date:20160825

Re: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?

2016-08-25 Thread Gino Villarini

WE have one for sale too! $1M 😂

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Graham McIntire  wrote:

> We have a NN license I'd be happy to part with. It's completely useless in
> our area around Dallas because of TowerStream. Hit me offlist and I'll make
> a great deal.
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> I have a suspicion that a certain large WISP aggregator is tired of UL
>> and will be a big bidder on PALs in their territories.*  Also from the
>> standpoint of valuation, wireless companies tend to be valued based on
>> their licensed spectrum holdings.  Even warehoused spectrum seems to
>> increase valuation, as long as it’s licensed.  CBRS spectrum isn’t quite
>> like 600 MHz or 2.5 GHz spectrum, but still probably viewed as an asset,
>> unlike unlicensed.
>>
>> *based on lots of Part 101 upgrades without corresponding last mile
>> upgrades, plus stated interest in LTE
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 12:14 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?
>>
>> Last I heard was MAYBE by the end of the 2nd quarter of 2017.
>>
>> Jeff Broadwick
>> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
>> 312-205-2519 Office
>> 574-220-7826 Cell
>> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
>>
>> On Aug 5, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>> Maybe Michael Anderson isn't using WQHV410.  Interesting the 2017
>> expiration.  That's a reminder that most of them will be expiring in the
>> next 1-2 years.  No worries, CBRS should be up and running by then, right?
>>
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Sam Morris
>> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:17 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?
>>
>> Does anyone have a (or know anyone who has a) 3.6-3.7 GHz license they
>> aren't using and would like to sell (or donate)?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sam
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Force 180 PTP

2016-08-25 Thread Joshaven Mailing Lists

It’s two images snatched off google images and overplayed with gimp but I have 
no attachment to the art.


Sincerely,
Joshaven Potter
Google Hangouts: j...@g2wireless.co
Cell & SMS: 1-517-607-9370
supp...@joshaven.com



> On Aug 24, 2016, at 7:04 PM, Jaime Solorza  wrote:
> 
> Wow.  That's so damn kool.. Can I use it? 
> 
> 
> On Aug 24, 2016 5:02 PM, "Joshaven Mailing Lists"  > wrote:
> Enjoy the enlightenment. 
> 
> <__bt-enlightenment-goal___imported_-1_0__RGB_color__4_layers__3000x1928_–_GIMP.jpg>
> 
> Sincerely,
> Joshaven Potter
> Google Hangouts: j...@g2wireless.co 
> Cell & SMS: 1-517-607-9370 
> supp...@joshaven.com 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 24, 2016, at 6:49 PM, Jaime Solorza > > wrote:
>> 
>> A Tecate will open my mind to all these enlightened posts.   
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 24, 2016 4:36 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" > > wrote:
>> is this your first day on this list?
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 4:39 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller > > wrote:
>>  
>> What does a dead cochroach have to do with a force 180?
>> just sayin'.. ? LOL
>> - Original Message -
>> From: Mathew Howard 
>> To: af 
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 3:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Force 180 PTP
>> 
>> Well, that probably fixed the cockroach problems anyway...
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:53 PM, George Skorup > > wrote:
>> My dad told me that story when he was rehabbing houses 30 years ago. He said 
>> nope, I'm out. Then some crackheads ended up burning that house down. '80s 
>> were fun times.
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/24/2016 3:47 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
>> Eww
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:46 PM, George Skorup > > wrote:
>> Is that like when you flip the light switch on and all of the cockroaches
>> disappear? But were they ever there in the first place? There's evidence
>> that they were, but how can you really know? Oh yeah, there's dead ones
>> everywhere. Bad example.
>> 
>> On 8/24/2016 3:38 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>> It is only empty when observed...
>> 
>> -Original Message- From: Josh Reynolds
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 2:33 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com 
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Force 180 PTP
>> 
>> “If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, of what, then, is
>> an empty desk a sign?”
>> 
>> 
>> ― Albert Einstein
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 3:12 PM, George Skorup > > wrote:
>> One time I thoroughly cleaned my desk and 5 minutes later a router just
>> up
>> and failed. So I don't clean my desk anymore.
>> 
>> On 8/24/2016 2:17 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> You just described me perfectly.
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:30 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>> mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Fuck the network admins, we get to have the messy desks and come to
>> work
>> late when we were up til 5am rolling out firmware
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 24, 2016 12:27 PM, "Josh Luthman" > >
>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Well of course the installers do.  What about the network admin? =P
>> 
>> 
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340 
>> Direct: 937-552-2343 
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Gino Villarini > >
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, we have been some what amazed at them.. we use them for up
>> to
>> 3
>> mile shots. Working great! Installers love them!
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Josh Luthman
>> mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> The integrated?  Ehh...please don't.
>> 
>> 
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340 
>> Direct: 937-552-2343 
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Jaime Solorza
>> mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> What is the longest link anyone has done with a piar of Cambium
>> Force
>> 180's?
>> Thanks
>> Jaime Solorza
>> Wireless Systems Architect
>> 915-861-1390 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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] cellular repeater antenna

