Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Daniel Gerlach]

Cambium  answer of this Problem:
Say you have two routers, router 1 at 10/100 for port 1 and
10/100/1000 for port 2 and router 2 communicates with router 1 using
the 10/100/1000 and only has 10/100/1000 ports.  Router 2 receives a
burst of traffic and sends it to router 1 over 10/100/1000 port.
Router 1 gets the traffic, but cannot send it out as quickly over its
10/100 port.  Router 1 starts buffering the data.  But routers do not
have very big internal queues so some data gets dropped.
ePMP because it has frames, send data in bursts.  In the direction the
data is sent, it can accumulate lots of data each frame.  In the
direction of the TCP ACKs, it can accumlate lots of these every frame.
For the case of the data, this data can be lost at router 1 if it is
after the ePMP device.  For the case of the TCP ACKs, router 1 can
handle the TCP ACKs load, but when the device that initiated the TCP
session receives the TCP ACKs at once, it responds with new TCP data
all at once and this causes a burst.  If router 1 receives this burst
of data, then data gets dropped.
Whenever TCP data is dropped, this causes the TCP window to shrink
which slows down throughput.
Therefore, if you have the situation I described, you need to change
your routers so they all have the same port speed.

2016-03-11 23:08 GMT+01:00 Josh Luthman :
> Handful of orders these last couple weeks.  0 differences beyond the Ubnt
> out of stock stuff (yes that record is still broken).
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>> I think they were doing end of fiscal year inventory the last couple days.
>>
>> From: Bill Prince
>> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 3:07 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP
>>
>> Speaking of Streakwave. Is everyone else having issues with the deliveries
>> getting stretched out beyond what seems normal with them?
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>> On 3/11/2016 1:01 PM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote:
>>
>> i can't get a 3011 to try, streakwave doesn't have stock, but i
>> desparately need this, have a tower with high CPU usage on router and only a
>> 2011 fill fit in the enclosure
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>>>
>>> Funny. We were just talking about this yesterday. The 2011 is great for
>>> small POPs, except for the split 10/100 - 1000 ports. The 3011 would be
>>> perfect except it can only be had in a 19" rack form factor.
>>>
>>> Has anyone tried to stick the circuit board from a 3011 into a 2011 case?
>>> DC plant of course.
>>>
>>> bp
>>> 
>>>
>>> On 3/11/2016 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

 My rackmount 2011's will probably get replaced with 3011's, but they
 really need to bring out a smaller desktop 3011 as well.


 -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
 Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:23 PM
 To: af@afmug.com
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

 Well that's news to me!  Holy crap. They should put a warning sticker on
 that.

 On 3/11/2016 2:20 PM, Joe Falaschi wrote:
>
> The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what port things are
> plugged into.  Ports 6-10 only have a 100M aggregate link to ports 1-5. If
> the aggregate of ports 6-10 require more than 100M, you'll have issues 
> there
> too.
>


>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios

[Ty Featherling]

You're cracking me up with these Facebook posts Matt.

-Ty
On Mar 11, 2016 8:54 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> Indeed, they'll need SFP+s.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Mathew Howard" 
> *To: *"af" 
> *Sent: *Friday, March 11, 2016 8:51:12 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios
>
> SFPs may be obsolete before it happens... :P
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> I'm persistent. I gave out a bunch of SFPs a couple years ago to vendors
>> that weren't putting them on their radios. It apparently didn't work as
>> most of them have released completely new products since then without SFPs.
>> I'm at it again. I'll be at it until it happens.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Lewis Bergman" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Friday, March 11, 2016 7:23:55 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios
>>
>>
>> I have been complaining about this for years. I hope you have better luck
>> than I.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:18 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Feature-Requests-and/SFP-port-on-a-radio-kudo-if-you-want-it/idi-p/1391807
>>>
>>> http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Feature-Requests-and/SFP-Port-in-AF24-AF5/idi-p/613295
>>> http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/Your-Ideas/SFPs/idi-p/41982
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Mike Hammett" 
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Friday, March 11, 2016 4:54:13 PM
>>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios
>>>
>>>
>>> Is Mimosa the only vendor not guilty of engineering and then releasing a
>>> tower radio without SFP interfaces? Seriously, what's wrong with you guys?
>>> This is gross negligence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Josh Luthman]

Exactly.  One box to rule them all.  I know what all sites use.

Right now I have POE injector, gig POE injector, and gig sync injector.  We
have the technology to make one universal product.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mar 12, 2016 12:16 AM, "Brandon Yuchasz"  wrote:

> That’s what I am saying even though I had not said it yet.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Brandon Yuchasz
>
> GogebicRange.net
>
> www.gogebicrange.net
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Forrest Christian
> (List Account)
> *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 7:48 PM
> *To:* af
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux
> product design.
>
>
>
> So, what I'm hearing you say is that you just want to buy a whole bunch of
> 12 port injectors and standardize on that?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
> I'd rather but a dozen 12 ports than 6 of one and 6 of another.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Mar 11, 2016 8:38 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
> Based on current plans, the rackmount version is going to be available in
> either 4, 8, 12 or 16 port versions or 6, 12 or 18 port versions, depending
> on whether I end up with 4 or 6 ports per 'chunk'.all of these will be
> upwardly expandable.
>
> So I think that handles pretty much anyone who wants a rackmounted unit.
> Hopefully this will make everyone who wants one happy.
>
> On the 'smaller units', I of course have the 4 today.   Mechanically 12
> ports fit into the same space as two of the 4 port units, since I only need
> one set of input and output jacks for the injector, so that's why I'm
> thinking that way.  I could go to 8 instead, but that opens up a whole can
> of worms (as an example, just shrinking the case triggers the potential
> need for a different din rail mounting kit).
>
> It sounds like 4 is too few and 12 is fine, although 8 would probably work
> for many, if not most sites.   Is that fair?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>
> In spite of the handful of those that might want a 16 or 18 port injector,
> I think you & packetflux would do better with a 12 port; or maybe even an 8
> port. We have only one POP that would need the higher count.
>
> If you made a 16 or 18 port version, I would think rackmount only.
>
>
> bp
>
> 
>
>
>
> On 3/11/2016 1:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
>
> So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port
> injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)
>
> And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well - up
> to 16 or 18 ports per 1U
>
> And then we have the item the question is about.
>
> I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail mountable
> enclosure.  If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on top of each
> other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space - that's what I'm
> talking about.
>
> I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.   My thought
> would be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a site,
> you're probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution
>
> Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as this
> proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.
>
> How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you
> wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?
>
>
> --
>
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>
>   
>   
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>
>   
>   
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>
>   
>   
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Brandon Yuchasz]

That’s what I am saying even though I had not said it yet.

 

Best regards,

Brandon Yuchasz

GogebicRange.net

www.gogebicrange.net  

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account)
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 7:48 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product 
design.

 

So, what I'm hearing you say is that you just want to buy a whole bunch of 12 
port injectors and standardize on that?

 

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Josh Luthman  
wrote:

I'd rather but a dozen 12 ports than 6 of one and 6 of another.

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

On Mar 11, 2016 8:38 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
 wrote:

Based on current plans, the rackmount version is going to be available in 
either 4, 8, 12 or 16 port versions or 6, 12 or 18 port versions, depending on 
whether I end up with 4 or 6 ports per 'chunk'.all of these will be 
upwardly expandable.

So I think that handles pretty much anyone who wants a rackmounted unit.  
Hopefully this will make everyone who wants one happy.

On the 'smaller units', I of course have the 4 today.   Mechanically 12 ports 
fit into the same space as two of the 4 port units, since I only need one set 
of input and output jacks for the injector, so that's why I'm thinking that 
way.  I could go to 8 instead, but that opens up a whole can of worms (as an 
example, just shrinking the case triggers the potential need for a different 
din rail mounting kit).

It sounds like 4 is too few and 12 is fine, although 8 would probably work for 
many, if not most sites.   Is that fair?





 

 

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

In spite of the handful of those that might want a 16 or 18 port injector, I 
think you & packetflux would do better with a 12 port; or maybe even an 8 port. 
We have only one POP that would need the higher count.

If you made a 16 or 18 port version, I would think rackmount only.




bp

 

On 3/11/2016 1:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:

So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port injector 
(in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)  

And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well - up to 16 
or 18 ports per 1U 

And then we have the item the question is about.

I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail mountable 
enclosure.  If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on top of each other 
and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space - that's what I'm talking 
about.

I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.   My thought would 
be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a site, you're 
probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution

Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as this 
proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.  

How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you wouldn't 
just move to a rackmount unit?




-- 


Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602

forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com

       
 

     

   

 

 




-- 


Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602

  forre...@imach.com |   
http://www.packetflux.com

       
 

     

   

 




-- 


Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602

  forre...@imach.com |   
http://www.packetflux.com

       
 

     

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Is it 1968 all over?

[Chuck McCown]

No thanks.

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 9:53 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Is it 1968 all over?

Make America 1968 Again

From: Jaime Solorza 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 10:40 PM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Is it 1968 all over?

Yep 

On Mar 11, 2016 9:33 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

  But in 68 the violence was outside the venue...

  From: Jaime Solorza 
  Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 8:33 PM
  To: Animal Farm 
  Subject: [AFMUG] OT: Is it 1968 all over?

  Trump rally cancelled ...some skirmishes...The Whole World is Watching 

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Is it 1968 all over?

[Ken Hohhof]

Make America 1968 Again

From: Jaime Solorza 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 10:40 PM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Is it 1968 all over?

Yep 

On Mar 11, 2016 9:33 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

  But in 68 the violence was outside the venue...

  From: Jaime Solorza 
  Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 8:33 PM
  To: Animal Farm 
  Subject: [AFMUG] OT: Is it 1968 all over?

  Trump rally cancelled ...some skirmishes...The Whole World is Watching 

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Is it 1968 all over?

[Jaime Solorza]

Yep
On Mar 11, 2016 9:33 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

> But in 68 the violence was outside the venue...
>
> *From:* Jaime Solorza 
> *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 8:33 PM
> *To:* Animal Farm 
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] OT: Is it 1968 all over?
>
>
> Trump rally cancelled ...some skirmishes...The Whole World is Watching
>

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Is it 1968 all over?

[Chuck McCown]

But in 68 the violence was outside the venue...

From: Jaime Solorza 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 8:33 PM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: [AFMUG] OT: Is it 1968 all over?

Trump rally cancelled ...some skirmishes...The Whole World is Watching 

Re: [AFMUG] Travis

[Chuck McCown]

Yeah, home.  I wanted to paint the dome with the Sistine Chapel - God finger 
reaching out to Adam picture with my face as God.


My wife totally nixed the idea.  Mumbling something about someone having a 
god complex...


-Original Message- 
From: Jerry Head

Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 7:53 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Travis

Are you home?
Is your ceiling really painted like a "Vanilla Sky"?
Or is that an observation dome behind/above you?

On 3/11/2016 7:23 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Do you like me now???

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[George Skorup]

More ports is *never* bad. And if I don't use them all, so what. 
Something always comes up, like that micro-POP you never thought would 
grow. I have about a dozen sites which started out with 900 and 2.4 FSK 
omnis. They've grown to needing a full 4x90 cluster of both. Then I need 
a backhaul port, and potentially a second backhaul port, so we're at 
9-10 ports easily. Yes, FSK days are dwindling, but it still exists. 
Probably won't go away for another 2-3 years.


On 3/11/2016 8:49 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
I think sticking with 4 port and 12 port for the DIN rail version 
makes the most sense. If we only need 8 ports, we can just use two 4 
ports, since it doesn't sound like an 8 port version would save much 
in the way of space or cost over two 4 ports anyway.


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) 
> wrote:


Based on current plans, the rackmount version is going to be
available in either 4, 8, 12 or 16 port versions or 6, 12 or 18
port versions, depending on whether I end up with 4 or 6 ports per
'chunk'.all of these will be upwardly expandable.

So I think that handles pretty much anyone who wants a rackmounted
unit.  Hopefully this will make everyone who wants one happy.

On the 'smaller units', I of course have the 4 today.  
Mechanically 12 ports fit into the same space as two of the 4 port

units, since I only need one set of input and output jacks for the
injector, so that's why I'm thinking that way.  I could go to 8
instead, but that opens up a whole can of worms (as an example,
just shrinking the case triggers the potential need for a
different din rail mounting kit).

It sounds like 4 is too few and 12 is fine, although 8 would
probably work for many, if not most sites.   Is that fair?





On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Prince > wrote:

In spite of the handful of those that might want a 16 or 18
port injector, I think you & packetflux would do better with a
12 port; or maybe even an 8 port. We have only one POP that
would need the higher count.

If you made a 16 or 18 port version, I would think rackmount only.

bp


On 3/11/2016 1:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:

So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal"
4 port injector (in the same form factor as the existing
syncinjectors)

And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming
as well - up to 16 or 18 ports per 1U

And then we have the item the question is about.

I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din
rail mountable enclosure.  If you think about gluing two
syncinjectors on top of each other and having 12 ports
instead of 8 in that same space - that's what I'm talking about.

I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.  
My thought would be that once you get to more than a handful

of radios at a site, you're probably going to end up wanting
the rackmount solution

Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same
space as this proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the
proposed device.

How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site
that you wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?

-- 
*Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena,
MT 59602
forre...@imach.com  |
http://www.packetflux.com

 







-- 
*Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com  |
http://www.packetflux.com 

 

[AFMUG] OT: worst boss ever?

[Eric Kuhnke]

http://loweringthebar.net/2016/03/has-your-boss-ever.html

[AFMUG] OT: Is it 1968 all over?

[Jaime Solorza]

Trump rally cancelled ...some skirmishes...The Whole World is Watching

Re: [AFMUG] Travis

[Jaime Solorza]

Chuck has a Chicano look a like who is an engineer with Lawrence Livermore
and worked on shuttle escape hatch redesign after accident while at
Rockwell and McDonald Douglashe was an engineer in my company from 92
to 94...I trying to find picture...it's uncanny...
On Mar 11, 2016 6:23 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

> Do you like me now???
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios

[Mike Hammett]

Indeed, they'll need SFP+s. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Mathew Howard"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 8:51:12 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios 


SFPs may be obsolete before it happens... :P 



On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




I'm persistent. I gave out a bunch of SFPs a couple years ago to vendors that 
weren't putting them on their radios. It apparently didn't work as most of them 
have released completely new products since then without SFPs. I'm at it again. 
I'll be at it until it happens. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Lewis Bergman" < lewis.berg...@gmail.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 7:23:55 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios 




I have been complaining about this for years. I hope you have better luck than 
I. 


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:18 PM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Feature-Requests-and/SFP-port-on-a-radio-kudo-if-you-want-it/idi-p/1391807
 
http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Feature-Requests-and/SFP-Port-in-AF24-AF5/idi-p/613295
 
http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/Your-Ideas/SFPs/idi-p/41982 






- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 








From: "Mike Hammett" < af...@ics-il.net > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 4:54:13 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios 





Is Mimosa the only vendor not guilty of engineering and then releasing a tower 
radio without SFP interfaces? Seriously, what's wrong with you guys? This is 
gross negligence. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

Re: [AFMUG] Travis

[Jerry Head]

Are you home?
Is your ceiling really painted like a "Vanilla Sky"?
Or is that an observation dome behind/above you?

On 3/11/2016 7:23 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Do you like me now???

Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios

[Mathew Howard]

SFPs may be obsolete before it happens... :P

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> I'm persistent. I gave out a bunch of SFPs a couple years ago to vendors
> that weren't putting them on their radios. It apparently didn't work as
> most of them have released completely new products since then without SFPs.
> I'm at it again. I'll be at it until it happens.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Lewis Bergman" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, March 11, 2016 7:23:55 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios
>
>
> I have been complaining about this for years. I hope you have better luck
> than I.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:18 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>>
>> http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Feature-Requests-and/SFP-port-on-a-radio-kudo-if-you-want-it/idi-p/1391807
>>
>> http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Feature-Requests-and/SFP-Port-in-AF24-AF5/idi-p/613295
>> http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/Your-Ideas/SFPs/idi-p/41982
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Mike Hammett" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Friday, March 11, 2016 4:54:13 PM
>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios
>>
>>
>> Is Mimosa the only vendor not guilty of engineering and then releasing a
>> tower radio without SFP interfaces? Seriously, what's wrong with you guys?
>> This is gross negligence.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Mathew Howard]

I think sticking with 4 port and 12 port for the DIN rail version makes the
most sense. If we only need 8 ports, we can just use two 4 ports, since it
doesn't sound like an 8 port version would save much in the way of space or
cost over two 4 ports anyway.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> Based on current plans, the rackmount version is going to be available in
> either 4, 8, 12 or 16 port versions or 6, 12 or 18 port versions, depending
> on whether I end up with 4 or 6 ports per 'chunk'.all of these will be
> upwardly expandable.
>
> So I think that handles pretty much anyone who wants a rackmounted unit.
> Hopefully this will make everyone who wants one happy.
>
> On the 'smaller units', I of course have the 4 today.   Mechanically 12
> ports fit into the same space as two of the 4 port units, since I only need
> one set of input and output jacks for the injector, so that's why I'm
> thinking that way.  I could go to 8 instead, but that opens up a whole can
> of worms (as an example, just shrinking the case triggers the potential
> need for a different din rail mounting kit).
>
> It sounds like 4 is too few and 12 is fine, although 8 would probably work
> for many, if not most sites.   Is that fair?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> In spite of the handful of those that might want a 16 or 18 port
>> injector, I think you & packetflux would do better with a 12 port; or maybe
>> even an 8 port. We have only one POP that would need the higher count.
>>
>> If you made a 16 or 18 port version, I would think rackmount only.
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>>
>> On 3/11/2016 1:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
>>
>> So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port
>> injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)
>>
>> And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well - up
>> to 16 or 18 ports per 1U
>>
>> And then we have the item the question is about.
>>
>> I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail mountable
>> enclosure.  If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on top of each
>> other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space - that's what I'm
>> talking about.
>>
>> I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.   My thought
>> would be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a site,
>> you're probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution
>>
>> Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as
>> this proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.
>>
>> How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you
>> wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?
>>
>> --
>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>> forre...@imach.com |  
>> http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>

[AFMUG] The Dude as Syslog Server?

[Christopher Gray]

Is anyone using The Dude as a syslog server? Any reason to avoid doing so?

Re: [AFMUG] Travis

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

don't you mean reflector?

http://fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?10584-Beer-CanTenna-A-ground-antenna-for-433MHz-TX


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> Where's your Dos XX or Tecate can?
> On Mar 11, 2016 6:55 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
>> But is it right or left hand circularized... I always get confused about
>> how to tell..
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>>> Circular polarized.
>>>
>>> -Original Message- From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016
>>> 6:31 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Travis
>>> Even your stairway looks like an antenna.
>>>
>>> -Original Message- From: Chuck McCown Sent: Friday, March 11,
>>> 2016 7:23 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Travis
>>> Do you like me now???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] Travis

[Jaime Solorza]

Where's your Dos XX or Tecate can?
On Mar 11, 2016 6:55 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> But is it right or left hand circularized... I always get confused about
> how to tell..
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> Circular polarized.
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016
>> 6:31 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Travis
>> Even your stairway looks like an antenna.
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Chuck McCown Sent: Friday, March 11,
>> 2016 7:23 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Travis
>> Do you like me now???
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Travis

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

But is it right or left hand circularized... I always get confused about
how to tell..

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Circular polarized.
>
> -Original Message- From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016
> 6:31 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Travis
> Even your stairway looks like an antenna.
>
> -Original Message- From: Chuck McCown Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016
> 7:23 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Travis
> Do you like me now???
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

I really wanted the ears to be able to do this

My desire was a 17" wide box, with removable ears which could mount either
way to wall mount.

After a dozen or so scary quotes and not finding any standard manufacturer
which would do this, I gave up.  The new enclosure has fixed ears...
however, I may check with my newly-found enclosure vendor and see if we
could get a modified version of the product to support this configuration.

And back on the 12 port unit  it sounds like there's enough need out
there for the 12 port unit that it's staying on the roadmap.   I mainly
wanted to make sure that I hadn't killed the demand for it with the
rackmount product.

-forrest

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:22 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> I have a site w/ 13 radios right now. 4x90 5GHz 450 cluster. 4x90 900 FSK
> cluster. Various other stuff, mostly PTP.
>
> So I'd say +1 to whoever said to make the rack-mount version shallow
> enough and ears allowed to be rotated 90 degrees for wall/panel mounting.
> But that would really only work if the chassis isn't the full 19" wide.
> We're doing mostly the fiberglass 18x16x8" enclosures now. If it was all up
> to me, we'd be putting in outdoor 19" rack cabinets everywhere, but I don't
> write the checks. Only larger sites where we get access to the shelters
> have racks. I would still use the double wide 12-port DIN mount injectors
> at the mid sized sites. It's always like, shit! I need a 9th injector, so I
> have to throw in a 4-port POE module or something like that.
>
> On 3/11/2016 4:46 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> +1 to what Josh said... we don't do rackmount.
>
> It's going to be pretty rare for us to ever care about sync on more than 8
> radios at a site, but it's not at all uncommon for us to have 10-12 radios
> total, and I do like the idea of just having one POE box for everything.
>
> That said, I don't know how often we'd actually end up using the 12 port,
> since most of the time, 8 ports should be enough.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:
>
>> a!!!  buy ONE unit for ALL towers, one model spare for all the things
>>
>> People can already buy a DIN product and put it in a rack.  You can't go
>> the other way.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
>> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What's the most you have radio-wise at these sites?
>>>
>>> My thought is something along the lines of..
>>>
>>> If I have up to 4 radios at a site, I'd buy 1 syncinjector-sized din
>>> power injectors with 4 ports each for 1X the cost and 1X the space
>>> requirement
>>> If I have 5 - 8 radios at a site, I'd buy 2 syncinjector-sized din power
>>> injectors with 4 ports each for 2X the cost and 2x the space requirement,
>>> since this is a lower-cost and easier to spare option than below
>>>
>>> If I have 8 or more radios at a site, would people rather:
>>>
>>> a) buy a double syncinjector sized din power injector with 12 ports for
>>> 3x the cost and 2x the space requirement
>>> b) Just buy a 1U rackmount unit since the entire site is rackmount
>>> anyways, at about 3x the cost or maybe just a touch more (to pay for the
>>> metal enclosure)
>>>
>>> For me, once I got to a site where I had that many radios, it seems to
>>> me that I'd be in a rackmount enclosure of some sort with a rackmount
>>> switch or router so the rackmount solution would be better.
>>>
>>> It sounds like Josh would use the din power injector
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Jeremy < 
>>> jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 I don't use Cambium, but we only have two sites with a rack, and 23
 sites with DIN rail in smaller boxes.

 On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Luthman <
 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

> I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to
> it in the future.
>
> I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't
> see us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.
>
> 12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.
> Sure would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios
> after it gets 24v, though.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
>> So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port
>> injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)
>>
>> And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well
>> - up to 

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

So, what I'm hearing you say is that you just want to buy a whole bunch of
12 port injectors and standardize on that?


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> I'd rather but a dozen 12 ports than 6 of one and 6 of another.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> On Mar 11, 2016 8:38 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
>> Based on current plans, the rackmount version is going to be available in
>> either 4, 8, 12 or 16 port versions or 6, 12 or 18 port versions, depending
>> on whether I end up with 4 or 6 ports per 'chunk'.all of these will be
>> upwardly expandable.
>>
>> So I think that handles pretty much anyone who wants a rackmounted unit.
>> Hopefully this will make everyone who wants one happy.
>>
>> On the 'smaller units', I of course have the 4 today.   Mechanically 12
>> ports fit into the same space as two of the 4 port units, since I only need
>> one set of input and output jacks for the injector, so that's why I'm
>> thinking that way.  I could go to 8 instead, but that opens up a whole can
>> of worms (as an example, just shrinking the case triggers the potential
>> need for a different din rail mounting kit).
>>
>> It sounds like 4 is too few and 12 is fine, although 8 would probably
>> work for many, if not most sites.   Is that fair?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>>
>>> In spite of the handful of those that might want a 16 or 18 port
>>> injector, I think you & packetflux would do better with a 12 port; or maybe
>>> even an 8 port. We have only one POP that would need the higher count.
>>>
>>> If you made a 16 or 18 port version, I would think rackmount only.
>>>
>>> bp
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/11/2016 1:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
>>>
>>> So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port
>>> injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)
>>>
>>> And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well -
>>> up to 16 or 18 ports per 1U
>>>
>>> And then we have the item the question is about.
>>>
>>> I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail mountable
>>> enclosure.  If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on top of each
>>> other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space - that's what I'm
>>> talking about.
>>>
>>> I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.   My thought
>>> would be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a site,
>>> you're probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution
>>>
>>> Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as
>>> this proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.
>>>
>>> How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you
>>> wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>>> forre...@imach.com |  
>>> http://www.packetflux.com
>>> 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

If you've got racks ... just buy one or two of the new rackmount injectors
when they start shipping.

The daisy chain thing for power, I've looked at a few times.  There are
issues with doing this that would take way too long to explain.  The
biggest issue is how quickly you run over the current limits of the jacks.
There's other issues related to fusing and similar.

With the new 4 port injector there's no more room for additional jacks
unless I did it with a sub-board, then you have to figure out how to move
12A to the second board.

And so on...Let's just say I keep looking at this, and haven't found a good
solution.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Matt  wrote:

> I have started using small wall mount racks at many locations.  Outdoor
> cabinets with racks at others.  Mikrotik Switches mount in racks neatly.
> At one location I am working on cleaning up I have:
>
> 1 SAF Licensed link
> 6 Canopy FSK 2.4 AP's
> 1 Canopy FSK 900 AP
> 4 Canopy 450 3.6 AP's
> 5 Canopy PTP230's being upgraded too PTP450i's likely
> 1 Canopy 450i AP, more coming...
> Thats 18 ports and growing...
>
> I have several sites like this and all the DIN mount sync injectors and
> there power cords are quite a mess.  I use the ~$100 DIN too rack adapter
> many places.
>
> DIN is really nice for very small sites in a small Hoffman enclosure.
> Seems like all sites run out of bandwidth and keep growing and I usually
> have to keep the old stuff going tell everyone is moved to the new.
>
> Another thing that would be nice on the sync injectors would be a daisy
> chain on the power connector.  A power in and power out so it is easier to
> put in 5 sync injectors or so.  We always initially put in a power supply
> that is larger then needed since we anticipate growth and its not that much
> more expensive.  A DIN mount ~8 port Mikrotik would be nice too.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:
>
>> I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to it
>> in the future.
>>
>> I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't
>> see us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.
>>
>> 12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.
>> Sure would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios
>> after it gets 24v, though.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
>> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port
>>> injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)
>>>
>>> And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well -
>>> up to 16 or 18 ports per 1U
>>>
>>> And then we have the item the question is about.
>>>
>>> I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail mountable
>>> enclosure.  If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on top of each
>>> other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space - that's what I'm
>>> talking about.
>>>
>>> I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.   My thought
>>> would be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a site,
>>> you're probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution
>>>
>>> Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as
>>> this proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.
>>>
>>> How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you
>>> wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>>> 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Josh Luthman]

I'd rather but a dozen 12 ports than 6 of one and 6 of another.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mar 11, 2016 8:38 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> Based on current plans, the rackmount version is going to be available in
> either 4, 8, 12 or 16 port versions or 6, 12 or 18 port versions, depending
> on whether I end up with 4 or 6 ports per 'chunk'.all of these will be
> upwardly expandable.
>
> So I think that handles pretty much anyone who wants a rackmounted unit.
> Hopefully this will make everyone who wants one happy.
>
> On the 'smaller units', I of course have the 4 today.   Mechanically 12
> ports fit into the same space as two of the 4 port units, since I only need
> one set of input and output jacks for the injector, so that's why I'm
> thinking that way.  I could go to 8 instead, but that opens up a whole can
> of worms (as an example, just shrinking the case triggers the potential
> need for a different din rail mounting kit).
>
> It sounds like 4 is too few and 12 is fine, although 8 would probably work
> for many, if not most sites.   Is that fair?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> In spite of the handful of those that might want a 16 or 18 port
>> injector, I think you & packetflux would do better with a 12 port; or maybe
>> even an 8 port. We have only one POP that would need the higher count.
>>
>> If you made a 16 or 18 port version, I would think rackmount only.
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>>
>> On 3/11/2016 1:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
>>
>> So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port
>> injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)
>>
>> And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well - up
>> to 16 or 18 ports per 1U
>>
>> And then we have the item the question is about.
>>
>> I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail mountable
>> enclosure.  If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on top of each
>> other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space - that's what I'm
>> talking about.
>>
>> I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.   My thought
>> would be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a site,
>> you're probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution
>>
>> Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as
>> this proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.
>>
>> How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you
>> wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?
>>
>> --
>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>> forre...@imach.com |  
>> http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Based on current plans, the rackmount version is going to be available in
either 4, 8, 12 or 16 port versions or 6, 12 or 18 port versions, depending
on whether I end up with 4 or 6 ports per 'chunk'.all of these will be
upwardly expandable.

So I think that handles pretty much anyone who wants a rackmounted unit.
Hopefully this will make everyone who wants one happy.

On the 'smaller units', I of course have the 4 today.   Mechanically 12
ports fit into the same space as two of the 4 port units, since I only need
one set of input and output jacks for the injector, so that's why I'm
thinking that way.  I could go to 8 instead, but that opens up a whole can
of worms (as an example, just shrinking the case triggers the potential
need for a different din rail mounting kit).

It sounds like 4 is too few and 12 is fine, although 8 would probably work
for many, if not most sites.   Is that fair?





On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

> In spite of the handful of those that might want a 16 or 18 port injector,
> I think you & packetflux would do better with a 12 port; or maybe even an 8
> port. We have only one POP that would need the higher count.
>
> If you made a 16 or 18 port version, I would think rackmount only.
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 3/11/2016 1:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
>
> So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port
> injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)
>
> And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well - up
> to 16 or 18 ports per 1U
>
> And then we have the item the question is about.
>
> I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail mountable
> enclosure.  If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on top of each
> other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space - that's what I'm
> talking about.
>
> I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.   My thought
> would be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a site,
> you're probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution
>
> Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as this
> proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.
>
> How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you
> wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com |  
> http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>
>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] Travis

[Chuck McCown]

Circular polarized.

-Original Message- 
From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 6:31 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Travis 


Even your stairway looks like an antenna.

-Original Message- 
From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 7:23 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Travis 


Do you like me now???

Re: [AFMUG] Travis

[Ken Hohhof]

Even your stairway looks like an antenna.

-Original Message- 
From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 7:23 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Travis 


Do you like me now???

Re: [AFMUG] Travis

[Chuck McCown]

I didn’t know that.  Have always been amazed at how quick stuff gets delivered. 
 

From: Josh Luthman 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 6:29 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Travis

They have a huge warehouse there.  It's also where it was written :P

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

On Mar 11, 2016 8:26 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

  Amazon.

  From: Josh Luthman 
  Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 6:25 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Travis

  SLC shipping.  Must be nice.

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

  On Mar 11, 2016 8:23 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

Do you like me now???

Re: [AFMUG] Travis

[Josh Luthman]

They have a huge warehouse there.  It's also where it was written :P

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mar 11, 2016 8:26 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

> Amazon.
>
> *From:* Josh Luthman 
> *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 6:25 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Travis
>
>
> SLC shipping.  Must be nice.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> On Mar 11, 2016 8:23 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>
>> Do you like me now???
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios

[Josh Reynolds]

+1 for persistence
On Mar 11, 2016 7:26 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> I'm persistent. I gave out a bunch of SFPs a couple years ago to vendors
> that weren't putting them on their radios. It apparently didn't work as
> most of them have released completely new products since then without SFPs.
> I'm at it again. I'll be at it until it happens.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Lewis Bergman" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, March 11, 2016 7:23:55 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios
>
> I have been complaining about this for years. I hope you have better luck
> than I.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:18 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>>
>> http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Feature-Requests-and/SFP-port-on-a-radio-kudo-if-you-want-it/idi-p/1391807
>>
>> http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Feature-Requests-and/SFP-Port-in-AF24-AF5/idi-p/613295
>> http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/Your-Ideas/SFPs/idi-p/41982
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Mike Hammett" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Friday, March 11, 2016 4:54:13 PM
>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios
>>
>>
>> Is Mimosa the only vendor not guilty of engineering and then releasing a
>> tower radio without SFP interfaces? Seriously, what's wrong with you guys?
>> This is gross negligence.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios

[Mike Hammett]

I'm persistent. I gave out a bunch of SFPs a couple years ago to vendors that 
weren't putting them on their radios. It apparently didn't work as most of them 
have released completely new products since then without SFPs. I'm at it again. 
I'll be at it until it happens. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Lewis Bergman"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 7:23:55 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios 


I have been complaining about this for years. I hope you have better luck than 
I. 


