Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Mike Hammett]

The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full of 
shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as likely 
to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc. 

When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with one 
international operator and one national operator I said something to the effect 
of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing notes on different 
products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers in my network and people 
often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper, etc. are the way to go. Those 
vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet here you are with the same type of 
complaints as we have with our vendors." The one at the international vendor 
chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for that right." 

Don't lose sight of that. 

For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility 
issues which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about. 


To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 



This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik for 
routers. 

There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE 
interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and 
hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for 
Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER 
, which are usually using the same IOS trains I use for service provider 
functions. 


Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and hope 
somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just supposed 
to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something is 
fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old) Cisco 
platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more important than 
yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with Cisco, and a new 
build fixing the bug is available. 



If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with dual 
supervisor than a CCR 



On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway < r...@triadwireless.net > wrote: 





This just gets even better. Worked 24 hours, then breaks again. Up to Level 4 
tech support. 

Rory 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway 
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM 


To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 




We are taking it to the Mikrotik forum. This makes no sense since we have 12 of 
the already running with no issues. 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop 
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:54 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 




I’m not terribly happy with ROS since 6.29. 



Maybe it’s just still not 100% yet. 










From: Rory Conaway 

Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 8:36 PM 

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 



Replaced the Mikrotik routers with an Airrouter, it works. Replaced with an 
Edgerouter, still works. This goes under the category of WTF. 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway 
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 9:13 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 

We tried 3 Mikrotik routers, 2 cable modems, and two radios from two different 
manufacturers. 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop 
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:52 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 




MTU? 

Last time I had that problem was an inconsistent Ethernet connection. It wasn’t 
showing errors, but UDP was dropping packets. TCP retransmitted. 

UDP was screwy, but TCP was downloading at the limit of the wireless feed. 














From: Rory Conaway 

Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 9:47 PM 

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 



Nailed the problem down to the Mikrotik router having a problem with DNS 
caching whether it’s Cox or Google. Not sure where to go from there since the 
other 12 don’t have a problem. 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway 
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 4:44 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 


We had raons bit no dangling cables. Level 3 says no errors to the modem and we 
had a tech out already. We are changing the 2011 to a 450 just to confirm 
before we eacalate further. 







Rory Conaway 

Triad Wireless 



Typed on my 

Re: [AFMUG] Transfer 3.65 License?

[Jeff Broadwick - Lists]

Can't you just lease the license to the other entity?

Jeff Broadwick
ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
312-205-2519 Office
574-220-7826 Cell
jbroadw...@converge-tech.com

> On Jan 15, 2016, at 12:11 AM, Christopher Gray  
> wrote:
> 
> No, they're selling off some residential networks, but the larger business 
> will continue to exist.
> 
> I'll dig into the name change possibilities tomorrow.
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:
>> Did you acquire the corporate entity that originally created and holds the 
>> licenses?  If so, keep them as they are...
>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Christopher Gray 
>>>  wrote:
>>> If I take over a network that has some 3.65 backhauls, can I transfer the 
>>> 3.65 license, or will I need to replace those links with something else?
>>> 
>>> Thanks - Chris
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Ken Hohhof]

You’re saying the Juniper/Cisco/Brocades of the world traditionally did not 
meet their advertised throughputs?  I thought they were pretty good about that. 
 Can you clarify?


From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:30 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

The complaints with Mikrotik are rarely about performance, though. They're 
about bugs, lack of desired features, being ignored in general. If performance 
(non-BGP on CCRs) is the complaint, you simply bought the wrong box and that 
isn't Mikrotik's fault. I don't think anyone buys a CCR and then is upset when 
it can't do linerate 100G...  because it was never billed as something that can 
do that.

Traditionally the big vendors more or less couldn't do what they advertised. 
Recently, they've been much better in that regard.

Obviously from an RB750 to an MX960 there is a wide difference in ports, 
performance and price, but how much of that price difference is for the added 
capability and how much is the big guy tax?

There's an awful lot of sunshine being blown up the backsides of people that 
think that there's a staggering difference in the attitudes of big telco 
vendors and WISP vendors.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com






From: "Erich Kaiser" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:19:45 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download


I agree there is a huge price difference between a Mikrotik and a 
Juniper/Cisco/Brocade router, but you also need to look at the facts.  Those 
routers are made to support a Full  routed 10Gbps/40Gbps/100Gbps of throughput 
per port.  With Mikrotik it is a MAYBE it will if I don't do this or do that.. 
Obviously there are many models out there, but if you look at the true carrier 
grade router lines, it is a full routed port. 

I think each one has its place.  

Just my opinion..


Erich Kaiser 
North Central Tower
er...@northcentraltower.com
Office: 630-621-4804
Cell: 630-777-9291



On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

  The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full of 
shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as likely 
to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc.

  When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with one 
international operator and one national operator I said something to the effect 
of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing notes on different 
products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers in my network and people 
often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper, etc. are the way to go. Those 
vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet here you are with the same type of 
complaints as we have with our vendors." The one at the international vendor 
chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for that right."

  Don't lose sight of that.

  For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility 
issues  which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about.


  To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance.




  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
  http://www.ics-il.com



  Midwest Internet Exchange
  http://www.midwest-ix.com




--

  From: "Eric Kuhnke" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download


  This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik for 
routers. 

  There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE 
interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and 
hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for 
Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER 
, which are usually using the same IOS trains I use for service provider 
functions. 


  Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and 
hope somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just 
supposed to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something is 
fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old) Cisco 
platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more important than 
yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with Cisco, and a new 
build fixing the bug is available.


  If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with 
dual supervisor than a CCR


  On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway  wrote:

This just gets even better.  Worked 24 hours, then breaks again.  Up to 
Level 4 tech support.

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Erich Kaiser]

I agree there is a huge price difference between a Mikrotik and a
Juniper/Cisco/Brocade router, but you also need to look at the facts.
Those routers are made to support a Full  routed 10Gbps/40Gbps/100Gbps of
throughput per port.  With Mikrotik it is a MAYBE it will if I don't do
this or do that.. Obviously there are many models out there, but if you
look at the true carrier grade router lines, it is a full routed port.

I think each one has its place.

Just my opinion..

Erich Kaiser
North Central Tower
er...@northcentraltower.com
Office: 630-621-4804
Cell: 630-777-9291


On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full
> of shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as
> likely to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc.
>
> When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with
> one international operator and one national operator I said something to
> the effect of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing
> notes on different products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers
> in my network and people often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper,
> etc. are the way to go. Those vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet
> here you are with the same type of complaints as we have with our vendors."
> The one at the international vendor chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for
> that right."
>
> Don't lose sight of that.
>
> For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility
> issues  which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about.
>
>
> To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>
> This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik
> for routers.
>
> There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE
> interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and
> hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for
> Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and
> $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER , which are usually using the same IOS trains I
> use for service provider functions.
>
> Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and
> hope somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just
> supposed to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something
> is fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old)
> Cisco platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more
> important than yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with
> Cisco, and a new build fixing the bug is available.
>
> If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with
> dual supervisor than a CCR
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
>
>> This just gets even better.  Worked 24 hours, then breaks again.  Up to
>> Level 4 tech support.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>>
>>
>> We are taking it to the Mikrotik forum.  This makes no sense since we
>> have 12 of the already running with no issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:54 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m not terribly happy with ROS since 6.29.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe it’s just still not 100% yet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Rory Conaway 
>>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 12, 2016 8:36 PM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>>
>>
>> Replaced the Mikrotik routers with an Airrouter, it works.  Replaced with
>> an Edgerouter, still works.  This goes under the category of WTF.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 11, 2016 9:13 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Josh Reynolds]

That's not quite true.

For example, on Juniper with a standard switching control board, a
16x10Gbps line card has a 4:1 oversub ratio. That interface line card
retails for something around $160,000 MSRP. With the replacement of the
standard SCB for an enhanced on, you can get full line rate on all ports.

On an MX240 you might have a 4x10Gbps card, but with firewall acl and cgnat
enabled you might be limited to 8-9Gbps total throughput through it.

So to say "it just works" on the higher end of vendors and products is
baloney. The difference with the Junipers and Ciscos and Brocades of the
world is that they often have a higher tier of products for those entities
that can afford it that will support their needs. Also their support is
more highly trained (and there's more of them), and companies will fix your
shit pretty quick when you buy a few hundred million worth of their
products.
On Jan 15, 2016 8:19 AM, "Erich Kaiser"  wrote:

> I agree there is a huge price difference between a Mikrotik and a
> Juniper/Cisco/Brocade router, but you also need to look at the facts.
> Those routers are made to support a Full  routed 10Gbps/40Gbps/100Gbps of
> throughput per port.  With Mikrotik it is a MAYBE it will if I don't do
> this or do that.. Obviously there are many models out there, but if you
> look at the true carrier grade router lines, it is a full routed port.
>
> I think each one has its place.
>
> Just my opinion..
>
> Erich Kaiser
> North Central Tower
> er...@northcentraltower.com
> Office: 630-621-4804
> Cell: 630-777-9291
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full
>> of shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as
>> likely to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc.
>>
>> When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with
>> one international operator and one national operator I said something to
>> the effect of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing
>> notes on different products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers
>> in my network and people often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper,
>> etc. are the way to go. Those vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet
>> here you are with the same type of complaints as we have with our vendors."
>> The one at the international vendor chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for
>> that right."
>>
>> Don't lose sight of that.
>>
>> For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility
>> issues  which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about.
>>
>>
>> To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>> This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik
>> for routers.
>>
>> There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE
>> interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and
>> hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for
>> Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and
>> $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER , which are usually using the same IOS trains I
>> use for service provider functions.
>>
>> Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum
>> and hope somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are
>> just supposed to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If
>> something is fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+
>> year old) Cisco platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and
>> more important than yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it
>> with Cisco, and a new build fixing the bug is available.
>>
>> If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E
>> with dual supervisor than a CCR
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This just gets even better.  Worked 24 hours, then breaks again.  Up to
>>> Level 4 tech support.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM
>>>
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Eric Kuhnke]

Not necessarily - one needs to be familiar with the hardware specs on the
particular Cisco platform one is using. It's possible to 2:1 or 4:1
oversubscribe the 10GbE ports on each linecard in a 6500/7600 series if you
configure it a certain way. Legacy 6500 stuff is 8Gbps per slot but you can
have a 16-port GBIC linecard. Or encounter a setup like a 48-port 1000BaseT
card that is on a 32Gbps backplane bus. Other things like a 7206VXR with
NPE-G1 and PA-GE modules can do line-rate GbE on the three routing engine
GBICs, but each PA-GE is more like a 600 Mbps interface.

Same with Juniper on many platforms. When using a mature platform they're
usually on the 3rd, 4th or 5th generation of linecards and supervisors that
mate with a particular chassis and backplane. It's very useful to do some
research into the technical specs and limitations of the 1st/2nd
generations to learn how the platform evolved into its current mature state.


On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Erich Kaiser 
wrote:

> I agree there is a huge price difference between a Mikrotik and a
> Juniper/Cisco/Brocade router, but you also need to look at the facts.
> Those routers are made to support a Full  routed 10Gbps/40Gbps/100Gbps of
> throughput per port.  With Mikrotik it is a MAYBE it will if I don't do
> this or do that.. Obviously there are many models out there, but if you
> look at the true carrier grade router lines, it is a full routed port.
>
> I think each one has its place.
>
> Just my opinion..
>
> Erich Kaiser
> North Central Tower
> er...@northcentraltower.com
> Office: 630-621-4804
> Cell: 630-777-9291
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full
>> of shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as
>> likely to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc.
>>
>> When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with
>> one international operator and one national operator I said something to
>> the effect of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing
>> notes on different products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers
>> in my network and people often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper,
>> etc. are the way to go. Those vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet
>> here you are with the same type of complaints as we have with our vendors."
>> The one at the international vendor chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for
>> that right."
>>
>> Don't lose sight of that.
>>
>> For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility
>> issues  which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about.
>>
>>
>> To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>> This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik
>> for routers.
>>
>> There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE
>> interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and
>> hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for
>> Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and
>> $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER , which are usually using the same IOS trains I
>> use for service provider functions.
>>
>> Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum
>> and hope somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are
>> just supposed to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If
>> something is fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+
>> year old) Cisco platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and
>> more important than yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it
>> with Cisco, and a new build fixing the bug is available.
>>
>> If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E
>> with dual supervisor than a CCR
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This just gets even better.  Worked 24 hours, then breaks again.  Up to
>>> Level 4 tech support.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Josh Reynolds]

To be fair, I can put something like 128x100Gbps full rate interfaces in an
mx960, but I just can't afford a bucket big enough to hold all of the
money  I'd need to throw at juniper to afford the parts :)
On Jan 15, 2016 9:02 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> That was half of the reason you went with Mikrotik, ImageStream, etc. back
> in the day was that the Ciscos just flat out couldn't do what they said
> they could. Obviously, cost was the other half. Jeff can speak much better
> to it than I can, but IIRC, Imagestream's big thing was that these various
> popular Cisco models just couldn't live up to expectations and not only did
> the Imagestream outperform them, but cost less as well.
>
> Josh Reynolds just pointed out where this is still true today. Most of my
> exposure to newer, bigger gear is in basic switching for the IX and not in
> routing, so I'm not as familiar with where they've gone. It doesn't
> surprise me that it's relatively easy to not get line rate routing.
>
> Just because it's Juniper, Cisco, etc. doesn't mean it's nickle plated
> ivory.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Ken Hohhof" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, January 15, 2016 8:58:47 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>
> You’re saying the Juniper/Cisco/Brocades of the world traditionally did
> not meet their advertised throughputs?  I thought they were pretty good
> about that.  Can you clarify?
>
>
> *From:* Mike Hammett 
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 8:30 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>
> The complaints with Mikrotik are rarely about performance, though. They're
> about bugs, lack of desired features, being ignored in general. If
> performance (non-BGP on CCRs) is the complaint, you simply bought the wrong
> box and that isn't Mikrotik's fault. I don't think anyone buys a CCR and
> then is upset when it can't do linerate 100G...  because it was never
> billed as something that can do that.
>
> Traditionally the big vendors more or less couldn't do what they
> advertised. Recently, they've been much better in that regard.
>
> Obviously from an RB750 to an MX960 there is a wide difference in ports,
> performance and price, but how much of that price difference is for the
> added capability and how much is the big guy tax?
>
> There's an awful lot of sunshine being blown up the backsides of people
> that think that there's a staggering difference in the attitudes of big
> telco vendors and WISP vendors.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Erich Kaiser" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, January 15, 2016 8:19:45 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>
> I agree there is a huge price difference between a Mikrotik and a
> Juniper/Cisco/Brocade router, but you also need to look at the facts.
> Those routers are made to support a Full  routed 10Gbps/40Gbps/100Gbps of
> throughput per port.  With Mikrotik it is a MAYBE it will if I don't do
> this or do that.. Obviously there are many models out there, but if you
> look at the true carrier grade router lines, it is a full routed port.
>
> I think each one has its place.
>
> Just my opinion..
>
> Erich Kaiser
> North Central Tower
> er...@northcentraltower.com
> Office: 630-621-4804
> Cell: 630-777-9291
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full
>> of shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as
>> likely to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc.
>>
>> When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with
>> one international operator and one national operator I said something to
>> the effect of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing
>> notes on different products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers
>> in my network and people often 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Eric Kuhnke]

Totally in agreement that serious bugs exist on all platforms and from all
vendors. But when something is broken and affects a serious percentage of
Smartnet-paying customers, it gets enough attention that it usually gets
fixed. The trouble with Mikrotik bugs is that there is no huge population
of Fortune-500 companies as end-user enterprises, and major ISPs (the top
ten largest in North America as measured by number of on-net POPs and /24s
announced). You encounter a bug and post it in some forums and people say
"Yeah me too", and it maybe gets fixed.

Cisco is also pretty good at providing a detailed changelog of exactly
what's new/fixed, like:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/15_4m_and_t/release/notes/15_4T_feats_important_notes.html




On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full
> of shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as
> likely to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc.
>
> When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with
> one international operator and one national operator I said something to
> the effect of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing
> notes on different products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers
> in my network and people often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper,
> etc. are the way to go. Those vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet
> here you are with the same type of complaints as we have with our vendors."
> The one at the international vendor chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for
> that right."
>
> Don't lose sight of that.
>
> For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility
> issues  which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about.
>
>
> To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM
>
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>
> This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik
> for routers.
>
> There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE
> interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and
> hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for
> Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and
> $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER , which are usually using the same IOS trains I
> use for service provider functions.
>
> Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and
> hope somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just
> supposed to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something
> is fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old)
> Cisco platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more
> important than yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with
> Cisco, and a new build fixing the bug is available.
>
> If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with
> dual supervisor than a CCR
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
>
>> This just gets even better.  Worked 24 hours, then breaks again.  Up to
>> Level 4 tech support.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>>
>>
>> We are taking it to the Mikrotik forum.  This makes no sense since we
>> have 12 of the already running with no issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:54 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m not terribly happy with ROS since 6.29.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe it’s just still not 100% yet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Rory Conaway 
>>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 12, 2016 8:36 PM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>>
>>
>> Replaced the Mikrotik routers with an Airrouter, it works.  Replaced with
>> an Edgerouter, still works.  This goes under the category of WTF.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Josh Reynolds]

See, I'm in a somewhat of a unique boat on this, so I'll give some
perspective.

Brand new Fiber ISP right outside KC Metro. 144ct going in everywhere with
spare duct. Combo above ground PED w/ below ground slack storage. Redundant
ring, half on poles, half buried. Two providers feeding us, with hospitals
and school districts excited about turning up 1-1Mbps service with us
over the next couple of months. Netflix and Google peering happening. Two
TV content providers getting ready to feed us, plus local TV rebroadcast
rights. Upstreams want to skip 40Gbps feeds and move right to 100Gbps when
we get past 10Gbps on our feeds (projections show 18-24mo).

I needed CGNAT due to the state of IPv4. Also deploying IPv6 along side it.
Needed mpls for certain handoffs, and MEF services for the gpon side and
other features and classes of service, as well as decent routing table
capability and BGP Flowspec.