2016-08-25 Thread Jaime Solorza

Those are the new Wilson series... for home or small office.The Pro
series is more large sites and DAS

On Aug 24, 2016 9:33 PM, "Rory Conaway"  wrote:

> I’m not sure.  The customer had bought something called a Weboost.  We
> think the antenna had a direct short in it.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jaime Solorza
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 24, 2016 5:17 AM
> *To:* Animal Farm
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] cellular repeater antenna
>
>
>
> Wilson and SureCall both have wide band yagi and panels with 700 to
> 2700mhz spread.   Tessco has a good selection of DAS antennas as well.
> Which amp did you get?
>
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2016 12:29 AM, "Rory Conaway"  wrote:
>
> Any suggestions on long-range, multi-band antennas?  It’s for a Wilson
> repeater and the cable is 100’ long or more.
>
>
>
> *Rory Conaway **• Triad Wireless •** CEO*
>
> *4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>
> *602-426-0542 <602-426-0542>*
>
> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>
> *www.triadwireless.net *
>
>
>
> “Baseball, it is said, is only a game.  True.  And the Grand Canyon is
> only a hole in Arizona”.  -  George Frederick Will
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] FREE Mikrotik Blacklist Service

2016-08-25 Thread Matt

> For years I've provided a FREE blacklist service for MikroTik users. I have 
> recently upgraded my server environment for higher reliability and speed.
> If you are interested in a dynamic IP blacklist for your routers are are not 
> already using my list then checkout my writeup:
>
> http://joshaven.com/resources/tricks/mikrotik-automatically-updated-address-list/
>
> If you are already use my list than don't worry, your service just got faster 
> and you don't need to do anything... unless you want to include the newly 
> added list from malc0de.

Is there anyway you can make the address lists in Mikrotik dynamic
with a ~7 day timeout?  That way they are not included in backups etc.
Also, if decide to stop using them just delete the scripts and lists
will go away in 7 days.

Re: [AFMUG] FREE Mikrotik Blacklist Service

2016-08-25 Thread Faisal Imtiaz

 Is there anyway you can make the address lists in Mikrotik dynamic
> with a ~7 day timeout?  That way they are not included in backups etc.
> Also, if decide to stop using them just delete the scripts and lists
> will go away in 7 days.


Huh ? not sure what you are asking and why ? 

The list/feature is supposed to be dynamic to begin with.
You can run a daily update.
If you want to stop the function, you can simply disable the firewall rule that 
is associated with this list
getting a copy of the ip's via backup export is not a big deal..

??