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:18 PM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Feature-Requests-and/SFP-port-on-a-radio-kudo-if-you-want-it/idi-p/1391807
 
http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Feature-Requests-and/SFP-Port-in-AF24-AF5/idi-p/613295
 
http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/Your-Ideas/SFPs/idi-p/41982 






- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 








From: "Mike Hammett" < af...@ics-il.net > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 4:54:13 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios 





Is Mimosa the only vendor not guilty of engineering and then releasing a tower 
radio without SFP interfaces? Seriously, what's wrong with you guys? This is 
gross negligence. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

Re: [AFMUG] Travis

[Chuck McCown]

Amazon.

From: Josh Luthman 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 6:25 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Travis

SLC shipping.  Must be nice.

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

On Mar 11, 2016 8:23 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

  Do you like me now???

Re: [AFMUG] Travis

[Josh Luthman]

SLC shipping.  Must be nice.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mar 11, 2016 8:23 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

> Do you like me now???
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios

[Lewis Bergman]

I have been complaining about this for years. I hope you have better luck
than I.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:18 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

>
> http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Feature-Requests-and/SFP-port-on-a-radio-kudo-if-you-want-it/idi-p/1391807
>
> http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Feature-Requests-and/SFP-Port-in-AF24-AF5/idi-p/613295
> http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/Your-Ideas/SFPs/idi-p/41982
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Mike Hammett" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, March 11, 2016 4:54:13 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios
>
>
> Is Mimosa the only vendor not guilty of engineering and then releasing a
> tower radio without SFP interfaces? Seriously, what's wrong with you guys?
> This is gross negligence.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
>

Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios

[Mike Hammett]

http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Feature-Requests-and/SFP-port-on-a-radio-kudo-if-you-want-it/idi-p/1391807
 
http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Feature-Requests-and/SFP-Port-in-AF24-AF5/idi-p/613295
 
http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/Your-Ideas/SFPs/idi-p/41982 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Mike Hammett"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 4:54:13 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios 


Is Mimosa the only vendor not guilty of engineering and then releasing a tower 
radio without SFP interfaces? Seriously, what's wrong with you guys? This is 
gross negligence. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios

[Mike Hammett]

Not a bad idea, but I think my schedule is full. :-\ 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Nate Burke"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 5:11:21 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios 

I think companies were founded over less. Get ready world for 
hammettradios.net! 




On 3/11/2016 5:02 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



Nothing PtMP short of $8k LTE radios have SFPs. 

I know licensed radios have them, but that's not my concern. 

Everyone knows this. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 5:00:41 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios 



There are many others, in the sub-$5000 per link market a lot of companies are 
trying to get everyone to use 802.3at and 1000BaseT. 

There are some new 60 GHz short range radios that have no SFP. The more 
expensive 60 and 80 GHz radios do have optical interfaces. 





On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Is Mimosa the only vendor not guilty of engineering and then releasing a tower 
radio without SFP interfaces? Seriously, what's wrong with you guys? This is 
gross negligence. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios

[Mike Hammett]

Still not SFPs... 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Josh Reynolds"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 5:09:29 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios 



There are several radios coming out this year that run on 2.5Gbps and 5Gbps 
ethernet... 


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Nothing PtMP short of $8k LTE radios have SFPs. 

I know licensed radios have them, but that's not my concern. 

Everyone knows this. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 5:00:41 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios 





There are many others, in the sub-$5000 per link market a lot of companies are 
trying to get everyone to use 802.3at and 1000BaseT. 

There are some new 60 GHz short range radios that have no SFP. The more 
expensive 60 and 80 GHz radios do have optical interfaces. 





On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Is Mimosa the only vendor not guilty of engineering and then releasing a tower 
radio without SFP interfaces? Seriously, what's wrong with you guys? This is 
gross negligence. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Matt]

I have started using small wall mount racks at many locations.  Outdoor
cabinets with racks at others.  Mikrotik Switches mount in racks neatly.
At one location I am working on cleaning up I have:

1 SAF Licensed link
6 Canopy FSK 2.4 AP's
1 Canopy FSK 900 AP
4 Canopy 450 3.6 AP's
5 Canopy PTP230's being upgraded too PTP450i's likely
1 Canopy 450i AP, more coming...
Thats 18 ports and growing...

I have several sites like this and all the DIN mount sync injectors and
there power cords are quite a mess.  I use the ~$100 DIN too rack adapter
many places.

DIN is really nice for very small sites in a small Hoffman enclosure.
Seems like all sites run out of bandwidth and keep growing and I usually
have to keep the old stuff going tell everyone is moved to the new.

Another thing that would be nice on the sync injectors would be a daisy
chain on the power connector.  A power in and power out so it is easier to
put in 5 sync injectors or so.  We always initially put in a power supply
that is larger then needed since we anticipate growth and its not that much
more expensive.  A DIN mount ~8 port Mikrotik would be nice too.


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to it
> in the future.
>
> I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't see
> us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.
>
> 12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.  Sure
> would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios after
> it gets 24v, though.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
>> So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port
>> injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)
>>
>> And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well - up
>> to 16 or 18 ports per 1U
>>
>> And then we have the item the question is about.
>>
>> I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail mountable
>> enclosure.  If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on top of each
>> other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space - that's what I'm
>> talking about.
>>
>> I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.   My thought
>> would be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a site,
>> you're probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution
>>
>> Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as
>> this proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.
>>
>> How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you
>> wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?
>>
>> --
>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[George Skorup]

I have a site w/ 13 radios right now. 4x90 5GHz 450 cluster. 4x90 900 
FSK cluster. Various other stuff, mostly PTP.


So I'd say +1 to whoever said to make the rack-mount version shallow 
enough and ears allowed to be rotated 90 degrees for wall/panel 
mounting. But that would really only work if the chassis isn't the full 
19" wide. We're doing mostly the fiberglass 18x16x8" enclosures now. If 
it was all up to me, we'd be putting in outdoor 19" rack cabinets 
everywhere, but I don't write the checks. Only larger sites where we get 
access to the shelters have racks. I would still use the double wide 
12-port DIN mount injectors at the mid sized sites. It's always like, 
shit! I need a 9th injector, so I have to throw in a 4-port POE module 
or something like that.


On 3/11/2016 4:46 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

+1 to what Josh said... we don't do rackmount.

It's going to be pretty rare for us to ever care about sync on more 
than 8 radios at a site, but it's not at all uncommon for us to have 
10-12 radios total, and I do like the idea of just having one POE box 
for everything.


That said, I don't know how often we'd actually end up using the 12 
port, since most of the time, 8 ports should be enough.



On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:


a!!!  buy ONE unit for ALL towers, one model spare for all the things

People can already buy a DIN product and put it in a rack.  You
can't go the other way.


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

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account)
> wrote:

What's the most you have radio-wise at these sites?

My thought is something along the lines of..

If I have up to 4 radios at a site, I'd buy 1
syncinjector-sized din power injectors with 4 ports each for
1X the cost and 1X the space requirement
If I have 5 - 8 radios at a site, I'd buy 2 syncinjector-sized
din power injectors with 4 ports each for 2X the cost and 2x
the space requirement, since this is a lower-cost and easier
to spare option than below

If I have 8 or more radios at a site, would people rather:

a) buy a double syncinjector sized din power injector with 12
ports for 3x the cost and 2x the space requirement
b) Just buy a 1U rackmount unit since the entire site is
rackmount anyways, at about 3x the cost or maybe just a touch
more (to pay for the metal enclosure)

For me, once I got to a site where I had that many radios, it
seems to me that I'd be in a rackmount enclosure of some sort
with a rackmount switch or router so the rackmount solution
would be better.

It sounds like Josh would use the din power injector


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Jeremy
> wrote:

I don't use Cambium, but we only have two sites with a
rack, and 23 sites with DIN rail in smaller boxes.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Luthman
> wrote:

I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not
looking forward to it in the future.

I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two
bands.  I don't see us ever being able to utilize all
of that bandwidth in this area.

12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about
sync'ing them.  Sure would be nice to have one POE
that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios after it gets
24v, though.


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

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian
(List Account) > wrote:

So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new
"universal" 4 port injector (in the same form
factor as the existing syncinjectors)

And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so
that's coming as well - up to 16 or 18 ports per 1U

And then we have the item the question is about.

I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double
height din rail mountable enclosure.  If you think
about gluing two syncinjectors on top of each
other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in 

[AFMUG] Broadcast Repeat Count

[Chris Wright]

Assuming all our APs in the sector are humming along in sync with the same 
frame period and contention slots, does changing the broadcast repeat count on 
just one AP affect the rest of the sector at all?

Also, the Cambium documentation says setting broadcast repeat count to 2 is 
optimal for general internet service, but says less will give more throughput 
for video. Given that these days EVERYONE is on Netflix, do you think setting 
the broadcast repeat count to 1 may be worth the extra bandwidth it provides?

Chris Wright
Network Administrator
Velociter Wireless
209-838-1221 x115

Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios

[Nate Burke]

I think companies were founded over less.  Get ready world for 
hammettradios.net!




On 3/11/2016 5:02 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

Nothing PtMP short of $8k LTE radios have SFPs.

I know licensed radios have them, but that's not my concern.

Everyone knows this.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, March 11, 2016 5:00:41 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios

There are many others, in the sub-$5000 per link market a lot of 
companies are trying to get everyone to use 802.3at and 1000BaseT.


There are some new 60 GHz short range radios that have no SFP. The 
more expensive 60 and 80 GHz radios do have optical interfaces.




On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Mike Hammett > wrote:


Is Mimosa the only vendor not guilty of engineering and then
releasing a tower radio without SFP interfaces? Seriously, what's
wrong with you guys? This is gross negligence.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 

Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios

[Josh Reynolds]

There are several radios coming out this year that run on 2.5Gbps and 5Gbps
ethernet...

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Nothing PtMP short of $8k LTE radios have SFPs.
>
> I know licensed radios have them, but that's not my concern.
>
> Everyone knows this.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, March 11, 2016 5:00:41 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios
>
>
> There are many others, in the sub-$5000 per link market a lot of companies
> are trying to get everyone to use 802.3at and 1000BaseT.
>
> There are some new 60 GHz short range radios that have no SFP. The more
> expensive 60 and 80 GHz radios do have optical interfaces.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> Is Mimosa the only vendor not guilty of engineering and then releasing a
>> tower radio without SFP interfaces? Seriously, what's wrong with you guys?
>> This is gross negligence.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Bill Prince]

In spite of the handful of those that might want a 16 or 18 port 
injector, I think you & packetflux would do better with a 12 port; or 
maybe even an 8 port. We have only one POP that would need the higher count.


If you made a 16 or 18 port version, I would think rackmount only.

bp


On 3/11/2016 1:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port 
injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)


And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well - 
up to 16 or 18 ports per 1U


And then we have the item the question is about.

I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail 
mountable enclosure.  If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on 
top of each other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space 
- that's what I'm talking about.


I'm wondering how many people would use this last product. My thought 
would be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a site, 
you're probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution


Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as 
this proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.


How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you 
wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?


--
*Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com  | 
http://www.packetflux.com 
 
 

Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios

[Mike Hammett]

Nothing PtMP short of $8k LTE radios have SFPs. 

I know licensed radios have them, but that's not my concern. 

Everyone knows this. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 5:00:41 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios 



There are many others, in the sub-$5000 per link market a lot of companies are 
trying to get everyone to use 802.3at and 1000BaseT. 

There are some new 60 GHz short range radios that have no SFP. The more 
expensive 60 and 80 GHz radios do have optical interfaces. 





On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Is Mimosa the only vendor not guilty of engineering and then releasing a tower 
radio without SFP interfaces? Seriously, what's wrong with you guys? This is 
gross negligence. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios

[Eric Kuhnke]

There are many others, in the sub-$5000 per link market a lot of companies
are trying to get everyone to use 802.3at and 1000BaseT.

There are some new 60 GHz short range radios that have no SFP. The more
expensive 60 and 80 GHz radios do have optical interfaces.



On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Is Mimosa the only vendor not guilty of engineering and then releasing a
> tower radio without SFP interfaces? Seriously, what's wrong with you guys?
> This is gross negligence.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
>

Re: [AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios

[Josh Reynolds]

LOL :)

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Is Mimosa the only vendor not guilty of engineering and then releasing a
> tower radio without SFP interfaces? Seriously, what's wrong with you guys?
> This is gross negligence.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
>

[AFMUG] SFPs on Tower Radios

[Mike Hammett]

Is Mimosa the only vendor not guilty of engineering and then releasing a tower 
radio without SFP interfaces? Seriously, what's wrong with you guys? This is 
gross negligence. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

Re: [AFMUG] RackMount PacketFlux PowerInjector+Sync

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

See the 26-Aug-2015 release here:
http://tickets.packetflux.com/kb/faq.php?id=4

-forrest


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Matt  wrote:

> We use EZ-cat connectors.  Often when plugging in the connector we briefly
> short it out on the metal of RJ45 jack.  It would be nice if the current
> trip would auto reset to.  Really looking forward to this product.  I think
> you should skip WispaAmerica and stay home and work on it. Lol.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
>> It will most likely have 4 power buses assuming I don't run out of
>> mechanical room - 2 for certain.  Max 12A per bus.  (So you can only power
>> 12 airfibers per bus, sorry...)
>>
>> You will be able to jumper which bus(es) you will use on each port.   And
>> my intent is to set it up so if you jumper more than one bus, it will work
>> in a redundant fashion.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Matt 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Say I have it powering 24 and 48 volt devices.  Will it have dual
>>> inputs, 24 and 48 or will it just have 48 volt input?  Do you need beta
>>> testers?  This will really clean up some of my busy sites.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
>>> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>>>
 Well, it looks like it might actually be finally happening.

 We are about 98% sure we have a rackmount enclosure manufacturer which
 we can work with. Domestic.  Product looks decent.  Price is right.

 Which means it's time to nail down a few details here, such as number
 of ports, so I can get some enclosures cut and boards made and hopefully
 get this elephant out of the room

  So I need some input:

 The rough figures I'm working with here is $800 for a 18 port rackmount
 power injector.  Voltage and pinning jumper selectable per port. Per-port
 control of power and sync.  Probably some redundant power and other things
 built in, but I'm still nailing those details down (a lot of it comes down
 to space on the front panel of the enclosure).

 PLEASE NOTE:  The prices here are soft - until I get the design
 completed I won't know what I can sell this for - as many of  you know I
 try to price things at a fair price as opposed to what the market will 
 bear.

 The main questions I have for the list are:

 Is 18 the correct number of ports?   18 is looking like about the most
 I can fit based on front panel dimensions.  This corresponds to 3 blocks of
 6 ports (if you lose a port and need to replace it, you'd replace 6 at a
 time).

 Other options are 16 (4 blocks of 4), and pretty much any smaller
 quantities of ports which are divisible by 4 or 6.

 I guess what I'm really asking here is whether the 18 port version for
 $800 is the only version of this I should make or carry, or does it make
 sense to sell (as an example) an 8 port version for $400 instead of or in
 addition to this?



 --
 *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
 Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
 forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
 
   


>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>
>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Mathew Howard]

+1 to what Josh said... we don't do rackmount.

It's going to be pretty rare for us to ever care about sync on more than 8
radios at a site, but it's not at all uncommon for us to have 10-12 radios
total, and I do like the idea of just having one POE box for everything.