I tried to go with a smaller chassis like that, even tried to get a netiron
XMR to work, but I simply couldn't get the feature sets and expandability I
needed to make everything work right out of the gate. :(
On Jan 15, 2016 9:18 AM, "Eric Kuhnke"  wrote:

>
>
> *The difference with the Junipers and Ciscos and Brocades of the world is
> that they often have a higher tier of products for those entities that can
> afford it that will support their needs*
>
> The great thing about buying used/refurb Cisco and Juniper is that there
> is a VAST quantity of stuff on the market which is no longer fast or
> capable enough for a datacenter/hosting/virtualization/purely fiber ISP
> environment, but is real overkill for the average medium sized WISP use.
> I'll use an example of a to-remain-nameless adult content hosting
> colocation ISP located near a major IX point. They push probably an
> aggregate of 120-150Gbps of traffic to their peers and upstreams on a
> fairly regular basis and need core routers capable of handling such
> volumes, and even more in the future.
>
> You can buy an identical matched pair of used 7604 or 7606 with RSP720 +
> various 10GbE and 1GbE optical interfaces for less than $4500-5000. Such a
> configuration for a WISP can handle a port-channeled 2 x 10Gbps link to an
> upstream. Is there a WISP on the list that moves more than 12-15Gbps of
> traffic?  Doing 10GbE with fiber is easy, doing real 1GbE full duplex with
> PTP part101 links is *hard and expensive*. The bottleneck in many cases
> is the PTP microwave backhaul connection in and out of towers and rooftop
> sites, not the router capabilities. It takes a lot of money and a lot of
> users to support building a resilient ring of Exalt ExtremeAir 18 GHz 1
> Gbps links serving a county sized area. Huge numbers of WISPs have traffic
> patterns to the Internet as a whole that look like 180 to 350Mbps in a
> daily cyclic sine wave pattern that fit nicely inside a 1GbE handoff from
> their upstream.
>
> Take that 7604 for example, you can put in a few 24-port SFP linecards
> that will do 24 Gbps line rate. And you have a couple of blades each with 4
> x 10GbE. You'd need to be a *big *WISP to outgrow that any time soon.
> More likely you'd outgrow the total 1 million routing table entry size
> (combined IPV4 + IPV6 FIB) before the forwarding ability of the ASICs.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
>
>> That's not quite true.
>>
>> For example, on Juniper with a standard switching control board, a
>> 16x10Gbps line card has a 4:1 oversub ratio. That interface line card
>> retails for something around $160,000 MSRP. With the replacement of the
>> standard SCB for an enhanced on, you can get full line rate on all ports.
>>
>> On an MX240 you might have a 4x10Gbps card, but with firewall acl and
>> cgnat enabled you might be limited to 8-9Gbps total throughput through it.
>>
>> So to say "it just works" on the higher end of vendors and products is
>> baloney. The difference with the Junipers and Ciscos and Brocades of the
>> world is that they often have a higher tier of products for those entities
>> that can afford it that will support their needs. Also their support is
>> more highly trained (and there's more of them), and companies will fix your
>> shit pretty quick when you buy a few hundred million worth of their
>> products.
>> On Jan 15, 2016 8:19 AM, "Erich Kaiser" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree there is a huge price difference between a Mikrotik and a
>>> Juniper/Cisco/Brocade router, but you also need to look at the facts.
>>> Those routers are made to support a Full  routed 10Gbps/40Gbps/100Gbps of
>>> throughput per port.  With Mikrotik it is a MAYBE it will if I don't do
>>> this or do that.. Obviously there are many models out there, but if you
>>> look at the true carrier grade router lines, it is a full routed port.
>>>
>>> I think each one has its place.
>>>
>>> Just my opinion..
>>>
>>> Erich Kaiser
>>> North Central Tower
>>> 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Mike Hammett]

The complaints with Mikrotik are rarely about performance, though. They're 
about bugs, lack of desired features, being ignored in general. If performance 
(non-BGP on CCRs) is the complaint, you simply bought the wrong box and that 
isn't Mikrotik's fault. I don't think anyone buys a CCR and then is upset when 
it can't do linerate 100G... because it was never billed as something that can 
do that. 

Traditionally the big vendors more or less couldn't do what they advertised. 
Recently, they've been much better in that regard. 

Obviously from an RB750 to an MX960 there is a wide difference in ports, 
performance and price, but how much of that price difference is for the added 
capability and how much is the big guy tax? 

There's an awful lot of sunshine being blown up the backsides of people that 
think that there's a staggering difference in the attitudes of big telco 
vendors and WISP vendors. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Erich Kaiser"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:19:45 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 


I agree there is a huge price difference between a Mikrotik and a 
Juniper/Cisco/Brocade router, but you also need to look at the facts. Those 
routers are made to support a Full routed 10Gbps/40Gbps/100Gbps of throughput 
per port. With Mikrotik it is a MAYBE it will if I don't do this or do that.. 
Obviously there are many models out there, but if you look at the true carrier 
grade router lines, it is a full routed port. 


I think each one has its place. 


Just my opinion.. 











Erich Kaiser 
North Central Tower 
er...@northcentraltower.com 
Office: 630-621-4804 
Cell: 630-777-9291 



On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full of 
shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as likely 
to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc. 

When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with one 
international operator and one national operator I said something to the effect 
of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing notes on different 
products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers in my network and people 
often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper, etc. are the way to go. Those 
vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet here you are with the same type of 
complaints as we have with our vendors." The one at the international vendor 
chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for that right." 

Don't lose sight of that. 

For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility 
issues which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about. 


To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 




From: "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 



This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik for 
routers. 

There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE 
interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and 
hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for 
Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER 
, which are usually using the same IOS trains I use for service provider 
functions. 


Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and hope 
somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just supposed 
to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something is 
fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old) Cisco 
platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more important than 
yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with Cisco, and a new 
build fixing the bug is available. 



If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with dual 
supervisor than a CCR 



On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway < r...@triadwireless.net > wrote: 





This just gets even better. Worked 24 hours, then breaks again. Up to Level 4 
tech support. 

Rory 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway 
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM 


To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 




We are taking it to the Mikrotik forum. This makes no sense since we have 12 of 
the already running with no issues. 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop 
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:54 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Mike Hammett]

That was half of the reason you went with Mikrotik, ImageStream, etc. back in 
the day was that the Ciscos just flat out couldn't do what they said they 
could. Obviously, cost was the other half. Jeff can speak much better to it 
than I can, but IIRC, Imagestream's big thing was that these various popular 
Cisco models just couldn't live up to expectations and not only did the 
Imagestream outperform them, but cost less as well. 

Josh Reynolds just pointed out where this is still true today. Most of my 
exposure to newer, bigger gear is in basic switching for the IX and not in 
routing, so I'm not as familiar with where they've gone. It doesn't surprise me 
that it's relatively easy to not get line rate routing. 

Just because it's Juniper, Cisco, etc. doesn't mean it's nickle plated ivory. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Ken Hohhof"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:58:47 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 




You’re saying the Juniper/Cisco/Brocades of the world traditionally did not 
meet their advertised throughputs? I thought they were pretty good about that. 
Can you clarify? 





From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:30 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 


The complaints with Mikrotik are rarely about performance, though. They're 
about bugs, lack of desired features, being ignored in general. If performance 
(non-BGP on CCRs) is the complaint, you simply bought the wrong box and that 
isn't Mikrotik's fault. I don't think anyone buys a CCR and then is upset when 
it can't do linerate 100G... because it was never billed as something that can 
do that. 

Traditionally the big vendors more or less couldn't do what they advertised. 
Recently, they've been much better in that regard. 

Obviously from an RB750 to an MX960 there is a wide difference in ports, 
performance and price, but how much of that price difference is for the added 
capability and how much is the big guy tax? 

There's an awful lot of sunshine being blown up the backsides of people that 
think that there's a staggering difference in the attitudes of big telco 
vendors and WISP vendors. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Erich Kaiser"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:19:45 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 


I agree there is a huge price difference between a Mikrotik and a 
Juniper/Cisco/Brocade router, but you also need to look at the facts. Those 
routers are made to support a Full routed 10Gbps/40Gbps/100Gbps of throughput 
per port. With Mikrotik it is a MAYBE it will if I don't do this or do that.. 
Obviously there are many models out there, but if you look at the true carrier 
grade router lines, it is a full routed port. 

I think each one has its place. 

Just my opinion.. 










Erich Kaiser 
North Central Tower 
er...@northcentraltower.com 
Office: 630-621-4804 
Cell: 630-777-9291 



On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full of 
shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as likely 
to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc. 

When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with one 
international operator and one national operator I said something to the effect 
of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing notes on different 
products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers in my network and people 
often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper, etc. are the way to go. Those 
vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet here you are with the same type of 
complaints as we have with our vendors." The one at the international vendor 
chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for that right." 

Don't lose sight of that. 

For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility 
issues which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about. 


To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 




From: "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 



This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik for 
routers. 

There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE 
interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and 
hotter, that run very stable versions 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Josh Reynolds]

Yours too? Mine stays in the bathroom so long my wife forgets she exists!
On Jan 15, 2016 9:15 AM, "Ken Hohhof"  wrote:

> Everybody complains.  But some people have first world complaints.  Like
> the heated leather seat in my Lexus takes too long to warm my butt.  Or my
> supermodel girlfriend takes too long in the bathroom.
>
>
> *From:* Mike Hammett 
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 7:37 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>
> The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full
> of shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as
> likely to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc.
>
> When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with
> one international operator and one national operator I said something to
> the effect of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing
> notes on different products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers
> in my network and people often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper,
> etc. are the way to go. Those vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet
> here you are with the same type of complaints as we have with our vendors."
> The one at the international vendor chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for
> that right."
>
> Don't lose sight of that.
>
> For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility
> issues  which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about.
>
>
> To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>
> This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik
> for routers.
>
> There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE
> interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and
> hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for
> Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and
> $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER , which are usually using the same IOS trains I
> use for service provider functions.
>
> Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and
> hope somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just
> supposed to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something
> is fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old)
> Cisco platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more
> important than yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with
> Cisco, and a new build fixing the bug is available.
>
> If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with
> dual supervisor than a CCR
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
>
>> This just gets even better.  Worked 24 hours, then breaks again.  Up to
>> Level 4 tech support.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>>
>>
>> We are taking it to the Mikrotik forum.  This makes no sense since we
>> have 12 of the already running with no issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:54 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m not terribly happy with ROS since 6.29.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe it’s just still not 100% yet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Rory Conaway 
>>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 12, 2016 8:36 PM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>>
>>
>> Replaced the Mikrotik routers with an Airrouter, it works.  Replaced with
>> an Edgerouter, still works.  This goes under the category of WTF.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 11, 2016 9:13 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>>
>>
>> We tried 3 Mikrotik routers, 2 cable modems, and two radios from two
>> different manufacturers.
>>
>>
>>
>> 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Ken Hohhof]

Everybody complains.  But some people have first world complaints.  Like the 
heated leather seat in my Lexus takes too long to warm my butt.  Or my 
supermodel girlfriend takes too long in the bathroom.


From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 7:37 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full of 
shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as likely 
to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc.

When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with one 
international operator and one national operator I said something to the effect 
of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing notes on different 
products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers in my network and people 
often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper, etc. are the way to go. Those 
vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet here you are with the same type of 
complaints as we have with our vendors." The one at the international vendor 
chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for that right."

Don't lose sight of that.

For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility 
issues  which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about.


To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com






From: "Eric Kuhnke" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download


This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik for 
routers. 

There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE 
interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and 
hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for 
Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER 
, which are usually using the same IOS trains I use for service provider 
functions. 


Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and hope 
somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just supposed 
to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something is 
fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old) Cisco 
platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more important than 
yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with Cisco, and a new 
build fixing the bug is available.


If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with dual 
supervisor than a CCR


On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway  wrote:

  This just gets even better.  Worked 24 hours, then breaks again.  Up to Level 
4 tech support.



  Rory



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
  Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM


  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download


  We are taking it to the Mikrotik forum.  This makes no sense since we have 12 
of the already running with no issues.



  Rory



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
  Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:54 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download



  I’m not terribly happy with ROS since 6.29.



  Maybe it’s just still not 100% yet.







  From: Rory Conaway 

  Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 8:36 PM

  To: af@afmug.com 

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download



  Replaced the Mikrotik routers with an Airrouter, it works.  Replaced with an 
Edgerouter, still works.  This goes under the category of WTF.



  Rory



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
  Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 9:13 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download



  We tried 3 Mikrotik routers, 2 cable modems, and two radios from two 
different manufacturers.



  Rory



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
  Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:52 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download



  MTU?

  Last time I had that problem was an inconsistent Ethernet connection. It 
wasn’t showing errors, but UDP was dropping packets. TCP retransmitted.

  UDP was screwy, but TCP was downloading at the limit of the wireless feed.











  From: Rory Conaway 

  Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 9:47 PM

  To: af@afmug.com 

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download



  Nailed the problem down to the Mikrotik router having a problem with DNS 
caching whether it’s Cox or Google.  Not sure where to go from there since the 
other 12 don’t have a problem.



  Rory



  From: Af 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Mike Hammett]

My circle of friends has a pretty good success rate at getting Mikrotik bugs 
fixed. www.thebrotherswisp.com 

Mikrotik does have some ground to make up on their changelogs, but they are 
definitely improving. 






- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:05:41 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 



Totally in agreement that serious bugs exist on all platforms and from all 
vendors. But when something is broken and affects a serious percentage of 
Smartnet-paying customers, it gets enough attention that it usually gets fixed. 
The trouble with Mikrotik bugs is that there is no huge population of 
Fortune-500 companies as end-user enterprises, and major ISPs (the top ten 
largest in North America as measured by number of on-net POPs and /24s 
announced). You encounter a bug and post it in some forums and people say "Yeah 
me too", and it maybe gets fixed. 

Cisco is also pretty good at providing a detailed changelog of exactly what's 
new/fixed, like: 

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/15_4m_and_t/release/notes/15_4T_feats_important_notes.html
 







On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full of 
shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as likely 
to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc. 

When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with one 
international operator and one national operator I said something to the effect 
of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing notes on different 
products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers in my network and people 
often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper, etc. are the way to go. Those 
vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet here you are with the same type of 
complaints as we have with our vendors." The one at the international vendor 
chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for that right." 

Don't lose sight of that. 

For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility 
issues which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about. 


To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 




From: "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM 


Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 



This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik for 
routers. 

There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE 
interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and 
hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for 
Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER 
, which are usually using the same IOS trains I use for service provider 
functions. 


Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and hope 
somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just supposed 
to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something is 
fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old) Cisco 
platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more important than 
yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with Cisco, and a new 
build fixing the bug is available. 



If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with dual 
supervisor than a CCR 



On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway < r...@triadwireless.net > wrote: 





This just gets even better. Worked 24 hours, then breaks again. Up to Level 4 
tech support. 

Rory 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway 
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM 


To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 




We are taking it to the Mikrotik forum. This makes no sense since we have 12 of 
the already running with no issues. 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop 
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:54 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 




I’m not terribly happy with ROS since 6.29. 



Maybe it’s just still not 100% yet. 










From: Rory Conaway 

Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 8:36 PM 

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 



Replaced the Mikrotik routers with an Airrouter, it works. Replaced with an 
Edgerouter, still works. This goes under the category of WTF. 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway 
Sent: Monday, 

Re: [AFMUG] Transfer 3.65 License?

[Mathew Howard]

Depending on how many 3.65 backhauls there are (and what they are), it
might be more practical to just replace them with something else rather
than trying to deal with transferring the license.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:44 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> we have an 11ghz license that got fubared and ended up in the name of our
> purchasing partner, we technically dont own it, it will cost around 800
> dollars to correct it. we are ok because the partner is part of the
> umbrella of companies, so long as we dont close that one down ever.
> Hopefully the 200 dollar license doesnt cost 800 to transfer especially if
> there is more than one link
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
> wrote:
>
>> Can't you just lease the license to the other entity?
>>
>> Jeff Broadwick
>> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
>> 312-205-2519 Office
>> 574-220-7826 Cell
>> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
>>
>> On Jan 15, 2016, at 12:11 AM, Christopher Gray <
>> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, they're selling off some residential networks, but the larger
>> business will continue to exist.
>>
>> I'll dig into the name change possibilities tomorrow.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Did you acquire the corporate entity that originally created and holds
>>> the licenses?  If so, keep them as they are...
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Christopher Gray <
>>> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>
 If I take over a network that has some 3.65 backhauls, can I transfer
 the 3.65 license, or will I need to replace those links with something 
 else?

 Thanks - Chris


>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Transfer 3.65 License?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

Yes, spend some money with me

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
wrote:

> Might make sense to spend some money with Steve or Jon to get the ducks
> lined up legally.
>
> Jeff Broadwick
> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
> 312-205-2519 Office
> 574-220-7826 Cell
> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
>
> On Jan 15, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>
> Depending on how many 3.65 backhauls there are (and what they are), it
> might be more practical to just replace them with something else rather
> than trying to deal with transferring the license.
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:44 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> we have an 11ghz license that got fubared and ended up in the name of our
>> purchasing partner, we technically dont own it, it will cost around 800
>> dollars to correct it. we are ok because the partner is part of the
>> umbrella of companies, so long as we dont close that one down ever.
>> Hopefully the 200 dollar license doesnt cost 800 to transfer especially if
>> there is more than one link
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists > > wrote:
>>
>>> Can't you just lease the license to the other entity?
>>>
>>> Jeff Broadwick
>>> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
>>> 312-205-2519 Office
>>> 574-220-7826 Cell
>>> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
>>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2016, at 12:11 AM, Christopher Gray <
>>> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> No, they're selling off some residential networks, but the larger
>>> business will continue to exist.
>>>
>>> I'll dig into the name change possibilities tomorrow.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Did you acquire the corporate entity that originally created and holds
 the licenses?  If so, keep them as they are...

 On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Christopher Gray <
 cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:

> If I take over a network that has some 3.65 backhauls, can I transfer
> the 3.65 license, or will I need to replace those links with something 
> else?
>
> Thanks - Chris
>
>

>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>>
>
>


-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Metered Plans / Full Speed To Customer?

[Josh Reynolds]

I didn't like any of that but the last line, which I thought was very
interesting. Keep posting updates about how this goes, I'm curious to see
what the end result is.
On Jan 15, 2016 10:13 AM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" 
wrote:

> We just implemented this exact thing. We are no longer selling speed
> outside of the DIA customers, solely consumption tiers. It eliminates the
> need for proration on plan changes as a side benefit. We have a minimum
> speed that is guaranteed (*up to) and that is the tier1. We went through
> and set every customer to their tier based on a defined set of criteria
> (site capability, AP capability, environment capability, backhaul capacity
> with the final criteria being the actual performance of the CPE) within the
> billing system the speeds are controlled by the rate plan, the rate plans
> are named by the capacity (ie 50gb 150 gb, 300gb with the top tier
> requiring overage) based on what customer group the customer is in, only
> the applicable back end speeds are available. so if the customer link is
> capable of say for example a marginal 2.4 fsk link, 5-7mb dl we locked them
> to the 3mb tier, this way bandwidth is controlled with throttling
> mechanisms rather than retransmits on the AP, preserving the AP, 450 with
> 8x8 is limited by the license key
>
> Needless to say, we are going to see a huge revenue hit, other than a few
> outliers nobody will hit the overages, so thats alot of revenue (we based
> our capacities on a high percentage above current trends) and we will have
> a bunch of customers moving to the lowest transition threshold. We did make
> the threshold hurt, it slows you down to crummy DSL speed (we based this on
> rural DSL speeds in the area, and all the pedestals around here are opened,
> busted, or housing animals. This is an incentive to go up to the next rate
> to get higher capacities.
>
> what makes up for the lost revenue is the customer satisfaction, faster
> speed for most, and more reliable slower speeds for the lowest tier
> customers. Customer tiers are solely a technical decision and the sales
> side has no option to alter that, basically the customer gets what they get.
>
> we are pulling an AT on this, we raised everybodies "cap" but left them
> on the same plan, however if they make any alteration, there is no choice
> but to go to the new rates. For most this is a benefit, some will see a 4x
> speed increase and a lower cost. A few will get hit with slower speeds,
> BUT, they will be more reliable slower speeds.
>
> We were initially concerned with the 477 impact because of changes to the
> marketing, but remembered, we have no protection anyway.
>
>
> A big benefit to this is that it gives us a very accurate load view of our
> network, so we can appropriately judge where the investment needs to go.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
>
>> The biggest issue is maximizing revenue. We do that in 1 area and we
>> aren’t achieving maximum revenue.  However, we do have a significant
>> percentage of users so as prices go up, that will balance out.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Gray
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:42 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Metered Plans / Full Speed To Customer?
>>
>>
>>
>> I had a conversation with a network professional who was very interested
>> in the idea of a "metered" plan. His thought was to open up the customer
>> connections to full speed and run fair queues instead of throttling
>> bandwidth. Pricing would be based on usage, but with very low rates
>> compared to cellular or satellite (e.g., 100 GB for $60). The three main
>> thoughts were:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Knowing that speeds would be better in off hours (somehow promoted or
>> advertised) could get users to operate outside of peak times thus reducing
>> peak load on the network.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) Customer prices would more accurately represent their load on a system.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3) Plan sharing would not be a significant concern, as usage would rise
>> and cost would rise.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, I can see those benefits, but I have these specific concerns.:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) If everything is opened fully today, network performance can only get
>> worse over time as subscribers are added.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) Variability in speed over the course of the day may cause customer
>> concern.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3) Many video streaming services seem to suffer with variable bandwidth
>> availability.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any thoughts on this method of providing service? It seems very close to
>> the cellular plans where speed is almost never mentioned, only data use.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have some ideas to make such a service work, but I'd like to know
>> others' thoughts and experiences.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks - Chris
>>
>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Jon Auer]

May not be related, but just want to mention the chance that it's part of a
DDoS.
We've seen Mikrotik routers with DNS cache turned on be used in DNS
Amplification DDoS attacks.
My solution has been to add a firewall rule on the WAN port to block UDP/53
traffic that's not from hosts on our dns-server address-list.