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom


Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Matt" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 10:14:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FREE Mikrotik Blacklist Service

>> For years I've provided a FREE blacklist service for MikroTik users. I have
>> recently upgraded my server environment for higher reliability and speed.
>> If you are interested in a dynamic IP blacklist for your routers are are not
>> already using my list then checkout my writeup:
>>
>> http://joshaven.com/resources/tricks/mikrotik-automatically-updated-address-list/
>>
>> If you are already use my list than don't worry, your service just got faster
>> and you don't need to do anything... unless you want to include the newly 
>> added
>> list from malc0de.
> 
> Is there anyway you can make the address lists in Mikrotik dynamic
> with a ~7 day timeout?  That way they are not included in backups etc.
> Also, if decide to stop using them just delete the scripts and lists
> will go away in 7 days.

Re: [AFMUG] FREE Mikrotik Blacklist Service

2016-08-25 Thread Gilbert T. Gutierrez, Jr.

What he is saying is that if you generate an address list with 
expiration using a firewall rule, it is dynamic and the addresses do not 
show up in your weekly/nightly/hourly router backups. With these rules, 
none of the addresses expire are put in the backup file making the file 
larger.


Gilbert


On 8/25/2016 8:24 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

  Is there anyway you can make the address lists in Mikrotik dynamic

with a ~7 day timeout?  That way they are not included in backups etc.
Also, if decide to stop using them just delete the scripts and lists
will go away in 7 days.


Huh ? not sure what you are asking and why ?

The list/feature is supposed to be dynamic to begin with.
You can run a daily update.
If you want to stop the function, you can simply disable the firewall rule that 
is associated with this list
getting a copy of the ip's via backup export is not a big deal..

??


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom


Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -

From: "Matt" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 10:14:26 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FREE Mikrotik Blacklist Service

For years I've provided a FREE blacklist service for MikroTik users. I have
recently upgraded my server environment for higher reliability and speed.
If you are interested in a dynamic IP blacklist for your routers are are not
already using my list then checkout my writeup:

http://joshaven.com/resources/tricks/mikrotik-automatically-updated-address-list/

If you are already use my list than don't worry, your service just got faster
and you don't need to do anything... unless you want to include the newly added
list from malc0de.

Is there anyway you can make the address lists in Mikrotik dynamic
with a ~7 day timeout?  That way they are not included in backups etc.
Also, if decide to stop using them just delete the scripts and lists
will go away in 7 days.

Re: [AFMUG] FREE Mikrotik Blacklist Service

2016-08-25 Thread Gilbert T. Gutierrez, Jr.

In the code labelled, "OPTIONAL: FYI The code that generates the list," 
you can modify it to make the lines dynamic.


Substitute "add dynamic=yes timeout=7d list=blacklist address="

for "add list=blacklist address="

For this to work though, you need to have your own Linux box making the 
files and modify the upload scripts to point at your server.


Gilbert

On 8/25/2016 7:14 AM, Matt wrote:

For years I've provided a FREE blacklist service for MikroTik users. I have 
recently upgraded my server environment for higher reliability and speed.
If you are interested in a dynamic IP blacklist for your routers are are not 
already using my list then checkout my writeup:

http://joshaven.com/resources/tricks/mikrotik-automatically-updated-address-list/

If you are already use my list than don't worry, your service just got faster 
and you don't need to do anything... unless you want to include the newly added 
list from malc0de.

Is there anyway you can make the address lists in Mikrotik dynamic
with a ~7 day timeout?  That way they are not included in backups etc.
Also, if decide to stop using them just delete the scripts and lists
will go away in 7 days.

[AFMUG] Chuck, did you used to work for Chrysler in the '80's?

2016-08-25 Thread can...@believewireless.net

This is definitely a McCown Tech design. Couldn't the inverse reactive
current that is used in the unilateral phase detractors be diverted to
cheaply provide negative battery charging to the positive terminal over a
backup UPS?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXW0bx_Ooq4

Re: [AFMUG] Chuck, did you used to work for Chrysler in the '80's?