That said, I don't know how often we'd actually end up using the 12 port,
since most of the time, 8 ports should be enough.


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> a!!!  buy ONE unit for ALL towers, one model spare for all the things
>
> People can already buy a DIN product and put it in a rack.  You can't go
> the other way.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
>> What's the most you have radio-wise at these sites?
>>
>> My thought is something along the lines of..
>>
>> If I have up to 4 radios at a site, I'd buy 1 syncinjector-sized din
>> power injectors with 4 ports each for 1X the cost and 1X the space
>> requirement
>> If I have 5 - 8 radios at a site, I'd buy 2 syncinjector-sized din power
>> injectors with 4 ports each for 2X the cost and 2x the space requirement,
>> since this is a lower-cost and easier to spare option than below
>>
>> If I have 8 or more radios at a site, would people rather:
>>
>> a) buy a double syncinjector sized din power injector with 12 ports for
>> 3x the cost and 2x the space requirement
>> b) Just buy a 1U rackmount unit since the entire site is rackmount
>> anyways, at about 3x the cost or maybe just a touch more (to pay for the
>> metal enclosure)
>>
>> For me, once I got to a site where I had that many radios, it seems to me
>> that I'd be in a rackmount enclosure of some sort with a rackmount switch
>> or router so the rackmount solution would be better.
>>
>> It sounds like Josh would use the din power injector
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Jeremy  wrote:
>>
>>> I don't use Cambium, but we only have two sites with a rack, and 23
>>> sites with DIN rail in smaller boxes.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Luthman <
>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>
 I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to
 it in the future.

 I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't
 see us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.

 12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.
 Sure would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios
 after it gets 24v, though.


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

 On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
 li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port
> injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)
>
> And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well -
> up to 16 or 18 ports per 1U
>
> And then we have the item the question is about.
>
> I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail
> mountable enclosure.  If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on top 
> of
> each other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space - that's
> what I'm talking about.
>
> I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.   My
> thought would be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a
> site, you're probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution
>
> Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as
> this proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.
>
> How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you
> wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
> 
>   
>
>

>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] RackMount PacketFlux PowerInjector+Sync

[Matt]

We use EZ-cat connectors.  Often when plugging in the connector we briefly
short it out on the metal of RJ45 jack.  It would be nice if the current
trip would auto reset to.  Really looking forward to this product.  I think
you should skip WispaAmerica and stay home and work on it. Lol.


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> It will most likely have 4 power buses assuming I don't run out of
> mechanical room - 2 for certain.  Max 12A per bus.  (So you can only power
> 12 airfibers per bus, sorry...)
>
> You will be able to jumper which bus(es) you will use on each port.   And
> my intent is to set it up so if you jumper more than one bus, it will work
> in a redundant fashion.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Matt  wrote:
>
>> Say I have it powering 24 and 48 volt devices.  Will it have dual inputs,
>> 24 and 48 or will it just have 48 volt input?  Do you need beta testers?
>> This will really clean up some of my busy sites.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
>> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, it looks like it might actually be finally happening.
>>>
>>> We are about 98% sure we have a rackmount enclosure manufacturer which
>>> we can work with. Domestic.  Product looks decent.  Price is right.
>>>
>>> Which means it's time to nail down a few details here, such as number of
>>> ports, so I can get some enclosures cut and boards made and hopefully get
>>> this elephant out of the room
>>>
>>>  So I need some input:
>>>
>>> The rough figures I'm working with here is $800 for a 18 port rackmount
>>> power injector.  Voltage and pinning jumper selectable per port. Per-port
>>> control of power and sync.  Probably some redundant power and other things
>>> built in, but I'm still nailing those details down (a lot of it comes down
>>> to space on the front panel of the enclosure).
>>>
>>> PLEASE NOTE:  The prices here are soft - until I get the design
>>> completed I won't know what I can sell this for - as many of  you know I
>>> try to price things at a fair price as opposed to what the market will bear.
>>>
>>> The main questions I have for the list are:
>>>
>>> Is 18 the correct number of ports?   18 is looking like about the most I
>>> can fit based on front panel dimensions.  This corresponds to 3 blocks of 6
>>> ports (if you lose a port and need to replace it, you'd replace 6 at a
>>> time).
>>>
>>> Other options are 16 (4 blocks of 4), and pretty much any smaller
>>> quantities of ports which are divisible by 4 or 6.
>>>
>>> I guess what I'm really asking here is whether the 18 port version for
>>> $800 is the only version of this I should make or carry, or does it make
>>> sense to sell (as an example) an 8 port version for $400 instead of or in
>>> addition to this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>>> 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Josh Luthman]

a!!!  buy ONE unit for ALL towers, one model spare for all the things

People can already buy a DIN product and put it in a rack.  You can't go
the other way.


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

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> What's the most you have radio-wise at these sites?
>
> My thought is something along the lines of..
>
> If I have up to 4 radios at a site, I'd buy 1 syncinjector-sized din power
> injectors with 4 ports each for 1X the cost and 1X the space requirement
> If I have 5 - 8 radios at a site, I'd buy 2 syncinjector-sized din power
> injectors with 4 ports each for 2X the cost and 2x the space requirement,
> since this is a lower-cost and easier to spare option than below
>
> If I have 8 or more radios at a site, would people rather:
>
> a) buy a double syncinjector sized din power injector with 12 ports for 3x
> the cost and 2x the space requirement
> b) Just buy a 1U rackmount unit since the entire site is rackmount
> anyways, at about 3x the cost or maybe just a touch more (to pay for the
> metal enclosure)
>
> For me, once I got to a site where I had that many radios, it seems to me
> that I'd be in a rackmount enclosure of some sort with a rackmount switch
> or router so the rackmount solution would be better.
>
> It sounds like Josh would use the din power injector
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Jeremy  wrote:
>
>> I don't use Cambium, but we only have two sites with a rack, and 23 sites
>> with DIN rail in smaller boxes.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Luthman <
>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to it
>>> in the future.
>>>
>>> I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't
>>> see us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.
>>>
>>> 12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.
>>> Sure would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios
>>> after it gets 24v, though.
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
>>> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>>>
 So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port
 injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)

 And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well -
 up to 16 or 18 ports per 1U

 And then we have the item the question is about.

 I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail
 mountable enclosure.  If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on top of
 each other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space - that's
 what I'm talking about.

 I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.   My thought
 would be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a site,
 you're probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution

 Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as
 this proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.

 How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you
 wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?

 --
 *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
 Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
 forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
 
   


>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Adam Moffett]

Ah, but you're putting the DIN on a panel inside an enclosure I assume.
With a lot of rackmount items, you can rotate the angle brackets 90 
degrees to panel mount them.  OR you get one of those 4U patch panel 
racks that mounts on a wall and screw that to your panel.


What I'm saying is, as long as the depth and/or height of the rack mount 
item is limited to common enclosure depths, then you can still panel 
mount it.  I don't know about you, but I go for at least 8" depth.



On 3/11/2016 4:25 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to 
it in the future.


I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't 
see us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.


12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.  
Sure would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp 
radios after it gets 24v, though.



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

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) 
> wrote:


So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4
port injector (in the same form factor as the existing
syncinjectors)

And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as
well - up to 16 or 18 ports per 1U

And then we have the item the question is about.

I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail
mountable enclosure.  If you think about gluing two syncinjectors
on top of each other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same
space - that's what I'm talking about.

I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.   My
thought would be that once you get to more than a handful of
radios at a site, you're probably going to end up wanting the
rackmount solution

Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space
as this proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.

How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that
you wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?

-- 
*Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com  |
http://www.packetflux.com 

 

Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Josh Luthman]

Handful of orders these last couple weeks.  0 differences beyond the Ubnt
out of stock stuff (yes that record is still broken).


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

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> I think they were doing end of fiscal year inventory the last couple days.
>
> *From:* Bill Prince 
> *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 3:07 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP
>
> Speaking of Streakwave. Is everyone else having issues with the deliveries
> getting stretched out beyond what seems normal with them?
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 3/11/2016 1:01 PM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote:
>
> i can't get a 3011 to try, streakwave doesn't have stock, but i
> desparately need this, have a tower with high CPU usage on router and only
> a 2011 fill fit in the enclosure
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> Funny. We were just talking about this yesterday. The 2011 is great for
>> small POPs, except for the split 10/100 - 1000 ports. The 3011 would be
>> perfect except it can only be had in a 19" rack form factor.
>>
>> Has anyone tried to stick the circuit board from a 3011 into a 2011 case?
>> DC plant of course.
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>> On 3/11/2016 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>
>>> My rackmount 2011's will probably get replaced with 3011's, but they
>>> really need to bring out a smaller desktop 3011 as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
>>> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:23 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP
>>>
>>> Well that's news to me!  Holy crap. They should put a warning sticker on
>>> that.
>>>
>>> On 3/11/2016 2:20 PM, Joe Falaschi wrote:
>>>
 The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what port things are
 plugged into.  Ports 6-10 only have a 100M aggregate link to ports 1-5. If
 the aggregate of ports 6-10 require more than 100M, you'll have issues
 there too.


>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

What's the most you have radio-wise at these sites?

My thought is something along the lines of..

If I have up to 4 radios at a site, I'd buy 1 syncinjector-sized din power
injectors with 4 ports each for 1X the cost and 1X the space requirement
If I have 5 - 8 radios at a site, I'd buy 2 syncinjector-sized din power
injectors with 4 ports each for 2X the cost and 2x the space requirement,
since this is a lower-cost and easier to spare option than below

If I have 8 or more radios at a site, would people rather:

a) buy a double syncinjector sized din power injector with 12 ports for 3x
the cost and 2x the space requirement
b) Just buy a 1U rackmount unit since the entire site is rackmount anyways,
at about 3x the cost or maybe just a touch more (to pay for the metal
enclosure)

For me, once I got to a site where I had that many radios, it seems to me
that I'd be in a rackmount enclosure of some sort with a rackmount switch
or router so the rackmount solution would be better.

It sounds like Josh would use the din power injector


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Jeremy  wrote:

> I don't use Cambium, but we only have two sites with a rack, and 23 sites
> with DIN rail in smaller boxes.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:
>
>> I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to it
>> in the future.
>>
>> I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't
>> see us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.
>>
>> 12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.
>> Sure would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios
>> after it gets 24v, though.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
>> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port
>>> injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)
>>>
>>> And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well -
>>> up to 16 or 18 ports per 1U
>>>
>>> And then we have the item the question is about.
>>>
>>> I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail mountable
>>> enclosure.  If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on top of each
>>> other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space - that's what I'm
>>> talking about.
>>>
>>> I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.   My thought
>>> would be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a site,
>>> you're probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution
>>>
>>> Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as
>>> this proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.
>>>
>>> How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you
>>> wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>>> 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Ken Hohhof]

I think they were doing end of fiscal year inventory the last couple days.

From: Bill Prince 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 3:07 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

Speaking of Streakwave. Is everyone else having issues with the deliveries 
getting stretched out beyond what seems normal with them?


bp


On 3/11/2016 1:01 PM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote:

  i can't get a 3011 to try, streakwave doesn't have stock, but i desparately 
need this, have a tower with high CPU usage on router and only a 2011 fill fit 
in the enclosure

  On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

Funny. We were just talking about this yesterday. The 2011 is great for 
small POPs, except for the split 10/100 - 1000 ports. The 3011 would be perfect 
except it can only be had in a 19" rack form factor.

Has anyone tried to stick the circuit board from a 3011 into a 2011 case? 
DC plant of course.

bp



On 3/11/2016 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

  My rackmount 2011's will probably get replaced with 3011's, but they 
really need to bring out a smaller desktop 3011 as well.


  -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
  Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:23 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

  Well that's news to me!  Holy crap. They should put a warning sticker on
  that.

  On 3/11/2016 2:20 PM, Joe Falaschi wrote:

The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what port things are 
plugged into.  Ports 6-10 only have a 100M aggregate link to ports 1-5. If the 
aggregate of ports 6-10 require more than 100M, you'll have issues there too.

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Jeremy]

I don't use Cambium, but we only have two sites with a rack, and 23 sites
with DIN rail in smaller boxes.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to it
> in the future.
>
> I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't see
> us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.
>
> 12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.  Sure
> would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios after
> it gets 24v, though.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
>> So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port
>> injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)
>>
>> And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well - up
>> to 16 or 18 ports per 1U
>>
>> And then we have the item the question is about.
>>
>> I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail mountable
>> enclosure.  If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on top of each
>> other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space - that's what I'm
>> talking about.
>>
>> I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.   My thought
>> would be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a site,
>> you're probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution
>>
>> Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as
>> this proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.
>>
>> How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you
>> wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?
>>
>> --
>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[John Woodfield]

There is a smaller CCR but it runs around $400
 
 
 
John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Kurt Fankhauser" 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 4:01pm
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP



i can't get a 3011 to try, streakwave doesn't have stock, but i desparately 
need this, have a tower with high CPU usage on router and only a 2011 fill fit 
in the enclosure


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Bill Prince <[ part15...@gmail.com ]( 
mailto:part15...@gmail.com )> wrote:
Funny. We were just talking about this yesterday. The 2011 is great for small 
POPs, except for the split 10/100 - 1000 ports. The 3011 would be perfect 
except it can only be had in a 19" rack form factor.

 Has anyone tried to stick the circuit board from a 3011 into a 2011 case? DC 
plant of course.

 bp
 



On 3/11/2016 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
My rackmount 2011's will probably get replaced with 3011's, but they really 
need to bring out a smaller desktop 3011 as well.


 -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
 Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:23 PM
 To: [ af@afmug.com ]( mailto:af@afmug.com )
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

 Well that's news to me!  Holy crap. They should put a warning sticker on
 that.

 On 3/11/2016 2:20 PM, Joe Falaschi wrote:
The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what port things are plugged 
into.  Ports 6-10 only have a 100M aggregate link to ports 1-5. If the 
aggregate of ports 6-10 require more than 100M, you'll have issues there too.

Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Adam Moffett]

CRS might not have existed whenever they bought their 2011, but yeah CRS 
is a much better switch than a 2011 is.



On 3/11/2016 4:26 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
I don't see anything in that saying the bandwidth from the 10/100 
Ethernet switch chip to the CPU is limited to 100M, maybe I missed 
something.


It does appear to be true the only connection between the 2 switch 
chips is bridging via the CPU.


If using it primarily as a switch not a router, a CRS might be better?


-Original Message- From: Joe Falaschi
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

That is what I took from this post: 
http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=63372


We had tons of issues at a site.  Nothing made sense, CPU usage was in 
the teens, but we just saw terrible performance and packet loss at 
peak. Eventually we found out that we received more complaints on 
different APs and found the above post.  We were only using the tik as 
a switch at the top of the tower to terminate the fiber up the tower 
and connect the APs.  We replaced with a Netonix and all of our issues 
at this site went away.  I had no idea.  A warning label would have 
saved us months of issues trying to track it down.


Joe


On Mar 11, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

Well that's news to me!  Holy crap. They should put a warning sticker 
on that.


On 3/11/2016 2:20 PM, Joe Falaschi wrote:
The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what port things 
are plugged into.  Ports 6-10 only have a 100M aggregate link to 
ports 1-5. If the aggregate of ports 6-10 require more than 100M, 
you'll have issues there too.

Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Ken Hohhof]

A couple weeks back someone pointed me to Roc-Noc, they are still showing 73 in 
stock.  Might be a little more expensive.

From: Kurt Fankhauser 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 3:01 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

i can't get a 3011 to try, streakwave doesn't have stock, but i desparately 
need this, have a tower with high CPU usage on router and only a 2011 fill fit 
in the enclosure

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

  Funny. We were just talking about this yesterday. The 2011 is great for small 
POPs, except for the split 10/100 - 1000 ports. The 3011 would be perfect 
except it can only be had in a 19" rack form factor.

  Has anyone tried to stick the circuit board from a 3011 into a 2011 case? DC 
plant of course.

  bp
  


  On 3/11/2016 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

My rackmount 2011's will probably get replaced with 3011's, but they really 
need to bring out a smaller desktop 3011 as well.


-Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:23 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

Well that's news to me!  Holy crap. They should put a warning sticker on
that.

