 53 206 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 PROX 51 ( 0%) 278 633 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TFT0 53 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) PendQ 0x67ed4 nvrm 55 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 PING 56 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 LLDT 57 ( 0%) 185 350 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 STAT 60 (16%) 19251 341146 6 24 ( 8192/ 3%/14%) Ready 0x67ed4 IDLE 61 (80%) 49944 1619015 68 68 ( 8192/523272%/14%) Ready 0x67cb4 PRI PC ID or **System Startup** System Reset Exception -- Watchdog Reset Software Version : CANOPY 13.2 BHUL-DES Board Type : P11 Device Setting : 5.4GHz SISO OFDM - Backhaul - Timing Slave - 0a-00-3e-b0-48-35 FPGA Version : 082914 FPGA Features : DES, Sched; 01/01/2011 : 00:00:02 UTC : : Bridge/OS Core : FatalError() NULL exception reset 01/01/2011 : 00:00:02 UTC : Stack Dump information: Current context Task: IDLE Current Stack: 3% Max Stack: 14% then **System Startup** System Reset Exception -- Watchdog Reset Software Version : CANOPY 13.2 BHUL-DES Board Type : P11 Device Setting : 5.4GHz SISO OFDM - Backhaul - Timing Slave - 0a-00-3e-b0-48-35 FPGA Version : 082914 FPGA Features : DES, Sched; 11/19/2014 : 15:06:07 UTC : : Bridge/OS Core : Time Set
Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230
that's what I've done. I made CNUT captures before the downgrade, while in 13.2, if the support needs them. Mathieu Le 19/11/2014 16:45, Matt via Af a écrit : Tried test pair on shop floor. Updated from 13.1.3 to 13.2 without any issues and they seemed to work fine on 13.2. Hear from others on list that in the field they don't like to have traffic on 13.2 but seem fine without traffic. Plugging each one directly into laptop and downgrading may be your best fix now. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ryan Mano via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Looks like my port is flapping on my switch From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mano via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:32 AM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Just tried it on ptp 230 5.7Ghz and both sides never came back up…updated the slave side first never registered back so I upgraded the master side can’t even ping that anymore From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathieu via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:16 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Hi, Has anyone tried v13.2 on a ptp230 5.4GHz link ? This link goes down regularly since the upgrade, and I'm seeing events like this : CPU Utilization (Cur/Max): (100%/100%) Total Time : 1975809 us TASK TASK % RT Tot TASK Tot S T A C K Task PC NAME PRI RT MAX Cyc Preempt CtxSw (Sz/Cur%/Max%)OV Status Addr - SYNC 4 ( 0%) 834 6725 0 9 (12284/ 2%/30%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 WDOG 5 ( 0%) 51 243 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Ready 0xa29b1c LEDT 6 ( 0%) 72 347 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 DIAG 10 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 APMT 11 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 trap 14 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/32%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SESS 15 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/47%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SOCK 16 ( 0%) 235 757 4 8 (12284/ 6%/26%) Suspend 0x67ed4 COMM 17 ( 0%) 67 67 0 1 (12284/ 2%/29%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 VLAN 20 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x11 APPT 22 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 ctic 23 ( 0%) 534 3666 8 28 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 Inet 24 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/24%) Suspend 0x67ed4 BDMT 27 ( 0%) 51 96 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 BDQT 28 ( 0%) 474 2146 0 20 (12284/ 2%/12%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 AUTH 31 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SNMP 32 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 teln 34 ( 0%) 66 213 0 4 (12284/ 6%/25%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL1 35 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL2 36 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL3 37 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL4 38 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 FTPs 39 ( 0%) 53 199 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 ROOT 46 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 UPDM 47 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 UPDT 48 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 HTTP 50 ( 0%) 53 206 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 PROX 51 ( 0%) 278 633 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TFT0 53 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) PendQ 0x67ed4 nvrm 55 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 PING 56 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 LLDT 57 ( 0%) 185 350 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 STAT 60 (16%) 19251 341146 6 24 ( 8192/ 3%/14%) Ready 0x67ed4 IDLE 61 (80%) 49944 1619015 68 68 ( 8192/523272%/14%) Ready 0x67cb4 PRI PC ID or **System Startup** System Reset Exception -- Watchdog Reset Software Version : CANOPY 13.2 BHUL-DES Board Type : P11 Device Setting : 5.4GHz SISO OFDM - Backhaul - Timing Slave - 0a-00-3e-b0-48-35 FPGA Version : 082914 FPGA Features : DES, Sched; 01/01/2011 : 00:00:02 UTC : : Bridge/OS Core : FatalError() NULL exception reset 01/01/2011 : 00:00:02 UTC : Stack Dump information: Current context Task: IDLE Current Stack: 3% Max Stack: 14% then **System Startup** System Reset Exception -- Watchdog Reset Software Version : CANOPY 13.2 BHUL-DES Board Type : P11 Device Setting : 5.4GHz SISO OFDM - Backhaul - Timing Slave - 0a-00-3e-b0-48-35 FPGA Version : 082914 FPGA Features : DES, Sched; 11/19/2014 : 15:06:07 UTC : : Bridge/OS Core : Time Set
Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230
Oh side note, all the 230ptp we have are the 5.4ghz flavor, links range from a few miles to 10 miles, we have tested and seen this behavior on all different lengths and different links. We tested like 3 links one night with guys on both ends to make sure we saw the same behavior, all links fail to register, you normal get some registration range error. I have tested like 3 or 4 different version past 11.2, I gaveup about 6 months ago on this, and we are jest sticking to 11.2, all new links are 450ptp or licensed. Craig R. Schmaderer CEO | Skywave Wireless, Inc. Ph: 402-372-1975 | Fax: 402-372-1058 Direct: 402-372-1052 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Schmaderer via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:50 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Sounds like whatever you do don’t upgrade, just a side note, we run all of our 230ptp on 11.2. That is the last stable firmware that I have seen for this product. I have worked with cambium on the no registration problem and gotten no where, its like they gave up on this product. Everything I have tested since 11.2 has registration problems, either they won’t link or they take 10, 20 or whatever they feel like minutes to link. So we just stay on 11.2. I have never seen any issues for us on 11.2. YMMV Craig R. Schmaderer CEO | Skywave Wireless, Inc. Ph: 402-372-1975 | Fax: 402-372-1058 Direct: 402-372-1052 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mano via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:37 AM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Looks like my port is flapping on my switch From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mano via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:32 AM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Just tried it on ptp 230 5.7Ghz and both sides never came back up…updated the slave side first never registered back so I upgraded the master side can’t even ping that anymore From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathieu via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:16 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Hi, Has anyone tried v13.2 on a ptp230 5.4GHz link ? This link goes down regularly since the upgrade, and I'm seeing events like this : CPU Utilization (Cur/Max): (100%/100%) Total Time : 1975809 us TASK TASK % RT Tot TASK Tot S T A C K Task PC NAME PRI RT MAX Cyc Preempt CtxSw (Sz/Cur%/Max%)OV Status Addr - SYNC 4 ( 0%) 834 6725 0 9 (12284/ 2%/30%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 WDOG 5 ( 0%) 51 243 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Ready 0xa29b1c LEDT 6 ( 0%) 72 347 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 DIAG 10 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 APMT 11 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 trap 14 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/32%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SESS 15 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/47%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SOCK 16 ( 0%) 235 757 4 8 (12284/ 6%/26%) Suspend 0x67ed4 COMM 17 ( 0%) 67 67 0 1 (12284/ 2%/29%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 VLAN 20 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x11 APPT 22 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 ctic 23 ( 0%) 534 3666 8 28 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 Inet 24 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/24%) Suspend 0x67ed4 BDMT 27 ( 0%) 51 96 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 BDQT 28 ( 0%) 474 2146 0 20 (12284/ 2%/12%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 AUTH 31 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SNMP 32 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 teln 34 ( 0%) 66 213 0 4 (12284/ 6%/25%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL1 35 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL2 36 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL3 37 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL4 38 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 FTPs 39 ( 0%) 53 199 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 ROOT 46 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 UPDM 47 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 UPDT 48 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 HTTP 50 ( 0%) 53 206 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 PROX 51 ( 0%) 278 633 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TFT0 53 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) PendQ 0x67ed4 nvrm 55 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 PING 56 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 LLDT 57 ( 0%) 185 350 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 STAT 60 (16%) 19251 341146 6 24 ( 8192/ 3%/14%) Ready 0x67ed4 IDLE 61 (80%) 49944 1619015 68 68 ( 8192/523272%/14%) Ready 0x67cb4 PRI PC ID or **System Startup** System Reset Exception -- Watchdog Reset Software Version : CANOPY 13.2 BHUL-DES Board Type : P11 Device Setting : 5.4GHz SISO OFDM - Backhaul - Timing Slave - 0a-00-3e-b0-48-35 FPGA Version : 082914 FPGA Features : DES, Sched; 01/01/2011 : 00:00:02 UTC : : Bridge/OS Core : FatalError() NULL exception reset 01/01/2011 : 00:00:02 UTC : Stack Dump information: Current context Task: IDLE Current Stack: 3%
Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230
Mathieu - have you sent these into anyone yet? if not, please send to me off list. Thanks, -Aaron aa...@cambiumnetworks.com -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathieu via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:53 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 that's what I've done. I made CNUT captures before the downgrade, while in 13.2, if the support needs them. Mathieu Le 19/11/2014 16:45, Matt via Af a écrit : Tried test pair on shop floor. Updated from 13.1.3 to 13.2 without any issues and they seemed to work fine on 13.2. Hear from others on list that in the field they don't like to have traffic on 13.2 but seem fine without traffic. Plugging each one directly into laptop and downgrading may be your best fix now. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ryan Mano via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Looks like my port is flapping on my switch From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mano via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:32 AM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Just tried it on ptp 230 5.7Ghz and both sides never came back up…updated the slave side first never registered back so I upgraded the master side can’t even ping that anymore From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathieu via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:16 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Hi, Has anyone tried v13.2 on a ptp230 5.4GHz link ? This link goes down regularly since the upgrade, and I'm seeing events like this : CPU Utilization (Cur/Max): (100%/100%) Total Time : 1975809 us TASK TASK % RT Tot TASK Tot S T A C K Task PC NAME PRI RT MAX Cyc Preempt CtxSw (Sz/Cur%/Max%)OV Status Addr - SYNC 4 ( 0%) 834 6725 0 9 (12284/ 2%/30%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 WDOG 5 ( 0%) 51 243 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Ready 0xa29b1c LEDT 6 ( 0%) 72 347 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 DIAG 10 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 APMT 11 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 trap 14 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/32%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SESS 15 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/47%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SOCK 16 ( 0%) 235 757 4 8 (12284/ 6%/26%) Suspend 0x67ed4 COMM 17 ( 0%) 67 67 0 1 (12284/ 2%/29%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 VLAN 20 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x11 APPT 22 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 ctic 23 ( 0%) 534 3666 8 28 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 Inet 24 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/24%) Suspend 0x67ed4 BDMT 27 ( 0%) 51 96 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 BDQT 28 ( 0%) 474 2146 0 20 (12284/ 2%/12%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 AUTH 31 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SNMP 32 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 teln 34 ( 0%) 66 213 0 4 (12284/ 6%/25%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL1 35 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL2 36 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL3 37 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL4 38 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 FTPs 39 ( 0%) 53 199 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 ROOT 46 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 UPDM 47 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 UPDT 48 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 HTTP 50 ( 0%) 53 206 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 PROX 51 ( 0%) 278 633 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TFT0 53 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) PendQ 0x67ed4 nvrm 55 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 PING 56 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 LLDT 57 ( 0%) 185 350 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 STAT 60 (16%) 19251 341146 6 24 ( 8192/ 3%/14%) Ready 0x67ed4 IDLE 61 (80%) 49944 1619015 68 68 ( 8192/523272%/14%) Ready 0x67cb4 PRI PC ID or **System Startup** System Reset Exception -- Watchdog Reset Software Version : CANOPY 13.2 BHUL-DES Board Type : P11 Device Setting : 5.4GHz SISO OFDM - Backhaul - Timing Slave - 0a-00-3e-b0-48-35 FPGA Version : 082914 FPGA Features : DES, Sched; 01/01/2011 : 00:00:02 UTC : : Bridge/OS Core : FatalError() NULL exception reset 01/01/2011 : 00:00:02 UTC : Stack Dump information: Current context Task: IDLE Current Stack: 3% Max Stack: 14% then **System Startup** System Reset Exception -- Watchdog Reset Software Version : CANOPY 13.2 BHUL-DES Board Type : P11 Device Setting : 5.4GHz SISO OFDM - Backhaul - Timing Slave - 0a-00-3e-b0-48-35 FPGA Version : 082914 FPGA Features : DES, Sched; 11/19/2014 : 15:06:07 UTC : : Bridge/OS Core : Time Set
Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter
Is there any downside to dropping all multicast from the customers? My brain says no but my other end says don't try it without confirming. -Ty On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:36 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com wrote: We do only bridge mode and DHCP to the customer's equipment. But I do check the PPPoE filter because it lets me easily see when a customer's router is configured for PPPoE (Stats Filter). I also use the filters for BootP server, SNMP, SMB and multicast. This is some of the best stuff about Canopy. So I would prefer the ePMP to work like Canopy, for the most part anyway. On 11/18/2014 3:13 PM, Matt via Af wrote: I am Dan Sullivan and I am the software manager for ePMP at Cambium. Why do you want to filter PPPoE? Can you explain the use case more for me. When our SM is set up as a PPPoE client and is talking to a PPPoE server, it will only accept traffic from the PPPoE server over the wireless interface. With this in mind, why do you need a PPPoE filter for the wireless interface? One other item, when NAT mode is enabled we can set up a L2 filter for a source MAC and EtherType as indicated below, but only the source MAC filter will work. There is a warning message that indicates this when in NAT mode. I think the desired affect is the same as: On Canopy 450 SM Config / Protocol Filtering Packet Filter Configuration Packet Direction: Filter Direction Upstream Checked Packet Filter Types: Check Everything BUT PPPoE This way the customer router/PC they plug into the ethernet port on the SM can only successfully send PPPoE traffic onto our network.
Re: [AFMUG] PTP230 and 13.2
We have received several reports of issues with PTP230's running 13.2. We are working on determining a root cause for this problem now. We apologize for the inconvenience that this may have caused you. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh via Af Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:44 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP230 and 13.2 On 11/18/14, 1:21 PM, Matt via Af wrote: Dump files sent to you already. May potentially be hardware issues or something unique to our network. I did try plugging it into the network at the office and it does not reboot. I'll try it, and possibly another unit upgraded to 13.2, at a noisier spot on the network and see what happens. Have you tried another one yet? Yep - does the same thing when seeing the overall L2 network, reboots a couple of seconds after the Ethernet link goes active. It does not do it on a smaller segment of our network, so it's likely a specific packet type, the quantity or type of vlans, or the number of MAC addresses. When I get a chance I'll grab a pcap of the traffic that makes it reboot and send it to Cambium (probably tomorrow). Mark -- Mark Radabaugh Amplex m...@amplex.net 419.837.5015 x 1021
Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230
Yep loaded back 11.2 and now am able to ping the master and port is not flapping anymore….guess am going to have to make the same changes to the slave From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Schmaderer via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:54 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Oh side note, all the 230ptp we have are the 5.4ghz flavor, links range from a few miles to 10 miles, we have tested and seen this behavior on all different lengths and different links. We tested like 3 links one night with guys on both ends to make sure we saw the same behavior, all links fail to register, you normal get some registration range error. I have tested like 3 or 4 different version past 11.2, I gaveup about 6 months ago on this, and we are jest sticking to 11.2, all new links are 450ptp or licensed. Craig R. Schmaderer CEO | Skywave Wireless, Inc. Ph: 402-372-1975 | Fax: 402-372-1058 Direct: 402-372-1052 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Schmaderer via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:50 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Sounds like whatever you do don’t upgrade, just a side note, we run all of our 230ptp on 11.2. That is the last stable firmware that I have seen for this product. I have worked with cambium on the no registration problem and gotten no where, its like they gave up on this product. Everything I have tested since 11.2 has registration problems, either they won’t link or they take 10, 20 or whatever they feel like minutes to link. So we just stay on 11.2. I have never seen any issues for us on 11.2. YMMV Craig R. Schmaderer CEO | Skywave Wireless, Inc. Ph: 402-372-1975 | Fax: 402-372-1058 Direct: 402-372-1052 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mano via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:37 AM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Looks like my port is flapping on my switch From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mano via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:32 AM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Just tried it on ptp 230 5.7Ghz and both sides never came back up…updated the slave side first never registered back so I upgraded the master side can’t even ping that anymore From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathieu via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:16 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Hi, Has anyone tried v13.2 on a ptp230 5.4GHz link ? This link goes down regularly since the upgrade, and I'm seeing events like this : CPU Utilization (Cur/Max): (100%/100%) Total Time : 1975809 us TASK TASK % RT Tot TASK Tot S T A C K Task PC NAME PRI RT MAX Cyc Preempt CtxSw (Sz/Cur%/Max%)OV Status Addr - SYNC 4 ( 0%) 834 6725 0 9 (12284/ 2%/30%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 WDOG 5 ( 0%) 51 243 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Ready 0xa29b1c LEDT 6 ( 0%) 72 347 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 DIAG 10 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 APMT 11 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 trap 14 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/32%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SESS 15 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/47%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SOCK 16 ( 0%) 235 757 4 8 (12284/ 6%/26%) Suspend 0x67ed4 COMM 17 ( 0%) 67 67 0 1 (12284/ 2%/29%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 VLAN 20 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x11 APPT 22 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 ctic 23 ( 0%) 534 3666 8 28 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 Inet 24 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/24%) Suspend 0x67ed4 BDMT 27 ( 0%) 51 96 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 BDQT 28 ( 0%) 474 2146 0 20 (12284/ 2%/12%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 AUTH 31 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SNMP 32 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 teln 34 ( 0%) 66 213 0 4 (12284/ 6%/25%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL1 35 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL2 36 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL3 37 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL4 38 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 FTPs 39 ( 0%) 53 199 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 ROOT 46 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 UPDM 47 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 UPDT 48 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 HTTP 50 ( 0%) 53 206 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 PROX 51 ( 0%) 278 633 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TFT0 53 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) PendQ 0x67ed4 nvrm 55 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 PING 56 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 LLDT 57 ( 0%) 185 350 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 STAT 60 (16%) 19251 341146 6 24 ( 8192/ 3%/14%) Ready 0x67ed4 IDLE 61 (80%) 49944 1619015 68 68 ( 8192/523272%/14%) Ready 0x67cb4 PRI PC ID or **System Startup** System Reset Exception -- Watchdog Reset Software Version :
[AFMUG] OT Text width
How many columns wide did the old TTL dos monitors display? 80? I am writing some C# code and I want to use my old commenting format but I don’t remember the page widths I used back in the day.
[AFMUG] New Cell tower install seeing a lot of CRC errors
Ok guys, I know this has been talked about a few times about FM towers. We have a new site, that has about 20 cell phone antennas on it and maybe 8 private band handheld radio antennas. We are seeing crc errors on all the radios, not really effecting overall traffic, but I would like to fix it. I have only used really good CAT5 cable for about 10 years now in my area on all of our towers with great success. We never have lightning issues unless it's a direct hit and the radio blows up. What I am wondering is that maybe when I used shielded cable 10 years ago to connect to cisco aps, we always popped the ports on them. Granted I didn't know much back then and I don't believe I had the shielded cable grounded right. So what I'm asking, I assume the best way to fix this is with shielded cable. How do most people setup the shielded run. So do I go into a chuck ground with a shielded end connected to the drain wire at the bottom and then do I go into a chuck ground at the top too? Or do I strip the jacket and ground the shield to the tower? I guess I don't want to just guess and loose radios in lightning storms again, can someone let me know what great results they have in the way they ground the run? Thanks, Criag. Craig R. Schmaderer CEO | Skywave Wireless, Inc. Ph: 402-372-1975 | Fax: 402-372-1058 Direct: 402-372-1052
Re: [AFMUG] OT Text width
80x24 iirc Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote: How many columns wide did the old TTL dos monitors display? 80? I am writing some C# code and I want to use my old commenting format but I don’t remember the page widths I used back in the day.
Re: [AFMUG] OT Text width
Thanks, that I what I was thinking, but 80 columns looks pretty small on a modern IDE editor screen. Maybe I will allow myself a few more columns From: Josh Luthman via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:54 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Text width 80x24 iirc Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote: How many columns wide did the old TTL dos monitors display? 80? I am writing some C# code and I want to use my old commenting format but I don’t remember the page widths I used back in the day.