2016-08-25 Thread Jason McKemie

There are a few versions of the turbo encabulator joke.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:09 PM, can...@believewireless.net <
p...@believewireless.net> wrote:

> This is definitely a McCown Tech design. Couldn't the inverse reactive
> current that is used in the unilateral phase detractors be diverted to
> cheaply provide negative battery charging to the positive terminal over a
> backup UPS?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXW0bx_Ooq4
>

Re: [AFMUG] Chuck, did you used to work for Chrysler in the '80's?

2016-08-25 Thread Adam Moffett

Wow...defrabulate the gunkulator mr electronic wizard.

-- Original Message --
From: "can...@believewireless.net" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 8/25/2016 1:09:19 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Chuck, did you used to work for Chrysler in the '80's?

This is definitely a McCown Tech design. Couldn't the inverse reactive 
current that is used in the unilateral phase detractors be diverted to 
cheaply provide negative battery charging to the positive terminal over 
a backup UPS?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXW0bx_Ooq4

Re: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?

2016-08-25 Thread Rick Harnish

HaHa, that is a greater price increase that the EpiPen!  100,000%  

 

Respectfully,

 

Rick Harnish

Director of WISP Markets

Baicells Technologies, N.A.

Mobile: +1.972.922.1443

Email: rick.harn...@baicells.com

  Follow us on Facebook for the latest news

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 5:13 AM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?

 

WE have one for sale too! $1M 😂

 

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Graham McIntire mailto:gra...@vntx.net> > wrote:

We have a NN license I'd be happy to part with. It's completely useless in our 
area around Dallas because of TowerStream. Hit me offlist and I'll make a great 
deal.

 

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:

I have a suspicion that a certain large WISP aggregator is tired of UL and will 
be a big bidder on PALs in their territories.*  Also from the standpoint of 
valuation, wireless companies tend to be valued based on their licensed 
spectrum holdings.  Even warehoused spectrum seems to increase valuation, as 
long as it’s licensed.  CBRS spectrum isn’t quite like 600 MHz or 2.5 GHz 
spectrum, but still probably viewed as an asset, unlike unlicensed.

 

*based on lots of Part 101 upgrades without corresponding last mile upgrades, 
plus stated interest in LTE

 

 

From: Jeff Broadwick - Lists   

Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 12:14 PM

To: af@afmug.com   

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?

 

Last I heard was MAYBE by the end of the 2nd quarter of 2017.

Jeff Broadwick 

ConVergence Technologies, Inc.

312-205-2519   Office

574-220-7826   Cell

jbroadw...@converge-tech.com  


On Aug 5, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:

Maybe Michael Anderson isn't using WQHV410.  Interesting the 2017 expiration.  
That's a reminder that most of them will be expiring in the next 1-2 years.  No 
worries, CBRS should be up and running by then, right?


-Original Message- From: Sam Morris
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:17 AM
To: af@afmug.com  
Subject: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?

Does anyone have a (or know anyone who has a) 3.6-3.7 GHz license they
aren't using and would like to sell (or donate)?

Thanks
Sam

[AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Robert Haas

Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I started
to renumber some PPPoE pools.

Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27
pool). Customer can't surf and I can't ping them from my office:

 

[office] - [Bernie Router] - [Braggcity Router] - [Ross Router] - [Hayti
Router] - [customer]

 

A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting
any type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host
Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc - just blackholes after my office router.

A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie router
with no type of response.

 

Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route pointing
to the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSA's.

--

Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

 

--

Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the
service starts working again.

 

--

 

Now - even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing
table - traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting
blackholed.. I should be getting a Destination host unreachable from the
Bernie router.

 

This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there is no
route to it:

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

 

Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

 

Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

 

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

 

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

 

  1 6 ms 6 ms 7 ms  z.z.z.z

  2 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

  3  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]  reports: Destination host unreachable.

 

Trace complete.

 

This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and there
is no route to it.