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Rory Conaway 
wrote:

> Nailed the problem down to the Mikrotik router having a problem with DNS
> caching whether it’s Cox or Google.  Not sure where to go from there since
> the other 12 don’t have a problem.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
> *Sent:* Monday, January 11, 2016 4:44 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>
>
>
> We had raons bit no dangling cables.  Level 3 says no errors to the modem
> and we had a tech out already.  We are changing the 2011 to a 450 just to
> confirm before we eacalate further.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rory Conaway
>
> Triad Wireless
>
>
>
> Typed on my phone with one finger so please excuse typos and abbreviations.
>
>
>
>
>
>  Original message 
>
> From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
>
> Date: 1/11/2016 10:38 AM (GMT-07:00)
>
> To: af@afmug.com
>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>
>
>
> If it just started and youre in an area hit by storms, some of the
> neighbors, mostly the empty houses with no tenants at this point, cable was
> busted down by tree limbs and is dangling terminated byt the mud now
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Glen Waldrop 
> wrote:
>
> Likely an RF issue on the cable side.
>
> I see this sort of thing with the company I consult for. They’ll have me
> going through the router, trying to shut down the “virus” or peer to peer
> when it is thousands and thousands of retransmits and broken packets.
>
>
>
> Just like our wireless it can have good quality until loaded, then watch
> the quality drop to nearly nothing and loose connection.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Rory Conaway 
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 10, 2016 8:25 PM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>
>
>
> The Netgear router has nothing to do with it, I was just using their
> website as an example of downloading a file.  It’s computer, 2011, cable
> modem, the world.  I just can’t download anything from any sites.  What’s
> weird is they just drop.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 10, 2016 5:12 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>
>
>
> You mention Netgear, is this a Netgear router?  They used to have a
> problem with downloads stalling, but that was quite a few years ago.  The
> fix was to disable SPI Firewall.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Rory Conaway 
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 10, 2016 6:06 PM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>
>
>
> We have a cable circuit that can do everything except download.  There is
> a Mikrotik router between the computer and the cable modem.  Haven’t tested
> taking the router out yet but we have tried 2 routers, same results.
> Basically, downloads either don’t start or start and then just crash.  Game
> machines can’t update, even downloading a 20MB file from netgear fails.
> Everything else seems to work.  Any ideas would be helpful.
>
>
>
> *Rory Conaway **• Triad Wireless •** CEO*
>
> *4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>
> *602-426-0542 <602-426-0542>*
>
> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>
> *www.triadwireless.net *
>
>
>
> “Life is full of unfair calls, missed plays, and bad catches.  But true
> baseball players keep on playing”  - Lessons from Baseball
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

[AFMUG] Auditing IPpay

[Josh Luthman]

Does anyone do any sort of checking to make sure what you charge in billing
(ie Powercode) actually shows up in your account (ie Chase)?  I don't
suspect anything, but the thought occurred after I saw we're short $500
today from what we charged in cards on the 13th.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

Re: [AFMUG] AF2X, AF3X, AF5X SNMP

[Sean Heskett]

Hi Steve,

I never saw the .zip or .xml file come thru on the list.  could you repost
the template (or send it directly to me?)

Much appreciated!

-Sean


On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Steve Utick  wrote:

> H   List stripped the .zip file.   I'll try the .xml and see if
> that goes though.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Ty Featherling 
> wrote:
>
>> Missing the attachment I think, Steve.
>>
>> -Ty
>>
>>
>>
>> -Ty
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Steve Utick  wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a Cacti Host Template that I built.   Works on AirFiber 5X and
>>> AirFiber 24, and should work on any other AirFiber Platform, as it appears
>>> they all use the same MIB.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I will try to remember to post a cacti host template here when I have
 one built for the AF5X, to save others the work of reinventing the wheel...

 On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jeremy  wrote:

> I am pulling and graphing most of the pertinent stuff and haven't had
> any issues.  It is a huge step up from where they were.
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
> wrote:
>
>> wow, scrolling through that, it is significantly more detailed than
>> the last ubnt MIB I saw. They must've put quite a lot of person-hours 
>> into
>> it.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Jeremy 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Works perfectly
>>> http://dl.ubnt.com/firmwares/airfiber5X/v3.0.2.1/UBNT-MIB.txt
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Eric Kuhnke 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 ubnt guys, what's the state of SNMP on these?  If any serious
 progress has been made in the last 3-4 months, can you paste a numeric
 snmpwalk of an operational unit?

 second question: If SNMP is still broken, does CPU usage of the
 http management interface have any effect on traffic flow whatsoever?  
 I'm
 thinking of a short shell script with curl to login to the https front 
 page
 of the radio and grab key parameters like RSL on both chains. Every 60
 seconds.




>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Transfer 3.65 License?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

Ive had a lot of lawyers, so Im pretty much a legal professional, and if
you account my time in the bar, i think im grandfathered in and dont need
that pesky test

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Mathew Howard 
wrote:

> I'm not sure you would be my first choice for legal advice... well, maybe
> if I needed to get rid of some witnesses, or something like that...
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:15 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, spend some money with me
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists <
>> jeffl...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Might make sense to spend some money with Steve or Jon to get the ducks
>>> lined up legally.
>>>
>>> Jeff Broadwick
>>> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
>>> 312-205-2519 Office
>>> 574-220-7826 Cell
>>> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
>>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Depending on how many 3.65 backhauls there are (and what they are), it
>>> might be more practical to just replace them with something else rather
>>> than trying to deal with transferring the license.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:44 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 we have an 11ghz license that got fubared and ended up in the name of
 our purchasing partner, we technically dont own it, it will cost around 800
 dollars to correct it. we are ok because the partner is part of the
 umbrella of companies, so long as we dont close that one down ever.
 Hopefully the 200 dollar license doesnt cost 800 to transfer especially if
 there is more than one link

 On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists <
 jeffl...@att.net> wrote:

> Can't you just lease the license to the other entity?
>
> Jeff Broadwick
> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
> 312-205-2519 Office
> 574-220-7826 Cell
> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
>
> On Jan 15, 2016, at 12:11 AM, Christopher Gray <
> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> No, they're selling off some residential networks, but the larger
> business will continue to exist.
>
> I'll dig into the name change possibilities tomorrow.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
> wrote:
>
>> Did you acquire the corporate entity that originally created and
>> holds the licenses?  If so, keep them as they are...
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Christopher Gray <
>> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If I take over a network that has some 3.65 backhauls, can I
>>> transfer the 3.65 license, or will I need to replace those links with
>>> something else?
>>>
>>> Thanks - Chris
>>>
>>>
>>
>


 --
 If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
 team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>>
>
>


-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Glen Waldrop]

A few days ago I mentioned we had similar issues here. Likely an RF issue on 
the cable side. I’ve seen in the the plant I consult for as well as random UDP 
issues on a cable run on one of my towers.

It probably got lost in the vast wilderness that is the list.



From: Rory Conaway 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 10:44 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

Glen, I’m missing something.  You told me what?  I don’t think it’s a Mikrotik 
issue at this point but I’ll know more in a couple hours.

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:41 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

Well, I’m not going to say I told you so, but... 

 

 

From: Rory Conaway 

Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:53 PM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

I understand.  However, we have determined this isn’t a Mikrotik issue.  The 
Edgerouter we put in worked for 24 hours and then now has the same problem 
again.  We have a group call tomorrow with Level 4 while onsite to do testing.  
It’s the dangest thing I’ve seen.

 

Rory 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 9:49 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik for 
routers. 

There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE 
interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and 
hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for 
Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER 
, which are usually using the same IOS trains I use for service provider 
functions. 

Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and hope 
somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just supposed 
to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something is 
fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old) Cisco 
platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more important than 
yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with Cisco, and a new 
build fixing the bug is available.

 

If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with dual 
supervisor than a CCR

 

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway  wrote:

This just gets even better.  Worked 24 hours, then breaks again.  Up to Level 4 
tech support.

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM


To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

We are taking it to the Mikrotik forum.  This makes no sense since we have 12 
of the already running with no issues.

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

I’m not terribly happy with ROS since 6.29.

 

Maybe it’s just still not 100% yet.

 

 

 

From: Rory Conaway 

Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 8:36 PM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

Replaced the Mikrotik routers with an Airrouter, it works.  Replaced with an 
Edgerouter, still works.  This goes under the category of WTF.

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 9:13 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

We tried 3 Mikrotik routers, 2 cable modems, and two radios from two different 
manufacturers.

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:52 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

MTU?

Last time I had that problem was an inconsistent Ethernet connection. It wasn’t 
showing errors, but UDP was dropping packets. TCP retransmitted.

UDP was screwy, but TCP was downloading at the limit of the wireless feed.

 

 

 

 

 

From: Rory Conaway 

Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 9:47 PM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

Nailed the problem down to the Mikrotik router having a problem with DNS 
caching whether it’s Cox or Google.  Not sure where to go from there since the 
other 12 don’t have a problem.

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 4:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

We had raons bit no dangling cables.  Level 3 says no errors to the modem and 
we had a tech out already.  We are changing the 2011 to a 450 just to confirm 
before we eacalate further.

 

 

 

Rory Conaway 

Triad Wireless

 

Typed on my phone with one finger so 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Rory Conaway]

Ahh, yea but I’m making a lot of money off DOCIS so I’m not tanking it by any 
stretch.  I pay as little as $1Mbps including local loop.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:46 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

hahaha

From: Josh Reynolds
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:44 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download


In my best Steve impression:

"Fuck DOCSIS"

Ahem. :)
On Jan 15, 2016 9:41 AM, "Ken Hohhof" > 
wrote:
So can you fix Rory’s download problem?

(trying to pull the thread back from fanboy tastes-great-less-filling Mac-vs-PC 
territory)

From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:33 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

My circle of friends has a pretty good success rate at getting Mikrotik bugs 
fixed.   www.thebrotherswisp.com

Mikrotik does have some ground to make up on their changelogs, but they are 
definitely improving.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]

Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com

[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]

From: "Eric Kuhnke" >
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:05:41 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
Totally in agreement that serious bugs exist on all platforms and from all 
vendors. But when something is broken and affects a serious percentage of 
Smartnet-paying customers, it gets enough attention that it usually gets fixed. 
The trouble with Mikrotik bugs is that there is no huge population of 
Fortune-500 companies as end-user enterprises, and major ISPs (the top ten 
largest in North America as measured by number of on-net POPs and /24s 
announced). You encounter a bug and post it in some forums and people say "Yeah 
me too", and it maybe gets fixed.
Cisco is also pretty good at providing a detailed changelog of exactly what's 
new/fixed, like:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/15_4m_and_t/release/notes/15_4T_feats_important_notes.html



On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Mike Hammett 
> wrote:
The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full of 
shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as likely 
to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc.

When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with one 
international operator and one national operator I said something to the effect 
of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing notes on different 
products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers in my network and people 
often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper, etc. are the way to go. Those 
vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet here you are with the same type of 
complaints as we have with our vendors." The one at the international vendor 
chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for that right."

Don't lose sight of that.

For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility 
issues  which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about.


To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com



From: "Eric Kuhnke" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik for 
routers.

There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE 
interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and 
hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for 
Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER 
, which are usually using the same IOS trains I use for service provider 
functions.
Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Mike Hammett]

It was more like both parties complaining of their dog pissing on the floor, 
but one was in a "standard" suburban\small down single family home and the 
other was on a Persian rug. Same problem, but the one side spent a whole lot 
more to get there. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Ken Hohhof"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:15:44 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 




Everybody complains. But some people have first world complaints. Like the 
heated leather seat in my Lexus takes too long to warm my butt. Or my 
supermodel girlfriend takes too long in the bathroom. 





From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 7:37 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 


The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full of 
shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as likely 
to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc. 

When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with one 
international operator and one national operator I said something to the effect 
of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing notes on different 
products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers in my network and people 
often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper, etc. are the way to go. Those 
vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet here you are with the same type of 
complaints as we have with our vendors." The one at the international vendor 
chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for that right." 

Don't lose sight of that. 

For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility 
issues which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about. 


To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 



This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik for 
routers. 

There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE 
interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and 
hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for 
Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER 
, which are usually using the same IOS trains I use for service provider 
functions. 


Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and hope 
somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just supposed 
to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something is 
fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old) Cisco 
platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more important than 
yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with Cisco, and a new 
build fixing the bug is available. 


If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with dual 
supervisor than a CCR 



On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway < r...@triadwireless.net > wrote: 





This just gets even better. Worked 24 hours, then breaks again. Up to Level 4 
tech support. 

Rory 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway 
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM 


To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 



We are taking it to the Mikrotik forum. This makes no sense since we have 12 of 
the already running with no issues. 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop 
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:54 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 




I’m not terribly happy with ROS since 6.29. 



Maybe it’s just still not 100% yet. 










From: Rory Conaway 

Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 8:36 PM 

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 



Replaced the Mikrotik routers with an Airrouter, it works. Replaced with an 
Edgerouter, still works. This goes under the category of WTF. 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway 
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 9:13 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 

We tried 3 Mikrotik routers, 2 cable modems, and two radios from two different 
manufacturers. 

Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop 
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:52 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 




MTU? 

Last time I had that problem was an inconsistent Ethernet connection. It 

[AFMUG] 10G Circuit Drop Points

[Chuck Hogg]

Hello:

We are currently in the process of bringing 2 x 10G waves with Windstream
up in Chicago and the other to Atlanta.  We are looking at breaking out in
a few cities along the path to provide access to the circuits to others.
Please let me know if you have an interest in connecting at one of these
facilities to ride to Chicago and/or Atlanta.

Here are the possible mid-point drop locations I can split out of.

LXTNKYXA-151 S Martin Luther King Blvd, Lexington KY
BRSTTNXA-112 6th St., Bristol TN
KNVLTNAL-2333 Lovell Rd, Knoxville TN
ATLNGAMA-55 Marietta St NW, Atlanta GA

To Chicago:
LSVPKYZU-929 Mason Ave., Louisville KY
IPLWIN75-701 W Henry St., Indianapolis IN

Regards,
Chuck

Re: [AFMUG] Transfer 3.65 License?

[Mathew Howard]

I'm not sure you would be my first choice for legal advice... well, maybe
if I needed to get rid of some witnesses, or something like that...

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:15 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, spend some money with me
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists  > wrote:
>
>> Might make sense to spend some money with Steve or Jon to get the ducks
>> lined up legally.
>>
>> Jeff Broadwick
>> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
>> 312-205-2519 Office
>> 574-220-7826 Cell
>> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
>>
>> On Jan 15, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>>
>> Depending on how many 3.65 backhauls there are (and what they are), it
>> might be more practical to just replace them with something else rather
>> than trying to deal with transferring the license.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:44 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> we have an 11ghz license that got fubared and ended up in the name of
>>> our purchasing partner, we technically dont own it, it will cost around 800
>>> dollars to correct it. we are ok because the partner is part of the
>>> umbrella of companies, so long as we dont close that one down ever.
>>> Hopefully the 200 dollar license doesnt cost 800 to transfer especially if
>>> there is more than one link
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists <
>>> jeffl...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
 Can't you just lease the license to the other entity?

 Jeff Broadwick
 ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
 312-205-2519 Office
 574-220-7826 Cell
 jbroadw...@converge-tech.com

 On Jan 15, 2016, at 12:11 AM, Christopher Gray <
 cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:

 No, they're selling off some residential networks, but the larger
 business will continue to exist.

 I'll dig into the name change possibilities tomorrow.


 On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
 wrote:

> Did you acquire the corporate entity that originally created and holds
> the licenses?  If so, keep them as they are...
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Christopher Gray <
> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> If I take over a network that has some 3.65 backhauls, can I transfer
>> the 3.65 license, or will I need to replace those links with something 
>> else?
>>
>> Thanks - Chris
>>
>>
>

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Rory Conaway]

Glen, I’m missing something.  You told me what?  I don’t think it’s a Mikrotik 
issue at this point but I’ll know more in a couple hours.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:41 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

Well, I’m not going to say I told you so, but... [Smile with tongue out]


From: Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:53 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

I understand.  However, we have determined this isn’t a Mikrotik issue.  The 
Edgerouter we put in worked for 24 hours and then now has the same problem 
again.  We have a group call tomorrow with Level 4 while onsite to do testing.  
It’s the dangest thing I’ve seen.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 9:49 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik for 
routers.

There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE 
interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and 
hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for 
Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER 
, which are usually using the same IOS trains I use for service provider 
functions.
Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and hope 
somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just supposed 
to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something is 
fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old) Cisco 
platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more important than 
yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with Cisco, and a new 
build fixing the bug is available.

If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with dual 
supervisor than a CCR

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
This just gets even better.  Worked 24 hours, then breaks again.  Up to Level 4 
tech support.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM

To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

We are taking it to the Mikrotik forum.  This makes no sense since we have 12 
of the already running with no issues.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

I’m not terribly happy with ROS since 6.29.

Maybe it’s just still not 100% yet.



From: Rory Conaway
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 8:36 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

Replaced the Mikrotik routers with an Airrouter, it works.  Replaced with an 
Edgerouter, still works.  This goes under the category of WTF.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 9:13 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

We tried 3 Mikrotik routers, 2 cable modems, and two radios from two different 
manufacturers.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:52 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

MTU?

Last time I had that problem was an inconsistent Ethernet connection. It wasn’t 
showing errors, but UDP was dropping packets. TCP retransmitted.

UDP was screwy, but TCP was downloading at the limit of the wireless feed.





From: Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 9:47 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

Nailed the problem down to the Mikrotik router having a problem with DNS 
caching whether it’s Cox or Google.  Not sure where to go from there since the 
other 12 don’t have a problem.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 4:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

We had raons bit no dangling cables.  Level 3 says no errors to the modem and 
we had a tech out already.  We are changing the 2011 to a 450 just to confirm 
before we eacalate further.



Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless

Typed on my phone with one finger so please excuse typos and abbreviations.


 Original message 
From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
>

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Glen Waldrop]

hahaha



From: Josh Reynolds 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:44 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

In my best Steve impression:

"Fuck DOCSIS"

Ahem. :)

On Jan 15, 2016 9:41 AM, "Ken Hohhof"  wrote:

  So can you fix Rory’s download problem?

  (trying to pull the thread back from fanboy tastes-great-less-filling 
Mac-vs-PC territory)

  From: Mike Hammett 
  Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:33 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

  My circle of friends has a pretty good success rate at getting Mikrotik bugs 
fixed.   www.thebrotherswisp.com

  Mikrotik does have some ground to make up on their changelogs, but they are 
definitely improving.






  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
  http://www.ics-il.com



  Midwest Internet Exchange
  http://www.midwest-ix.com




--

  From: "Eric Kuhnke" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:05:41 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download


  Totally in agreement that serious bugs exist on all platforms and from all 
vendors. But when something is broken and affects a serious percentage of 
Smartnet-paying customers, it gets enough attention that it usually gets fixed. 
The trouble with Mikrotik bugs is that there is no huge population of 
Fortune-500 companies as end-user enterprises, and major ISPs (the top ten 
largest in North America as measured by number of on-net POPs and /24s 
announced). You encounter a bug and post it in some forums and people say "Yeah 
me too", and it maybe gets fixed.


  Cisco is also pretty good at providing a detailed changelog of exactly what's 
new/fixed, like:

  
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/15_4m_and_t/release/notes/15_4T_feats_important_notes.html





  On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full 
of shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as 
likely to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc.

When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with 
one international operator and one national operator I said something to the 
effect of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing notes on 
different products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers in my network 
and people often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper, etc. are the way to 
go. Those vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet here you are with the 
same type of complaints as we have with our vendors." The one at the 
international vendor chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for that right."

Don't lose sight of that.

For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility 
issues  which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about.


To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com






From: "Eric Kuhnke" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download


This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik for 
routers. 

There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE 
interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and 
hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for 
Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER 
, which are usually using the same IOS trains I use for service provider 
functions. 


Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and 
hope somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just 
supposed to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something is 
fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old) Cisco 
platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more important than 
yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with Cisco, and a new 
build fixing the bug is available.