Re: [AFMUG] OT Text width
SSH into something and look how small that display is on your monitor. Should be the same, no? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Thanks, that I what I was thinking, but 80 columns looks pretty small on a modern IDE editor screen. Maybe I will allow myself a few more columns *From:* Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:54 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Text width 80x24 iirc Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote: How many columns wide did the old TTL dos monitors display? 80? I am writing some C# code and I want to use my old commenting format but I don’t remember the page widths I used back in the day.
Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230
As Jonathan noted, we’ve gotten several reports of this nature, and are discussing it in this thread. http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/Other-PTP-Solutions/PTP230-v13-2-100-cpu/m-p/36679#U36679 Thanks, Matt From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mano via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:49 AM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Yep loaded back 11.2 and now am able to ping the master and port is not flapping anymore….guess am going to have to make the same changes to the slave From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Schmaderer via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:54 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Oh side note, all the 230ptp we have are the 5.4ghz flavor, links range from a few miles to 10 miles, we have tested and seen this behavior on all different lengths and different links. We tested like 3 links one night with guys on both ends to make sure we saw the same behavior, all links fail to register, you normal get some registration range error. I have tested like 3 or 4 different version past 11.2, I gaveup about 6 months ago on this, and we are jest sticking to 11.2, all new links are 450ptp or licensed. Craig R. Schmaderer CEO | Skywave Wireless, Inc. Ph: 402-372-1975 | Fax: 402-372-1058 Direct: 402-372-1052 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Schmaderer via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:50 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Sounds like whatever you do don’t upgrade, just a side note, we run all of our 230ptp on 11.2. That is the last stable firmware that I have seen for this product. I have worked with cambium on the no registration problem and gotten no where, its like they gave up on this product. Everything I have tested since 11.2 has registration problems, either they won’t link or they take 10, 20 or whatever they feel like minutes to link. So we just stay on 11.2. I have never seen any issues for us on 11.2. YMMV Craig R. Schmaderer CEO | Skywave Wireless, Inc. Ph: 402-372-1975 | Fax: 402-372-1058 Direct: 402-372-1052 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mano via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:37 AM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Looks like my port is flapping on my switch From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Mano via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:32 AM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Just tried it on ptp 230 5.7Ghz and both sides never came back up…updated the slave side first never registered back so I upgraded the master side can’t even ping that anymore From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathieu via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:16 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] v13.2 - ptp230 Hi, Has anyone tried v13.2 on a ptp230 5.4GHz link ? This link goes down regularly since the upgrade, and I'm seeing events like this : CPU Utilization (Cur/Max): (100%/100%) Total Time : 1975809 us TASK TASK % RT Tot TASK Tot S T A C K Task PC NAME PRI RT MAX Cyc Preempt CtxSw (Sz/Cur%/Max%)OV Status Addr - SYNC 4 ( 0%) 834 6725 0 9 (12284/ 2%/30%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 WDOG 5 ( 0%) 51 243 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Ready 0xa29b1c LEDT 6 ( 0%) 72 347 0 6 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 DIAG 10 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 APMT 11 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 trap 14 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/32%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SESS 15 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/47%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SOCK 16 ( 0%) 235 757 4 8 (12284/ 6%/26%) Suspend 0x67ed4 COMM 17 ( 0%) 67 67 0 1 (12284/ 2%/29%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 VLAN 20 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/10%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x11 APPT 22 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 ctic 23 ( 0%) 534 3666 8 28 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) Ready 0x67ed4 Inet 24 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/24%) Suspend 0x67ed4 BDMT 27 ( 0%) 51 96 0 2 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 BDQT 28 ( 0%) 474 2146 0 20 (12284/ 2%/12%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 AUTH 31 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 SNMP 32 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 3%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 teln 34 ( 0%) 66 213 0 4 (12284/ 6%/25%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL1 35 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL2 36 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL3 37 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TEL4 38 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) Suspend 0x67ed4 FTPs 39 ( 0%) 53 199 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 ROOT 46 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/40%) Suspend 0x67ed4 UPDM 47 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/11%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 UPDT 48 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 9%) PendEvFlgGrp 0x67ed4 HTTP 50 ( 0%) 53 206 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 PROX 51 ( 0%) 278 633 0 4 (12284/ 7%/27%) Suspend 0x67ed4 TFT0 53 ( 0%) 0 0 0 0 (12284/ 2%/ 8%) PendQ 0x67ed4 nvrm
Re: [AFMUG] OT Text width
On 11/19/14, 8:59, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: Thanks, that I what I was thinking, but 80 columns looks pretty small on a modern IDE editor screen. Maybe I will allow myself a few more columns I use 110x48. ~Seth
Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter
Downside, none. Unless you're doing something with multicast over an SM link, like maybe OSPF. A few years ago, we had a bunch of customer routers (might have been Linksys or Netgear) that were spewing out multicast. And a large L2 segment of the network (which is now broken up) slowed to a crawl. I think it was IGMP. And SM isolation wouldn't have solved the problem for the entire network. Multicast filter on all of the Canopy SMs reduced the violence. But I think this was around the same time we had some Trango 5580's go stupid. They appeared to be looping traffic, but not all types, just broadcast and multicast. It was really weird. But now all that Trango stuff is gone, every last one. On 11/19/2014 10:09 AM, Ty Featherling via Af wrote: Is there any downside to dropping all multicast from the customers? My brain says no but my other end says don't try it without confirming. -Ty On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:36 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: We do only bridge mode and DHCP to the customer's equipment. But I do check the PPPoE filter because it lets me easily see when a customer's router is configured for PPPoE (Stats Filter). I also use the filters for BootP server, SNMP, SMB and multicast. This is some of the best stuff about Canopy. So I would prefer the ePMP to work like Canopy, for the most part anyway. On 11/18/2014 3:13 PM, Matt via Af wrote: I am Dan Sullivan and I am the software manager for ePMP at Cambium. Why do you want to filter PPPoE? Can you explain the use case more for me. When our SM is set up as a PPPoE client and is talking to a PPPoE server, it will only accept traffic from the PPPoE server over the wireless interface. With this in mind, why do you need a PPPoE filter for the wireless interface? One other item, when NAT mode is enabled we can set up a L2 filter for a source MAC and EtherType as indicated below, but only the source MAC filter will work. There is a warning message that indicates this when in NAT mode. I think the desired affect is the same as: On Canopy 450 SM Config / Protocol Filtering Packet Filter Configuration Packet Direction: Filter Direction Upstream Checked Packet Filter Types: Check Everything BUT PPPoE This way the customer router/PC they plug into the ethernet port on the SM can only successfully send PPPoE traffic onto our network.
Re: [AFMUG] New Cell tower install seeing a lot of CRC errors
use these in the equipment room at the bottom of the tower: wbmfg.com GigE-APC-HV http://wbmfg.com/products.cfm?PID=61 they slide into this APC rack mount: http://www.apc.com/products/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=PRM24gclid=CPXz8JWUh8ICFeRzMgod4DwA3w or into this DIN rail mount: http://wbmfg.com/products.cfm?PID=39 use shielded RJ-45 connectors on both ends of the cable and make sure that the drain wire is firmly connected to the outside shielding (you are suppose to solder to the shield but in my opinion that is impractical up on a tower and if you crimp the connection correctly then you'll be fine) fyi the shielded wire may not solve the CRC issue completely and you may need to run your cables inside shielded liquidtight conduit. also you may want to invest in a nice fluke tester to ensure that the cable and crimp are working properly. -sean On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Craig Schmaderer via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Ok guys, I know this has been talked about a few times about FM towers. We have a new site, that has about 20 cell phone antennas on it and maybe 8 private band handheld radio antennas. We are seeing crc errors on all the radios, not really effecting overall traffic, but I would like to fix it. I have only used really good CAT5 cable for about 10 years now in my area on all of our towers with great success. We never have lightning issues unless it’s a direct hit and the radio blows up. What I am wondering is that maybe when I used shielded cable 10 years ago to connect to cisco aps, we always popped the ports on them. Granted I didn’t know much back then and I don’t believe I had the shielded cable grounded right. So what I’m asking, I assume the best way to fix this is with shielded cable. How do most people setup the shielded run. So do I go into a chuck ground with a shielded end connected to the drain wire at the bottom and then do I go into a chuck ground at the top too? Or do I strip the jacket and ground the shield to the tower? I guess I don’t want to just guess and loose radios in lightning storms again, can someone let me know what great results they have in the way they ground the run? Thanks, Criag. *Craig R. Schmaderer* *CEO | Skywave Wireless, Inc.* *Ph: 402-372-1975 402-372-1975 | Fax: 402-372-1058 402-372-1058* *Direct: 402-372-1052 402-372-1052*
Re: [AFMUG] OT Text width
They were typically 80 characters wide, but it was common to limit actual text to 72 characters. bp part-15@SkylineBroadbandService On 11/19/2014 8:51 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: How many columns wide did the old TTL dos monitors display? 80? I am writing some C# code and I want to use my old commenting format but I don’t remember the page widths I used back in the day.