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

 

Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

 

Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

 

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

 

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

 

  1 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms  z.z.z.z

  2 *** Request timed out.

  3 ** ^C

 

--

 

I've verified there is no firewall that would affect the traffic - I even
put an accept rule in the forward chain for both the source and destination
of x.x.x.208 and neither increment at all. So the traffic is not even making
out of the routing flow and into the firewall..

 

Any pointers are where to start troubleshooting next?

Re: [AFMUG] FREE Mikrotik Blacklist Service

2016-08-25 Thread Joshaven Mailing Lists

I didn’t want to add a timeout globally but just for you here it your solution:

You can optionally provide the number of days, it will default to 7

http://joshaven.com/listWithTimeout.php?list=openbl 

http://joshaven.com/listWithTimeout.php?list=spamhaus 
listWithTimeout 
.php?list=spamhaus
http://joshaven.com/listWithTimeout.php?list=dshield 
 
listWithTimeout 
.php?list=dshield
http://joshaven.com/listWithTimeout.php?list=malc0de 
 
listWithTimeout 
.php?list=malc0de

Here is an example of the list with with an alternative length of time:
http://joshaven.com/listWithTimeout.php?list=dshield&days=14 
 
listWithTimeout 
.php?list=dshield&days=14

This will however create a goofy filename if you don’t specify the filename so 
alter your download scripts to be like:

/tool fetch url="http://joshaven.com/listWithTimeout.php?list=openbl"; mode=http 
dst-path=openbl.rsc;

/tool fetch url="http://joshaven.com/listWithTimeout.php?list=spamhaus"; 
mode=http dst-path=spamhaus.rsc;

/tool fetch url="http://joshaven.com/listWithTimeout.php?list=dshield"; 
mode=http dst-path=dshield.rsc;

/tool fetch url="http://joshaven.com/listWithTimeout.php?list=malc0de"; 
mode=http dst-path=malc0de.rsc;








Sincerely,
Joshaven Potter
Google Hangouts: j...@g2wireless.co
Cell & SMS: 1-517-607-9370
supp...@joshaven.com



> On Aug 25, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Faisal Imtiaz  wrote:
> 
> Is there anyway you can make the address lists in Mikrotik dynamic
>> with a ~7 day timeout?  That way they are not included in backups etc.
>> Also, if decide to stop using them just delete the scripts and lists
>> will go away in 7 days.
> 
> 
> Huh ? not sure what you are asking and why ? 
> 
> The list/feature is supposed to be dynamic to begin with.
> You can run a daily update.
> If you want to stop the function, you can simply disable the firewall rule 
> that is associated with this list
> getting a copy of the ip's via backup export is not a big deal..
> 
> ??
> 
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Matt" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 10:14:26 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FREE Mikrotik Blacklist Service
> 
>>> For years I've provided a FREE blacklist service for MikroTik users. I have
>>> recently upgraded my server environment for higher reliability and speed.
>>> If you are interested in a dynamic IP blacklist for your routers are are not
>>> already using my list then checkout my writeup:
>>> 
>>> http://joshaven.com/resources/tricks/mikrotik-automatically-updated-address-list/
>>> 
>>> If you are already use my list than don't worry, your service just got 
>>> faster
>>> and you don't need to do anything... unless you want to include the newly 
>>> added
>>> list from malc0de.
>> 
>> Is there anyway you can make the address lists in Mikrotik dynamic
>> with a ~7 day timeout?  That way they are not included in backups etc.
>> Also, if decide to stop using them just delete the scripts and lists
>> will go away in 7 days.

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Jesse DuPont


  
  
Is it possible another router somewhere is announcing x.x.x.208/28
(or /29 or /30)? You mentioned there is no x.x.x.208/32 router in
the route table, but what about other prefix lengths?

Are you summarizing your PPPoE prefixes into OSPF by putting them
into another area and using area-ranges or do all the /32s just end
up in all your routers' tables as PPPoE sessions come up?