On 3/11/2016 2:20 PM, Joe Falaschi wrote:

  The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what port things are 
plugged into.  Ports 6-10 only have a 100M aggregate link to ports 1-5. If the 
aggregate of ports 6-10 require more than 100M, you'll have issues there too.

Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Ken Hohhof]

I don't see anything in that saying the bandwidth from the 10/100 Ethernet 
switch chip to the CPU is limited to 100M, maybe I missed something.


It does appear to be true the only connection between the 2 switch chips is 
bridging via the CPU.


If using it primarily as a switch not a router, a CRS might be better?


-Original Message- 
From: Joe Falaschi

Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

That is what I took from this post: 
http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=63372


We had tons of issues at a site.  Nothing made sense, CPU usage was in the 
teens, but we just saw terrible performance and packet loss at peak. 
Eventually we found out that we received more complaints on different APs 
and found the above post.  We were only using the tik as a switch at the top 
of the tower to terminate the fiber up the tower and connect the APs.  We 
replaced with a Netonix and all of our issues at this site went away.  I had 
no idea.  A warning label would have saved us months of issues trying to 
track it down.


Joe


On Mar 11, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

Well that's news to me!  Holy crap. They should put a warning sticker on 
that.


On 3/11/2016 2:20 PM, Joe Falaschi wrote:
The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what port things are 
plugged into.  Ports 6-10 only have a 100M aggregate link to ports 1-5. 
If the aggregate of ports 6-10 require more than 100M, you'll have issues 
there too.

Re: [AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Josh Luthman]

I don't do racks at many locations.  Certainly not looking forward to it in
the future.

I have an 8 port that does my APs - that's NSEW in two bands.  I don't see
us ever being able to utilize all of that bandwidth in this area.

12 would include my backhauls, but I don't care about sync'ing them.  Sure
would be nice to have one POE that does all my Ubnt and Epmp radios after
it gets 24v, though.


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

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port
> injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)
>
> And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well - up
> to 16 or 18 ports per 1U
>
> And then we have the item the question is about.
>
> I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail mountable
> enclosure.  If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on top of each
> other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space - that's what I'm
> talking about.
>
> I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.   My thought
> would be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a site,
> you're probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution
>
> Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as this
> proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.
>
> How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you
> wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>

[AFMUG] One more quick question in re: new packetflux product design.

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

So, I have in the fairly immediate future the new "universal" 4 port
injector (in the same form factor as the existing syncinjectors)

And the rackmount unit is progressing well, so that's coming as well - up
to 16 or 18 ports per 1U

And then we have the item the question is about.

I intended to build a 12 port unit in a double height din rail mountable
enclosure.  If you think about gluing two syncinjectors on top of each
other and having 12 ports instead of 8 in that same space - that's what I'm
talking about.

I'm wondering how many people would use this last product.   My thought
would be that once you get to more than a handful of radios at a site,
you're probably going to end up wanting the rackmount solution

Using two syncinjectors will get you to 8 radios in the same space as this
proposed device, at 2/3 of the cost of the proposed device.

How many of you would be using more than 8 radios at a site that you
wouldn't just move to a rackmount unit?

-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

[Jaime Solorza]

Whew...for a moment I thought I read 12 inches and not yearsdamn and I
am supposed to behave during Lent...
On Mar 11, 2016 2:10 PM, "Ken Hohhof"  wrote:

> You’re welcome.
>
> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
> *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 2:34 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Product leak
>
> i find these innuendos offensive
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> If you want to keep it clean, there’s the old one-armed fisherman joke.
>>
>> (I caught a fish THIS big.)
>>
>> Otherwise, just say IT’S YUGE!
>>
>>
>> *From:* ch...@wbmfg.com
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 10:34 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Product leak
>>
>> (insert Beavis and Butthead laugh)
>>
>> *From:* Adam Moffett 
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 9:32 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Product leak
>>
>> We're all secretly 12 years old.
>>
>> On 3/11/2016 11:29 AM, Jerry Head wrote:
>>
>> Be a real shame if the pole slipped out prematurely
>>
>> On 3/11/2016 10:12 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
>>
>> Something about how tightly my mount holds the pole?
>>
>> *From:* Rory Conaway 
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 8:41 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Product leak
>>
>>
>> I see a wife joke in here somewhere….
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Forrest Christian (List Account)
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 4:03 AM
>> *To:* af mailto:af@afmug.com 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Product leak
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought I heard somewhere that size doesn't matter
>>
>> On Mar 10, 2016 7:53 PM, "Jerry Head"  wrote:
>>
>> Really nice product!
>> How long is it?
>> What would really be sweet is if there were some way to turnbuckle or
>> snap clamp those chains down
>> tight then no lag screw would be needed.
>>
>>
>> On 3/10/2016 6:16 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>>
>> Something I am working on.
>>
>> This will fit on a 60 inch diameter pole/monopole (or larger)  if you
>> want.
>>
>> It will also fit a 10 inch pole.
>>
>>
>>
>> The pipe is 24 inches long 3.4” dia.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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] RackMount PacketFlux PowerInjector+Sync

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

It will most likely have 4 power buses assuming I don't run out of
mechanical room - 2 for certain.  Max 12A per bus.  (So you can only power
12 airfibers per bus, sorry...)

You will be able to jumper which bus(es) you will use on each port.   And
my intent is to set it up so if you jumper more than one bus, it will work
in a redundant fashion.



On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Matt  wrote:

> Say I have it powering 24 and 48 volt devices.  Will it have dual inputs,
> 24 and 48 or will it just have 48 volt input?  Do you need beta testers?
> This will really clean up some of my busy sites.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, it looks like it might actually be finally happening.
>>
>> We are about 98% sure we have a rackmount enclosure manufacturer which we
>> can work with. Domestic.  Product looks decent.  Price is right.
>>
>> Which means it's time to nail down a few details here, such as number of
>> ports, so I can get some enclosures cut and boards made and hopefully get
>> this elephant out of the room
>>
>>  So I need some input:
>>
>> The rough figures I'm working with here is $800 for a 18 port rackmount
>> power injector.  Voltage and pinning jumper selectable per port. Per-port
>> control of power and sync.  Probably some redundant power and other things
>> built in, but I'm still nailing those details down (a lot of it comes down
>> to space on the front panel of the enclosure).
>>
>> PLEASE NOTE:  The prices here are soft - until I get the design completed
>> I won't know what I can sell this for - as many of  you know I try to price
>> things at a fair price as opposed to what the market will bear.
>>
>> The main questions I have for the list are:
>>
>> Is 18 the correct number of ports?   18 is looking like about the most I
>> can fit based on front panel dimensions.  This corresponds to 3 blocks of 6
>> ports (if you lose a port and need to replace it, you'd replace 6 at a
>> time).
>>
>> Other options are 16 (4 blocks of 4), and pretty much any smaller
>> quantities of ports which are divisible by 4 or 6.
>>
>> I guess what I'm really asking here is whether the 18 port version for
>> $800 is the only version of this I should make or carry, or does it make
>> sense to sell (as an example) an 8 port version for $400 instead of or in
>> addition to this?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>
>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

[Ken Hohhof]

You’re welcome.

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

i find these innuendos offensive

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

  If you want to keep it clean, there’s the old one-armed fisherman joke.

  (I caught a fish THIS big.)

  Otherwise, just say IT’S YUGE!


  From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 10:34 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

  (insert Beavis and Butthead laugh)

  From: Adam Moffett 
  Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 9:32 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

  We're all secretly 12 years old.


  On 3/11/2016 11:29 AM, Jerry Head wrote:

Be a real shame if the pole slipped out prematurely

On 3/11/2016 10:12 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

  Something about how tightly my mount holds the pole?

  From: Rory Conaway 
  Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 8:41 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

  I see a wife joke in here somewhere….



  Rory



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian 
(List Account)
  Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 4:03 AM
  To: af mailto:af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Product leak



  I thought I heard somewhere that size doesn't matter  

  On Mar 10, 2016 7:53 PM, "Jerry Head"  wrote:

Really nice product!
How long is it?
What would really be sweet is if there were some way to turnbuckle or 
snap clamp those chains down
tight then no lag screw would be needed.
 

On 3/10/2016 6:16 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

  Something I am working on.

  This will fit on a 60 inch diameter pole/monopole (or larger)  if you 
want.  

  It will also fit a 10 inch pole.



  The pipe is 24 inches long 3.4” dia.  











-- 

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] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Bill Prince]

Speaking of Streakwave. Is everyone else having issues with the 
deliveries getting stretched out beyond what seems normal with them?


bp


On 3/11/2016 1:01 PM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote:
i can't get a 3011 to try, streakwave doesn't have stock, but i 
desparately need this, have a tower with high CPU usage on router and 
only a 2011 fill fit in the enclosure


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Bill Prince > wrote:


Funny. We were just talking about this yesterday. The 2011 is
great for small POPs, except for the split 10/100 - 1000 ports.
The 3011 would be perfect except it can only be had in a 19" rack
form factor.

Has anyone tried to stick the circuit board from a 3011 into a
2011 case? DC plant of course.

bp


On 3/11/2016 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

My rackmount 2011's will probably get replaced with 3011's,
but they really need to bring out a smaller desktop 3011 as well.


-Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:23 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

Well that's news to me!  Holy crap. They should put a warning
sticker on
that.

On 3/11/2016 2:20 PM, Joe Falaschi wrote:

The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what
port things are plugged into.  Ports 6-10 only have a 100M
aggregate link to ports 1-5. If the aggregate of ports
6-10 require more than 100M, you'll have issues there too.

Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Kurt Fankhauser]

i can't get a 3011 to try, streakwave doesn't have stock, but i desparately
need this, have a tower with high CPU usage on router and only a 2011 fill
fit in the enclosure

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

> Funny. We were just talking about this yesterday. The 2011 is great for
> small POPs, except for the split 10/100 - 1000 ports. The 3011 would be
> perfect except it can only be had in a 19" rack form factor.
>
> Has anyone tried to stick the circuit board from a 3011 into a 2011 case?
> DC plant of course.
>
> bp
> 
>
> On 3/11/2016 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
>> My rackmount 2011's will probably get replaced with 3011's, but they
>> really need to bring out a smaller desktop 3011 as well.
>>
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
>> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:23 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP
>>
>> Well that's news to me!  Holy crap. They should put a warning sticker on
>> that.
>>
>> On 3/11/2016 2:20 PM, Joe Falaschi wrote:
>>
>>> The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what port things are
>>> plugged into.  Ports 6-10 only have a 100M aggregate link to ports 1-5. If
>>> the aggregate of ports 6-10 require more than 100M, you'll have issues
>>> there too.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Bill Prince]

Funny. We were just talking about this yesterday. The 2011 is great for 
small POPs, except for the split 10/100 - 1000 ports. The 3011 would be 
perfect except it can only be had in a 19" rack form factor.


Has anyone tried to stick the circuit board from a 3011 into a 2011 
case? DC plant of course.


bp


On 3/11/2016 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
My rackmount 2011's will probably get replaced with 3011's, but they 
really need to bring out a smaller desktop 3011 as well.



-Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:23 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

Well that's news to me!  Holy crap. They should put a warning sticker on
that.

On 3/11/2016 2:20 PM, Joe Falaschi wrote:
The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what port things 
are plugged into.  Ports 6-10 only have a 100M aggregate link to 
ports 1-5. If the aggregate of ports 6-10 require more than 100M, 
you'll have issues there too.

Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Mathew Howard]

If you really wanted to, it appears you could stuff the board from a
rackmount 3011 into a 2011 desktop case.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> My rackmount 2011's will probably get replaced with 3011's, but they
> really need to bring out a smaller desktop 3011 as well.
>
>
> -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:23 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP
>
> Well that's news to me!  Holy crap. They should put a warning sticker on
> that.
>
> On 3/11/2016 2:20 PM, Joe Falaschi wrote:
>
>> The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what port things are
>> plugged into.  Ports 6-10 only have a 100M aggregate link to ports 1-5. If
>> the aggregate of ports 6-10 require more than 100M, you'll have issues
>> there too.
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Joe Falaschi]

That is what I took from this post: 
http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=63372

We had tons of issues at a site.  Nothing made sense, CPU usage was in the 
teens, but we just saw terrible performance and packet loss at peak.  
Eventually we found out that we received more complaints on different APs and 
found the above post.  We were only using the tik as a switch at the top of the 
tower to terminate the fiber up the tower and connect the APs.  We replaced 
with a Netonix and all of our issues at this site went away.  I had no idea.  A 
warning label would have saved us months of issues trying to track it down.

Joe


On Mar 11, 2016, at 2:23 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

> Well that's news to me!  Holy crap. They should put a warning sticker on that.
> 
> On 3/11/2016 2:20 PM, Joe Falaschi wrote:
>> The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what port things are 
>> plugged into.  Ports 6-10 only have a 100M aggregate link to ports 1-5.  If 
>> the aggregate of ports 6-10 require more than 100M, you'll have issues there 
>> too.
>> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[John Woodfield]

+1. I've seen a pic of a desktop 3011 floating around somewhere. They REALLY 
need to get it released...
 
 
John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Ken Hohhof" 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 3:43pm
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP



My rackmount 2011's will probably get replaced with 3011's, but they really 
need to bring out a smaller desktop 3011 as well.


-Original Message- 
From: Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:23 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

Well that's news to me! Holy crap. They should put a warning sticker on
that.

On 3/11/2016 2:20 PM, Joe Falaschi wrote:
> The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what port things are 
> plugged into. Ports 6-10 only have a 100M aggregate link to ports 1-5. 
> If the aggregate of ports 6-10 require more than 100M, you'll have issues 
> there too.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Ken Hohhof]

My rackmount 2011's will probably get replaced with 3011's, but they really 
need to bring out a smaller desktop 3011 as well.



-Original Message- 
From: Adam Moffett

Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:23 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

Well that's news to me!  Holy crap. They should put a warning sticker on
that.

On 3/11/2016 2:20 PM, Joe Falaschi wrote:
The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what port things are 
plugged into.  Ports 6-10 only have a 100M aggregate link to ports 1-5. 
If the aggregate of ports 6-10 require more than 100M, you'll have issues 
there too.

Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

i find these innuendos offensive

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> If you want to keep it clean, there’s the old one-armed fisherman joke.
>
> (I caught a fish THIS big.)
>
> Otherwise, just say IT’S YUGE!
>
>
> *From:* ch...@wbmfg.com
> *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 10:34 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Product leak
>
> (insert Beavis and Butthead laugh)
>
> *From:* Adam Moffett 
> *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 9:32 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Product leak
>
> We're all secretly 12 years old.
>
> On 3/11/2016 11:29 AM, Jerry Head wrote:
>
> Be a real shame if the pole slipped out prematurely
>
> On 3/11/2016 10:12 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
>
> Something about how tightly my mount holds the pole?
>
> *From:* Rory Conaway 
> *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 8:41 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Product leak
>
>
> I see a wife joke in here somewhere….
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Forrest Christian (List Account)
> *Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 4:03 AM
> *To:* af mailto:af@afmug.com 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Product leak
>
>
>
> I thought I heard somewhere that size doesn't matter
>
> On Mar 10, 2016 7:53 PM, "Jerry Head"  wrote:
>
> Really nice product!
> How long is it?
> What would really be sweet is if there were some way to turnbuckle or snap
> clamp those chains down
> tight then no lag screw would be needed.
>
>
> On 3/10/2016 6:16 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>
> Something I am working on.
>
> This will fit on a 60 inch diameter pole/monopole (or larger)  if you
> want.
>
> It will also fit a 10 inch pole.
>
>
>
> The pipe is 24 inches long 3.4” dia.
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
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] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Adam Moffett]

Well that's news to me!  Holy crap. They should put a warning sticker on 
that.


On 3/11/2016 2:20 PM, Joe Falaschi wrote:
The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what port things 
are plugged into.  Ports 6-10 only have a 100M aggregate link to ports 
1-5.  If the aggregate of ports 6-10 require more than 100M, you'll 
have issues there too.

Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Robert Haas]

Now that you've said that, when we initially hung that AP I left the power
supply at the office. Thinking back I think I may have had another 1g POE
with me but it just may have a CPE POE on it.