Re: [AFMUG] New Cell tower install seeing a lot of CRC errors
Thanks, so just to confirm, you only ground it with the chuck rack, and on top you still use a shield connected so the radio gets connected, and no where else do you ground the cable to the tower or cut into the jacket? Craig R. Schmaderer CEO | Skywave Wireless, Inc. Ph: 402-372-1975 | Fax: 402-372-1058 Direct: 402-372-1052 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New Cell tower install seeing a lot of CRC errors use these in the equipment room at the bottom of the tower: wbmfg.comhttp://wbmfg.com GigE-APC-HV http://wbmfg.com/products.cfm?PID=61 they slide into this APC rack mount: http://www.apc.com/products/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=PRM24gclid=CPXz8JWUh8ICFeRzMgod4DwA3w or into this DIN rail mount: http://wbmfg.com/products.cfm?PID=39 use shielded RJ-45 connectors on both ends of the cable and make sure that the drain wire is firmly connected to the outside shielding (you are suppose to solder to the shield but in my opinion that is impractical up on a tower and if you crimp the connection correctly then you'll be fine) fyi the shielded wire may not solve the CRC issue completely and you may need to run your cables inside shielded liquidtight conduit. also you may want to invest in a nice fluke tester to ensure that the cable and crimp are working properly. -sean On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Craig Schmaderer via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Ok guys, I know this has been talked about a few times about FM towers. We have a new site, that has about 20 cell phone antennas on it and maybe 8 private band handheld radio antennas. We are seeing crc errors on all the radios, not really effecting overall traffic, but I would like to fix it. I have only used really good CAT5 cable for about 10 years now in my area on all of our towers with great success. We never have lightning issues unless it’s a direct hit and the radio blows up. What I am wondering is that maybe when I used shielded cable 10 years ago to connect to cisco aps, we always popped the ports on them. Granted I didn’t know much back then and I don’t believe I had the shielded cable grounded right. So what I’m asking, I assume the best way to fix this is with shielded cable. How do most people setup the shielded run. So do I go into a chuck ground with a shielded end connected to the drain wire at the bottom and then do I go into a chuck ground at the top too? Or do I strip the jacket and ground the shield to the tower? I guess I don’t want to just guess and loose radios in lightning storms again, can someone let me know what great results they have in the way they ground the run? Thanks, Criag. Craig R. Schmaderer CEO | Skywave Wireless, Inc. Ph: 402-372-1975tel:402-372-1975 | Fax: 402-372-1058tel:402-372-1058 Direct: 402-372-1052tel:402-372-1052
Re: [AFMUG] New Cell tower install seeing a lot of CRC errors
correct. also if you have a radio like the Cambium PMP450 you need to ground the radio ground lug to the tower. if you have a radio like the cambium PMP100 (FSK) you don't gound the radio, it's in an all plastic case so you just let it float. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Craig Schmaderer via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Thanks, so just to confirm, you only ground it with the chuck rack, and on top you still use a shield connected so the radio gets connected, and no where else do you ground the cable to the tower or cut into the jacket? *Craig R. Schmaderer* *CEO | Skywave Wireless, Inc.* *Ph: 402-372-1975 402-372-1975 | Fax: 402-372-1058 402-372-1058* *Direct: 402-372-1052 402-372-1052* *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Sean Heskett via Af *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:18 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New Cell tower install seeing a lot of CRC errors use these in the equipment room at the bottom of the tower: wbmfg.com GigE-APC-HV http://wbmfg.com/products.cfm?PID=61 they slide into this APC rack mount: http://www.apc.com/products/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=PRM24gclid=CPXz8JWUh8ICFeRzMgod4DwA3w or into this DIN rail mount: http://wbmfg.com/products.cfm?PID=39 use shielded RJ-45 connectors on both ends of the cable and make sure that the drain wire is firmly connected to the outside shielding (you are suppose to solder to the shield but in my opinion that is impractical up on a tower and if you crimp the connection correctly then you'll be fine) fyi the shielded wire may not solve the CRC issue completely and you may need to run your cables inside shielded liquidtight conduit. also you may want to invest in a nice fluke tester to ensure that the cable and crimp are working properly. -sean On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Craig Schmaderer via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Ok guys, I know this has been talked about a few times about FM towers. We have a new site, that has about 20 cell phone antennas on it and maybe 8 private band handheld radio antennas. We are seeing crc errors on all the radios, not really effecting overall traffic, but I would like to fix it. I have only used really good CAT5 cable for about 10 years now in my area on all of our towers with great success. We never have lightning issues unless it’s a direct hit and the radio blows up. What I am wondering is that maybe when I used shielded cable 10 years ago to connect to cisco aps, we always popped the ports on them. Granted I didn’t know much back then and I don’t believe I had the shielded cable grounded right. So what I’m asking, I assume the best way to fix this is with shielded cable. How do most people setup the shielded run. So do I go into a chuck ground with a shielded end connected to the drain wire at the bottom and then do I go into a chuck ground at the top too? Or do I strip the jacket and ground the shield to the tower? I guess I don’t want to just guess and loose radios in lightning storms again, can someone let me know what great results they have in the way they ground the run? Thanks, Criag. *Craig R. Schmaderer* *CEO | Skywave Wireless, Inc.* *Ph: 402-372-1975 402-372-1975 | Fax: 402-372-1058 402-372-1058* *Direct: 402-372-1052 402-372-1052*
[AFMUG] Upgrade PTP Links with ePMP Modules
If you use 2' parabolic dishes from another vendor and are looking to upgrade to synchronized ePMP, Eric Osrelic shares his field experience and results and achieves back-to-back frequency re-use. Check out his results at http://bit.ly/1uwvQn1 and join the discussion. Ray
Re: [AFMUG] OT Text width
Sounds like a carryover from punch cards. 80 columns but only the first 72 were used, the remainder could be used for sequence numbers. I remember FORTRAN IV programs with labels in columns 1-5 and column 6 was the continuation column, 7-72 were used, 73-80 ignored. From: Bill Prince via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:28 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Text width They were typically 80 characters wide, but it was common to limit actual text to 72 characters. bp part-15@SkylineBroadbandService On 11/19/2014 8:51 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: How many columns wide did the old TTL dos monitors display? 80? I am writing some C# code and I want to use my old commenting format but I don’t remember the page widths I used back in the day.
Re: [AFMUG] Upgrade PTP Links with ePMP Modules
Nice write up.. On 11/19/2014 11:44 AM, Ray Savich via Af wrote: If you use 2� parabolic dishes from another vendor and are looking to upgrade to synchronized ePMP, Eric Osrelic shares his field experience and results and achieves back-to-back frequency re-use. Check out his results at http://bit.ly/1uwvQn1 and join the discussion. Ray
Re: [AFMUG] OT Text width
That sounds good. -Original Message- From: Seth Mattinen via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:02 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Text width On 11/19/14, 8:59, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: Thanks, that I what I was thinking, but 80 columns looks pretty small on a modern IDE editor screen. Maybe I will allow myself a few more columns I use 110x48. ~Seth
Re: [AFMUG] OT Text width
Oh yeah. Now I remember where that 72 characters came in. Fortran programmers and punch cards. Ah, those were the days. bp part-15@SkylineBroadbandService On 11/19/2014 9:51 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: Sounds like a carryover from punch cards. 80 columns but only the first 72 were used, the remainder could be used for sequence numbers. I remember FORTRAN IV programs with labels in columns 1-5 and column 6 was the continuation column, 7-72 were used, 73-80 ignored. *From:* Bill Prince via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:28 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Text width They were typically 80 characters wide, but it was common to limit actual text to 72 characters. bp part-15@SkylineBroadbandService On 11/19/2014 8:51 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: How many columns wide did the old TTL dos monitors display? 80? I am writing some C# code and I want to use my old commenting format but I don’t remember the page widths I used back in the day.
Re: [AFMUG] Upgrade PTP Links with ePMP Modules
i really wish epmp had come out sooner before we put up so much ubnt. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:55 AM, David via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Nice write up.. � On 11/19/2014 11:44 AM, Ray Savich via Af wrote: If you use 2� parabolic dishes from another vendor and are looking to upgrade to synchronized ePMP, Eric Osrelic shares his field experience and results and achieves back-to-back� frequency re-use. Check out his results at http://bit.ly/1uwvQn1� and join the discussion. � Ray -- 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
Re: [AFMUG] Upgrade PTP Links with ePMP Modules
Music to Cambium’s ears. From: That One Guy via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:45 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Upgrade PTP Links with ePMP Modules i really wish epmp had come out sooner before we put up so much ubnt. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:55 AM, David via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Nice write up.. � On 11/19/2014 11:44 AM, Ray Savich via Af wrote: If you use 2� parabolic dishes from another vendor and are looking to upgrade to synchronized ePMP, Eric Osrelic shares his field experience and results and achieves back-to-back� frequency re-use. Check out his results at http://bit.ly/1uwvQn1� and join the discussion. � Ray -- 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
Re: [AFMUG] Cacti Cisco BGP Template?
On what platform? Mikrotik doesn't support BGP4-MIB (shocker). On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Anyone have a good BGP template? I want to monitor peers, routes, updates, etc. Thanks, - Matt
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP antennas for subs
Force100 Gino A. Villarini @gvillarini On Nov 19, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Keith Fletcher via Af af@afmug.com wrote: What are you guys using finding works well as an antenna for the connectorized ePMP subs. NO reflector dishes!
Re: [AFMUG] Upgrade PTP Links with ePMP Modules
Yeah but maybe they wouldn't have developed it if Ubiquiti didn't exist... Sent from my iPhone On Nov 19, 2014, at 1:45 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: i really wish epmp had come out sooner before we put up so much ubnt. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:55 AM, David via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Nice write up.. � On 11/19/2014 11:44 AM, Ray Savich via Af wrote: If you use 2� parabolic dishes from another vendor and are looking to upgrade to synchronized ePMP, Eric Osrelic shares his field experience and results and achieves back-to-back� frequency re-use. Check out his results at http://bit.ly/1uwvQn1� and join the discussion. � Ray -- 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
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP antennas for subs
When the Force 110 arrives (still waiting) use it. It is a definite step up from the Force 100 On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:50 PM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Force100 Gino A. Villarini @gvillarini On Nov 19, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Keith Fletcher via Af af@afmug.com wrote: What are you guys using finding works well as an antenna for the connectorized ePMP subs. NO reflector dishes!
[AFMUG] CNS ...Forbidden 403
I show all 3 services running for CNS, but am getting a 403 error. What am I missing? -- Thank you, Greg Osborn Tech Support and Field Service Manager OnlyInternet.Net 1.800.363.0989 http://www.facebook.com/onlyinternet http://www.twitter.com/oibw http://www.onlyinternet.net/
Re: [AFMUG] Upgrade PTP Links with ePMP Modules
You can bet just about anything on that... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Jon Langeler via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:54:57 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Upgrade PTP Links with ePMP Modules Yeah but maybe they wouldn't have developed it if Ubiquiti didn't exist... Sent from my iPhone On Nov 19, 2014, at 1:45 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: i really wish epmp had come out sooner before we put up so much ubnt. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:55 AM, David via Af af@afmug.com wrote: blockquote Nice write up.. � On 11/19/2014 11:44 AM, Ray Savich via Af wrote: blockquote If you use 2� parabolic dishes from another vendor and are looking to upgrade to synchronized ePMP, Eric Osrelic shares his field experience and results and achieves back-to-back� frequency re-use. Check out his results at http://bit.ly/1uwvQn1 � and join the discussion. � Ray /blockquote -- 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 /blockquote
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP antennas for subs
I'm looking for 2.4GHz specifically. Sorry, I left that out. Force 110 for 2.4GHz isn't available yet. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Alan West via Af af@afmug.com wrote: When the Force 110 arrives (still waiting) use it. It is a definite step up from the Force 100 On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:50 PM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Force100 Gino A. Villarini @gvillarini On Nov 19, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Keith Fletcher via Af af@afmug.com wrote: What are you guys using finding works well as an antenna for the connectorized ePMP subs. NO reflector dishes!