If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with 
dual supervisor than a CCR


On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway  
wrote:

  This just gets even better.  Worked 24 hours, then breaks again.  Up to 
Level 4 tech support.



  Rory



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
  Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM


  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download


  We are taking it 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Ken Hohhof]

So can you fix Rory’s download problem?

(trying to pull the thread back from fanboy tastes-great-less-filling Mac-vs-PC 
territory)

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:33 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

My circle of friends has a pretty good success rate at getting Mikrotik bugs 
fixed.   www.thebrotherswisp.com

Mikrotik does have some ground to make up on their changelogs, but they are 
definitely improving.






-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com






From: "Eric Kuhnke" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:05:41 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download


Totally in agreement that serious bugs exist on all platforms and from all 
vendors. But when something is broken and affects a serious percentage of 
Smartnet-paying customers, it gets enough attention that it usually gets fixed. 
The trouble with Mikrotik bugs is that there is no huge population of 
Fortune-500 companies as end-user enterprises, and major ISPs (the top ten 
largest in North America as measured by number of on-net POPs and /24s 
announced). You encounter a bug and post it in some forums and people say "Yeah 
me too", and it maybe gets fixed.


Cisco is also pretty good at providing a detailed changelog of exactly what's 
new/fixed, like:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/15_4m_and_t/release/notes/15_4T_feats_important_notes.html





On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

  The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full of 
shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as likely 
to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc.

  When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with one 
international operator and one national operator I said something to the effect 
of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing notes on different 
products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers in my network and people 
often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper, etc. are the way to go. Those 
vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet here you are with the same type of 
complaints as we have with our vendors." The one at the international vendor 
chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for that right."

  Don't lose sight of that.

  For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility 
issues  which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about.


  To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance.




  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
  http://www.ics-il.com



  Midwest Internet Exchange
  http://www.midwest-ix.com




--

  From: "Eric Kuhnke" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM 

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download


  This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik for 
routers. 

  There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE 
interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and 
hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for 
Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER 
, which are usually using the same IOS trains I use for service provider 
functions. 


  Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and 
hope somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just 
supposed to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something is 
fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old) Cisco 
platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more important than 
yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with Cisco, and a new 
build fixing the bug is available.


  If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with 
dual supervisor than a CCR


  On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway  wrote:

This just gets even better.  Worked 24 hours, then breaks again.  Up to 
Level 4 tech support.



Rory



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM


To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download


We are taking it to the Mikrotik forum.  This makes no sense since we have 
12 of the already running with no issues.



Rory



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download



I’m not terribly happy with ROS since 

Re: [AFMUG] 10G Circuit Drop Points

[Chuck Hogg]

Nope.  We used our CLEC and Carrier access to get this done.  We can jump
out at any facility for a set NRC.

Regards,
Chuck

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Typically when they split off, they price it as two separate circuits, so
> instead of paying $2,500 for A - Z, you're paying $5k for A - M - Z. I
> assume either A) you got better terms than that or B) just hoping to catch
> that much activity at one of the drops.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Chuck Hogg" 
> *To: *memb...@wispa.org, af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, January 15, 2016 10:01:18 AM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] 10G Circuit Drop Points
>
>
> Hello:
>
> We are currently in the process of bringing 2 x 10G waves with Windstream
> up in Chicago and the other to Atlanta.  We are looking at breaking out in
> a few cities along the path to provide access to the circuits to others.
> Please let me know if you have an interest in connecting at one of these
> facilities to ride to Chicago and/or Atlanta.
>
> Here are the possible mid-point drop locations I can split out of.
>
> LXTNKYXA-151 S Martin Luther King Blvd, Lexington KY
> BRSTTNXA-112 6th St., Bristol TN
> KNVLTNAL-2333 Lovell Rd, Knoxville TN
> ATLNGAMA-55 Marietta St NW, Atlanta GA
>
> To Chicago:
> LSVPKYZU-929 Mason Ave., Louisville KY
> IPLWIN75-701 W Henry St., Indianapolis IN
>
> Regards,
> Chuck
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Josh Reynolds]

In my best Steve impression:

"Fuck DOCSIS"

Ahem. :)
On Jan 15, 2016 9:41 AM, "Ken Hohhof"  wrote:

> So can you fix Rory’s download problem?
>
> (trying to pull the thread back from fanboy tastes-great-less-filling
> Mac-vs-PC territory)
>
> *From:* Mike Hammett 
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 9:33 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>
> My circle of friends has a pretty good success rate at getting Mikrotik
> bugs fixed.   www.thebrotherswisp.com
>
> Mikrotik does have some ground to make up on their changelogs, but they
> are definitely improving.
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, January 15, 2016 9:05:41 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>
> Totally in agreement that serious bugs exist on all platforms and from all
> vendors. But when something is broken and affects a serious percentage of
> Smartnet-paying customers, it gets enough attention that it usually gets
> fixed. The trouble with Mikrotik bugs is that there is no huge population
> of Fortune-500 companies as end-user enterprises, and major ISPs (the top
> ten largest in North America as measured by number of on-net POPs and /24s
> announced). You encounter a bug and post it in some forums and people say
> "Yeah me too", and it maybe gets fixed.
>
> Cisco is also pretty good at providing a detailed changelog of exactly
> what's new/fixed, like:
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/15_4m_and_t/release/notes/15_4T_feats_important_notes.html
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full
>> of shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as
>> likely to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc.
>>
>> When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with
>> one international operator and one national operator I said something to
>> the effect of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing
>> notes on different products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers
>> in my network and people often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper,
>> etc. are the way to go. Those vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet
>> here you are with the same type of complaints as we have with our vendors."
>> The one at the international vendor chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for
>> that right."
>>
>> Don't lose sight of that.
>>
>> For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility
>> issues  which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about.
>>
>>
>> To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM
>>
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>> This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik
>> for routers.
>>
>> There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE
>> interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and
>> hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for
>> Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and
>> $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER , which are usually using the same IOS trains I
>> use for service provider functions.
>>
>> Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum
>> and hope somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are
>> just supposed to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If
>> something is fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+
>> year old) Cisco platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and
>> more important than yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it
>> with Cisco, and a new build fixing the 

Re: [AFMUG] Transfer 3.65 License?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

we have an 11ghz license that got fubared and ended up in the name of our
purchasing partner, we technically dont own it, it will cost around 800
dollars to correct it. we are ok because the partner is part of the
umbrella of companies, so long as we dont close that one down ever.
Hopefully the 200 dollar license doesnt cost 800 to transfer especially if
there is more than one link

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
wrote:

> Can't you just lease the license to the other entity?
>
> Jeff Broadwick
> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
> 312-205-2519 Office
> 574-220-7826 Cell
> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
>
> On Jan 15, 2016, at 12:11 AM, Christopher Gray 
> wrote:
>
> No, they're selling off some residential networks, but the larger business
> will continue to exist.
>
> I'll dig into the name change possibilities tomorrow.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
> wrote:
>
>> Did you acquire the corporate entity that originally created and holds
>> the licenses?  If so, keep them as they are...
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Christopher Gray <
>> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If I take over a network that has some 3.65 backhauls, can I transfer
>>> the 3.65 license, or will I need to replace those links with something else?
>>>
>>> Thanks - Chris
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Transfer 3.65 License?

[Jeff Broadwick - Lists]

Might make sense to spend some money with Steve or Jon to get the ducks lined 
up legally.

Jeff Broadwick
ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
312-205-2519 Office
574-220-7826 Cell
jbroadw...@converge-tech.com

> On Jan 15, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
> 
> Depending on how many 3.65 backhauls there are (and what they are), it might 
> be more practical to just replace them with something else rather than trying 
> to deal with transferring the license.
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:44 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
>>  wrote:
>> we have an 11ghz license that got fubared and ended up in the name of our 
>> purchasing partner, we technically dont own it, it will cost around 800 
>> dollars to correct it. we are ok because the partner is part of the umbrella 
>> of companies, so long as we dont close that one down ever. Hopefully the 200 
>> dollar license doesnt cost 800 to transfer especially if there is more than 
>> one link
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists  
>>> wrote:
>>> Can't you just lease the license to the other entity?
>>> 
>>> Jeff Broadwick
>>> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
>>> 312-205-2519 Office
>>> 574-220-7826 Cell
>>> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
>>> 
 On Jan 15, 2016, at 12:11 AM, Christopher Gray 
  wrote:
 
 No, they're selling off some residential networks, but the larger business 
 will continue to exist.
 
 I'll dig into the name change possibilities tomorrow.
 
 
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Eric Kuhnke  
> wrote:
 
> Did you acquire the corporate entity that originally created and holds 
> the licenses?  If so, keep them as they are...
> 
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Christopher Gray 
>>  wrote:
>> If I take over a network that has some 3.65 backhauls, can I transfer 
>> the 3.65 license, or will I need to replace those links with something 
>> else?
>> 
>> Thanks - Chris
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
>> part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Metered Plans / Full Speed To Customer?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

We just implemented this exact thing. We are no longer selling speed
outside of the DIA customers, solely consumption tiers. It eliminates the
need for proration on plan changes as a side benefit. We have a minimum
speed that is guaranteed (*up to) and that is the tier1. We went through
and set every customer to their tier based on a defined set of criteria
(site capability, AP capability, environment capability, backhaul capacity
with the final criteria being the actual performance of the CPE) within the
billing system the speeds are controlled by the rate plan, the rate plans
are named by the capacity (ie 50gb 150 gb, 300gb with the top tier
requiring overage) based on what customer group the customer is in, only
the applicable back end speeds are available. so if the customer link is
capable of say for example a marginal 2.4 fsk link, 5-7mb dl we locked them
to the 3mb tier, this way bandwidth is controlled with throttling
mechanisms rather than retransmits on the AP, preserving the AP, 450 with
8x8 is limited by the license key

Needless to say, we are going to see a huge revenue hit, other than a few
outliers nobody will hit the overages, so thats alot of revenue (we based
our capacities on a high percentage above current trends) and we will have
a bunch of customers moving to the lowest transition threshold. We did make
the threshold hurt, it slows you down to crummy DSL speed (we based this on
rural DSL speeds in the area, and all the pedestals around here are opened,
busted, or housing animals. This is an incentive to go up to the next rate
to get higher capacities.

what makes up for the lost revenue is the customer satisfaction, faster
speed for most, and more reliable slower speeds for the lowest tier
customers. Customer tiers are solely a technical decision and the sales
side has no option to alter that, basically the customer gets what they get.

we are pulling an AT on this, we raised everybodies "cap" but left them
on the same plan, however if they make any alteration, there is no choice
but to go to the new rates. For most this is a benefit, some will see a 4x
speed increase and a lower cost. A few will get hit with slower speeds,
BUT, they will be more reliable slower speeds.

We were initially concerned with the 477 impact because of changes to the
marketing, but remembered, we have no protection anyway.


A big benefit to this is that it gives us a very accurate load view of our
network, so we can appropriately judge where the investment needs to go.


On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Rory Conaway 
wrote:

> The biggest issue is maximizing revenue. We do that in 1 area and we
> aren’t achieving maximum revenue.  However, we do have a significant
> percentage of users so as prices go up, that will balance out.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Gray
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:42 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Metered Plans / Full Speed To Customer?
>
>
>
> I had a conversation with a network professional who was very interested
> in the idea of a "metered" plan. His thought was to open up the customer
> connections to full speed and run fair queues instead of throttling
> bandwidth. Pricing would be based on usage, but with very low rates
> compared to cellular or satellite (e.g., 100 GB for $60). The three main
> thoughts were:
>
>
>
> 1) Knowing that speeds would be better in off hours (somehow promoted or
> advertised) could get users to operate outside of peak times thus reducing
> peak load on the network.
>
>
>
> 2) Customer prices would more accurately represent their load on a system.
>
>
>
> 3) Plan sharing would not be a significant concern, as usage would rise
> and cost would rise.
>
>
>
> Now, I can see those benefits, but I have these specific concerns.:
>
>
>
> 1) If everything is opened fully today, network performance can only get
> worse over time as subscribers are added.
>
>
>
> 2) Variability in speed over the course of the day may cause customer
> concern.
>
>
>
> 3) Many video streaming services seem to suffer with variable bandwidth
> availability.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts on this method of providing service? It seems very close to
> the cellular plans where speed is almost never mentioned, only data use.
>
>
>
> I have some ideas to make such a service work, but I'd like to know
> others' thoughts and experiences.
>
>
>
> Thanks - Chris
>



-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Mike Hammett]

It sounds like a cable plant issue and nothing under Rory's control. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Ken Hohhof"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:41:52 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 




So can you fix Rory’s download problem? 

(trying to pull the thread back from fanboy tastes-great-less-filling Mac-vs-PC 
territory) 




From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:33 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 


My circle of friends has a pretty good success rate at getting Mikrotik bugs 
fixed. www.thebrotherswisp.com 

Mikrotik does have some ground to make up on their changelogs, but they are 
definitely improving. 






- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:05:41 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 



Totally in agreement that serious bugs exist on all platforms and from all 
vendors. But when something is broken and affects a serious percentage of 
Smartnet-paying customers, it gets enough attention that it usually gets fixed. 
The trouble with Mikrotik bugs is that there is no huge population of 
Fortune-500 companies as end-user enterprises, and major ISPs (the top ten 
largest in North America as measured by number of on-net POPs and /24s 
announced). You encounter a bug and post it in some forums and people say "Yeah 
me too", and it maybe gets fixed. 

Cisco is also pretty good at providing a detailed changelog of exactly what's 
new/fixed, like: 

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/15_4m_and_t/release/notes/15_4T_feats_important_notes.html
 






On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full of 
shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as likely 
to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc. 

When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with one 
international operator and one national operator I said something to the effect 
of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing notes on different 
products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers in my network and people 
often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper, etc. are the way to go. Those 
vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet here you are with the same type of 
complaints as we have with our vendors." The one at the international vendor 
chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for that right." 

Don't lose sight of that. 

For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility 
issues which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about. 


To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 




From: "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM 


Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 



This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik for 
routers. 

There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE 
interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and 
hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for 
Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER 
, which are usually using the same IOS trains I use for service provider 
functions. 


Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and hope 
somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just supposed 
to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something is 
fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old) Cisco 
platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more important than 
yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with Cisco, and a new 
build fixing the bug is available. 


If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with dual 
supervisor than a CCR 



On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway < r...@triadwireless.net > wrote: 





This just gets even better. Worked 24 hours, then breaks again. Up to Level 4 
tech support. 

Rory 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway 
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM 


To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 



We are taking it to the Mikrotik forum. This makes no sense since we have 12 of 
the already running with no issues. 

Re: [AFMUG] 10G Circuit Drop Points

[Mike Hammett]

Nice! I know of someone in 701 , but it'll depend on where in 701. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Chuck Hogg"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 10:33:17 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 10G Circuit Drop Points 


Nope. We used our CLEC and Carrier access to get this done. We can jump out at 
any facility for a set NRC. 



Regards, 
Chuck 

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Typically when they split off, they price it as two separate circuits, so 
instead of paying $2,500 for A - Z, you're paying $5k for A - M - Z. I assume 
either A) you got better terms than that or B) just hoping to catch that much 
activity at one of the drops. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 




From: "Chuck Hogg" < ch...@shelbybb.com > 
To: memb...@wispa.org , af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 10:01:18 AM 
Subject: [AFMUG] 10G Circuit Drop Points 




Hello: 


We are currently in the process of bringing 2 x 10G waves with Windstream up in 
Chicago and the other to Atlanta. We are looking at breaking out in a few 
cities along the path to provide access to the circuits to others. Please let 
me know if you have an interest in connecting at one of these facilities to 
ride to Chicago and/or Atlanta. 


Here are the possible mid-point drop locations I can split out of. 



LXTNKYXA-151 S Martin Luther King Blvd, Lexington KY 
BRSTTNXA-112 6th St., Bristol TN 
KNVLTNAL-2333 Lovell Rd, Knoxville TN 
ATLNGAMA-55 Marietta St NW, Atlanta GA 


To Chicago: 
LSVPKYZU-929 Mason Ave., Louisville KY 

IPLWIN75-701 W Henry St., Indianapolis IN 




Regards, 
Chuck 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Glen Waldrop]

Well, I’m not going to say I told you so, but... 


From: Rory Conaway 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:53 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

I understand.  However, we have determined this isn’t a Mikrotik issue.  The 
Edgerouter we put in worked for 24 hours and then now has the same problem 
again.  We have a group call tomorrow with Level 4 while onsite to do testing.  
It’s the dangest thing I’ve seen.

 

Rory 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 9:49 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik for 
routers. 

There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE 
interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and 
hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for 
Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER 
, which are usually using the same IOS trains I use for service provider 
functions. 

Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and hope 
somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just supposed 
to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something is 
fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old) Cisco 
platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more important than 
yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with Cisco, and a new 
build fixing the bug is available.

 

If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with dual 
supervisor than a CCR

 

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway  wrote:

This just gets even better.  Worked 24 hours, then breaks again.  Up to Level 4 
tech support.

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM


To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

We are taking it to the Mikrotik forum.  This makes no sense since we have 12 
of the already running with no issues.

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

I’m not terribly happy with ROS since 6.29.

 

Maybe it’s just still not 100% yet.

 

 

 

From: Rory Conaway 

Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 8:36 PM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

Replaced the Mikrotik routers with an Airrouter, it works.  Replaced with an 
Edgerouter, still works.  This goes under the category of WTF.

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 9:13 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

We tried 3 Mikrotik routers, 2 cable modems, and two radios from two different 
manufacturers.

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:52 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

MTU?

Last time I had that problem was an inconsistent Ethernet connection. It wasn’t 
showing errors, but UDP was dropping packets. TCP retransmitted.

UDP was screwy, but TCP was downloading at the limit of the wireless feed.

 

 

 

 

 

From: Rory Conaway 

Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 9:47 PM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

Nailed the problem down to the Mikrotik router having a problem with DNS 
caching whether it’s Cox or Google.  Not sure where to go from there since the 
other 12 don’t have a problem.

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 4:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

 

We had raons bit no dangling cables.  Level 3 says no errors to the modem and 
we had a tech out already.  We are changing the 2011 to a 450 just to confirm 
before we eacalate further.

 

 

 

Rory Conaway 

Triad Wireless

 

Typed on my phone with one finger so please excuse typos and abbreviations.

 

 

 Original message 

From: That One Guy /sarcasm  

Date: 1/11/2016 10:38 AM (GMT-07:00) 

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download 

 

If it just started and youre in an area hit by storms, some of the neighbors, 
mostly the empty houses with no tenants at this point, cable was busted down by 
tree limbs and is dangling terminated byt the mud now

 

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:

  Likely an RF issue on the cable side.