Something for me to go look at after Louisville.

 

Thanks!

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Joe Falaschi
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 1:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

 

We've seen performance issues if we're not using the correct power supply.
The APs need to use the 1G power supplies or you'll have issues.  You cannot
use the CPE's power supplies.  The RF link tests will be great but the tests
that run through the ethernet port will not work well.  See the attached
graph, you can definitely see when we changed out the PS in this graph of
usage.  What's weird is this AP was powered from a CMM Micro.  We re-cabled
it to run directly into a cambium power supply.  Done this on about 5 APs at
different sites and it's fixed it every time.

 

The other thing to keep in mind with the RB2011 is what port things are
plugged into.  Ports 6-10 only have a 100M aggregate link to ports 1-5.  If
the aggregate of ports 6-10 require more than 100M, you'll have issues there
too.

 

Joe Falaschi

e-vergent

 



 

On Mar 11, 2016, at 11:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote:





I have not yet. This happened right when we acquired another network so I
haven't had much time to spend diagnosing the issue. I did open a trouble
ticket with Cambium but it was closed due to inactivity.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Nate Burke
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 11:33 AM
To: af@afmug.com  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

Have you tried a router other than the 2011?  I have 1 site where I have a
2011, and It might be having this problem, but haven't done much testing
from the CPE side.  Other sites with CRS or 1100's seem to be fine.



On 3/11/2016 11:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote:



For me, no. They are all 1gb.

 

 

-Original Message-

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sovereen, David A

Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 3:42 PM

To: af@afmug.com  

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

 

Is this AP connected to a 100Mbps port while your others are connected to a
1000Mbps port?

 

Dave

 

On Mar 10, 2016, at 4:28 PM, Robert Haas  > wrote:

 

We have the same issue, just at one site. Air test shows 75x20,  a speedtest
plugged into the radio shows 15x10. Plugged directly into the same port on
the router (RB2011uais-rm) maxes the backhaul link (Rocket M5 @ 20Mhz).
Tried different AP radio's, different firmwares, tried a switch between the
AP & Router, tried with the client radio in bridge & nat modes, tried with
PPPoE and with static IP's assigned.. Nothing has seemed to make a
difference at the site. We have 7 other deployments that we have not seen
this issue with that have very similar setups.

 

 

-Original Message-

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

Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 1:21 PM

To: af@afmug.com  

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

 

we have the same Problem with the epmp Stuff..only problems and bugs from
the beginning!

 

2016-03-07 17:00 GMT+01:00 Darren Shea  >:

We had seen some issues with ePMP customers on high-speed plans getting poor
speedtest results - we found that changing the customer's router's MTU from
Auto to 1480 helped immensely. Another factor was to make sure that all
backhauls in the path were running at full connection speed (in other words,
a backhaul whose Ethernet port can run at 1000M should be running at 1000M,
even if the traffic never approaches 100M) all the way out to the internet.

 

 --  Darren

 

-Original Message-

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

Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2016 10:27 AM

To: af@afmug.com  

Subject: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

 

Sp I have an issue. Tower is a 4 sector ePMP setup and two backhauls.  We
are seeing poor throughput when connected to the APs (all of them). Signals
are great. Quality and capacity are great.  When going through the AP we are
consistently seeing 4-5 megs of download out to a known speedtest server.
If we plug into the same wired port on which the AP, which gave us the poor
throughput, we can max out the 100 meg uplink. Issue only happens when going
through the wireless.   Here is what I know:

 

 

1.APs are set to 75/25.  SM can do a link test and get 50meg x 12meg on the
link test.  So RF is good.  Isolated AP to where only one client was on.
Same great results.

 

2.Firmware does not seem to be a factor.  Can reproduce this on 2.6.1,
2.5.1, and 2.4.3.

 

3.Have replaced POE injectors 3 times 

Re: [AFMUG] Displaying backhaul traffic on a map live

[D. Ryan Spott]

I have made some of these maps for 48 and 96 port switches pointing to 
individual hadoop cluster members. Pointy-haired bosses LOVE them.




ryan

On 3/11/16 10:19 AM, George Skorup wrote:

Yeah, that's nice. Sorry, I meant *my* map is not so pretty.

On 3/11/2016 8:27 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Could be prettier?  That example Ryan posted is pretty enough for me.
*From:* George Skorup 
*Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 1:06 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Displaying backhaul traffic on a map live
I'm using Network Weathermap integrated w/ Cacti. Makes it easy to 
visualize traffic flow on the network. Could be prettier, but it works.


On 3/10/2016 11:51 PM, D. Ryan Spott wrote:

Network weather map. It is a PITA to configure but the results are nice:

http://weathermap.sw.alaska.edu/ (hover over links for more info)

I had something like this on a large screen in a former 
life/company. I added a lower frame that auto refresh through 
important graphs.


ryan

On 3/10/16 4:57 AM, Andreas Wiatowski wrote:
I’m wondering if anyone can suggest a method to display a live map 
of traffic on Google or Bing Map?  We use THE DUDE for our network 
mapping / topology, but the built in web server crashes when we use 
an android box / software to display the map on a TV.

Cheers,

Andreas Wiatowski, CEO
Silo Wireless Inc.
519-449-5656 x-600

Re: [AFMUG] Displaying backhaul traffic on a map live

[George Skorup]

Yeah, that's nice. Sorry, I meant *my* map is not so pretty.

On 3/11/2016 8:27 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Could be prettier?  That example Ryan posted is pretty enough for me.
*From:* George Skorup 
*Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 1:06 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Displaying backhaul traffic on a map live
I'm using Network Weathermap integrated w/ Cacti. Makes it easy to 
visualize traffic flow on the network. Could be prettier, but it works.


On 3/10/2016 11:51 PM, D. Ryan Spott wrote:

Network weather map. It is a PITA to configure but the results are nice:

http://weathermap.sw.alaska.edu/ (hover over links for more info)

I had something like this on a large screen in a former life/company. 
I added a lower frame that auto refresh through important graphs.


ryan

On 3/10/16 4:57 AM, Andreas Wiatowski wrote:
I’m wondering if anyone can suggest a method to display a live map 
of traffic on Google or Bing Map? We use THE DUDE for our network 
mapping / topology, but the built in web server crashes when we use 
an android box / software to display the map on a TV.

Cheers,

Andreas Wiatowski, CEO
Silo Wireless Inc.
519-449-5656 x-600

Re: [AFMUG] FSK power problem?

[George Skorup]

Bummer. Woulda made it much easier to mix 450, 450i and lots of other 
48v stuff.


On 3/11/2016 9:49 AM, Matt Mangriotis wrote:


You may have already seen the post in our forum, but in case you don’t 
frequent the site… the answer (posted by our engineering team) is NO, 
do not attempt to use voltages above 30 VDC.


http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/PMP-450/PMP450-AP-48-volt-support/m-p/51650#M2172

To quote him: “You may be able to get it running for some time but 
eventually, because of the overstress on the parts” and this will 
eventually cause them to fail prematurely.


Thanks,

Matt

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Scott Vander Dussen
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 7:27 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FSK power problem?

Well, we powered several 450 APs this morning off 48v for about 3 hours :)

Thanks,

`S

---

Sent mobile, typed by thumbs.


On Mar 10, 2016, at 16:36, George Skorup > wrote:


At one time, there was a roadmap slide that stated 48V support for
the 450 AP. Long, long before the 450i was ever mentioned. So I
wonder if the hardware supports 22-56V, but they tell us that it's
just the 29.5 standard.

Matt, Aaron, someone.. what's the deal? If the regular 450 AP will
indeed run fine at 48-56V, that would really simplify a lot. Like
I can downsize some DC-DC converters.

On 3/10/2016 1:38 PM, Josh Baird wrote:

Good point.  We don't use hardly any 450.. but the spec sheet
does indeed say 22-32VDC.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:20 PM, George Skorup
> wrote:

So if I'm reading this correctly... regular 450 APs are
being powered and running happily at 48VDC? That's funny
because they're also supposed to be 30VDC max.

On 3/10/2016 11:45 AM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote:

You know what's funny is we did... But every time we
tested we happened to grab 450 since that's almost
exclusively what were installing now. One time one of
the techs put a FSK SM on it and it died- he mentioned
it in passing but we chalked it up to bad FSK taken
from our graveyard bin on pulls. ��

Thanks,

`S

---

Sent mobile, typed by thumbs.


On Mar 10, 2016, at 09:34, Josh Luthman
> wrote:

That's awesome.  Glad it's not too bad.

Next time lab it :)

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

On Mar 10, 2016 12:31 PM, "Scott Vander Dussen"
>
wrote:

As an update, we scrounged up 4 connectorized
APs of our own and Bill Prince has 2 which I'm
driving out to go get.  Paul McCall is also
connectorized and shipping me some for
spares.  Love this list, thanks guys! We'll
have 80% of the customers restored within 90
minutes, the rest this afternoon.

Whew, fun morning.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] On Behalf Of
Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:07 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK power problem?

Or, if Cambium was nice, they could give you
code to convert an SM into an AP.

-Original Message-
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 9:05 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK power problem?

If you are good with an iron, you could remove
the regulator chip from an SM and replace it
into the AP (assuming it is the regulator that
dies from overvoltage).

-Original Message-
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 9:05 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK power 

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Set Top NPRM

[Bill Prince]

I just heard Wheeler advocating for transparency from ISPs WRT personal 
information "that they all collect". Wha?


But as to your other comment. Don't forget the chainsaw.

bp


On 3/11/2016 10:02 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
Government trying to regulate technology does seem to guarantee they 
are always fighting the last war.  Or the one before that.


Let's regulate set top boxes, just as they are going away!

Let's require broadband providers to offer POTS and battery backup!  
And web browsing history, that's like phone company CDRs, right, so 
let's require a PIN number before you can tell the customer his 
Internet is slow because he's downloading a 30 GB Xbox game or 
streaming 3 Netflix movies at once. Why not require all cars to carry 
a shovel and bucket in the trunk for cleaning up the horse poop!  And 
all stores should be required to have a hitching post and water trough 
in front. 

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Set Top NPRM

[chuck]

Odd, it appears they may be letting the ILECs off the the hook for providing 
dial tone.
And it also appears that the ILECs will be able to charge for providing back 
up power.


-Original Message- 
From: Ken Hohhof

Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 11:02 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Set Top NPRM

Government trying to regulate technology does seem to guarantee they are
always fighting the last war.  Or the one before that.

Let's regulate set top boxes, just as they are going away!

Let's require broadband providers to offer POTS and battery backup!  And web
browsing history, that's like phone company CDRs, right, so let's require a
PIN number before you can tell the customer his Internet is slow because
he's downloading a 30 GB Xbox game or streaming 3 Netflix movies at once.
Why not require all cars to carry a shovel and bucket in the trunk for
cleaning up the horse poop!  And all stores should be required to have a
hitching post and water trough in front.


-Original Message- 
From: Josh Reynolds

Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 11:23 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Set Top NPRM

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0218/FCC-16-18A1.pdf

This makes me giggle.

As someone dealing with multiple content providers, middleware,, set
top vendors, channel lineups, encryption systems, and the new purchase
of a small satellite downlink farm, it's going to be incredibly
interesting to see how the content and distribution industry handles
this whole thing. Oh, the advertising folks as well.

*throws hands up in air*

There are a lot of technical concerns as well... for example, what
happens if we move to an app based solution for every device, and
forego multicast? That's going to place a *substantial* burden on ISP
access and transit networks.

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Set Top NPRM

[Ken Hohhof]

Government trying to regulate technology does seem to guarantee they are 
always fighting the last war.  Or the one before that.


Let's regulate set top boxes, just as they are going away!

Let's require broadband providers to offer POTS and battery backup!  And web 
browsing history, that's like phone company CDRs, right, so let's require a 
PIN number before you can tell the customer his Internet is slow because 
he's downloading a 30 GB Xbox game or streaming 3 Netflix movies at once. 
Why not require all cars to carry a shovel and bucket in the trunk for 
cleaning up the horse poop!  And all stores should be required to have a 
hitching post and water trough in front.



-Original Message- 
From: Josh Reynolds

Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 11:23 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Set Top NPRM

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0218/FCC-16-18A1.pdf

This makes me giggle.

As someone dealing with multiple content providers, middleware,, set
top vendors, channel lineups, encryption systems, and the new purchase
of a small satellite downlink farm, it's going to be incredibly
interesting to see how the content and distribution industry handles
this whole thing. Oh, the advertising folks as well.

*throws hands up in air*

There are a lot of technical concerns as well... for example, what
happens if we move to an app based solution for every device, and
forego multicast? That's going to place a *substantial* burden on ISP
access and transit networks. 

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Set Top NPRM

[Josh Reynolds]

MVCO.
On Mar 11, 2016 11:52 AM,  wrote:

> I have been following this.  Really muddies the water, especially with OTT
> getting increasingly more fully featured with common channels.  The day is
> coming that CATV systems will just be nothing more than another ISP with
> everyone getting their content from a large aggregator and CDN.  I would be
> more worried if I was Directtv or Dish.
>
> -Original Message- From: Josh Reynolds
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 10:23 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Set Top NPRM
>
>
> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0218/FCC-16-18A1.pdf
>
> This makes me giggle.
>
> As someone dealing with multiple content providers, middleware,, set
> top vendors, channel lineups, encryption systems, and the new purchase
> of a small satellite downlink farm, it's going to be incredibly
> interesting to see how the content and distribution industry handles
> this whole thing. Oh, the advertising folks as well.
>
> *throws hands up in air*
>
> There are a lot of technical concerns as well... for example, what
> happens if we move to an app based solution for every device, and
> forego multicast? That's going to place a *substantial* burden on ISP
> access and transit networks.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Robert Haas]

I have not yet. This happened right when we acquired another network so I 
haven’t had much time to spend diagnosing the issue. I did open a trouble 
ticket with Cambium but it was closed due to inactivity.
 

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Nate Burke
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 11:33 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

Have you tried a router other than the 2011?  I have 1 site where I have a 
2011, and It might be having this problem, but haven't done much testing from 
the CPE side.  Other sites with CRS or 1100's seem to be fine.



On 3/11/2016 11:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> For me, no. They are all 1gb.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sovereen, David A
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 3:42 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP
>
> Is this AP connected to a 100Mbps port while your others are connected to a 
> 1000Mbps port?
>
> Dave
>
>> On Mar 10, 2016, at 4:28 PM, Robert Haas  wrote:
>>
>> We have the same issue, just at one site. Air test shows 75x20,  a speedtest 
>> plugged into the radio shows 15x10. Plugged directly into the same port on 
>> the router (RB2011uais-rm) maxes the backhaul link (Rocket M5 @ 20Mhz). 
>> Tried different AP radio's, different firmwares, tried a switch between the 
>> AP & Router, tried with the client radio in bridge & nat modes, tried with 
>> PPPoE and with static IP's assigned.. Nothing has seemed to make a 
>> difference at the site. We have 7 other deployments that we have not seen 
>> this issue with that have very similar setups.
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Gerlach
>> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 1:21 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP
>>
>> we have the same Problem with the epmp Stuff..only problems and bugs from 
>> the beginning!
>>
>> 2016-03-07 17:00 GMT+01:00 Darren Shea :
>>> We had seen some issues with ePMP customers on high-speed plans getting 
>>> poor speedtest results - we found that changing the customer's router's MTU 
>>> from Auto to 1480 helped immensely. Another factor was to make sure that 
>>> all backhauls in the path were running at full connection speed (in other 
>>> words, a backhaul whose Ethernet port can run at 1000M should be running at 
>>> 1000M, even if the traffic never approaches 100M) all the way out to the 
>>> internet.
>>>
>>>   --  Darren
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Justin Wilson
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2016 10:27 AM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP
>>>
>>> Sp I have an issue. Tower is a 4 sector ePMP setup and two backhauls.  We 
>>> are seeing poor throughput when connected to the APs (all of them). Signals 
>>> are great. Quality and capacity are great.  When going through the AP we 
>>> are consistently seeing 4-5 megs of download out to a known speedtest 
>>> server.  If we plug into the same wired port on which the AP, which gave us 
>>> the poor throughput, we can max out the 100 meg uplink. Issue only happens 
>>> when going through the wireless.   Here is what I know:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.APs are set to 75/25.  SM can do a link test and get 50meg x 12meg on the 
>>> link test.  So RF is good.  Isolated AP to where only one client was on.  
>>> Same great results.
>>>
>>> 2.Firmware does not seem to be a factor.  Can reproduce this on 2.6.1, 
>>> 2.5.1, and 2.4.3.
>>>
>>> 3.Have replaced POE injectors 3 times with different manufactures.
>>>
>>> 4.Does not matter if it is DHCP or PPPoE. Hard wired is fine.  Wireless 
>>> stinks.
>>>
>>>
>>> The AP is plugged into a POE which then plugs into a Mikrotik 2011.  If I 
>>> plug into the same exact port the aps plug into speeds are great. The only 
>>> thing that is left is patch cable to POE, Cable to AP, or AP.  I refuse to 
>>> think 6 cables on the tower do the exact same thing.  The odds for that are 
>>> Powerball winning crazy. Speediest from a laptop hooked to an SM to the 
>>> 2011 are poor.  4-5 megs consistent with spikes up to 10-13, but all over 
>>> the place.  Acts like negotiation.  Have set Mikrotik to Auto, to 100 meg 
>>> full, only accepted 100 meg on auto.
>>>
>>> Customers who have 5 meg packages or below don’t see this.  Those with 10 
>>> meg packages are the ones seeing 4-5 meg speeds. 10 meg packages did work.
>>>
>>> Clients are mainly at 2.6.1, but we can reproduce this with a 2.5 and 2.4.x 
>>> SMs. Nothign has changed in the network, which tests out just fine up to 
>>> the point it gets handed off to the ePMP.
>>>
>>> Anyone ran into this? Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> Justin
>>>
>>>

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Set Top NPRM

[chuck]

I have been following this.  Really muddies the water, especially with OTT 
getting increasingly more fully featured with common channels.  The day is 
coming that CATV systems will just be nothing more than another ISP with 
everyone getting their content from a large aggregator and CDN.  I would be 
more worried if I was Directtv or Dish.