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP antennas for subs
Force 110 is here... Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Alan West via Af af@afmug.com wrote: When the Force 110 arrives (still waiting) use it. It is a definite step up from the Force 100 On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:50 PM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Force100 Gino A. Villarini @gvillarini On Nov 19, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Keith Fletcher via Af af@afmug.com wrote: What are you guys using finding works well as an antenna for the connectorized ePMP subs. NO reflector dishes!
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP antennas for subs
Um, where is it? On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 3:55 PM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Force 110 is here... Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Alan West via Af af@afmug.com wrote: When the Force 110 arrives (still waiting) use it. It is a definite step up from the Force 100 On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:50 PM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Force100 Gino A. Villarini @gvillarini On Nov 19, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Keith Fletcher via Af af@afmug.com wrote: What are you guys using finding works well as an antenna for the connectorized ePMP subs. NO reflector dishes!
[AFMUG] Need some WAN topology/protocol advice
I know a lot of us here span networks across large areas and have multiple providers. I want my IP address space to be redundant and I guess I can either make sure I have a ring with OSPF/ static routes, or I can BGP. Since I sell to other providers that would like BGP and I would like to preserve my routing by /24 classes via BGP. Maybe I should just use BGP at each site/area? That would restrict me to keeping the sites at /24 class size or larger though, since external BGP doesn't like anything smaller. I think that's ok, but it does lend itself to waste if I come short of using the 254 IP's or I just break the barrier into another /24 for the site. But I can't think of any way around it without relying on infrastructure to ring me back to a central BGP point or two, using OSPF inside. What do you guys do?
[AFMUG] PIM PIM Sala Bim
I just finished attending an Axell Webinar and the engineer really harped on PIM requirements. So I looked it to make sure I understood his concerns. For you gents sharing space with Cellco or Two way radio operators on site, this can perhaps shed some light to what can cause you headaches. http://www.anritsu.com/en-US/Products-Solutions/Solution/Understanding-PIM.aspx Jaime Solorza Wireless Systems Architect 915-861-1390
Re: [AFMUG] CNS ...Forbidden 403
Greg, Try entering https://; at the beginning of the URL (note the s). If you've already tried https type in plain http://; instead. Regards, Jordan Stipati Senior Engineer - Software Cambium Networks E: jordan.stip...@cambiumnetworks.commailto:jordan.stip...@cambiumnetworks.com www.cambiumnetworks.comhttp://www.cambiumnetworks.com/ [v_large_blue_noBG.png] From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Greg Osborn via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 3:00 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] CNS ...Forbidden 403 I show all 3 services running for CNS, but am getting a 403 error. What am I missing? -- Thank you, Greg Osborn Tech Support and Field Service Manager OnlyInternet.Net 1.800.363.0989 [http://home.onlyinternet.net/images/social_facebook.png]http://www.facebook.com/onlyinternet [http://home.onlyinternet.net/images/social_twitter.png] http://www.twitter.com/oibw [https://dl.dropbox.com/u/12716696/OIlogo.jpg] http://www.onlyinternet.net/
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP antennas for subs
At least two distributors as of yesterday Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 4:57 PM, Alan West via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Um, where is it? On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 3:55 PM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Force 110 is here... Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Alan West via Af af@afmug.com wrote: When the Force 110 arrives (still waiting) use it. It is a definite step up from the Force 100 On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:50 PM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Force100 Gino A. Villarini @gvillarini On Nov 19, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Keith Fletcher via Af af@afmug.com wrote: What are you guys using finding works well as an antenna for the connectorized ePMP subs. NO reflector dishes!
Re: [AFMUG] Need some WAN topology/protocol advice
Sterling, we do consulting on that type of networking questions. Hit me off-list if you want and we can get you a ticket put in and a 1/2 hour conversation can go a long way to help you get some understanding.. I'm sure though there will be a good discussion here. Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc. den...@linktechs.net - 314-735-0270 - www.linktechs.net -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 4:04 PM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: [AFMUG] Need some WAN topology/protocol advice I know a lot of us here span networks across large areas and have multiple providers. I want my IP address space to be redundant and I guess I can either make sure I have a ring with OSPF/ static routes, or I can BGP. Since I sell to other providers that would like BGP and I would like to preserve my routing by /24 classes via BGP. Maybe I should just use BGP at each site/area? That would restrict me to keeping the sites at /24 class size or larger though, since external BGP doesn't like anything smaller. I think that's ok, but it does lend itself to waste if I come short of using the 254 IP's or I just break the barrier into another /24 for the site. But I can't think of any way around it without relying on infrastructure to ring me back to a central BGP point or two, using OSPF inside. What do you guys do?
[AFMUG] Battery story
I forgot I had a pair of Deka 37AH AGM batts sitting at a site. Not connected to a charger. For a year and a half. In a not so temperature controlled environment. Brought them back to the office yesterday. Still had 12.3 volts on both. AGMs sure are reliable.
Re: [AFMUG] Need some WAN topology/protocol advice
Yeah Dennis, I might do that. Was looking for general input into what others are doing on the list as well though. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Burgess via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 3:35 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Need some WAN topology/protocol advice Sterling, we do consulting on that type of networking questions. Hit me off-list if you want and we can get you a ticket put in and a 1/2 hour conversation can go a long way to help you get some understanding.. I'm sure though there will be a good discussion here. Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc. den...@linktechs.net - 314-735-0270 - www.linktechs.net -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 4:04 PM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: [AFMUG] Need some WAN topology/protocol advice I know a lot of us here span networks across large areas and have multiple providers. I want my IP address space to be redundant and I guess I can either make sure I have a ring with OSPF/ static routes, or I can BGP. Since I sell to other providers that would like BGP and I would like to preserve my routing by /24 classes via BGP. Maybe I should just use BGP at each site/area? That would restrict me to keeping the sites at /24 class size or larger though, since external BGP doesn't like anything smaller. I think that's ok, but it does lend itself to waste if I come short of using the 254 IP's or I just break the barrier into another /24 for the site. But I can't think of any way around it without relying on infrastructure to ring me back to a central BGP point or two, using OSPF inside. What do you guys do?
Re: [AFMUG] PIM PIM Sala Bim
Actually, the cellular companies cause high PIM to themselves, in certain circumstances. It has become more necessary to reduce the effects of high PIM readings, as the new frequencies and higher data requirements have been deployed. While installing 4G radios for Verizon Wireless, the requirements changed and the use of PPC crimp connectors were mandated, as were PIM testing all polyphaser to radio jumpers. Site installation times went from about 6 hours to 9 hours, in light of the new requirements, but I got to charge a lot more money for the installations. J Jon Paul Kelley CKS Wireless From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 4:45 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PIM PIM Sala Bim I assume it’s mainly from the high xmt power guy to the low power guy, in other words them to us, lots less likely us to them? From: Jaime Solorza via Af mailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 4:04 PM To: Animal Farm mailto:af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] PIM PIM Sala Bim I just finished attending an Axell Webinar and the engineer really harped on PIM requirements. So I looked it to make sure I understood his concerns. For you gents sharing space with Cellco or Two way radio operators on site, this can perhaps shed some light to what can cause you headaches. http://www.anritsu.com/en-US/Products-Solutions/Solution/Understanding-PIM.aspx Jaime Solorza Wireless Systems Architect 915-861-1390
Re: [AFMUG] Need some WAN topology/protocol advice
Understand, as I said, lots of people I'm sure will chime in :) Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc. den...@linktechs.net - 314-735-0270 - www.linktechs.net -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 4:39 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Need some WAN topology/protocol advice Yeah Dennis, I might do that. Was looking for general input into what others are doing on the list as well though. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Burgess via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 3:35 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Need some WAN topology/protocol advice Sterling, we do consulting on that type of networking questions. Hit me off-list if you want and we can get you a ticket put in and a 1/2 hour conversation can go a long way to help you get some understanding.. I'm sure though there will be a good discussion here. Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc. den...@linktechs.net - 314-735-0270 - www.linktechs.net -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 4:04 PM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: [AFMUG] Need some WAN topology/protocol advice I know a lot of us here span networks across large areas and have multiple providers. I want my IP address space to be redundant and I guess I can either make sure I have a ring with OSPF/ static routes, or I can BGP. Since I sell to other providers that would like BGP and I would like to preserve my routing by /24 classes via BGP. Maybe I should just use BGP at each site/area? That would restrict me to keeping the sites at /24 class size or larger though, since external BGP doesn't like anything smaller. I think that's ok, but it does lend itself to waste if I come short of using the 254 IP's or I just break the barrier into another /24 for the site. But I can't think of any way around it without relying on infrastructure to ring me back to a central BGP point or two, using OSPF inside. What do you guys do?
[AFMUG] ePMP Force
Anyone got there hands on an ePMP Force yet? Curious on actual latency and throughput with GPS enabled.
Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter
Hi, Thanks to everyone on the forum for their input. It was good feedback with regard to the Canopy filter rules, how much you like them, could these rules be added to ePMP, could specifics be obtained on the rules, and the use cases around filtering. First, people were interested in the following Canopy filters and what their contents were. I have a first pass that may not be exactly right as this is being researched by the Canopy team. When this is ready it will be posted somewhere on the Cambium forum. For the purposes of the issue, let’s assume what I have for the moment is correct to answer people’s questions: PPPoE: EtherType 8863 and EtherType 8864. Bootp Server: Protocol UDP with Port 67 and Protocol UDP with Port 68. SMB: Protocol TCP with Port 445, Protocol TCP+UDP with Port 137, Protocol UDP with Port 138, and Protocol TCP with Port 139. SNMP: Protocol UDP with Port 161 and Protocol TCP+UDP with Port 162. Multicast: Dest MAC 01:00:5E:00:00:00 with Dest Mask FF:FF:FF:80:00:00 – OR -- Dest IP 224.0.0.0 with Dest Mask 224.0.0.0. But, people also wanted to block all traffic except for one intended type. So I will provide the other two filters to enable this: Bootp Client: Protocol UDP with Port 68. ARP: EtherType 0806. Many people asked about having pre-existing rules like Canopy has be implemented on ePMP. Glad to hear that people like this Canopy feature. We can add in pre-existing rules, too. I have added this to our future features database. Right now, I do not have a date for anyone, but we are aware of your desire for this. George Skorup also asked for filtering statistics similar to what exists on Canopy. I have added this to our future features database. Right now, I do not have a date for anyone, but we are aware of your desire for this. You can use the information on the Canopy filters above to set up equivalent functionality on ePMP as for example I describe in the next paragraph. Daniel Gerlach asked about limiting traffic to only PPPoE. Later on Steve indicated that this should pertain to the WAN. My suggestion would be to go to the AP, enable Layer 2 Firewall, and allow EtherType 8863 on the LAN as the first rule, allow EtherType 8864 on the LAN as the second rule, and deny on the LAN as the third rule. This would allow filtering to be done on the AP preventing non-PPPoE packets from going over the WLAN and reaching the SM. *** Please note that I have not specifically tried this out myself to verify it. *** Here are some notes on the ePMP firewall logic: 1. Firewall rules are executed in the order that they are listed. Therefore, if a packet matches more than one rule, it will match first on the earlier rule and never execute the latter rules. 2. Define your allow rules first to make sure that intended packets make it through the firewall. Defining an overall deny rule first will cause bad things to happen. 3. Define your overall deny rule last to make sure that after your intended allow packets make it through, the remaining unintended packets do not make it through. Josh Luthman asked about several filters: 1. Block bootp: On the AP enable Layer 3 Firewall and deny Protocol UDP with Port 67 on the LAN as the first rule and deny Protocol UDP with Port 68 on the LAN as the second rule. 2. Block PPPoE: On the AP enable Layer 2 Firewall and deny EtherType 8863 on the LAN as the first rule and deny EtherType 8864 on the LAN as the second rule. 3. Block SMB: On the AP enable Layer 3 Firewall and deny Protocol TCP with Port 445 on the LAN as the first rule, deny Protocol TCP+UDP with Port 137 on the LAN as the second rule, deny Protocol UDP with Port 138 on the LAN as the third rule, and deny Protocol TCP with Port 139 on the LAN as the fourth rule. *** Please note that I have not specifically tried this out myself to verify it. *** George Skorup asked about four filters: 1. Block Bootp: See Josh Luthman filter 1. 2. Block SNMP: On the AP enable Layer 3 Firewall and deny Protocol UDP with Port 161 on the LAN as the first rule and deny Protocol TCP+UDP with Port 162 on the LAN as the second rule. 3. Block SMB: See Josh Luthman filter 3. 4. A. Block Multicast: On the AP enable Layer 2 Firewall and deny Dest MAC 01:00:5E:00:00:00 with Dest Mask FF:FF:FF:80:00:00 on the LAN as the first rule –OR-- on the AP enable Layer 3 Firewall and deny Dest IP 224.0.0.0 with Dest Mask 224.0.0.0 on the LAN as the first rule. *** Please note that I have not specifically tried this out myself to verify it. *** Dan From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:15 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter Downside, none. Unless you're doing something with multicast over an SM link, like maybe OSPF. A few years ago, we had a bunch of customer
[AFMUG] Where I am - I being Chuck McCown
Please post this to the list. I am so special...
Re: [AFMUG] Where I am - I being Chuck McCown
Has the MPAA Officer come and found you in the theater yet? On 11/19/2014 6:14 PM, Traci via Af wrote: Please post this to the list. I am so special...
Re: [AFMUG] Need some WAN topology/protocol advice
Mpls. Create vpls tunnels to the edge, have all ip at the core Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr On 11/19/14, 6:04 PM, Sterling Jacobson via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I know a lot of us here span networks across large areas and have multiple providers. I want my IP address space to be redundant and I guess I can either make sure I have a ring with OSPF/ static routes, or I can BGP. Since I sell to other providers that would like BGP and I would like to preserve my routing by /24 classes via BGP. Maybe I should just use BGP at each site/area? That would restrict me to keeping the sites at /24 class size or larger though, since external BGP doesn't like anything smaller. I think that's ok, but it does lend itself to waste if I come short of using the 254 IP's or I just break the barrier into another /24 for the site. But I can't think of any way around it without relying on infrastructure to ring me back to a central BGP point or two, using OSPF inside. What do you guys do?
Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter
+100 WISP points Dan. Thanks a ton!!! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 7:09 PM, Dan Sullivan via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Hi, Thanks to everyone on the forum for their input. It was good feedback with regard to the Canopy filter rules, how much you like them, could these rules be added to ePMP, could specifics be obtained on the rules, and the use cases around filtering. First, people were interested in the following Canopy filters and what their contents were. I have a first pass that may not be exactly right as this is being researched by the Canopy team. When this is ready it will be posted somewhere on the Cambium forum. For the purposes of the issue, let’s assume what I have for the moment is correct to answer people’s questions: PPPoE: EtherType 8863 and EtherType 8864. Bootp Server: Protocol UDP with Port 67 and Protocol UDP with Port 68. SMB: Protocol TCP with Port 445, Protocol TCP+UDP with Port 137, Protocol UDP with Port 138, and Protocol TCP with Port 139. SNMP: Protocol UDP with Port 161 and Protocol TCP+UDP with Port 162. Multicast: Dest MAC 01:00:5E:00:00:00 with Dest Mask FF:FF:FF:80:00:00 – OR -- Dest IP 224.0.0.0 with Dest Mask 224.0.0.0. But, people also wanted to block all traffic except for one intended type. So I will provide the other two filters to enable this: Bootp Client: Protocol UDP with Port 68. ARP: EtherType 0806. Many people asked about having pre-existing rules like Canopy has be implemented on ePMP. Glad to hear that people like this Canopy feature. We can add in pre-existing rules, too. I have added this to our future features database. Right now, I do not have a date for anyone, but we are aware of your desire for this. George Skorup also asked for filtering statistics similar to what exists on Canopy. I have added this to our future features database. Right now, I do not have a date for anyone, but we are aware of your desire for this. You can use the information on the Canopy filters above to set up equivalent functionality on ePMP as for example I describe in the next paragraph. Daniel Gerlach asked about limiting traffic to only PPPoE. Later on Steve indicated that this should pertain to the WAN. My suggestion would be to go to the AP, enable Layer 2 Firewall, and allow EtherType 8863 on the LAN as the first rule, allow EtherType 8864 on the LAN as the second rule, and deny on the LAN as the third rule. This would allow filtering to be done on the AP preventing non-PPPoE packets from going over the WLAN and reaching the SM. *** Please note that I have not specifically tried this out myself to verify it. *** Here are some notes on the ePMP firewall logic: 1. Firewall rules are executed in the order that they are listed. Therefore, if a packet matches more than one rule, it will match first on the earlier rule and never execute the latter rules. 2. Define your allow rules first to make sure that intended packets make it through the firewall. Defining an overall deny rule first will cause bad things to happen. 3. Define your overall deny rule last to make sure that after your intended allow packets make it through, the remaining unintended packets do not make it through. Josh Luthman asked about several filters: 1. Block bootp: On the AP enable Layer 3 Firewall and deny Protocol UDP with Port 67 on the LAN as the first rule and deny Protocol UDP with Port 68 on the LAN as the second rule. 2. Block PPPoE: On the AP enable Layer 2 Firewall and deny EtherType 8863 on the LAN as the first rule and deny EtherType 8864 on the LAN as the second rule. 3. Block SMB: On the AP enable Layer 3 Firewall and deny Protocol TCP with Port 445 on the LAN as the first rule, deny Protocol TCP+UDP with Port 137 on the LAN as the second rule, deny Protocol UDP with Port 138 on the LAN as the third rule, and deny Protocol TCP with Port 139 on the LAN as the fourth rule. *** Please note that I have not specifically tried this out myself to verify it. *** George Skorup asked about four filters: 1. Block Bootp: See Josh Luthman filter 1. 2. Block SNMP: On the AP enable Layer 3 Firewall and deny Protocol UDP with Port 161 on the LAN as the first rule and deny Protocol TCP+UDP with Port 162 on the LAN as the second rule. 3. Block SMB: See Josh Luthman filter 3. 4. A. Block Multicast: On the AP enable Layer 2 Firewall and deny Dest MAC 01:00:5E:00:00:00 with Dest Mask FF:FF:FF:80:00:00 on the LAN as the first rule –OR-- on the AP enable Layer 3 Firewall and deny Dest IP 224.0.0.0 with Dest Mask 224.0.0.0 on the LAN as the first rule. *** Please note that I have not specifically tried this out myself to verify it. *** Dan *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force
Exactly, the force110 based PTP does not include GPS sync Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 at 7:24 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force The same as any another SM? It's just a connectorized radio with 25db dish. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 6:19 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Anyone got there hands on an ePMP Force yet? Curious on actual latency and throughput with GPS enabled.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force
And different firmware!!! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 7:23 PM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Exactly, the force110 based PTP does not include GPS sync Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 at 7:24 PM To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force The same as any another SM? It's just a connectorized radio with 25db dish. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 6:19 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Anyone got there hands on an ePMP Force yet? Curious on actual latency and throughput with GPS enabled.
Re: [AFMUG] Need some WAN topology/protocol advice
Sterling, We have several upstream providers, located at different physical locations. We use layer 2 protocols to control the ring/path topology across the network, and OSPF to manage internal routing. The BGP speaking routers talk iBGP internally, and BGP externally. When we are not positive we can keep the BGP routers 'seeing' each other on our network we have created GRE tunnels between the routers through our external providers. The GRE tunnels are certainly not ideal but they are better then having a network 'split' where two or more BGP routers are announcing your aggregate space but are not talking to each other - that makes a giant hash of things. On iBGP the size of the blocks is irrelevant - you can make them as small as you want. Externally you are likely limited to a /24 though there is no guarantee that other providers are going to accept the /24. Some providers, in an attempt to limit the number of routes they are seeing are filtering on /23, /22, etc. Others are accepting /24 in areas that traditionally had /24 allocations (the 'swamp' space) while only accepting larger blocks in other address ranges. My recommendation is use a interior gateway protocol (ISIS, OSPF) that you are comfortable with internally. Use some type of tunneling if need be to make sure your external gateways can always talk to each other, and run BGP externally. Mark On 11/19/14, 5:04 PM, Sterling Jacobson via Af wrote: I know a lot of us here span networks across large areas and have multiple providers. I want my IP address space to be redundant and I guess I can either make sure I have a ring with OSPF/ static routes, or I can BGP. Since I sell to other providers that would like BGP and I would like to preserve my routing by /24 classes via BGP. Maybe I should just use BGP at each site/area? That would restrict me to keeping the sites at /24 class size or larger though, since external BGP doesn't like anything smaller. I think that's ok, but it does lend itself to waste if I come short of using the 254 IP's or I just break the barrier into another /24 for the site. But I can't think of any way around it without relying on infrastructure to ring me back to a central BGP point or two, using OSPF inside. What do you guys do? -- Mark Radabaugh Amplex m...@amplex.net 419.837.5015 x 1021
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force
The Force110 PTP is different than a normal SM... it's supposed to be the same hardware as the Synced APs, but without the GPS, so it has gigabit and whatnot. From: Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Luthman via Af [af@afmug.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 6:26 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force And different firmware!!! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 7:23 PM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Exactly, the force110 based PTP does not include GPS sync Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.comhttp://www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 at 7:24 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force The same as any another SM? It's just a connectorized radio with 25db dish. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 6:19 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Anyone got there hands on an ePMP Force yet? Curious on actual latency and throughput with GPS enabled.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force
There's a force110 and a force110 PTP. The former is just a normal connectorized SM with dish. The latter is a different firmware and can sync. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Mathew Howard via Af af@afmug.com wrote: The Force110 PTP is different than a normal SM... it's supposed to be the same hardware as the Synced APs, but without the GPS, so it has gigabit and whatnot. -- *From:* Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Luthman via Af [ af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 6:26 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force And different firmware!!! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 7:23 PM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Exactly, the force110 based PTP does not include GPS sync Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 at 7:24 PM To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force The same as any another SM? It's just a connectorized radio with 25db dish. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 6:19 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Anyone got there hands on an ePMP Force yet? Curious on actual latency and throughput with GPS enabled.