  I see this sort of thing with the company I consult for. They’ll have me 
going through the router, trying to shut down the “virus” or peer 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Josh Reynolds]

Note: I did get everything for pennies though, and went for n+1 redundancy
with hot and cold spares, including full chassis.
On Jan 15, 2016 9:29 AM, "Josh Reynolds"  wrote:

> See, I'm in a somewhat of a unique boat on this, so I'll give some
> perspective.
>
> Brand new Fiber ISP right outside KC Metro. 144ct going in everywhere with
> spare duct. Combo above ground PED w/ below ground slack storage. Redundant
> ring, half on poles, half buried. Two providers feeding us, with hospitals
> and school districts excited about turning up 1-1Mbps service with us
> over the next couple of months. Netflix and Google peering happening. Two
> TV content providers getting ready to feed us, plus local TV rebroadcast
> rights. Upstreams want to skip 40Gbps feeds and move right to 100Gbps when
> we get past 10Gbps on our feeds (projections show 18-24mo).
>
> I needed CGNAT due to the state of IPv4. Also deploying IPv6 along side
> it. Needed mpls for certain handoffs, and MEF services for the gpon side
> and other features and classes of service, as well as decent routing table
> capability and BGP Flowspec.
>
> I tried to go with a smaller chassis like that, even tried to get a
> netiron XMR to work, but I simply couldn't get the feature sets and
> expandability I needed to make everything work right out of the gate. :(
> On Jan 15, 2016 9:18 AM, "Eric Kuhnke"  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> *The difference with the Junipers and Ciscos and Brocades of the world is
>> that they often have a higher tier of products for those entities that can
>> afford it that will support their needs*
>>
>> The great thing about buying used/refurb Cisco and Juniper is that there
>> is a VAST quantity of stuff on the market which is no longer fast or
>> capable enough for a datacenter/hosting/virtualization/purely fiber ISP
>> environment, but is real overkill for the average medium sized WISP use.
>> I'll use an example of a to-remain-nameless adult content hosting
>> colocation ISP located near a major IX point. They push probably an
>> aggregate of 120-150Gbps of traffic to their peers and upstreams on a
>> fairly regular basis and need core routers capable of handling such
>> volumes, and even more in the future.
>>
>> You can buy an identical matched pair of used 7604 or 7606 with RSP720 +
>> various 10GbE and 1GbE optical interfaces for less than $4500-5000. Such a
>> configuration for a WISP can handle a port-channeled 2 x 10Gbps link to an
>> upstream. Is there a WISP on the list that moves more than 12-15Gbps of
>> traffic?  Doing 10GbE with fiber is easy, doing real 1GbE full duplex with
>> PTP part101 links is *hard and expensive*. The bottleneck in many cases
>> is the PTP microwave backhaul connection in and out of towers and rooftop
>> sites, not the router capabilities. It takes a lot of money and a lot of
>> users to support building a resilient ring of Exalt ExtremeAir 18 GHz 1
>> Gbps links serving a county sized area. Huge numbers of WISPs have traffic
>> patterns to the Internet as a whole that look like 180 to 350Mbps in a
>> daily cyclic sine wave pattern that fit nicely inside a 1GbE handoff from
>> their upstream.
>>
>> Take that 7604 for example, you can put in a few 24-port SFP linecards
>> that will do 24 Gbps line rate. And you have a couple of blades each with 4
>> x 10GbE. You'd need to be a *big *WISP to outgrow that any time soon.
>> More likely you'd outgrow the total 1 million routing table entry size
>> (combined IPV4 + IPV6 FIB) before the forwarding ability of the ASICs.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Josh Reynolds 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That's not quite true.
>>>
>>> For example, on Juniper with a standard switching control board, a
>>> 16x10Gbps line card has a 4:1 oversub ratio. That interface line card
>>> retails for something around $160,000 MSRP. With the replacement of the
>>> standard SCB for an enhanced on, you can get full line rate on all ports.
>>>
>>> On an MX240 you might have a 4x10Gbps card, but with firewall acl and
>>> cgnat enabled you might be limited to 8-9Gbps total throughput through it.
>>>
>>> So to say "it just works" on the higher end of vendors and products is
>>> baloney. The difference with the Junipers and Ciscos and Brocades of the
>>> world is that they often have a higher tier of products for those entities
>>> that can afford it that will support their needs. Also their support is
>>> more highly trained (and there's more of them), and companies will fix your
>>> shit pretty quick when you buy a few hundred million worth of their
>>> products.
>>> On Jan 15, 2016 8:19 AM, "Erich Kaiser" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I agree there is a huge price difference between a Mikrotik and a
 Juniper/Cisco/Brocade router, but you also need to look at the facts.
 Those routers are made to support a Full  routed 10Gbps/40Gbps/100Gbps of
 throughput per port.  With Mikrotik it is 

Re: [AFMUG] 10G Circuit Drop Points

[Mike Hammett]

Typically when they split off, they price it as two separate circuits, so 
instead of paying $2,500 for A - Z, you're paying $5k for A - M - Z. I assume 
either A) you got better terms than that or B) just hoping to catch that much 
activity at one of the drops. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Chuck Hogg"  
To: memb...@wispa.org, af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 10:01:18 AM 
Subject: [AFMUG] 10G Circuit Drop Points 


Hello: 


We are currently in the process of bringing 2 x 10G waves with Windstream up in 
Chicago and the other to Atlanta. We are looking at breaking out in a few 
cities along the path to provide access to the circuits to others. Please let 
me know if you have an interest in connecting at one of these facilities to 
ride to Chicago and/or Atlanta. 


Here are the possible mid-point drop locations I can split out of. 



LXTNKYXA-151 S Martin Luther King Blvd, Lexington KY 
BRSTTNXA-112 6th St., Bristol TN 
KNVLTNAL-2333 Lovell Rd, Knoxville TN 
ATLNGAMA-55 Marietta St NW, Atlanta GA 


To Chicago: 
LSVPKYZU-929 Mason Ave., Louisville KY 

IPLWIN75-701 W Henry St., Indianapolis IN 




Regards, 
Chuck 

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Glen Waldrop]

Personally I’m not a fan of the CCR series anyway.

They don’t seem to have all the bugs worked out yet.



From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:30 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

The complaints with Mikrotik are rarely about performance, though. They're 
about bugs, lack of desired features, being ignored in general. If performance 
(non-BGP on CCRs) is the complaint, you simply bought the wrong box and that 
isn't Mikrotik's fault. I don't think anyone buys a CCR and then is upset when 
it can't do linerate 100G...  because it was never billed as something that can 
do that.

Traditionally the big vendors more or less couldn't do what they advertised. 
Recently, they've been much better in that regard.

Obviously from an RB750 to an MX960 there is a wide difference in ports, 
performance and price, but how much of that price difference is for the added 
capability and how much is the big guy tax?

There's an awful lot of sunshine being blown up the backsides of people that 
think that there's a staggering difference in the attitudes of big telco 
vendors and WISP vendors.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com






From: "Erich Kaiser" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:19:45 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download


I agree there is a huge price difference between a Mikrotik and a 
Juniper/Cisco/Brocade router, but you also need to look at the facts.  Those 
routers are made to support a Full  routed 10Gbps/40Gbps/100Gbps of throughput 
per port.  With Mikrotik it is a MAYBE it will if I don't do this or do that.. 
Obviously there are many models out there, but if you look at the true carrier 
grade router lines, it is a full routed port. 

I think each one has its place.  

Just my opinion..


Erich Kaiser 
North Central Tower
er...@northcentraltower.com
Office: 630-621-4804
Cell: 630-777-9291



On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

  The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full of 
shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as likely 
to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc.

  When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with one 
international operator and one national operator I said something to the effect 
of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing notes on different 
products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers in my network and people 
often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper, etc. are the way to go. Those 
vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet here you are with the same type of 
complaints as we have with our vendors." The one at the international vendor 
chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for that right."

  Don't lose sight of that.

  For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility 
issues  which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about.


  To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance.




  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
  http://www.ics-il.com



  Midwest Internet Exchange
  http://www.midwest-ix.com




--

  From: "Eric Kuhnke" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download


  This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik for 
routers. 

  There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE 
interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and 
hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for 
Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER 
, which are usually using the same IOS trains I use for service provider 
functions. 


  Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and 
hope somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just 
supposed to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something is 
fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old) Cisco 
platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more important than 
yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with Cisco, and a new 
build fixing the bug is available.


  If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with 
dual supervisor than a CCR


  On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway  wrote:

This just gets even better.  Worked 24 hours, then breaks again.  Up to 
Level 4 tech support.



Rory



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory 

Re: [AFMUG] AF2X, AF3X, AF5X SNMP

[Sean Heskett]

thanks josh, i was actually looking for the cacti template steve
referenced.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> It's been linked, here it is again:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pakh20643a1tm85/UBNT-MIB.txt?dl=0
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> I never saw the .zip or .xml file come thru on the list.  could you
>> repost the template (or send it directly to me?)
>>
>> Much appreciated!
>>
>> -Sean
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Steve Utick  wrote:
>>
>>> H   List stripped the .zip file.   I'll try the .xml and see if
>>> that goes though.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Ty Featherling 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Missing the attachment I think, Steve.

 -Ty



 -Ty

 On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Steve Utick  wrote:

> Here is a Cacti Host Template that I built.   Works on AirFiber 5X and
> AirFiber 24, and should work on any other AirFiber Platform, as it appears
> they all use the same MIB.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
> wrote:
>
>> I will try to remember to post a cacti host template here when I have
>> one built for the AF5X, to save others the work of reinventing the 
>> wheel...
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jeremy 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am pulling and graphing most of the pertinent stuff and haven't
>>> had any issues.  It is a huge step up from where they were.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 wow, scrolling through that, it is significantly more detailed than
 the last ubnt MIB I saw. They must've put quite a lot of person-hours 
 into
 it.

 On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Jeremy 
 wrote:

> Works perfectly
> http://dl.ubnt.com/firmwares/airfiber5X/v3.0.2.1/UBNT-MIB.txt
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Eric Kuhnke <
> eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ubnt guys, what's the state of SNMP on these?  If any serious
>> progress has been made in the last 3-4 months, can you paste a 
>> numeric
>> snmpwalk of an operational unit?
>>
>> second question: If SNMP is still broken, does CPU usage of the
>> http management interface have any effect on traffic flow 
>> whatsoever?  I'm
>> thinking of a short shell script with curl to login to the https 
>> front page
>> of the radio and grab key parameters like RSL on both chains. Every 
>> 60
>> seconds.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

[AFMUG] hikvision vendor?

[Josh Reynolds]

Anybody here know where I can pick up a Hikvision system at a decent price?

I need to get a decent cam system for our NOC, retail, and POPs. Thanks.

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Jaime Solorza]

Reboot the whole fucking Internet... bet it fixes lots of issues.
On Jan 15, 2016 6:37 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just as full
> of shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu, etc. are all just as
> likely to ignore problems and create bugs as Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc.
>
> When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head engineer with
> one international operator and one national operator I said something to
> the effect of, "I've just largely been listening to you guys comparing
> notes on different products and issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers
> in my network and people often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper,
> etc. are the way to go. Those vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet
> here you are with the same type of complaints as we have with our vendors."
> The one at the international vendor chimed in, "and we pay 10x more for
> that right."
>
> Don't lose sight of that.
>
> For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset incompatibility
> issues  which is exactly what this sub-topic has been about.
>
>
> To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>
> This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of Mikrotik
> for routers.
>
> There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20 SFP-based GbE
> interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable, if somewhat bigger and
> hotter, that run very stable versions of IOS. It's totally unacceptable for
> Cisco to break basic functionality for $HUGE_ISP and
> $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER , which are usually using the same IOS trains I
> use for service provider functions.
>
> Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this forum and
> hope somebody answers your question", if something is broken you are just
> supposed to wait for a new version release in a month or two. If something
> is fundamentally broken in a version of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old)
> Cisco platform it's almost certain that somebody much bigger and more
> important than yourself has already run into the issue, escalated it with
> Cisco, and a new build fixing the bug is available.
>
> If the space and power are available I would much rather have a 6503E with
> dual supervisor than a CCR
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
>
>> This just gets even better.  Worked 24 hours, then breaks again.  Up to
>> Level 4 tech support.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>>
>>
>> We are taking it to the Mikrotik forum.  This makes no sense since we
>> have 12 of the already running with no issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:54 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m not terribly happy with ROS since 6.29.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe it’s just still not 100% yet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Rory Conaway 
>>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 12, 2016 8:36 PM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>>
>>
>> Replaced the Mikrotik routers with an Airrouter, it works.  Replaced with
>> an Edgerouter, still works.  This goes under the category of WTF.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 11, 2016 9:13 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>>
>>
>> We tried 3 Mikrotik routers, 2 cable modems, and two radios from two
>> different manufacturers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 11, 2016 8:52 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download
>>
>>
>>
>> MTU?
>>
>> Last time I had that problem was an inconsistent Ethernet connection. It
>> wasn’t showing errors, but UDP was dropping 

Re: [AFMUG] AF2X, AF3X, AF5X SNMP

[Josh Luthman]

Oh, sorry!


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:

> thanks josh, i was actually looking for the cacti template steve
> referenced.
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Josh Luthman <
> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>
>> It's been linked, here it is again:
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pakh20643a1tm85/UBNT-MIB.txt?dl=0
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Steve,
>>>
>>> I never saw the .zip or .xml file come thru on the list.  could you
>>> repost the template (or send it directly to me?)
>>>
>>> Much appreciated!
>>>
>>> -Sean
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Steve Utick  wrote:
>>>
 H   List stripped the .zip file.   I'll try the .xml and see if
 that goes though.


 On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Ty Featherling  wrote:

> Missing the attachment I think, Steve.
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Steve Utick  wrote:
>
>> Here is a Cacti Host Template that I built.   Works on AirFiber 5X
>> and AirFiber 24, and should work on any other AirFiber Platform, as it
>> appears they all use the same MIB.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I will try to remember to post a cacti host template here when I
>>> have one built for the AF5X, to save others the work of reinventing the
>>> wheel...
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jeremy 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I am pulling and graphing most of the pertinent stuff and haven't
 had any issues.  It is a huge step up from where they were.

 On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

> wow, scrolling through that, it is significantly more detailed
> than the last ubnt MIB I saw. They must've put quite a lot of 
> person-hours
> into it.
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Jeremy 
> wrote:
>
>> Works perfectly
>> http://dl.ubnt.com/firmwares/airfiber5X/v3.0.2.1/UBNT-MIB.txt
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Eric Kuhnke <
>> eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ubnt guys, what's the state of SNMP on these?  If any serious
>>> progress has been made in the last 3-4 months, can you paste a 
>>> numeric
>>> snmpwalk of an operational unit?
>>>
>>> second question: If SNMP is still broken, does CPU usage of the
>>> http management interface have any effect on traffic flow 
>>> whatsoever?  I'm
>>> thinking of a short shell script with curl to login to the https 
>>> front page
>>> of the radio and grab key parameters like RSL on both chains. Every 
>>> 60
>>> seconds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay

[Sterling Jacobson]

I’m wondering the same thing for Platypus billing.

At times it seems the merchant fees are a lot higher that I thought they would 
be looking at the raw incoming in our QuickBooks and the monthly outgoing line 
item for IPPay and AMEX etc.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 10:39 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay

Does anyone do any sort of checking to make sure what you charge in billing (ie 
Powercode) actually shows up in your account (ie Chase)?  I don't suspect 
anything, but the thought occurred after I saw we're short $500 today from what 
we charged in cards on the 13th.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

Re: [AFMUG] hikvision vendor?

[Jaime Solorza]

Yes...call Luis Torres at 915 5335119...tell him you I suggested you
call him and get set up as reseller.  Great prices
Anybody here know where I can pick up a Hikvision system at a decent price?

I need to get a decent cam system for our NOC, retail, and POPs. Thanks.

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP ISSUES Cold Weather or Packet Flux?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

if you were providing gps via the packetflux, we ended up disabling it
because it wasnt stable, if youre dropping GPS could the units be seeing
DFS hits?

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc (ICI)
 wrote:

> Good afternoon fellow geeks,
>
> For about a week now, we started seeing what I thought was cold weather
> issues with some  ePmP links.  So,  I upgraded the units to the 2.6
> firmware and then the DRAM FIRMWARE FIX was applied to the appropriate Mac
> affected units.
>
> Still seeing PPPoE clients randomly dropping off the network briefly.  I'm
> not even sure if the customers notice.
>
> Some units will not keep a lan connection to a 450RB right now.  In order
> for the lan to stay somewhat stable, we must bypass the 1GB PACKERFLUX SYNC
> INJECTORS and hook the cable directly to the Poe brick.
>
> Very strange behavior that actually has recently just started.
>
> Note,  UBNT links see no issues therefore I believe ruling out network
> issues
>
> *Tyson Burris, President*
>  *Internet Communications Inc.*
>  *739 Commerce Dr.*
>  *Franklin, IN 46131*
>
> *317-738-0320 <317-738-0320> Daytime #*
> *317-412-1540 <317-412-1540> Cell/Direct #*
> *Online: **www.surfici.net*
>
>
>
> Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers!
>



-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

[AFMUG] Here it is

[chuck]

Don’t let the MSRP fool you, distributors give discounts.
This is the one with the RJ-45s.  I had no idea that I never had a photo of 
this anywhere on my website.
So, now I spun it off into its own product page. 

http://www.mccowntech.com/gige-twr-j-hv-tower-wall-mount-ethernet-surge-suppressor-protector/

Re: [AFMUG] Transfer 3.65 License?

[Ken Hohhof]

Seriously, if the backhauls were put up legally, I wouldn’t take them down just 
because they are on someone else’s NN license.  I think I would wait until the 
new rules are clarified, the SAS is in place, and the spectrum auction for PALs 
is announced, then figure out what to do with them under the new regime.

Can you make an arrangement with the other guys that if someone calls trying to 
coordinate frequencies, they send them to you?  That would seem to satisfy the 
spirit if not the letter of the law.

The only problem is if the equipment is not capable of working under the new 
regime with dynamic frequency assignment, and you don’t have grandfathered 
status, you would probably have to replace it with something newer at that 
time, which looks like at least a year or two from now?  If you like the 
equipment and want grandfathered status, then you probably need to transfer the 
license.  Or let the company you are acquiring continue to operate those links 
and lease the links from them.


From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:44 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Transfer 3.65 License?

we have an 11ghz license that got fubared and ended up in the name of our 
purchasing partner, we technically dont own it, it will cost around 800 dollars 
to correct it. we are ok because the partner is part of the umbrella of 
companies, so long as we dont close that one down ever. Hopefully the 200 
dollar license doesnt cost 800 to transfer especially if there is more than one 
link

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists  
wrote:

  Can't you just lease the license to the other entity?

  Jeff Broadwick 
  ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
  312-205-2519 Office
  574-220-7826 Cell
  jbroadw...@converge-tech.com

  On Jan 15, 2016, at 12:11 AM, Christopher Gray  
wrote:


No, they're selling off some residential networks, but the larger business 
will continue to exist. 

I'll dig into the name change possibilities tomorrow.



On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

  Did you acquire the corporate entity that originally created and holds 
the licenses?  If so, keep them as they are...


  On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Christopher Gray 
 wrote:

If I take over a network that has some 3.65 backhauls, can I transfer 
the 3.65 license, or will I need to replace those links with something else? 

Thanks - Chris








-- 

If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Force110 assembly

[Josh Reynolds]

Oh lawd his wife in that movie O_O

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman
 wrote:
> ludes man.  Like on Wolf of Wall Street?
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:35 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>  wrote:
>>
>> Quaaludes?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Paul McCall  wrote:
>>>
>>> When I played the Hollywood Bowl with Bill Cosby as the MC, he was
>>> gentlemanly and didn’t hit on me at all J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or did he and I just don’t remember… h
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:50 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Force110 assembly
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not if you use Quaaludes first.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: George Skorup
>>>
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:33 PM
>>>
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Force110 assembly
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I hear you go to prison for that.
>>>
>>> On 1/14/2016 4:29 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>
>>> Just use the Force.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, some force is required to assemble the Force. :)
>>>
>>> On 1/14/2016 4:24 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>
>>> I just give it a tap with a rubber hammer... seems to work fine, and I
>>> haven't broken any yet. They really aren't that bad to assemble after you've
>>> done a few, I timed myself awhile back, and I was able to assemble them in 5
>>> minutes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Adam Moffett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I just don't like the amount of force required to push the feed into the
>>> dish.  I feel like I'm going to break it every time.  I'm not too fond of
>>> those little clips that hold on the subreflector either.
>>>
>>> On 1/14/2016 4:51 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>
>>> Send me all your dishes, I have no problem assembling them =)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Adam Moffett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I hate the assembly process on the Force110 dish.  Did they make a
>>> replacement model at some point or did I only imagine it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay

[Josh Luthman]

Merchant fees come out as their own charge at the end of the month.  You
should receive 100% of what you charge.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
wrote:

> I’m wondering the same thing for Platypus billing.
>
>
>
> At times it seems the merchant fees are a lot higher that I thought they
> would be looking at the raw incoming in our QuickBooks and the monthly
> outgoing line item for IPPay and AMEX etc.
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 10:39 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay
>
>
>
> Does anyone do any sort of checking to make sure what you charge in
> billing (ie Powercode) actually shows up in your account (ie Chase)?  I
> don't suspect anything, but the thought occurred after I saw we're short
> $500 today from what we charged in cards on the 13th.
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>

[AFMUG] ePMP GPS compatability

[Dan Petermann]

Is the ePMP line GPS compatible with the100 series radios?