-Original Message- 
From: Josh Reynolds

Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 10:23 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] FCC Set Top NPRM

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0218/FCC-16-18A1.pdf

This makes me giggle.

As someone dealing with multiple content providers, middleware,, set
top vendors, channel lineups, encryption systems, and the new purchase
of a small satellite downlink farm, it's going to be incredibly
interesting to see how the content and distribution industry handles
this whole thing. Oh, the advertising folks as well.

*throws hands up in air*

There are a lot of technical concerns as well... for example, what
happens if we move to an app based solution for every device, and
forego multicast? That's going to place a *substantial* burden on ISP
access and transit networks. 

Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

[chuck]

Oh, I can do it for that price, but I have a distribution channel and they have 
to be able to have a margin too.

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 9:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

That price is a little crazy though.  You could just maybe buy that steel and 
weld that and galvanize it yourself for $78.  Maybe they use slave labor.



On 3/11/2016 11:46 AM, Bill Prince wrote:

  Neither. Just making a snide comment.

  But you're right. It depends on who/what you're getting. Problem is that you 
never really know unless you've dealt with whomever.


bp


On 3/10/2016 8:20 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Do you know this, or are you speculating?  My information was that 
Connect-It fabricated all their stuff in Florida including the galvanizing.  
That’s one reason I liked buying from them.  That and their workmanship 
(welding and galvanizing) seemed better than Andrew/Commscope.

Sitepro1/Valmont does import parts from China, which they do not hide, it 
is stamped right into them.  I am sad to report however that the quality seems 
quite good.

Remember that virtually all brand name tools are made in China, not just 
Harbor Freight.  They can make junk and they can make good stuff.


From: Bill Prince 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

Chinese steel. Otherwise known as zinc-plated lead.


bp


On 3/10/2016 6:25 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

  Hmmm, that is very low.  Like lower than wholesale low.  I wonder how 
they do it for that...

  From: Ken Hohhof 
  Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:48 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

  $78 (plus shipping) here:
  http://ciwireless1-px.rtrk.com/product/tower-antenna-standoff/


  From: Kurt Fankhauser 
  Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 6:31 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

  i thought i was paying somewhere in the $150 range for it

  On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

What do you pay for an Andrew/Comscope S200?

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 1:25 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

How much standoff do you need?  I have used Andrew S200 like George 
says (2 ft standoff) or S300 (3 ft), actually they go up to 6 ft standoff.  Or 
Connect-It Wireless S2-S6.  Can be used on vertical or sloping tower legs.  
Sitepro1 also has several solutions, some of which are YUGE!


From: Jason McKemie 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 2:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

I had looked at those, I just didn't know if it had enough standoff for 
use with an omni - from a shadowing perspective.

On Thursday, March 10, 2016, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  Here is a good ‘un:
  http://www.mccowntech.com/24-inch-pipe-standoff/

  From: Jason McKemie 
  Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 12:00 PM
  To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); 
  Subject: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

  Anyone have suggestions for a standoff mount for use with a 5GHz 
omni?  It will be mounted to the side of a Pirod tower, so I'm going to need 
some sort of standoff to minimize shadowing. 

  -Jason

Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

[Ken Hohhof]

One thing to remember with this type of standoff mount is that the climber is 
probably going to be strapped to it with his feet planted against the tower 
(for a 2-3 ft standoff), or totally hanging from it (4-6 ft standoff).  So it 
needs to be “man rated” or whatever the term is.  Definitely not something you 
fab up in your garage, unless you really trust your welding.

Anything beyond 3 ft probably needs a stiff arm, wind can generate a lot of 
torque where it attaches to the tower leg.


From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 10:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

That price is a little crazy though.  You could just maybe buy that steel and 
weld that and galvanize it yourself for $78.  Maybe they use slave labor.



On 3/11/2016 11:46 AM, Bill Prince wrote:

  Neither. Just making a snide comment.

  But you're right. It depends on who/what you're getting. Problem is that you 
never really know unless you've dealt with whomever.


bp


On 3/10/2016 8:20 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Do you know this, or are you speculating?  My information was that 
Connect-It fabricated all their stuff in Florida including the galvanizing.  
That’s one reason I liked buying from them.  That and their workmanship 
(welding and galvanizing) seemed better than Andrew/Commscope.

Sitepro1/Valmont does import parts from China, which they do not hide, it 
is stamped right into them.  I am sad to report however that the quality seems 
quite good.

Remember that virtually all brand name tools are made in China, not just 
Harbor Freight.  They can make junk and they can make good stuff.


From: Bill Prince 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

Chinese steel. Otherwise known as zinc-plated lead.


bp


On 3/10/2016 6:25 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

  Hmmm, that is very low.  Like lower than wholesale low.  I wonder how 
they do it for that...

  From: Ken Hohhof 
  Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:48 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

  $78 (plus shipping) here:
  http://ciwireless1-px.rtrk.com/product/tower-antenna-standoff/


  From: Kurt Fankhauser 
  Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 6:31 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

  i thought i was paying somewhere in the $150 range for it

  On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

What do you pay for an Andrew/Comscope S200?

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 1:25 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

How much standoff do you need?  I have used Andrew S200 like George 
says (2 ft standoff) or S300 (3 ft), actually they go up to 6 ft standoff.  Or 
Connect-It Wireless S2-S6.  Can be used on vertical or sloping tower legs.  
Sitepro1 also has several solutions, some of which are YUGE!


From: Jason McKemie 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 2:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

I had looked at those, I just didn't know if it had enough standoff for 
use with an omni - from a shadowing perspective.

On Thursday, March 10, 2016, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  Here is a good ‘un:
  http://www.mccowntech.com/24-inch-pipe-standoff/

  From: Jason McKemie 
  Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 12:00 PM
  To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); 
  Subject: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

  Anyone have suggestions for a standoff mount for use with a 5GHz 
omni?  It will be mounted to the side of a Pirod tower, so I'm going to need 
some sort of standoff to minimize shadowing. 

  -Jason

Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Nate Burke]

Have you tried a router other than the 2011?  I have 1 site where I have 
a 2011, and It might be having this problem, but haven't done much 
testing from the CPE side.  Other sites with CRS or 1100's seem to be fine.




On 3/11/2016 11:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

For me, no. They are all 1gb.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sovereen, David A
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 3:42 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

Is this AP connected to a 100Mbps port while your others are connected to a 
1000Mbps port?

Dave


On Mar 10, 2016, at 4:28 PM, Robert Haas  wrote:

We have the same issue, just at one site. Air test shows 75x20,  a speedtest plugged 
into the radio shows 15x10. Plugged directly into the same port on the router 
(RB2011uais-rm) maxes the backhaul link (Rocket M5 @ 20Mhz). Tried different AP 
radio's, different firmwares, tried a switch between the AP & Router, tried with 
the client radio in bridge & nat modes, tried with PPPoE and with static IP's 
assigned.. Nothing has seemed to make a difference at the site. We have 7 other 
deployments that we have not seen this issue with that have very similar setups.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Gerlach
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 1:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

we have the same Problem with the epmp Stuff..only problems and bugs from the 
beginning!

2016-03-07 17:00 GMT+01:00 Darren Shea :

We had seen some issues with ePMP customers on high-speed plans getting poor 
speedtest results - we found that changing the customer's router's MTU from 
Auto to 1480 helped immensely. Another factor was to make sure that all 
backhauls in the path were running at full connection speed (in other words, a 
backhaul whose Ethernet port can run at 1000M should be running at 1000M, even 
if the traffic never approaches 100M) all the way out to the internet.

  --  Darren

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Justin Wilson
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2016 10:27 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

Sp I have an issue. Tower is a 4 sector ePMP setup and two backhauls.  We are 
seeing poor throughput when connected to the APs (all of them). Signals are 
great. Quality and capacity are great.  When going through the AP we are 
consistently seeing 4-5 megs of download out to a known speedtest server.  If 
we plug into the same wired port on which the AP, which gave us the poor 
throughput, we can max out the 100 meg uplink. Issue only happens when going 
through the wireless.   Here is what I know:


1.APs are set to 75/25.  SM can do a link test and get 50meg x 12meg on the 
link test.  So RF is good.  Isolated AP to where only one client was on.  Same 
great results.

2.Firmware does not seem to be a factor.  Can reproduce this on 2.6.1, 2.5.1, 
and 2.4.3.

3.Have replaced POE injectors 3 times with different manufactures.

4.Does not matter if it is DHCP or PPPoE. Hard wired is fine.  Wireless stinks.


The AP is plugged into a POE which then plugs into a Mikrotik 2011.  If I plug 
into the same exact port the aps plug into speeds are great. The only thing 
that is left is patch cable to POE, Cable to AP, or AP.  I refuse to think 6 
cables on the tower do the exact same thing.  The odds for that are Powerball 
winning crazy. Speediest from a laptop hooked to an SM to the 2011 are poor.  
4-5 megs consistent with spikes up to 10-13, but all over the place.  Acts like 
negotiation.  Have set Mikrotik to Auto, to 100 meg full, only accepted 100 meg 
on auto.

Customers who have 5 meg packages or below don’t see this.  Those with 10 meg 
packages are the ones seeing 4-5 meg speeds. 10 meg packages did work.

Clients are mainly at 2.6.1, but we can reproduce this with a 2.5 and 2.4.x 
SMs. Nothign has changed in the network, which tests out just fine up to the 
point it gets handed off to the ePMP.

Anyone ran into this? Any thoughts?

Justin

Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

[Robert Haas]

For me, no. They are all 1gb.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sovereen, David A
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 3:42 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP

Is this AP connected to a 100Mbps port while your others are connected to a 
1000Mbps port?

Dave

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 4:28 PM, Robert Haas  wrote:
> 
> We have the same issue, just at one site. Air test shows 75x20,  a speedtest 
> plugged into the radio shows 15x10. Plugged directly into the same port on 
> the router (RB2011uais-rm) maxes the backhaul link (Rocket M5 @ 20Mhz). Tried 
> different AP radio's, different firmwares, tried a switch between the AP & 
> Router, tried with the client radio in bridge & nat modes, tried with PPPoE 
> and with static IP's assigned.. Nothing has seemed to make a difference at 
> the site. We have 7 other deployments that we have not seen this issue with 
> that have very similar setups.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Gerlach
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 1:21 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP
> 
> we have the same Problem with the epmp Stuff..only problems and bugs from the 
> beginning!
> 
> 2016-03-07 17:00 GMT+01:00 Darren Shea :
>> We had seen some issues with ePMP customers on high-speed plans getting poor 
>> speedtest results - we found that changing the customer's router's MTU from 
>> Auto to 1480 helped immensely. Another factor was to make sure that all 
>> backhauls in the path were running at full connection speed (in other words, 
>> a backhaul whose Ethernet port can run at 1000M should be running at 1000M, 
>> even if the traffic never approaches 100M) all the way out to the internet.
>> 
>>  --  Darren
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Justin Wilson
>> Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2016 10:27 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: [AFMUG] Poor throughput on ePMP AP
>> 
>> Sp I have an issue. Tower is a 4 sector ePMP setup and two backhauls.  We 
>> are seeing poor throughput when connected to the APs (all of them). Signals 
>> are great. Quality and capacity are great.  When going through the AP we are 
>> consistently seeing 4-5 megs of download out to a known speedtest server.  
>> If we plug into the same wired port on which the AP, which gave us the poor 
>> throughput, we can max out the 100 meg uplink. Issue only happens when going 
>> through the wireless.   Here is what I know:
>> 
>> 
>> 1.APs are set to 75/25.  SM can do a link test and get 50meg x 12meg on the 
>> link test.  So RF is good.  Isolated AP to where only one client was on.  
>> Same great results.
>> 
>> 2.Firmware does not seem to be a factor.  Can reproduce this on 2.6.1, 
>> 2.5.1, and 2.4.3.
>> 
>> 3.Have replaced POE injectors 3 times with different manufactures.
>> 
>> 4.Does not matter if it is DHCP or PPPoE. Hard wired is fine.  Wireless 
>> stinks.
>> 
>> 
>> The AP is plugged into a POE which then plugs into a Mikrotik 2011.  If I 
>> plug into the same exact port the aps plug into speeds are great. The only 
>> thing that is left is patch cable to POE, Cable to AP, or AP.  I refuse to 
>> think 6 cables on the tower do the exact same thing.  The odds for that are 
>> Powerball winning crazy. Speediest from a laptop hooked to an SM to the 2011 
>> are poor.  4-5 megs consistent with spikes up to 10-13, but all over the 
>> place.  Acts like negotiation.  Have set Mikrotik to Auto, to 100 meg full, 
>> only accepted 100 meg on auto.
>> 
>> Customers who have 5 meg packages or below don’t see this.  Those with 10 
>> meg packages are the ones seeing 4-5 meg speeds. 10 meg packages did work.
>> 
>> Clients are mainly at 2.6.1, but we can reproduce this with a 2.5 and 2.4.x 
>> SMs. Nothign has changed in the network, which tests out just fine up to the 
>> point it gets handed off to the ePMP.
>> 
>> Anyone ran into this? Any thoughts?
>> 
>> Justin
>> 
>> 
> 

[AFMUG] FCC Set Top NPRM

[Josh Reynolds]

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0218/FCC-16-18A1.pdf

This makes me giggle.

As someone dealing with multiple content providers, middleware,, set
top vendors, channel lineups, encryption systems, and the new purchase
of a small satellite downlink farm, it's going to be incredibly
interesting to see how the content and distribution industry handles
this whole thing. Oh, the advertising folks as well.

*throws hands up in air*

There are a lot of technical concerns as well... for example, what
happens if we move to an app based solution for every device, and
forego multicast? That's going to place a *substantial* burden on ISP
access and transit networks.

Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

[Ken Hohhof]

If you want to keep it clean, there’s the old one-armed fisherman joke.

(I caught a fish THIS big.)

Otherwise, just say IT’S YUGE!


From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 10:34 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

(insert Beavis and Butthead laugh)

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 9:32 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

We're all secretly 12 years old.


On 3/11/2016 11:29 AM, Jerry Head wrote:

  Be a real shame if the pole slipped out prematurely

  On 3/11/2016 10:12 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

Something about how tightly my mount holds the pole?

From: Rory Conaway 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 8:41 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

I see a wife joke in here somewhere….