Re: [AFMUG] Upgrade PTP Links with ePMP Modules
Why are you limiting this to 2' dishes? Could be any dual pol antenna!!! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 12:44 PM, Ray Savich via Af af@afmug.com wrote: If you use 2’ parabolic dishes from another vendor and are looking to upgrade to synchronized ePMP, Eric Osrelic shares his field experience and results and achieves back-to-back frequency re-use. Check out his results at http://bit.ly/1uwvQn1 and join the discussion. Ray
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force
Exactly, the force110 based PTP does not include GPS sync The Force 110 PTP PDF spec sheet states GPS sync. The same as any another SM? It's just a connectorized radio with 25db dish. Anyone got there hands on an ePMP Force yet? Curious on actual latency and throughput with GPS enabled.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force
The ptp, yes. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 7:54 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Exactly, the force110 based PTP does not include GPS sync The Force 110 PTP PDF spec sheet states GPS sync. The same as any another SM? It's just a connectorized radio with 25db dish. Anyone got there hands on an ePMP Force yet? Curious on actual latency and throughput with GPS enabled.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force
The ptp, yes. Oops, I forgot to include ePMP PTP Force 110 in my question. Anyone got there hands on them yet? Spec sheet says 17ms latency with GPS enabled in PTP. Was really hoping for less then that. Exactly, the force110 based PTP does not include GPS sync The Force 110 PTP PDF spec sheet states GPS sync. The same as any another SM? It's just a connectorized radio with 25db dish. Anyone got there hands on an ePMP Force yet? Curious on actual latency and throughput with GPS enabled.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force
2ms check again http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/spec-sheets/epmp_force110_ptp_specs/epmp_force110_ptp_specs-2 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 7:59 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote: The ptp, yes. Oops, I forgot to include ePMP PTP Force 110 in my question. Anyone got there hands on them yet? Spec sheet says 17ms latency with GPS enabled in PTP. Was really hoping for less then that. Exactly, the force110 based PTP does not include GPS sync The Force 110 PTP PDF spec sheet states GPS sync. The same as any another SM? It's just a connectorized radio with 25db dish. Anyone got there hands on an ePMP Force yet? Curious on actual latency and throughput with GPS enabled.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force
Isn't the 2ms without sync? From: Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Luthman via Af [af@afmug.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:04 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 2ms check again http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/spec-sheets/epmp_force110_ptp_specs/epmp_force110_ptp_specs-2 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 7:59 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: The ptp, yes. Oops, I forgot to include ePMP PTP Force 110 in my question. Anyone got there hands on them yet? Spec sheet says 17ms latency with GPS enabled in PTP. Was really hoping for less then that. Exactly, the force110 based PTP does not include GPS sync The Force 110 PTP PDF spec sheet states GPS sync. The same as any another SM? It's just a connectorized radio with 25db dish. Anyone got there hands on an ePMP Force yet? Curious on actual latency and throughput with GPS enabled.
Re: [AFMUG] Where I am - I being Chuck McCown
Soon Chuck will be on the whole social-media bandwagon. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Traci via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Please post this to the list. I am so special...
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force
17ms can be done now though, that would be lame. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 8:29 PM, Mathew Howard via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Isn't the 2ms without sync? -- *From:* Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Luthman via Af [ af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:04 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 2ms check again http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/spec-sheets/epmp_force110_ptp_specs/epmp_force110_ptp_specs-2 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 7:59 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote: The ptp, yes. Oops, I forgot to include ePMP PTP Force 110 in my question. Anyone got there hands on them yet? Spec sheet says 17ms latency with GPS enabled in PTP. Was really hoping for less then that. Exactly, the force110 based PTP does not include GPS sync The Force 110 PTP PDF spec sheet states GPS sync. The same as any another SM? It's just a connectorized radio with 25db dish. Anyone got there hands on an ePMP Force yet? Curious on actual latency and throughput with GPS enabled.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force
Hi, Please allow me to clarify. The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE ports. The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 and will apply to both products. There's more being discussed in this thread: http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/ePMP-1000/ePmP-Force-110/m-p/35810#U35810? ePmP; Force 110 - Cambium Networks Community I'm looking at the specs for the Force 110 and I see it says the radio can achieve 150 Mbs of real data throughput. Then I see the ethernet connect... Read more...http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/ePMP-1000/ePmP-Force-110/m-p/35810#U35810 Thanks, Sriram From: Af af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of Mathew Howard via Af af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:29 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force Isn't the 2ms without sync? From: Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Luthman via Af [af@afmug.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:04 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 2ms check again http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/spec-sheets/epmp_force110_ptp_specs/epmp_force110_ptp_specs-2 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 7:59 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: The ptp, yes. Oops, I forgot to include ePMP PTP Force 110 in my question. Anyone got there hands on them yet? Spec sheet says 17ms latency with GPS enabled in PTP. Was really hoping for less then that. Exactly, the force110 based PTP does not include GPS sync The Force 110 PTP PDF spec sheet states GPS sync. The same as any another SM? It's just a connectorized radio with 25db dish. Anyone got there hands on an ePMP Force yet? Curious on actual latency and throughput with GPS enabled.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force
It's not going to be any different. The software release that comes out about that time makes the different performance differences... other than having a GigE interface... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Matt via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 5:19:44 PM Subject: [AFMUG] ePMP Force Anyone got there hands on an ePMP Force yet? Curious on actual latency and throughput with GPS enabled.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force
The 2 ms is with or without sync on 2.4? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Sriram Chaturvedi via Af af@afmug.com To: Mathew Howard via Af af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:03:13 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force Hi, Please allow me to clarify. The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE ports. The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 and will apply to both products. There's more being discussed in this thread: http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/ePMP-1000/ePmP-Force-110/m-p/35810#U35810 ePmP; Force 110 - Cambium Networks Community I'm looking at the specs for the Force 110 and I see it says the radio can achieve 150 Mbs of real data throughput. Then I see the ethernet connect... Read more... Thanks, Sriram From: Af af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of Mathew Howard via Af af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:29 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force Isn't the 2ms without sync? From: Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Luthman via Af [af@afmug.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:04 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 2ms check again http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/spec-sheets/epmp_force110_ptp_specs/epmp_force110_ptp_specs-2 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 7:59 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote: The ptp, yes. Oops, I forgot to include ePMP PTP Force 110 in my question. Anyone got there hands on them yet? Spec sheet says 17ms latency with GPS enabled in PTP. Was really hoping for less then that. Exactly, the force110 based PTP does not include GPS sync The Force 110 PTP PDF spec sheet states GPS sync. The same as any another SM? It's just a connectorized radio with 25db dish. Anyone got there hands on an ePMP Force yet? Curious on actual latency and throughput with GPS enabled.
Re: [AFMUG] Upgrade PTP Links with ePMP Modules
I work for Eric Ozrelic, he is the owner of our company. I am merely the project manager. Everything in that forum post is 100 percent accurate. EPMP radios are a direct swap for rocket radios for any back haul that uses the ubnt rockets in 5ghz. Feel free to use any dual pol antenna that you currently have up. From our experience in noisy environments with competing WISPs your results will be good. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Why are you limiting this to 2' dishes? Could be any dual pol antenna!!! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 12:44 PM, Ray Savich via Af af@afmug.com wrote: If you use 2’ parabolic dishes from another vendor and are looking to upgrade to synchronized ePMP, Eric Osrelic shares his field experience and results and achieves back-to-back frequency re-use. Check out his results at http://bit.ly/1uwvQn1 and join the discussion. Ray
Re: [AFMUG] Upgrade PTP Links with ePMP Modules
I'm talking to Ray :) Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 10:13 PM, Stu Thom via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I work for Eric Ozrelic, he is the owner of our company. I am merely the project manager. Everything in that forum post is 100 percent accurate. EPMP radios are a direct swap for rocket radios for any back haul that uses the ubnt rockets in 5ghz. Feel free to use any dual pol antenna that you currently have up. From our experience in noisy environments with competing WISPs your results will be good. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Why are you limiting this to 2' dishes? Could be any dual pol antenna!!! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 12:44 PM, Ray Savich via Af af@afmug.com wrote: If you use 2’ parabolic dishes from another vendor and are looking to upgrade to synchronized ePMP, Eric Osrelic shares his field experience and results and achieves back-to-back frequency re-use. Check out his results at http://bit.ly/1uwvQn1 and join the discussion. Ray
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force
2 ms is without sync From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:12 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force The 2 ms is with or without sync on 2.4? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]https://twitter.com/ICSIL From: Sriram Chaturvedi via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com To: Mathew Howard via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:03:13 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force Hi, Please allow me to clarify. The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE ports. The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 and will apply to both products. There's more being discussed in this thread: http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/ePMP-1000/ePmP-Force-110/m-p/35810#U35810 ePmP; Force 110 - Cambium Networks Community I'm looking at the specs for the Force 110 and I see it says the radio can achieve 150 Mbs of real data throughput. Then I see the ethernet connect... Read more...http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/ePMP-1000/ePmP-Force-110/m-p/35810#U35810 Thanks, Sriram From: Af af-boun...@afmug.commailto:af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of Mathew Howard via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:29 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force Isn't the 2ms without sync? From: Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Luthman via Af [af@afmug.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:04 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 2ms check again http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/spec-sheets/epmp_force110_ptp_specs/epmp_force110_ptp_specs-2 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 7:59 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: The ptp, yes. Oops, I forgot to include ePMP PTP Force 110 in my question. Anyone got there hands on them yet? Spec sheet says 17ms latency with GPS enabled in PTP. Was really hoping for less then that. Exactly, the force110 based PTP does not include GPS sync The Force 110 PTP PDF spec sheet states GPS sync. The same as any another SM? It's just a connectorized radio with 25db dish. Anyone got there hands on an ePMP Force yet? Curious on actual latency and throughput with GPS enabled.