Re: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay

[Sterling Jacobson]

Yes, I see that.

So I should be able to audit what Platypus/IPPay says was charged, with what 
goes into the bank account directly.
There are functions for doing that within Platypus, I just haven’t used them in 
years ☺

Maybe I’m not so concerned about that as much as I’m wondering if the IPPay 
fees, and merchant fees are on par with the rate I think I’m supposed to be 
getting.



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 11:26 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay

Merchant fees come out as their own charge at the end of the month.  You should 
receive 100% of what you charge.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
> wrote:
I’m wondering the same thing for Platypus billing.

At times it seems the merchant fees are a lot higher that I thought they would 
be looking at the raw incoming in our QuickBooks and the monthly outgoing line 
item for IPPay and AMEX etc.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 10:39 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay

Does anyone do any sort of checking to make sure what you charge in billing (ie 
Powercode) actually shows up in your account (ie Chase)?  I don't suspect 
anything, but the thought occurred after I saw we're short $500 today from what 
we charged in cards on the 13th.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

Re: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay

[Josh Luthman]

I've done fees/total charge and it was 1.99-2.01% I believe


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
wrote:

> Yes, I see that.
>
>
>
> So I should be able to audit what Platypus/IPPay says was charged, with
> what goes into the bank account directly.
>
> There are functions for doing that within Platypus, I just haven’t used
> them in years J
>
>
>
> Maybe I’m not so concerned about that as much as I’m wondering if the
> IPPay fees, and merchant fees are on par with the rate I think I’m supposed
> to be getting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 11:26 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay
>
>
>
> Merchant fees come out as their own charge at the end of the month.  You
> should receive 100% of what you charge.
>
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
> wrote:
>
> I’m wondering the same thing for Platypus billing.
>
>
>
> At times it seems the merchant fees are a lot higher that I thought they
> would be looking at the raw incoming in our QuickBooks and the monthly
> outgoing line item for IPPay and AMEX etc.
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 10:39 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay
>
>
>
> Does anyone do any sort of checking to make sure what you charge in
> billing (ie Powercode) actually shows up in your account (ie Chase)?  I
> don't suspect anything, but the thought occurred after I saw we're short
> $500 today from what we charged in cards on the 13th.
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS compatability

[Josh Luthman]

Can you make them play nice?  Yes.  You need 2.5+ and 2.5ms frames to match
it up.

They won't associate to each other, no.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Dan Petermann  wrote:

> Is the ePMP line GPS compatible with the100 series radios?
>

Re: [AFMUG] Force110 assembly

[Paul McCall]

When I played the Hollywood Bowl with Bill Cosby as the MC, he was gentlemanly 
and didn’t hit on me at all ☺

Or did he and I just don’t remember… h

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:50 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Force110 assembly

Not if you use Quaaludes first.

From: George Skorup
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:33 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Force110 assembly

I hear you go to prison for that.
On 1/14/2016 4:29 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Just use the Force.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM, George Skorup 
> wrote:
Yes, some force is required to assemble the Force. :)
On 1/14/2016 4:24 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
I just give it a tap with a rubber hammer... seems to work fine, and I haven't 
broken any yet. They really aren't that bad to assemble after you've done a 
few, I timed myself awhile back, and I was able to assemble them in 5 minutes.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
I just don't like the amount of force required to push the feed into the dish.  
I feel like I'm going to break it every time.  I'm not too fond of those little 
clips that hold on the subreflector either.
On 1/14/2016 4:51 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Send me all your dishes, I have no problem assembling them =)


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
I hate the assembly process on the Force110 dish.  Did they make a replacement 
model at some point or did I only imagine it?

Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

[Rory McCann]

Is it like on South Park where it's a big blue Linksys router?

Rory McCann
MKAP Technology Solutions
Web: www.mkap.net

On 1/15/2016 12:19 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:


Reboot the whole fucking Internet... bet it fixes lots of issues.

On Jan 15, 2016 6:37 AM, "Mike Hammett" > wrote:


The #1 thing I learned at NANOG was that the big vendors are just
as full of shit as the little vendors. Cisco, Juniper, AlcaLu,
etc. are all just as likely to ignore problems and create bugs as
Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, etc.

When sitting at a table at about 1 AM one night with a head
engineer with one international operator and one national operator
I said something to the effect of, "I've just largely been
listening to you guys comparing notes on different products and
issues you've had. I use Mikrotik routers in my network and people
often say they are junk and that Cisco, Juniper, etc. are the way
to go. Those vendors are exactly who you guys use and yet here you
are with the same type of complaints as we have with our vendors."
The one at the international vendor chimed in, "and we pay 10x
more for that right."

Don't lose sight of that.

For example, Cisco is known for having Ethernet chipset
incompatibility issues  which is exactly what this sub-topic
has been about.


To think otherwise is simply blind arrogance.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com




Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com




*From: *"Eric Kuhnke" >
*To: *af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:49:12 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

This is sort of an illustration of why I am still very wary of
Mikrotik for routers.

There's a myriad of Cisco routers available with 12 to 20
SFP-based GbE interfacess (used/refurb) that are just as capable,
if somewhat bigger and hotter, that run very stable versions of
IOS. It's totally unacceptable for Cisco to break basic
functionality for $HUGE_ISP and $HUGE_ENTERPRISE_CUSTOMER , which
are usually using the same IOS trains I use for service provider
functions.

Mikrotik OS software support is pretty much "hey go over to this
forum and hope somebody answers your question", if something is
broken you are just supposed to wait for a new version release in
a month or two. If something is fundamentally broken in a version
of IOS used by a mature (6+ year old) Cisco platform it's almost
certain that somebody much bigger and more important than yourself
has already run into the issue, escalated it with Cisco, and a new
build fixing the bug is available.

If the space and power are available I would much rather have a
6503E with dual supervisor than a CCR

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rory Conaway
> wrote:

This just gets even better.  Worked 24 hours, then breaks
again.  Up to Level 4 tech support.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:56 AM


*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

We are taking it to the Mikrotik forum. This makes no sense
since we have 12 of the already running with no issues.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Glen
Waldrop
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 7:54 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

I’m not terribly happy with ROS since 6.29.

Maybe it’s just still not 100% yet.

*From:*Rory Conaway 

*Sent:*Tuesday, January 12, 2016 8:36 PM

*To:*af@afmug.com 

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Weird Problem with download

Replaced the Mikrotik routers with an Airrouter, it works. 
Replaced with an Edgerouter, still works.  This goes under the

category of WTF.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory
Conaway
*Sent:* Monday, January 11, 2016 9:13 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* 

[AFMUG] ePMP ISSUES Cold Weather or Packet Flux?

[Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc (ICI)]

Good afternoon fellow geeks,

For about a week now, we started seeing what I thought was cold weather issues 
with some  ePmP links.  So,  I upgraded the units to the 2.6 firmware and then 
the DRAM FIRMWARE FIX was applied to the appropriate Mac affected units. 

Still seeing PPPoE clients randomly dropping off the network briefly.  I'm not 
even sure if the customers notice.  

Some units will not keep a lan connection to a 450RB right now.  In order for 
the lan to stay somewhat stable, we must bypass the 1GB PACKERFLUX SYNC 
INJECTORS and hook the cable directly to the Poe brick.  

Very strange behavior that actually has recently just started.  

Note,  UBNT links see no issues therefore I believe ruling out network issues 

Tyson Burris, President 
Internet Communications Inc. 
739 Commerce Dr. 
Franklin, IN 46131 
  
317-738-0320 Daytime # 
317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # 
Online: www.surfici.net
 
Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers!

Re: [AFMUG] routing questions

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

I think im not clear here, both connections are on our network, the fiber
is something we are leasing and reselling, its just dedicated
infrastructure for that customer. Handling th eoutbound routing from the
CPE router I can do with these policy routes, that I already have, its
primarily getting traffic on our OSPF network to come back the right way, I
dont want statics or policy routes on the other routers on the network
unless I can deliver it dynamically.

I would liketo be able to use some filtering within the inbound OSPF if
possible to populate the outbound routing where feasible

I should probably provide a diagram

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Josh Reynolds 
wrote:

> Netwatch works well, or at least has for me in the past. Use a script to
> change path weight if an upstream IP becomes unreachable.
> On Jan 14, 2016 10:03 PM, "Justin Wilson"  wrote:
>
>> +1 for policy based routing.  It takes some scripts to utilize it in a
>> redundant scenario.
>>
>> Justin Wilson
>> j...@mtin.net
>>
>> ---
>> http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
>> xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth
>>
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2016, at 9:51 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Im having a hard time grasping ospf filters
>>
>> Is there a way to announce the /29 out ether1 at a lower cost the i
>> announce on ether2 and announce the /30 out ether2 at a lower cost than
>> ether1?  That way the rest of the network uses the preferred interface to
>> route each in except in the case of failover? I could just use source based
>> routes with differing metrics within the router for the default routes of
>> the two?
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Josh Reynolds 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ehhh correction. I think you could do what you wanted with VRF, but you
>>> actually could likely get by with policy based routing (PBR) so the routing
>>> table was aware of both interfaces. As ugly as PBR is in most cases, it
>>> might be a bit cleaner here.
>>> On Jan 14, 2016 11:00 AM, "Josh Reynolds"  wrote:
>>>
 Look into VRF.
 On Jan 14, 2016 10:52 AM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <
 thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We have a customer who has two connections to us
> Their firewall eth0 connects to ether4 with a /29 and their eth1
> connects to ether5
> They have a 3rd party 10mb fiber circuit on ether1 that terminates in
> our NOC for the /29 traffic and the ether2 connects to our wireless 
> network
> for their /30
>
> the /30 is for their internet traffic, the /29 is for their VOIP and
> VPN
>
> I have OSPF enabled on the fiber, so both subnets are routing through
> the fiber right now, Im trying to avoid any static routes on anything 
> other
> than the CPE mikrotik to get traffic flowing the right direction, allowing
> the fiber to fail over to the wireless both in failure and as a last 
> resort
> for spillover above the 10mb
>
> Is this clear as mud? Currently we only have static and OSPF
> capability on our network
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

>>
>>
>> --
>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>>
>>
>>


-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

[AFMUG] XO Communications ??

[Paul McCall]

Any feedback on their BW services?   As far as reliability, latency, over 
subscription etc. ?

Paul McCall, Pres.
PDMNet / Florida Broadband
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800 office
772-473-0352 cell
www.pdmnet.com
pa...@pdmnet.net

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS compatability

[Jeff Broadwick - Lists]

If you have the ePMP firmware that allows for 2.5ms timing, then yes.

Jeff Broadwick
ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
312-205-2519 Office
574-220-7826 Cell
jbroadw...@converge-tech.com

> On Jan 15, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Dan Petermann  wrote:
> 
> Is the ePMP line GPS compatible with the100 series radios?

Re: [AFMUG] Force110 assembly

[Josh Luthman]

ludes man.  Like on Wolf of Wall Street?


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:35 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Quaaludes?
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Paul McCall  wrote:
>
>> When I played the Hollywood Bowl with Bill Cosby as the MC, he was
>> gentlemanly and didn’t hit on me at all J
>>
>>
>>
>> Or did he and I just don’t remember… h
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:50 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Force110 assembly
>>
>>
>>
>> Not if you use Quaaludes first.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* George Skorup 
>>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:33 PM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Force110 assembly
>>
>>
>>
>> I hear you go to prison for that.
>>
>> On 1/14/2016 4:29 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> Just use the Force.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>>
>> Yes, some force is required to assemble the Force. :)
>>
>> On 1/14/2016 4:24 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> I just give it a tap with a rubber hammer... seems to work fine, and I
>> haven't broken any yet. They really aren't that bad to assemble after
>> you've done a few, I timed myself awhile back, and I was able to assemble
>> them in 5 minutes.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Adam Moffett 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I just don't like the amount of force required to push the feed into the
>> dish.  I feel like I'm going to break it every time.  I'm not too fond of
>> those little clips that hold on the subreflector either.
>>
>> On 1/14/2016 4:51 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> Send me all your dishes, I have no problem assembling them =)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Adam Moffett 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I hate the assembly process on the Force110 dish.  Did they make a
>> replacement model at some point or did I only imagine it?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Force110 assembly

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

Quaaludes?


On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Paul McCall  wrote:

> When I played the Hollywood Bowl with Bill Cosby as the MC, he was
> gentlemanly and didn’t hit on me at all J
>
>
>
> Or did he and I just don’t remember… h
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:50 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Force110 assembly
>
>
>
> Not if you use Quaaludes first.
>
>
>
> *From:* George Skorup 
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:33 PM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Force110 assembly
>
>
>
> I hear you go to prison for that.
>
> On 1/14/2016 4:29 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> Just use the Force.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>
> Yes, some force is required to assemble the Force. :)
>
> On 1/14/2016 4:24 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> I just give it a tap with a rubber hammer... seems to work fine, and I
> haven't broken any yet. They really aren't that bad to assemble after
> you've done a few, I timed myself awhile back, and I was able to assemble
> them in 5 minutes.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
> I just don't like the amount of force required to push the feed into the
> dish.  I feel like I'm going to break it every time.  I'm not too fond of
> those little clips that hold on the subreflector either.
>
> On 1/14/2016 4:51 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> Send me all your dishes, I have no problem assembling them =)
>
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
> I hate the assembly process on the Force110 dish.  Did they make a
> replacement model at some point or did I only imagine it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] XO Communications ??

[Paul McCall]

Can you compare to Hurricane electric?

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 2:59 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] XO Communications ??

Middle of the road, I'd say. Not crap, but nothing stellar. They're just a 
domestic provider, nothing substantial international.

Their inter-city network is Level 3 IRUs.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]

Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com

[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]

From: "Paul McCall" >
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:02:53 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] XO Communications ??
Any feedback on their BW services?   As far as reliability, latency, over 
subscription etc. ?

Paul McCall, Pres.
PDMNet / Florida Broadband
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800 office
772-473-0352 cell
www.pdmnet.com
pa...@pdmnet.net

Re: [AFMUG] Transfer 3.65 License?

[Jason Pond]

Chris,

I just went through this in the sale of my company assets.  You have 2
choices.  One if you have a 3.65 license you can register the link under
your license EXACTLY as they are now and then request the previous owner to
delete the registration ONCE approved by the FCC you will have to request
this be grandfathered and it may require an attorneys help to make sure it
does not get messed up.  This might take some time but it would keep you
grandfathered.

If you do not have a 3.65 License and want to transfer their license to you
(assuming this is the only 3.65 equipment they had) you can do that with
the consent of the FCC again takes some time.

If you do not have a 3.65 license and want to purchase one contact me off
list.

If you want things to get done fast and correctly hire an attorney.  I
highly recommend Steve Coran (this come from experience) Steve has
fantastic knowledge of the inner workings of the FCC and it will get done
right!


Sincerely,

Jason Pond


On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Christopher Gray <
cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:

> If I take over a network that has some 3.65 backhauls, can I transfer the
> 3.65 license, or will I need to replace those links with something else?
>
> Thanks - Chris
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF2X, AF3X, AF5X SNMP

[Rob Genovesi]

What cacti template are folks using for Ubiquiti 5.6.x gear these days?



On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:22 PM, SmarterBroadband <
li...@smarterbroadband.com> wrote:

> Yes please.
>
>
>
> And for epmp if you have one… J
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric Kuhnke
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 04, 2015 11:21 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF2X, AF3X, AF5X SNMP
>
>
>
> I will try to remember to post a cacti host template here when I have one
> built for the AF5X, to save others the work of reinventing the wheel...
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Transfer 3.65 License?

[Christopher Gray]

I'm working to see what the options are with the current licensee. I've
received some info from the FCC.

Transferring is apparently both possible and easy, but you have to transfer
the entire license, and I am only taking one location out of an existing
license.

According to the FCC, leasing is not possible in 3650:
"One may be able to obtain service from an existing 3650 licensee (NN radio
service) as long as this licensee is a common carrier. Leasing is not
possible in this band."

The current licensee may just let me use them, but I don't think they are
going to want to work with me after the transfer is complete. They're
really looking to get completely out. Thank you for the suggestions.


On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Seriously, if the backhauls were put up legally, I wouldn’t take them down
> just because they are on someone else’s NN license.  I think I would wait
> until the new rules are clarified, the SAS is in place, and the spectrum
> auction for PALs is announced, then figure out what to do with them under
> the new regime.
>
> Can you make an arrangement with the other guys that if someone calls
> trying to coordinate frequencies, they send them to you?  That would seem
> to satisfy the spirit if not the letter of the law.
>
> The only problem is if the equipment is not capable of working under the
> new regime with dynamic frequency assignment, and you don’t have
> grandfathered status, you would probably have to replace it with something
> newer at that time, which looks like at least a year or two from now?  If
> you like the equipment and want grandfathered status, then you probably
> need to transfer the license.  Or let the company you are acquiring
> continue to operate those links and lease the links from them.
>
>
> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 9:44 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Transfer 3.65 License?
>
> we have an 11ghz license that got fubared and ended up in the name of our
> purchasing partner, we technically dont own it, it will cost around 800
> dollars to correct it. we are ok because the partner is part of the
> umbrella of companies, so long as we dont close that one down ever.
> Hopefully the 200 dollar license doesnt cost 800 to transfer especially if
> there is more than one link
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
> wrote:
>
>> Can't you just lease the license to the other entity?
>>
>> Jeff Broadwick
>> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
>> 312-205-2519 Office
>> 574-220-7826 Cell
>> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
>>
>> On Jan 15, 2016, at 12:11 AM, Christopher Gray <
>> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, they're selling off some residential networks, but the larger
>> business will continue to exist.
>>
>> I'll dig into the name change possibilities tomorrow.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Did you acquire the corporate entity that originally created and holds
>>> the licenses?  If so, keep them as they are...
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Christopher Gray <
>>> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>
 If I take over a network that has some 3.65 backhauls, can I transfer
 the 3.65 license, or will I need to replace those links with something
 else?

 Thanks - Chris


>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF2X, AF3X, AF5X SNMP

[SmarterBroadband]

Yes please.

 

And for epmp if you have one… J

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 11:21 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF2X, AF3X, AF5X SNMP

 

I will try to remember to post a cacti host template here when I have one built 
for the AF5X, to save others the work of reinventing the wheel... 

 

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jeremy  wrote:

I am pulling and graphing most of the pertinent stuff and haven't had any 
issues.  It is a huge step up from where they were.  

 

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

wow, scrolling through that, it is significantly more detailed than the last 
ubnt MIB I saw. They must've put quite a lot of person-hours into it.

 

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Jeremy  wrote:

Works perfectly http://dl.ubnt.com/firmwares/airfiber5X/v3.0.2.1/UBNT-MIB.txt

 

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

ubnt guys, what's the state of SNMP on these?  If any serious progress has been 
made in the last 3-4 months, can you paste a numeric snmpwalk of an operational 
unit?

second question: If SNMP is still broken, does CPU usage of the http management 
interface have any effect on traffic flow whatsoever?  I'm thinking of a short 
shell script with curl to login to the https front page of the radio and grab 
key parameters like RSL on both chains. Every 60 seconds.




 

 

 

 

Re: [AFMUG] hikvision vendor?

[TJ Trout]

i can get oem hikvision stuff (no hikvision labels, but made by them) for
really cheap. email me what you need.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Josh Reynolds 
wrote:

> What if I don't ever sell any, and just buy a dozen or so? :)
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Jaime Solorza
>  wrote:
> > Yes...call Luis Torres at 915 5335119...tell him you I suggested you
> > call him and get set up as reseller.  Great prices
> >
> > Anybody here know where I can pick up a Hikvision system at a decent
> price?
> >
> > I need to get a decent cam system for our NOC, retail, and POPs. Thanks.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay

[Sterling Jacobson]

That’s around what I was told and am expecting.

I’ll have to check the numbers again to make sure.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 11:38 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay

I've done fees/total charge and it was 1.99-2.01% I believe


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
> wrote:
Yes, I see that.