Did you look at the route tables at Braggcity and Ross to ensure
they show the correct outgoing iface for that /32 to reach the Hayti
router?

Are you using MPLS at all?

If you add a static route for x.x.x.208/32 to Bernie, Braggcity and
Ross, does that make any difference?


  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Jesse DuPont

  Network
  Architect
  email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
  Celerity Networks LLC
  Celerity
  Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc
  Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband
  

  

On 8/25/16 11:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:


  
  
  
  
Alright, this problem has raised it head
  again on my network since I started to renumber some PPPoE
  pools.
Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE
  x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer can’t surf and
  I can’t ping them from my office:
 
[office] – [Bernie Router] – [Braggcity
  Router] – [Ross Router] – [Hayti Router] – [customer]
 
A traceroute from my office dies @ the
  Bernie router but I am not getting any type of ICMP response
  from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest
  unreachable etc – just blackholes after my office router.
A traceroute from the Customer to the
  office again dies at the Bernie router with no type of
  response.
 
Checking the routing table on the Bernie
  router shows a valid route pointing to the Braggcity router.
  It is also in the OSPF LSA’s.
--
Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has
  no issue at all.
 
--
Force the original customer to a new ip
  address of x.x.x.205/32 and the service starts working again.
 
--
 
Now – even though there is no valid route
  to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing table – traffic destined to the
  x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. I should be
  getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.
 
This is correct the correct response .206
  is not being used and there is no route to it:
C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206
 
Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host
  unreachable.
Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host
  unreachable.
 
Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:
    Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost =
  0 (0% loss),
 
C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206
 
Tracing route to
  host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1 6 ms 6 ms 7 ms  z.z.z.z
  2 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms 
  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]
  3  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]  reports:
  Destination host unreachable.
 
Trace complete.
 
This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though
  it is not being used and there is no route to it.
C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208
 
Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
 
Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:
    Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost =
  2 (100% loss),
 
C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208
 
Tracing route to
  host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms  z.z.z.z
  2 *    *    * Request
  timed out.
  3 *    * ^C
 
--
 
I’ve verified there is no firewall that
  would affect the traffic – I even put an accept rule in the
  forward chain for both the source and destination of x.x.x.208
  and neither increment at all. So the traffic is not even
  making out of the routing flow and into the firewall..
 
Any pointers are where to start
  troubleshooting next?

Re: [AFMUG] FREE Mikrotik Blacklist Service

2016-08-25 Thread Joshaven Mailing Lists

One of the major drawbacks of using dynamic ip lists is that they will be gone 
if you reboot.

If you have a 3 to 7 day update schedule then you can go days without your 
blacklists which somewhat defeats the purpose.

A solution for this would be to add an additional schedule that has a 
start-time=startup that downloads & runs all of the scripts.


Sincerely,
Joshaven Potter
Google Hangouts: j...@g2wireless.co
Cell & SMS: 1-517-607-9370
supp...@joshaven.com