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account)
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 4:03 AM
To: af mailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

 

I thought I heard somewhere that size doesn't matter  

On Mar 10, 2016 7:53 PM, "Jerry Head"  wrote:

  Really nice product!
  How long is it?
  What would really be sweet is if there were some way to turnbuckle or 
snap clamp those chains down
  tight then no lag screw would be needed.
   

  On 3/10/2016 6:16 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Something I am working on.

This will fit on a 60 inch diameter pole/monopole (or larger)  if you 
want.  

It will also fit a 10 inch pole.

 

The pipe is 24 inches long 3.4” dia.  

   

Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

[Jeremy]

I have bought a ton of stuff from Connect-It.  Their quality is amazing.
One of the most heavy duty tower mounts I have ever used came from
Connect-It.  I have no idea how they get their prices so low, but it
definitely is not by cutting corners on quality.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> That price is a little crazy though.  You could just maybe buy that steel
> and weld that and galvanize it yourself for $78.  Maybe they use slave
> labor.
>
>
>
> On 3/11/2016 11:46 AM, Bill Prince wrote:
>
> Neither. Just making a snide comment.
>
> But you're right. It depends on who/what you're getting. Problem is that
> you never really know unless you've dealt with whomever.
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 3/10/2016 8:20 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> Do you know this, or are you speculating?  My information was that
> Connect-It fabricated all their stuff in Florida including the
> galvanizing.  That’s one reason I liked buying from them.  That and their
> workmanship (welding and galvanizing) seemed better than Andrew/Commscope.
>
> Sitepro1/Valmont does import parts from China, which they do not hide, it
> is stamped right into them.  I am sad to report however that the quality
> seems quite good.
>
> Remember that virtually all brand name tools are made in China, not just
> Harbor Freight.  They can make junk and they can make good stuff.
>
>
> *From:* Bill Prince 
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:27 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
>
> Chinese steel. Otherwise known as zinc-plated lead.
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 3/10/2016 6:25 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>
> Hmmm, that is very low.  Like lower than wholesale low.  I wonder how they
> do it for that...
>
> *From:* Ken Hohhof 
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:48 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
>
> $78 (plus shipping) here:
> http://ciwireless1-px.rtrk.com/product/tower-antenna-standoff/
>
>
> *From:* Kurt Fankhauser 
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 6:31 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
>
> i thought i was paying somewhere in the $150 range for it
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Chuck McCown < 
> ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>
>> What do you pay for an Andrew/Comscope S200?
>>
>> *From:* Ken Hohhof 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 1:25 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
>>
>> How much standoff do you need?  I have used Andrew S200 like George says
>> (2 ft standoff) or S300 (3 ft), actually they go up to 6 ft standoff.  Or
>> Connect-It Wireless S2-S6.  Can be used on vertical or sloping tower legs.
>> Sitepro1 also has several solutions, some of which are YUGE!
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jason McKemie 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 2:02 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
>>
>> I had looked at those, I just didn't know if it had enough standoff for
>> use with an omni - from a shadowing perspective.
>>
>> On Thursday, March 10, 2016, Chuck McCown < 
>> ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a good ‘un:
>>> 
>>> http://www.mccowntech.com/24-inch-pipe-standoff/
>>>
>>> *From:* Jason McKemie
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 12:00 PM
>>> *To:* javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
>>>
>>> Anyone have suggestions for a standoff mount for use with a 5GHz omni?
>>> It will be mounted to the side of a Pirod tower, so I'm going to need some
>>> sort of standoff to minimize shadowing.
>>>
>>> -Jason
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

[Adam Moffett]

That price is a little crazy though.  You could just maybe buy that 
steel and weld that and galvanize it yourself for $78.  Maybe they use 
slave labor.



On 3/11/2016 11:46 AM, Bill Prince wrote:

Neither. Just making a snide comment.

But you're right. It depends on who/what you're getting. Problem is 
that you never really know unless you've dealt with whomever.


bp


On 3/10/2016 8:20 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
Do you know this, or are you speculating?  My information was that 
Connect-It fabricated all their stuff in Florida including the 
galvanizing.  That’s one reason I liked buying from them.  That and 
their workmanship (welding and galvanizing) seemed better than 
Andrew/Commscope.
Sitepro1/Valmont does import parts from China, which they do not 
hide, it is stamped right into them.  I am sad to report however that 
the quality seems quite good.
Remember that virtually all brand name tools are made in China, not 
just Harbor Freight.  They can make junk and they can make good stuff.

*From:* Bill Prince 
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:27 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
Chinese steel. Otherwise known as zinc-plated lead.

bp


On 3/10/2016 6:25 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Hmmm, that is very low.  Like lower than wholesale low.  I wonder 
how they do it for that...

*From:* Ken Hohhof 
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:48 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
$78 (plus shipping) here:
http://ciwireless1-px.rtrk.com/product/tower-antenna-standoff/
*From:* Kurt Fankhauser 
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 6:31 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
i thought i was paying somewhere in the $150 range for it
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

What do you pay for an Andrew/Comscope S200?
*From:* Ken Hohhof 
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 1:25 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
How much standoff do you need?  I have used Andrew S200 like
George says (2 ft standoff) or S300 (3 ft), actually they go up
to 6 ft standoff. Or Connect-It Wireless S2-S6.  Can be used on
vertical or sloping tower legs.  Sitepro1 also has several
solutions, some of which are YUGE!
*From:* Jason McKemie 
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 2:02 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
I had looked at those, I just didn't know if it had enough
standoff for use with an omni - from a shadowing perspective.

On Thursday, March 10, 2016, Chuck McCown  wrote:

Here is a good ‘un:
http://www.mccowntech.com/24-inch-pipe-standoff/
*From:* Jason McKemie
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 12:00 PM
*To:* javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
*Subject:* [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
Anyone have suggestions for a standoff mount for use with a
5GHz omni?  It will be mounted to the side of a Pirod tower,
so I'm going to need some sort of standoff to minimize
shadowing.
-Jason

Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff

[Bill Prince]

Neither. Just making a snide comment.

But you're right. It depends on who/what you're getting. Problem is that 
you never really know unless you've dealt with whomever.


bp


On 3/10/2016 8:20 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
Do you know this, or are you speculating?  My information was that 
Connect-It fabricated all their stuff in Florida including the 
galvanizing.  That’s one reason I liked buying from them.  That and 
their workmanship (welding and galvanizing) seemed better than 
Andrew/Commscope.
Sitepro1/Valmont does import parts from China, which they do not hide, 
it is stamped right into them.  I am sad to report however that the 
quality seems quite good.
Remember that virtually all brand name tools are made in China, not 
just Harbor Freight.  They can make junk and they can make good stuff.

*From:* Bill Prince 
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:27 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
Chinese steel. Otherwise known as zinc-plated lead.

bp


On 3/10/2016 6:25 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Hmmm, that is very low.  Like lower than wholesale low.  I wonder how 
they do it for that...

*From:* Ken Hohhof 
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:48 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
$78 (plus shipping) here:
http://ciwireless1-px.rtrk.com/product/tower-antenna-standoff/
*From:* Kurt Fankhauser 
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 6:31 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
i thought i was paying somewhere in the $150 range for it
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

What do you pay for an Andrew/Comscope S200?
*From:* Ken Hohhof 
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 1:25 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
How much standoff do you need?  I have used Andrew S200 like
George says (2 ft standoff) or S300 (3 ft), actually they go up
to 6 ft standoff.  Or Connect-It Wireless S2-S6.  Can be used on
vertical or sloping tower legs. Sitepro1 also has several
solutions, some of which are YUGE!
*From:* Jason McKemie 
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 2:02 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
I had looked at those, I just didn't know if it had enough
standoff for use with an omni - from a shadowing perspective.

On Thursday, March 10, 2016, Chuck McCown  wrote:

Here is a good ‘un:
http://www.mccowntech.com/24-inch-pipe-standoff/
*From:* Jason McKemie
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 12:00 PM
*To:* javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
*Subject:* [AFMUG] 5GHz Omni standoff
Anyone have suggestions for a standoff mount for use with a
5GHz omni?  It will be mounted to the side of a Pirod tower,
so I'm going to need some sort of standoff to minimize
shadowing.
-Jason

Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

[Josh Reynolds]

"Guys never grow up, their toys just get more expensive."

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> We're all secretly 12 years old.
>
> On 3/11/2016 11:29 AM, Jerry Head wrote:
>
> Be a real shame if the pole slipped out prematurely
>
> On 3/11/2016 10:12 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
>
> Something about how tightly my mount holds the pole?
>
> From: Rory Conaway
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 8:41 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Product leak
>
>
> I see a wife joke in here somewhere….
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List
> Account)
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 4:03 AM
> To: af 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Product leak
>
>
>
> I thought I heard somewhere that size doesn't matter
>
> On Mar 10, 2016 7:53 PM, "Jerry Head"  wrote:
>
> Really nice product!
> How long is it?
> What would really be sweet is if there were some way to turnbuckle or snap
> clamp those chains down
> tight then no lag screw would be needed.
>
>
> On 3/10/2016 6:16 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>
> Something I am working on.
>
> This will fit on a 60 inch diameter pole/monopole (or larger)  if you want.
>
> It will also fit a 10 inch pole.
>
>
>
> The pipe is 24 inches long 3.4” dia.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

[chuck]

(insert Beavis and Butthead laugh)

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 9:32 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

We're all secretly 12 years old.


On 3/11/2016 11:29 AM, Jerry Head wrote:

  Be a real shame if the pole slipped out prematurely

  On 3/11/2016 10:12 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

Something about how tightly my mount holds the pole?

From: Rory Conaway 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 8:41 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

I see a wife joke in here somewhere….

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account)
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 4:03 AM
To: af mailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

 

I thought I heard somewhere that size doesn't matter  

On Mar 10, 2016 7:53 PM, "Jerry Head"  wrote:

  Really nice product!
  How long is it?
  What would really be sweet is if there were some way to turnbuckle or 
snap clamp those chains down
  tight then no lag screw would be needed.
   

  On 3/10/2016 6:16 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Something I am working on.

This will fit on a 60 inch diameter pole/monopole (or larger)  if you 
want.  

It will also fit a 10 inch pole.

 

The pipe is 24 inches long 3.4” dia.  

   

Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

[Adam Moffett]

We're all secretly 12 years old.

On 3/11/2016 11:29 AM, Jerry Head wrote:

Be a real shame if the pole slipped out prematurely

On 3/11/2016 10:12 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

Something about how tightly my mount holds the pole?
*From:* Rory Conaway 
*Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 8:41 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

I see a wife joke in here somewhere….

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Forrest 
Christian (List Account)

*Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 4:03 AM
*To:* af 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

I thought I heard somewhere that size doesn't matter

On Mar 10, 2016 7:53 PM, "Jerry Head" > wrote:


Really nice product!
How long is it?
What would really be sweet is if there were some way to
turnbuckle or snap clamp those chains down
tight then no lag screw would be needed.


On 3/10/2016 6:16 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Something I am working on.

This will fit on a 60 inch diameter pole/monopole (or
larger)  if you want.

It will also fit a 10 inch pole.

The pipe is 24 inches long 3.4” dia.

Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

[Jerry Head]

Be a real shame if the pole slipped out prematurely

On 3/11/2016 10:12 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

Something about how tightly my mount holds the pole?
*From:* Rory Conaway 
*Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 8:41 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

I see a wife joke in here somewhere….

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Forrest 
Christian (List Account)

*Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 4:03 AM
*To:* af 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

I thought I heard somewhere that size doesn't matter

On Mar 10, 2016 7:53 PM, "Jerry Head" > wrote:


Really nice product!
How long is it?
What would really be sweet is if there were some way to turnbuckle
or snap clamp those chains down
tight then no lag screw would be needed.


On 3/10/2016 6:16 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Something I am working on.

This will fit on a 60 inch diameter pole/monopole (or larger) 
if you want.


It will also fit a 10 inch pole.

The pipe is 24 inches long 3.4” dia.

Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

[chuck]

Something about how tightly my mount holds the pole?

From: Rory Conaway 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 8:41 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

I see a wife joke in here somewhere….

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account)
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 4:03 AM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Product leak

 

I thought I heard somewhere that size doesn't matter  

On Mar 10, 2016 7:53 PM, "Jerry Head"  wrote:

  Really nice product!
  How long is it?
  What would really be sweet is if there were some way to turnbuckle or snap 
clamp those chains down
  tight then no lag screw would be needed.
   

  On 3/10/2016 6:16 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Something I am working on.

This will fit on a 60 inch diameter pole/monopole (or larger)  if you want. 
 

It will also fit a 10 inch pole.

 

The pipe is 24 inches long 3.4” dia.  

   

Re: [AFMUG] FSK power problem?

[Matt Mangriotis]

You may have already seen the post in our forum, but in case you don’t frequent 
the site… the answer (posted by our engineering team) is NO, do not attempt to 
use voltages above 30 VDC.

http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/PMP-450/PMP450-AP-48-volt-support/m-p/51650#M2172

To quote him: “You may be able to get it running for some time but eventually, 
because of the overstress on the parts” and this will eventually cause them to 
fail prematurely.

Thanks,
Matt


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Scott Vander Dussen
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 7:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK power problem?

Well, we powered several 450 APs this morning off 48v for about 3 hours :)

Thanks,
`S

---
Sent mobile, typed by thumbs.

On Mar 10, 2016, at 16:36, George Skorup 
> wrote:
At one time, there was a roadmap slide that stated 48V support for the 450 AP. 
Long, long before the 450i was ever mentioned. So I wonder if the hardware 
supports 22-56V, but they tell us that it's just the 29.5 standard.

Matt, Aaron, someone.. what's the deal? If the regular 450 AP will indeed run 
fine at 48-56V, that would really simplify a lot. Like I can downsize some 
DC-DC converters.
On 3/10/2016 1:38 PM, Josh Baird wrote:
Good point.  We don't use hardly any 450.. but the spec sheet does indeed say 
22-32VDC.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:20 PM, George Skorup 
> wrote:
So if I'm reading this correctly... regular 450 APs are being powered and 
running happily at 48VDC? That's funny because they're also supposed to be 
30VDC max.
On 3/10/2016 11:45 AM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote:
You know what's funny is we did... But every time we tested we happened to grab 
450 since that's almost exclusively what were installing now. One time one of 
the techs put a FSK SM on it and it died- he mentioned it in passing but we 
chalked it up to bad FSK taken from our graveyard bin on pulls. ��

Thanks,
`S

---
Sent mobile, typed by thumbs.

On Mar 10, 2016, at 09:34, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:

That's awesome.  Glad it's not too bad.

Next time lab it :)

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mar 10, 2016 12:31 PM, "Scott Vander Dussen" 
> wrote:
As an update, we scrounged up 4 connectorized APs of our own and Bill Prince 
has 2 which I'm driving out to go get.  Paul McCall is also connectorized and 
shipping me some for spares.  Love this list, thanks guys!  We'll have 80% of 
the customers restored within 90 minutes, the rest this afternoon.

Whew, fun morning.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:07 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK power problem?

Or, if Cambium was nice, they could give you code to convert an SM into an AP.

-Original Message-
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 9:05 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK power problem?

If you are good with an iron, you could remove the regulator chip from an SM 
and replace it into the AP (assuming it is the regulator that dies from 
overvoltage).

-Original Message-
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 9:05 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK power problem?

He might could do an advance replacement...

-Original Message-
From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 9:04 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK power problem?

Paul McCall can probably fix those APs.

-Original Message-
From: Christopher Tyler
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 9:03 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK power problem?

Live an learn. At least you'll never do it again (hopefully).

--
Christopher Tyler
MTCRE/MTCNA/MTCTCE/MTCWE
Total Highspeed Internet Services
417.851.1107

- Original Message -
From: "Chuck McCown" >
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 10:02:07 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK power problem?

We all just shed a collective tear...

At least tomorrow is Friday, right?
Spring his here!
Jaime is bound to put some photos of good food on the list.
Plenty of reasons to continue to live Scott.

From: Scott Vander Dussen
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:58 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK power problem?

Oh wow, that’s fairly misleading.  So I just smoked a ring of FSK.



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Josh Baird
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 7:56 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK power problem?



Yeah, the