So I should be able to audit what Platypus/IPPay says was charged, with what 
goes into the bank account directly.
There are functions for doing that within Platypus, I just haven’t used them in 
years ☺

Maybe I’m not so concerned about that as much as I’m wondering if the IPPay 
fees, and merchant fees are on par with the rate I think I’m supposed to be 
getting.



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 11:26 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay

Merchant fees come out as their own charge at the end of the month.  You should 
receive 100% of what you charge.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
> wrote:
I’m wondering the same thing for Platypus billing.

At times it seems the merchant fees are a lot higher that I thought they would 
be looking at the raw incoming in our QuickBooks and the monthly outgoing line 
item for IPPay and AMEX etc.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 10:39 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay

Does anyone do any sort of checking to make sure what you charge in billing (ie 
Powercode) actually shows up in your account (ie Chase)?  I don't suspect 
anything, but the thought occurred after I saw we're short $500 today from what 
we charged in cards on the 13th.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

Re: [AFMUG] Force110 assembly

[Ken Hohhof]

Did he offer you a pudding pop?

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Force110 assembly

Quaaludes? 


On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Paul McCall  wrote:

  When I played the Hollywood Bowl with Bill Cosby as the MC, he was 
gentlemanly and didn’t hit on me at all J



  Or did he and I just don’t remember… h



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
  Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:50 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Force110 assembly



  Not if you use Quaaludes first.  



  From: George Skorup 

  Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:33 PM

  To: af@afmug.com 

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Force110 assembly



  I hear you go to prison for that.

  On 1/14/2016 4:29 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

Just use the Force.



On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

Yes, some force is required to assemble the Force. :)

On 1/14/2016 4:24 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

  I just give it a tap with a rubber hammer... seems to work fine, and I 
haven't broken any yet. They really aren't that bad to assemble after you've 
done a few, I timed myself awhile back, and I was able to assemble them in 5 
minutes.



  On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

  I just don't like the amount of force required to push the feed into the 
dish.  I feel like I'm going to break it every time.  I'm not too fond of those 
little clips that hold on the subreflector either.

  On 1/14/2016 4:51 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Send me all your dishes, I have no problem assembling them =)






Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Adam Moffett  
wrote:

I hate the assembly process on the Force110 dish.  Did they make a 
replacement model at some point or did I only imagine it?

















-- 

If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] XO Communications ??

[Mike Hammett]

Middle of the road, I'd say. Not crap, but nothing stellar. They're just a 
domestic provider, nothing substantial international. 

Their inter-city network is Level 3 IRUs. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Paul McCall"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:02:53 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] XO Communications ?? 



Any feedback on their BW services? As far as reliability, latency, over 
subscription etc. ? 

Paul McCall, Pres. 
PDMNet / Florida Broadband 
658 Old Dixie Highway 
Vero Beach, FL 32962 
772-564-6800 office 
772-473-0352 cell 
www.pdmnet.com 
pa...@pdmnet.net 

Re: [AFMUG] Transfer 3.65 License?

[Ken Hohhof]

Keep in mind this was licensed lite and the FCC never gave a rat’s ass about 
all the operators who didn’t even bother to get a license and register their 
locations.

But if you want grandfathered status once the new rules are published and 
implemented, then sorting this out now would be advisable.

What kind of equipment is used on these links?  Something unlikely to ever work 
with the spectrum database, like Ubiquiti or Redline?  Even Ubiquiti, if it’s 
AF3x, I would hope they have plans to make that work under the new rules.  If 
it’s something like Rockets, then no.


From: Christopher Gray 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:57 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Transfer 3.65 License?

I'm working to see what the options are with the current licensee. I've 
received some info from the FCC. 

Transferring is apparently both possible and easy, but you have to transfer the 
entire license, and I am only taking one location out of an existing license.


According to the FCC, leasing is not possible in 3650:
"One may be able to obtain service from an existing 3650 licensee (NN radio 
service) as long as this licensee is a common carrier. Leasing is not possible 
in this band."


The current licensee may just let me use them, but I don't think they are going 
to want to work with me after the transfer is complete. They're really looking 
to get completely out. Thank you for the suggestions.


On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

  Seriously, if the backhauls were put up legally, I wouldn’t take them down 
just because they are on someone else’s NN license.  I think I would wait until 
the new rules are clarified, the SAS is in place, and the spectrum auction for 
PALs is announced, then figure out what to do with them under the new regime.

  Can you make an arrangement with the other guys that if someone calls trying 
to coordinate frequencies, they send them to you?  That would seem to satisfy 
the spirit if not the letter of the law.

  The only problem is if the equipment is not capable of working under the new 
regime with dynamic frequency assignment, and you don’t have grandfathered 
status, you would probably have to replace it with something newer at that 
time, which looks like at least a year or two from now?  If you like the 
equipment and want grandfathered status, then you probably need to transfer the 
license.  Or let the company you are acquiring continue to operate those links 
and lease the links from them.


  From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
  Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:44 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Transfer 3.65 License?

  we have an 11ghz license that got fubared and ended up in the name of our 
purchasing partner, we technically dont own it, it will cost around 800 dollars 
to correct it. we are ok because the partner is part of the umbrella of 
companies, so long as we dont close that one down ever. Hopefully the 200 
dollar license doesnt cost 800 to transfer especially if there is more than one 
link

  On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists  
wrote:

Can't you just lease the license to the other entity?

Jeff Broadwick 
ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
312-205-2519 Office
574-220-7826 Cell
jbroadw...@converge-tech.com

On Jan 15, 2016, at 12:11 AM, Christopher Gray  
wrote:


  No, they're selling off some residential networks, but the larger 
business will continue to exist. 

  I'll dig into the name change possibilities tomorrow.



  On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Eric Kuhnke  
wrote:

Did you acquire the corporate entity that originally created and holds 
the licenses?  If so, keep them as they are...


On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Christopher Gray 
 wrote:

  If I take over a network that has some 3.65 backhauls, can I transfer 
the 3.65 license, or will I need to replace those links with something else? 

  Thanks - Chris








  -- 

  If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] The perfect antenna for your new 900 MHz 450

[Brian Sullivan]

We too have 100+ used Yagi's in inventory we would love to re-deploy.
Would it be hard to fabricate a holder for two M2 or KPP Yagis?
Such a holder would provide adequate (12"?) spacing as Chuck mentioned 
and rotate them + or - 45.

We would then use N to RP-SMA cables to the SM.



On 1/14/2016 4:51 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Yes, you can use two yagis.
Not a huge spacing issue due to being opposite polarizations.
I would make sure there is at least 12 inches between them.
*From:* SmarterBroadband 
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 5:28 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] The perfect antenna for your new 900 MHz 450

So I was wondering.

We have hundreds of old M2 Yagi’s left from our old canopy 900 days.

Could we use 2 per 450 install, one vertical and one horizontal?

How far apart would they need to be?

Adam

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino Villarini
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 6:53 AM
*To:* Animal Farm
*Subject:* [AFMUG] The perfect antenna for your new 900 mhz 450

http://www.m2inc.com/amateur/902-14wlc-880-950-mhz/

25db gain!

[AFMUG] Sending SMS from Linux

[Eric Kuhnke]

For instance, from a shell script called by a monitoring system.
Interesting brief tutorial:

https://www.20papercups.net/programming/sending-receiving-sms-on-linux/

Re: [AFMUG] Metered Plans / Full Speed To Customer?

[Ken Hohhof]

Can you clarify regarding “fair queues”?  Would the customer with 100 TCP 
active TCP connections get a larger share of the available capacity than the 
customer with 1 active TCP connection?  What about the video stream or software 
download that opens 10 TCP connections vs the video stream that opens 1 TCP 
connection?

The other thing that strikes me is customers want predictability.  OK, maybe 
less so with mobile, but certainly with fixed.  So I either can or cannot 
stream 4K shows on Netflix, or 2 HD shows simultaneously, or DirecTV On Demand. 
 I can or cannot Skype with my son in Afghanistan.  If I could do it yesterday, 
but not today, I am pissed off.  If I pay $5 to watch an on demand movie and 
the first 10 minutes goes fine but then peak hour comes and I can’t and it 
tells me I have to download to my DVR and watch later, I am pissed off.

So a best effort approach to speed (and therefore to what applications will and 
won’t work) may lead to a poor customer experience.  Unless you have some way 
of notifying customers, or letting them pay for priority.

Some applications will degrade gracefully.  Netflix is pretty good about 
adaptive stream quality.  I don’t get many customer complaints about video 
quality, but people sure hate it if the video stops to buffer, or displays an 
error message that their Internet has slowed.

The opposite view to this would be why limit someone to a certain speed tier 
when the network is not “congested”, leaving capacity unused.


From: Christopher Gray 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 11:41 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Metered Plans / Full Speed To Customer?

I had a conversation with a network professional who was very interested in the 
idea of a "metered" plan. His thought was to open up the customer connections 
to full speed and run fair queues instead of throttling bandwidth. Pricing 
would be based on usage, but with very low rates compared to cellular or 
satellite (e.g., 100 GB for $60). The three main thoughts were:

1) Knowing that speeds would be better in off hours (somehow promoted or 
advertised) could get users to operate outside of peak times thus reducing peak 
load on the network.

2) Customer prices would more accurately represent their load on a system.

3) Plan sharing would not be a significant concern, as usage would rise and 
cost would rise.

Now, I can see those benefits, but I have these specific concerns.:

1) If everything is opened fully today, network performance can only get worse 
over time as subscribers are added.

2) Variability in speed over the course of the day may cause customer concern.

3) Many video streaming services seem to suffer with variable bandwidth 
availability.

Any thoughts on this method of providing service? It seems very close to the 
cellular plans where speed is almost never mentioned, only data use.

I have some ideas to make such a service work, but I'd like to know others' 
thoughts and experiences.

Thanks - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] XO Communications ??

[Lewis Bergman]

We had both XO and HE connected to the same router accepting full routes
for both. HE provided about two thirds of the bandwidth both directions. XO
had a nicer user interface but not worth the extra money. Both seem to
provide quality bandwidth.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016, 2:03 PM Paul McCall  wrote:

> Can you compare to Hurricane electric?
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 2:59 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] XO Communications ??
>
>
>
> Middle of the road, I'd say. Not crap, but nothing stellar. They're just a
> domestic provider, nothing substantial international.
>
> Their inter-city network is Level 3 IRUs.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Paul McCall" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, January 15, 2016 1:02:53 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] XO Communications ??
>
> Any feedback on their BW services?   As far as reliability, latency, over
> subscription etc. ?
>
>
>
> Paul McCall, Pres.
>
> PDMNet / Florida Broadband
>
> 658 Old Dixie Highway
>
> Vero Beach, FL 32962
>
> 772-564-6800 office
>
> 772-473-0352 cell
>
> www.pdmnet.com
>
> pa...@pdmnet.net
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] XO Communications ??

[Eric Kuhnke]

HE is more likely to have congested transport into/out of a secondary
market, and possibly no diversity of paths.

HE and Cogent transit pricing is in a lower tier than what you would
typically see from XO.


On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Paul McCall  wrote:

> Can you compare to Hurricane electric?
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 2:59 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] XO Communications ??
>
>
>
> Middle of the road, I'd say. Not crap, but nothing stellar. They're just a
> domestic provider, nothing substantial international.
>
> Their inter-city network is Level 3 IRUs.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Paul McCall" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, January 15, 2016 1:02:53 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] XO Communications ??
>
> Any feedback on their BW services?   As far as reliability, latency, over
> subscription etc. ?
>
>
>
> Paul McCall, Pres.
>
> PDMNet / Florida Broadband
>
> 658 Old Dixie Highway
>
> Vero Beach, FL 32962
>
> 772-564-6800 office
>
> 772-473-0352 cell
>
> www.pdmnet.com
>
> pa...@pdmnet.net
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Sending SMS from Linux

[Lewis Bergman]

Gnokii is pretty easy. I used to use it on it monitoring server.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016, 3:46 PM Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

> For instance, from a shell script called by a monitoring system.
> Interesting brief tutorial:
>
> https://www.20papercups.net/programming/sending-receiving-sms-on-linux/
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] XO Communications ??

[Josh Luthman]

>XO had a nicer user interface

Interface for what???


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Lewis Bergman 
wrote:

> We had both XO and HE connected to the same router accepting full routes
> for both. HE provided about two thirds of the bandwidth both directions. XO
> had a nicer user interface but not worth the extra money. Both seem to
> provide quality bandwidth.
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016, 2:03 PM Paul McCall  wrote:
>
>> Can you compare to Hurricane electric?
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 2:59 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] XO Communications ??
>>
>>
>>
>> Middle of the road, I'd say. Not crap, but nothing stellar. They're just
>> a domestic provider, nothing substantial international.
>>
>> Their inter-city network is Level 3 IRUs.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>>
>> *From: *"Paul McCall" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Friday, January 15, 2016 1:02:53 PM
>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] XO Communications ??
>>
>> Any feedback on their BW services?   As far as reliability, latency, over
>> subscription etc. ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul McCall, Pres.
>>
>> PDMNet / Florida Broadband
>>
>> 658 Old Dixie Highway
>>
>> Vero Beach, FL 32962
>>
>> 772-564-6800 office
>>
>> 772-473-0352 cell
>>
>> www.pdmnet.com
>>
>> pa...@pdmnet.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[AFMUG] Friday Funny

[Ken Hohhof]

This makes me so proud to be a part of the Internet:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/cock-li-server-seized-again-by-german-prosecutor-service-moves-to-iceland/

"Rest assured this is not making me waver in my dedication to my cock joke on 
the Internet," Canfield concluded. "And your resistance only makes my penis 
harder.”

“It is my hope that my users understand that I am doing everything that I can 
to make sure cock.li is a safe place to store your dick pics ...”

Re: [AFMUG] XO Communications ??

[Eric Kuhnke]

I'm guessing customer portal/billing?

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> >XO had a nicer user interface
>
> Interface for what???
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Lewis Bergman 
> wrote:
>
>> We had both XO and HE connected to the same router accepting full routes
>> for both. HE provided about two thirds of the bandwidth both directions. XO
>> had a nicer user interface but not worth the extra money. Both seem to
>> provide quality bandwidth.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016, 2:03 PM Paul McCall  wrote:
>>
>>> Can you compare to Hurricane electric?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
>>> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 2:59 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] XO Communications ??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Middle of the road, I'd say. Not crap, but nothing stellar. They're just
>>> a domestic provider, nothing substantial international.
>>>
>>> Their inter-city network is Level 3 IRUs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>>
>>> *From: *"Paul McCall" 
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Friday, January 15, 2016 1:02:53 PM
>>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] XO Communications ??
>>>
>>> Any feedback on their BW services?   As far as reliability, latency,
>>> over subscription etc. ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul McCall, Pres.
>>>
>>> PDMNet / Florida Broadband
>>>
>>> 658 Old Dixie Highway
>>>
>>> Vero Beach, FL 32962
>>>
>>> 772-564-6800 office
>>>
>>> 772-473-0352 cell
>>>
>>> www.pdmnet.com
>>>
>>> pa...@pdmnet.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Friday Funny

[Eric Kuhnke]

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/barriere+mayor+says+chamber+commerce+website+takeover+porn/11652516/story.html

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> This makes me so proud to be a part of the Internet:
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/cock-li-server-seized-again-by-german-prosecutor-service-moves-to-iceland/
>
> "Rest assured this is not making me waver in my dedication to my cock joke
> on the Internet," Canfield concluded. "And your resistance only makes my
> penis harder.”
>
> “It is my hope that my users understand that I am doing everything that I
> can to make sure cock.li is a safe place to store your dick pics ...”
>

Re: [AFMUG] What's WinnAIR?

[Darin Steffl]

Anybody try this yet or attended the webinar? I haven't seen any new
threads or forum posts.

Sent from my smartphone. Please excuse any typos.
On Nov 6, 2015 11:48 AM, "Bill Prince"  wrote:

> Thanks. I found something about Radwin and something they called "winair",
> but it had been 86'd or something. Also wondered if it might be something
> that Winncom had cooked up, but you beat me to it.
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 11/5/2015 6:54 PM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
>
> https://www.winncom.com/es/seminars/current/468
>
> Regards,
> Chuck
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Peter Kranz  wrote:
>
>> Some product I have never heard of.. Some kind of wireless NMS. Anyone
>> seen it?
>>
>> [image: Winnair]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com 
>> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <510-868-1614%20x100>
>> Mobile: 510-207-
>> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Friday Funny

[Eric Kuhnke]

https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strings


http://cock.restaurant , anyone?

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> This makes me so proud to be a part of the Internet:
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/cock-li-server-seized-again-by-german-prosecutor-service-moves-to-iceland/
>
> "Rest assured this is not making me waver in my dedication to my cock joke
> on the Internet," Canfield concluded. "And your resistance only makes my
> penis harder.”
>
> “It is my hope that my users understand that I am doing everything that I
> can to make sure cock.li is a safe place to store your dick pics ...”
>

[AFMUG] DDOS Attack

[Matt]

Had another DDOS the other night.  We are using a Mikrotik Cloud
Router as our BGP gateway.  We have a couple BGP upstreams but our
main one currently is HE.net.  I have to admit there technical support
is exceptional.  They said they could drop the IP but in the end we
just rode it out for a few hours dropping at our Mikrotik gateway.  Is
there a way with BGP to tell our upstream to drop a certain source or
destination IP?

Re: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay

[Cameron Crum]

One thing you might check is make sure the ACH charges actually went
through if you have them. IPPay will get an approval from the bank and give
your system the approval, but if the funds are NSF on the day they draw the
transaction will reverse. There is no mechanism for IPPay to report that
via their API so it is up to the end user to check their IPPay report. Just
an idea.



On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
wrote:

> That’s around what I was told and am expecting.
>
>
>
> I’ll have to check the numbers again to make sure.
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 11:38 AM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay
>
>
>
> I've done fees/total charge and it was 1.99-2.01% I believe
>
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
> wrote:
>
> Yes, I see that.
>
>
>
> So I should be able to audit what Platypus/IPPay says was charged, with
> what goes into the bank account directly.
>
> There are functions for doing that within Platypus, I just haven’t used
> them in years J
>
>
>
> Maybe I’m not so concerned about that as much as I’m wondering if the
> IPPay fees, and merchant fees are on par with the rate I think I’m supposed
> to be getting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 11:26 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay
>
>
>
> Merchant fees come out as their own charge at the end of the month.  You
> should receive 100% of what you charge.
>
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
> wrote:
>
> I’m wondering the same thing for Platypus billing.
>
>
>
> At times it seems the merchant fees are a lot higher that I thought they
> would be looking at the raw incoming in our QuickBooks and the monthly
> outgoing line item for IPPay and AMEX etc.
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 10:39 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay
>
>
>
> Does anyone do any sort of checking to make sure what you charge in
> billing (ie Powercode) actually shows up in your account (ie Chase)?  I
> don't suspect anything, but the thought occurred after I saw we're short
> $500 today from what we charged in cards on the 13th.
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Planet MGSW-28240F

[Gerard Dupont III]

We have a few of those in place for a couple years now in non climate
controlled cabinets. This will be the third winter. We're just using cheap
chinese bidi optics. Some from fiberstore. Customer sides are
mostly MikroTik 2011 or rb260gs.

Had some minor issues early on but they were fixed in later l firmware.

I can't remember the last time I had to touch them. They've been solid.

We've moved to gpon for any new builds or I'd probably still be installing
them.

Gerard

On Friday, January 15, 2016, George Skorup  wrote:

> Derp, I forgot. What do you have on the other end of the ports?
> Routerboards with bidi SFPs? We're not sure what we're going to do on the
> CPE end yet. It's a multi party venture and those guys haven't made up
> their minds yet, other than each premise will have a pair and they want
> active ethernet. I mentioned GPON and was told no. So then I said why not
> do bidi and basically heard crickets. So whatever, I'm just in charge of
> designing the core network inside their box of requirements.
>
> On 1/15/2016 8:12 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>
>> Excellent. Thanks.
>>
>> On 1/15/2016 8:05 PM, Craig Baird wrote:
>>
>>> We have this exact switch in service right now with Fiberstore BiDis.
>>> It's never given us any trouble.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>> Quoting George Skorup :
>>>
>>> I'm working on a fiber project and was wondering if anyone else has used
 this Planet switch?
 http://www.planet.com.tw/en/product/product.php?id=48441

 Is Planet picky about SFP modules? I was planing on ordering some cheap
 single mode modules from Fiber Store to use with this and get the project
 rolling. Such as:
 http://www.fs.com/1-25-gbps-gige-1000base-lx-lh-1310nm-20km-dom-industrial-temp-lc-smf-sfp-transceiver-p-37258.html

 Already ordered the switch, so we'll see what happens.