Re: [AFMUG] Where I am - I being Chuck McCown
I thought maybe “Being Chuck McCown” was a sequel to “Being John Malkovich”. From: Colin Stanners via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:41 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Where I am - I being Chuck McCown Soon Chuck will be on the whole social-media bandwagon. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Traci via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Please post this to the list. I am so special...
Re: [AFMUG] Where I am - I being Chuck McCown
Lol Jaime Solorza On Nov 19, 2014 8:36 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I thought maybe “Being Chuck McCown” was a sequel to “Being John Malkovich”. *From:* Colin Stanners via Af af@afmug.com *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:41 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Where I am - I being Chuck McCown Soon Chuck will be on the whole social-media bandwagon. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Traci via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Please post this to the list. I am so special...
Re: [AFMUG] Where I am - I being Chuck McCown
Mocking Jay huh? Traci via Af wrote: Please post this to the list. I am so special...
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force
I know that reduced sync latency was on the menu. What Q should we expect that in? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: John Butler via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:24:38 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 2 ms is without sync From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:12 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force The 2 ms is with or without sync on 2.4? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Sriram Chaturvedi via Af af@afmug.com To: Mathew Howard via Af af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:03:13 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force Hi, Please allow me to clarify. The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE ports. The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 and will apply to both products. There's more being discussed in this thread: http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/ePMP-1000/ePmP-Force-110/m-p/35810#U35810 ePmP; Force 110 - Cambium Networks Community I'm looking at the specs for the Force 110 and I see it says the radio can achieve 150 Mbs of real data throughput. Then I see the ethernet connect... Read more... Thanks, Sriram From: Af af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of Mathew Howard via Af af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:29 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force Isn't the 2ms without sync? From: Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Luthman via Af [af@afmug.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:04 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 2ms check again http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/spec-sheets/epmp_force110_ptp_specs/epmp_force110_ptp_specs-2 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 7:59 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote: The ptp, yes. Oops, I forgot to include ePMP PTP Force 110 in my question. Anyone got there hands on them yet? Spec sheet says 17ms latency with GPS enabled in PTP. Was really hoping for less then that. Exactly, the force110 based PTP does not include GPS sync The Force 110 PTP PDF spec sheet states GPS sync. The same as any another SM? It's just a connectorized radio with 25db dish. Anyone got there hands on an ePMP Force yet? Curious on actual latency and throughput with GPS enabled.
Re: [AFMUG] Upgrade PTP Links with ePMP Modules
When I hear direct I assume there's a way to attach it. I assume the only way I could attach it is with zip ties or duct tape. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Stu Thom via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:13:44 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Upgrade PTP Links with ePMP Modules I work for Eric Ozrelic, he is the owner of our company. I am merely the project manager. Everything in that forum post is 100 percent accurate. EPMP radios are a direct swap for rocket radios for any back haul that uses the ubnt rockets in 5ghz. Feel free to use any dual pol antenna that you currently have up. From our experience in noisy environments with competing WISPs your results will be good. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Why are you limiting this to 2' dishes? Could be any dual pol antenna!!! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 12:44 PM, Ray Savich via Af af@afmug.com wrote: If you use 2’ parabolic dishes from another vendor and are looking to upgrade to synchronized ePMP, Eric Osrelic shares his field experience and results and achieves back-to-back frequency re-use. Check out his results at http://bit.ly/1uwvQn1 and join the discussion. Ray
Re: [AFMUG] Upgrade PTP Links with ePMP Modules
Creativity is the key. There are probably 3rd party options that are out or maybe working on it. When we decided to do this, there were no options so we made it happen with ingenuity. The rocketdish in the pictures on the forum post had been in service like that since March until November 1st when I pulled it from my house as I was moving. The newer RFarmor shield kits require no modification to the shield... they simply sit in there. If you were hell bent on securing it inside the enclosure I am sure it could be figured out. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Mike Hammett via Af af@afmug.com wrote: When I hear direct I assume there's a way to attach it. I assume the only way I could attach it is with zip ties or duct tape. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions https://twitter.com/ICSIL -- *From: *Stu Thom via Af af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:13:44 PM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Upgrade PTP Links with ePMP Modules I work for Eric Ozrelic, he is the owner of our company. I am merely the project manager. Everything in that forum post is 100 percent accurate. EPMP radios are a direct swap for rocket radios for any back haul that uses the ubnt rockets in 5ghz. Feel free to use any dual pol antenna that you currently have up. From our experience in noisy environments with competing WISPs your results will be good. On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Why are you limiting this to 2' dishes? Could be any dual pol antenna!!! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 12:44 PM, Ray Savich via Af af@afmug.com wrote: If you use 2’ parabolic dishes from another vendor and are looking to upgrade to synchronized ePMP, Eric Osrelic shares his field experience and results and achieves back-to-back frequency re-use. Check out his results at http://bit.ly/1uwvQn1 and join the discussion. Ray
Re: [AFMUG] Where I am - I being Chuck McCown
Phew, I thought we (myself and Chuck) were somehow synchronized in our media viewing. First, I watched the same PVR'd episode of Mythbusters within a few hours of Chuck. Then, I'm checking my email after seeing Interstellar, only to be greeted by Chuck's reviews of the same. Fortunately, I'm not sitting in the Hunger Games tonight. -forrest On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Traci via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Please post this to the list. I am so special...
Re: [AFMUG] Where I am - I being Chuck McCown
WHY ARE YOU MOCKING ME?!?!?!?!?!?!?! - Original Message - From: Nate Burke via Af To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 6:21 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Where I am - I being Chuck McCown Has the MPAA Officer come and found you in the theater yet? On 11/19/2014 6:14 PM, Traci via Af wrote: Please post this to the list. I am so special...
Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter
WOW !! WHAT a service Support 1000 WISP POINTS for you DAN 2014-11-20 1:22 GMT+01:00 Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com: +100 WISP points Dan. Thanks a ton!!! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 19, 2014 7:09 PM, Dan Sullivan via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Hi, Thanks to everyone on the forum for their input. It was good feedback with regard to the Canopy filter rules, how much you like them, could these rules be added to ePMP, could specifics be obtained on the rules, and the use cases around filtering. First, people were interested in the following Canopy filters and what their contents were. I have a first pass that may not be exactly right as this is being researched by the Canopy team. When this is ready it will be posted somewhere on the Cambium forum. For the purposes of the issue, let's assume what I have for the moment is correct to answer people's questions: PPPoE: EtherType 8863 and EtherType 8864. Bootp Server: Protocol UDP with Port 67 and Protocol UDP with Port 68. SMB: Protocol TCP with Port 445, Protocol TCP+UDP with Port 137, Protocol UDP with Port 138, and Protocol TCP with Port 139. SNMP: Protocol UDP with Port 161 and Protocol TCP+UDP with Port 162. Multicast: Dest MAC 01:00:5E:00:00:00 with Dest Mask FF:FF:FF:80:00:00 - OR -- Dest IP 224.0.0.0 with Dest Mask 224.0.0.0. But, people also wanted to block all traffic except for one intended type. So I will provide the other two filters to enable this: Bootp Client: Protocol UDP with Port 68. ARP: EtherType 0806. Many people asked about having pre-existing rules like Canopy has be implemented on ePMP. Glad to hear that people like this Canopy feature. We can add in pre-existing rules, too. I have added this to our future features database. Right now, I do not have a date for anyone, but we are aware of your desire for this. George Skorup also asked for filtering statistics similar to what exists on Canopy. I have added this to our future features database. Right now, I do not have a date for anyone, but we are aware of your desire for this. You can use the information on the Canopy filters above to set up equivalent functionality on ePMP as for example I describe in the next paragraph. Daniel Gerlach asked about limiting traffic to only PPPoE. Later on Steve indicated that this should pertain to the WAN. My suggestion would be to go to the AP, enable Layer 2 Firewall, and allow EtherType 8863 on the LAN as the first rule, allow EtherType 8864 on the LAN as the second rule, and deny on the LAN as the third rule. This would allow filtering to be done on the AP preventing non-PPPoE packets from going over the WLAN and reaching the SM. *** Please note that I have not specifically tried this out myself to verify it. *** Here are some notes on the ePMP firewall logic: 1. Firewall rules are executed in the order that they are listed. Therefore, if a packet matches more than one rule, it will match first on the earlier rule and never execute the latter rules. 2. Define your allow rules first to make sure that intended packets make it through the firewall. Defining an overall deny rule first will cause bad things to happen. 3. Define your overall deny rule last to make sure that after your intended allow packets make it through, the remaining unintended packets do not make it through. Josh Luthman asked about several filters: 1. Block bootp: On the AP enable Layer 3 Firewall and deny Protocol UDP with Port 67 on the LAN as the first rule and deny Protocol UDP with Port 68 on the LAN as the second rule. 2. Block PPPoE: On the AP enable Layer 2 Firewall and deny EtherType 8863 on the LAN as the first rule and deny EtherType 8864 on the LAN as the second rule. 3. Block SMB: On the AP enable Layer 3 Firewall and deny Protocol TCP with Port 445 on the LAN as the first rule, deny Protocol TCP+UDP with Port 137 on the LAN as the second rule, deny Protocol UDP with Port 138 on the LAN as the third rule, and deny Protocol TCP with Port 139 on the LAN as the fourth rule. *** Please note that I have not specifically tried this out myself to verify it. *** George Skorup asked about four filters: 1. Block Bootp: See Josh Luthman filter 1. 2. Block SNMP: On the AP enable Layer 3 Firewall and deny Protocol UDP with Port 161 on the LAN as the first rule and deny Protocol TCP+UDP with Port 162 on the LAN as the second rule. 3. Block SMB: See Josh Luthman filter 3. 4. A. Block Multicast: On the AP enable Layer 2 Firewall and deny Dest MAC 01:00:5E:00:00:00 with Dest Mask FF:FF:FF:80:00:00 on the LAN as the first rule -OR-- on the AP enable Layer 3 Firewall and deny Dest IP 224.0.0.0 with Dest Mask 224.0.0.0 on the LAN as the first rule. *** Please note that I have not