>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Planet MGSW-28240F

[Sterling Jacobson]

What are you using for GPON now?

I’m starting to use some of the higher density 48 port Planet switches in 
active.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gerard Dupont III
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 7:55 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Planet MGSW-28240F

We have a few of those in place for a couple years now in non climate 
controlled cabinets. This will be the third winter. We're just using cheap 
chinese bidi optics. Some from fiberstore. Customer sides are mostly MikroTik 
2011 or rb260gs.

Had some minor issues early on but they were fixed in later l firmware.

I can't remember the last time I had to touch them. They've been solid.

We've moved to gpon for any new builds or I'd probably still be installing them.

Gerard

On Friday, January 15, 2016, George Skorup 
> wrote:
Derp, I forgot. What do you have on the other end of the ports? Routerboards 
with bidi SFPs? We're not sure what we're going to do on the CPE end yet. It's 
a multi party venture and those guys haven't made up their minds yet, other 
than each premise will have a pair and they want active ethernet. I mentioned 
GPON and was told no. So then I said why not do bidi and basically heard 
crickets. So whatever, I'm just in charge of designing the core network inside 
their box of requirements.

On 1/15/2016 8:12 PM, George Skorup wrote:
Excellent. Thanks.

On 1/15/2016 8:05 PM, Craig Baird wrote:
We have this exact switch in service right now with Fiberstore BiDis.  It's 
never given us any trouble.

Craig


Quoting George Skorup >:
I'm working on a fiber project and was wondering if anyone else has used this 
Planet switch? http://www.planet.com.tw/en/product/product.php?id=48441

Is Planet picky about SFP modules? I was planing on ordering some cheap single 
mode modules from Fiber Store to use with this and get the project rolling. 
Such as: 
http://www.fs.com/1-25-gbps-gige-1000base-lx-lh-1310nm-20km-dom-industrial-temp-lc-smf-sfp-transceiver-p-37258.html

Already ordered the switch, so we'll see what happens.

Re: [AFMUG] Planet MGSW-28240F

[Gerard Dupont III]

They're cheap and have good support. No random issues like other vendors
we've tried. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather use calix or one of the
big names, but I can't make the numbers work for the small wireless
fed residential builds we keep doing.

No they don't have a path to NG-PON2 that I'm aware of. I'm not worried
about that right now though since we are wirelessly feeding all of the
neighborhoods.

On Friday, January 15, 2016, Josh Reynolds  wrote:

> What's so great about them over other vendors? Also, do they have a path
> to NG-PON2?
> On Jan 15, 2016 9:09 PM, "Gerard Dupont III"  > wrote:
>
>> We're doing Alphion now. We also have Dasan and ZTE systems in place.
>> Plan on migrating them to Alphion sometime this year though.
>>
>> On Friday, January 15, 2016, Sterling Jacobson > > wrote:
>>
>>> What are you using for GPON now?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m starting to use some of the higher density 48 port Planet switches
>>> in active.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gerard Dupont
>>> III
>>> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 7:55 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Planet MGSW-28240F
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have a few of those in place for a couple years now in non climate
>>> controlled cabinets. This will be the third winter. We're just using cheap
>>> chinese bidi optics. Some from fiberstore. Customer sides are
>>> mostly MikroTik 2011 or rb260gs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Had some minor issues early on but they were fixed in later l firmware.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I can't remember the last time I had to touch them. They've been solid.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We've moved to gpon for any new builds or I'd probably still be
>>> installing them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gerard
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 15, 2016, George Skorup  wrote:
>>>
>>> Derp, I forgot. What do you have on the other end of the ports?
>>> Routerboards with bidi SFPs? We're not sure what we're going to do on the
>>> CPE end yet. It's a multi party venture and those guys haven't made up
>>> their minds yet, other than each premise will have a pair and they want
>>> active ethernet. I mentioned GPON and was told no. So then I said why not
>>> do bidi and basically heard crickets. So whatever, I'm just in charge of
>>> designing the core network inside their box of requirements.
>>>
>>> On 1/15/2016 8:12 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>>>
>>> Excellent. Thanks.
>>>
>>> On 1/15/2016 8:05 PM, Craig Baird wrote:
>>>
>>> We have this exact switch in service right now with Fiberstore BiDis.
>>> It's never given us any trouble.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>> Quoting George Skorup :
>>>
>>> I'm working on a fiber project and was wondering if anyone else has used
>>> this Planet switch?
>>> http://www.planet.com.tw/en/product/product.php?id=48441
>>>
>>> Is Planet picky about SFP modules? I was planing on ordering some cheap
>>> single mode modules from Fiber Store to use with this and get the project
>>> rolling. Such as:
>>> http://www.fs.com/1-25-gbps-gige-1000base-lx-lh-1310nm-20km-dom-industrial-temp-lc-smf-sfp-transceiver-p-37258.html
>>>
>>> Already ordered the switch, so we'll see what happens.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay

[Josh Luthman]

We do minimal ACH, but I definitely appreciate the heads up =)

We get (or at least used to...) an email when an NSF happens.  Haven't seen
that in quite some time, but we also quit doing ACH and probably have 3-5
customers using it.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Cameron Crum  wrote:

> One thing you might check is make sure the ACH charges actually went
> through if you have them. IPPay will get an approval from the bank and give
> your system the approval, but if the funds are NSF on the day they draw the
> transaction will reverse. There is no mechanism for IPPay to report that
> via their API so it is up to the end user to check their IPPay report. Just
> an idea.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
> wrote:
>
>> That’s around what I was told and am expecting.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ll have to check the numbers again to make sure.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 11:38 AM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay
>>
>>
>>
>> I've done fees/total charge and it was 1.99-2.01% I believe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I see that.
>>
>>
>>
>> So I should be able to audit what Platypus/IPPay says was charged, with
>> what goes into the bank account directly.
>>
>> There are functions for doing that within Platypus, I just haven’t used
>> them in years J
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe I’m not so concerned about that as much as I’m wondering if the
>> IPPay fees, and merchant fees are on par with the rate I think I’m supposed
>> to be getting.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 11:26 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay
>>
>>
>>
>> Merchant fees come out as their own charge at the end of the month.  You
>> should receive 100% of what you charge.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I’m wondering the same thing for Platypus billing.
>>
>>
>>
>> At times it seems the merchant fees are a lot higher that I thought they
>> would be looking at the raw incoming in our QuickBooks and the monthly
>> outgoing line item for IPPay and AMEX etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 10:39 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Auditing IPpay
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone do any sort of checking to make sure what you charge in
>> billing (ie Powercode) actually shows up in your account (ie Chase)?  I
>> don't suspect anything, but the thought occurred after I saw we're short
>> $500 today from what we charged in cards on the 13th.
>>
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Planet MGSW-28240F

[Josh Reynolds]

What's so great about them over other vendors? Also, do they have a path to
NG-PON2?
On Jan 15, 2016 9:09 PM, "Gerard Dupont III"  wrote:

> We're doing Alphion now. We also have Dasan and ZTE systems in place. Plan
> on migrating them to Alphion sometime this year though.
>
> On Friday, January 15, 2016, Sterling Jacobson 
> wrote:
>
>> What are you using for GPON now?
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m starting to use some of the higher density 48 port Planet switches in
>> active.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gerard Dupont III
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 7:55 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Planet MGSW-28240F
>>
>>
>>
>> We have a few of those in place for a couple years now in non climate
>> controlled cabinets. This will be the third winter. We're just using cheap
>> chinese bidi optics. Some from fiberstore. Customer sides are
>> mostly MikroTik 2011 or rb260gs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Had some minor issues early on but they were fixed in later l firmware.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can't remember the last time I had to touch them. They've been solid.
>>
>>
>>
>> We've moved to gpon for any new builds or I'd probably still be
>> installing them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gerard
>>
>> On Friday, January 15, 2016, George Skorup  wrote:
>>
>> Derp, I forgot. What do you have on the other end of the ports?
>> Routerboards with bidi SFPs? We're not sure what we're going to do on the
>> CPE end yet. It's a multi party venture and those guys haven't made up
>> their minds yet, other than each premise will have a pair and they want
>> active ethernet. I mentioned GPON and was told no. So then I said why not
>> do bidi and basically heard crickets. So whatever, I'm just in charge of
>> designing the core network inside their box of requirements.
>>
>> On 1/15/2016 8:12 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>>
>> Excellent. Thanks.
>>
>> On 1/15/2016 8:05 PM, Craig Baird wrote:
>>
>> We have this exact switch in service right now with Fiberstore BiDis.
>> It's never given us any trouble.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> Quoting George Skorup :
>>
>> I'm working on a fiber project and was wondering if anyone else has used
>> this Planet switch?
>> http://www.planet.com.tw/en/product/product.php?id=48441
>>
>> Is Planet picky about SFP modules? I was planing on ordering some cheap
>> single mode modules from Fiber Store to use with this and get the project
>> rolling. Such as:
>> http://www.fs.com/1-25-gbps-gige-1000base-lx-lh-1310nm-20km-dom-industrial-temp-lc-smf-sfp-transceiver-p-37258.html
>>
>> Already ordered the switch, so we'll see what happens.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] DDOS Attack

[Simon Westlake]

Yes, as long as they support it. You can use a community to blackhole IPs.

https://www.he.net/adm/blackhole.html

On 1/15/2016 4:59 PM, Matt wrote:

Had another DDOS the other night.  We are using a Mikrotik Cloud
Router as our BGP gateway.  We have a couple BGP upstreams but our
main one currently is HE.net.  I have to admit there technical support
is exceptional.  They said they could drop the IP but in the end we
just rode it out for a few hours dropping at our Mikrotik gateway.  Is
there a way with BGP to tell our upstream to drop a certain source or
destination IP?


--
Simon Westlake
Skype: Simon_Sonar
Email: simon@sonar.software
Phone: (702) 447-1247
---
Sonar Software Inc
The next generation of ISP billing and OSS
https://sonar.software

Re: [AFMUG] Planet MGSW-28240F

[George Skorup]

Excellent. Thanks.

On 1/15/2016 8:05 PM, Craig Baird wrote:
We have this exact switch in service right now with Fiberstore BiDis.  
It's never given us any trouble.


Craig


Quoting George Skorup :

I'm working on a fiber project and was wondering if anyone else has 
used this Planet switch? 
http://www.planet.com.tw/en/product/product.php?id=48441


Is Planet picky about SFP modules? I was planing on ordering some 
cheap single mode modules from Fiber Store to use with this and get 
the project rolling. Such as: 
http://www.fs.com/1-25-gbps-gige-1000base-lx-lh-1310nm-20km-dom-industrial-temp-lc-smf-sfp-transceiver-p-37258.html


Already ordered the switch, so we'll see what happens.

Re: [AFMUG] AF2X, AF3X, AF5X SNMP

[Sean Heskett]

Awesome!  Thx Steve...I owe ya some beers at Wispapalooza ;)



On Friday, January 15, 2016, Steve Utick  wrote:

> Replied directly, you should see it in your e-mail.
>
>
> For anyone else that wants a copy, it's up on
> http://www.mt.net/~sutick/cacti-airfiber.zip
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Sean Heskett  > wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> I never saw the .zip or .xml file come thru on the list.  could you
>> repost the template (or send it directly to me?)
>>
>> Much appreciated!
>>
>> -Sean
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Steve Utick > > wrote:
>>
>>> H   List stripped the .zip file.   I'll try the .xml and see if
>>> that goes though.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Ty Featherling >> > wrote:
>>>
 Missing the attachment I think, Steve.

 -Ty



 -Ty

 On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Steve Utick > wrote:

> Here is a Cacti Host Template that I built.   Works on AirFiber 5X and
> AirFiber 24, and should work on any other AirFiber Platform, as it appears
> they all use the same MIB.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Eric Kuhnke  > wrote:
>
>> I will try to remember to post a cacti host template here when I have
>> one built for the AF5X, to save others the work of reinventing the 
>> wheel...
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jeremy > > wrote:
>>
>>> I am pulling and graphing most of the pertinent stuff and haven't
>>> had any issues.  It is a huge step up from where they were.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Eric Kuhnke >> > wrote:
>>>
 wow, scrolling through that, it is significantly more detailed than
 the last ubnt MIB I saw. They must've put quite a lot of person-hours 
 into
 it.

 On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Jeremy > wrote:

> Works perfectly
> http://dl.ubnt.com/firmwares/airfiber5X/v3.0.2.1/UBNT-MIB.txt
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Eric Kuhnke <
> eric.kuh...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> ubnt guys, what's the state of SNMP on these?  If any serious
>> progress has been made in the last 3-4 months, can you paste a 
>> numeric
>> snmpwalk of an operational unit?
>>
>> second question: If SNMP is still broken, does CPU usage of the
>> http management interface have any effect on traffic flow 
>> whatsoever?  I'm
>> thinking of a short shell script with curl to login to the https 
>> front page
>> of the radio and grab key parameters like RSL on both chains. Every 
>> 60
>> seconds.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Planet MGSW-28240F

[George Skorup]

Cool. Thanks guys. Seems like a solid switch.

On 1/15/2016 8:55 PM, Gerard Dupont III wrote:
We have a few of those in place for a couple years now in non climate 
controlled cabinets. This will be the third winter. We're just using 
cheap chinese bidi optics. Some from fiberstore. Customer sides are 
mostly MikroTik 2011 or rb260gs.


Had some minor issues early on but they were fixed in later l firmware.

I can't remember the last time I had to touch them. They've been solid.

We've moved to gpon for any new builds or I'd probably still be 
installing them.


Gerard

On Friday, January 15, 2016, George Skorup > wrote:


Derp, I forgot. What do you have on the other end of the ports?
Routerboards with bidi SFPs? We're not sure what we're going to do
on the CPE end yet. It's a multi party venture and those guys
haven't made up their minds yet, other than each premise will have
a pair and they want active ethernet. I mentioned GPON and was
told no. So then I said why not do bidi and basically heard
crickets. So whatever, I'm just in charge of designing the core
network inside their box of requirements.

On 1/15/2016 8:12 PM, George Skorup wrote:

Excellent. Thanks.

On 1/15/2016 8:05 PM, Craig Baird wrote:

We have this exact switch in service right now with
Fiberstore BiDis.  It's never given us any trouble.

Craig


Quoting George Skorup :

I'm working on a fiber project and was wondering if
anyone else has used this Planet switch?
http://www.planet.com.tw/en/product/product.php?id=48441

Is Planet picky about SFP modules? I was planing on
ordering some cheap single mode modules from Fiber
Store to use with this and get the project rolling.
Such as:

http://www.fs.com/1-25-gbps-gige-1000base-lx-lh-1310nm-20km-dom-industrial-temp-lc-smf-sfp-transceiver-p-37258.html

Already ordered the switch, so we'll see what happens.

[AFMUG] rb951g-2HnD throwing fits

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

Ive been dicking with this thing for a few hours now. I got it, left the
default config on it, then dumped another config file in no problems,
updated it to the newest version through winbox, updated routerboard, no
issues. After doing a bunch of testing however i went to factory default it
through winbox and it went to crap. Its like the default configuration is
hosed. Ive netinstalled current version, and down to 5.26. after taking it
to 5.26 it still wouldnt load default config, occasionally after resetting
it it would give the message about default config, but never loaded any of
it

I see alot of results for this same problem, but usually a netinstall
resolves it, in this case no.

When I load the firmware through netinstall shouldnt it be loading a full
new set of files?

what other options do I have before going to mikrotik?

is this what I can expect?

-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Planet MGSW-28240F

[Gerard Dupont III]

We're doing Alphion now. We also have Dasan and ZTE systems in place. Plan
on migrating them to Alphion sometime this year though.

On Friday, January 15, 2016, Sterling Jacobson  wrote:

> What are you using for GPON now?
>
>
>
> I’m starting to use some of the higher density 48 port Planet switches in
> active.
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Gerard
> Dupont III
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 7:55 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Planet MGSW-28240F
>
>
>
> We have a few of those in place for a couple years now in non climate
> controlled cabinets. This will be the third winter. We're just using cheap
> chinese bidi optics. Some from fiberstore. Customer sides are
> mostly MikroTik 2011 or rb260gs.
>
>
>
> Had some minor issues early on but they were fixed in later l firmware.
>
>
>
> I can't remember the last time I had to touch them. They've been solid.
>
>
>
> We've moved to gpon for any new builds or I'd probably still be installing
> them.
>
>
>
> Gerard
>
> On Friday, January 15, 2016, George Skorup  > wrote:
>
> Derp, I forgot. What do you have on the other end of the ports?
> Routerboards with bidi SFPs? We're not sure what we're going to do on the
> CPE end yet. It's a multi party venture and those guys haven't made up
> their minds yet, other than each premise will have a pair and they want
> active ethernet. I mentioned GPON and was told no. So then I said why not
> do bidi and basically heard crickets. So whatever, I'm just in charge of
> designing the core network inside their box of requirements.
>
> On 1/15/2016 8:12 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>
> Excellent. Thanks.
>
> On 1/15/2016 8:05 PM, Craig Baird wrote:
>
> We have this exact switch in service right now with Fiberstore BiDis.
> It's never given us any trouble.
>
> Craig
>
>
> Quoting George Skorup  >:
>
> I'm working on a fiber project and was wondering if anyone else has used
> this Planet switch?
> http://www.planet.com.tw/en/product/product.php?id=48441
>
> Is Planet picky about SFP modules? I was planing on ordering some cheap
> single mode modules from Fiber Store to use with this and get the project
> rolling. Such as:
> http://www.fs.com/1-25-gbps-gige-1000base-lx-lh-1310nm-20km-dom-industrial-temp-lc-smf-sfp-transceiver-p-37258.html
>
> Already ordered the switch, so we'll see what happens.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] XO Communications ??

[Lewis Bergman]

And opening tickets

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016, 4:07 PM Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

> I'm guessing customer portal/billing?
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:
>
>> >XO had a nicer user interface
>>
>> Interface for what???
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Lewis Bergman 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We had both XO and HE connected to the same router accepting full routes
>>> for both. HE provided about two thirds of the bandwidth both directions. XO
>>> had a nicer user interface but not worth the extra money. Both seem to
>>> provide quality bandwidth.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016, 2:03 PM Paul McCall  wrote:
>>>
 Can you compare to Hurricane electric?



 Paul



 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
 *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2016 2:59 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] XO Communications ??



 Middle of the road, I'd say. Not crap, but nothing stellar. They're
 just a domestic provider, nothing substantial international.

 Their inter-city network is Level 3 IRUs.



 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com

 
 
 
 

 Midwest Internet Exchange
 http://www.midwest-ix.com

 
 
 
 --

 *From: *"Paul McCall" 
 *To: *af@afmug.com
 *Sent: *Friday, January 15, 2016 1:02:53 PM
 *Subject: *[AFMUG] XO Communications ??

 Any feedback on their BW services?   As far as reliability, latency,
 over subscription etc. ?



 Paul McCall, Pres.

 PDMNet / Florida Broadband

 658 Old Dixie Highway

 Vero Beach, FL 32962

 772-564-6800 office

 772-473-0352 cell

 www.pdmnet.com

 pa...@pdmnet.net





>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] DDOS Attack

[Jon Langeler]

How much traffic was it?

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.

> On Jan 15, 2016, at 5:59 PM, Matt  wrote:
> 
> Had another DDOS the other night.  We are using a Mikrotik Cloud
> Router as our BGP gateway.  We have a couple BGP upstreams but our
> main one currently is HE.net.  I have to admit there technical support
> is exceptional.  They said they could drop the IP but in the end we
> just rode it out for a few hours dropping at our Mikrotik gateway.  Is
> there a way with BGP to tell our upstream to drop a certain source or
> destination IP?