> On Aug 25, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Joshaven Mailing Lists  
> wrote:
> 
> I didn’t want to add a timeout globally but just for you here it your 
> solution:
> 
> You can optionally provide the number of days, it will default to 7
> 
> http://joshaven.com/listWithTimeout.php?list=openbl 
> 
> http://joshaven.com/ 
> listWithTimeout 
> .php?list=spamhaus
> http://joshaven.com/  
> listWithTimeout 
> .php?list=dshield
> http://joshaven.com/  
> listWithTimeout 
> .php?list=malc0de
> 
> Here is an example of the list with with an alternative length of time:
> http://joshaven.com/ 
>  
> listWithTimeout 
> .php?list=dshield&days=14
> 
> This will however create a goofy filename if you don’t specify the filename 
> so alter your download scripts to be like:
> 
> /tool fetch url="http://joshaven.com/listWithTimeout.php?list=openbl 
> " mode=http 
> dst-path=openbl.rsc;
> 
> /tool fetch url="http://joshaven.com/listWithTimeout.php?list=spamhaus 
> " mode=http 
> dst-path=spamhaus.rsc;
> 
> /tool fetch url="http://joshaven.com/listWithTimeout.php?list=dshield 
> " mode=http 
> dst-path=dshield.rsc;
> 
> /tool fetch url="http://joshaven.com/listWithTimeout.php?list=malc0de 
> " mode=http 
> dst-path=malc0de.rsc;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> Joshaven Potter
> Google Hangouts: j...@g2wireless.co 
> Cell & SMS: 1-517-607-9370
> supp...@joshaven.com 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Faisal Imtiaz > > wrote:
>> 
>> Is there anyway you can make the address lists in Mikrotik dynamic
>>> with a ~7 day timeout?  That way they are not included in backups etc.
>>> Also, if decide to stop using them just delete the scripts and lists
>>> will go away in 7 days.
>> 
>> 
>> Huh ? not sure what you are asking and why ? 
>> 
>> The list/feature is supposed to be dynamic to begin with.
>> You can run a daily update.
>> If you want to stop the function, you can simply disable the firewall rule 
>> that is associated with this list
>> getting a copy of the ip's via backup export is not a big deal..
>> 
>> ??
>> 
>> 
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 
>> 
>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 
>> 
>> 
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Matt" >> >
>>> To: af@afmug.com 
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 10:14:26 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FREE Mikrotik Blacklist Service
>> 
 For years I've provided a FREE blacklist service for MikroTik users. I have
 recently upgraded my server environment for higher reliability and speed.
 If you are interested in a dynamic IP blacklist for your routers are are 
 not
 already using my list then checkout my writeup:
 
 http://joshaven.com/resources/tricks/mikrotik-automatically-updated-address-list/
  
 
 
 If you are already use my list than don't worry, your service just got 
 faster
 and you don't need to do anything... unless you want to include the newly 
 added
 list from malc0de.
>>> 
>>> Is there anyway you can make the address lists in Mikrotik dynamic
>>> with a ~7 day timeout?  That way they are not included in backups etc.
>>> Also, if decide to stop using them just delete the scripts and lists
>>> will go away in 7 days.
>

[AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

2016-08-25 Thread Ken Hohhof


https://psui.com/product/teq-300wir/
https://psui.com/wp-content/uploads/products/Traco%20Power/DataSheets/teq300wir.pdf

Unfortunately the prices (even assuming a discount) look prohibitive.

Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

2016-08-25 Thread Eric Kuhnke

I know such things exist but have never encountered them in person, where
would you have 140 or 150VDC power?

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> https://psui.com/product/teq-300wir/
> https://psui.com/wp-content/uploads/products/Traco%20Power/
> DataSheets/teq300wir.pdf
>
> Unfortunately the prices (even assuming a discount) look prohibitive.
>
>

[AFMUG] plantronics headsets

2016-08-25 Thread CBB - Jay Fuller


We have two plantronics headsets - model "Plantronics Wideband CO54" that we 
are trying to get to work with a grandstream gxp2130.  After a few phone calls 
(3? 4?) the grandstream will basically stop talking to the plantronics, no 
dialtone will happen.  The phone has to be rebooted.

My phone folks tell me several times a day.

Has anyone experienced this?  Have any solution?  Should I rip the grandtreams 
out and put in yelteks?  I've heard they are betterbut

One phone person I thought might have been weirdness - but two?   

Seems to be an ongoing issue

CCing my phone folks so they can tell me if i misrepresented the problem.

Re: [AFMUG] plantronics headsets

2016-08-25 Thread Josh Reynolds

No idea with the Plantronics. We used Jabra universal headsets with ours
(with lifters) and our office staff really liked them.

On Aug 25, 2016 1:35 PM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
wrote:

>
> We have two plantronics headsets - model "Plantronics Wideband CO54" that
> we are trying to get to work with a grandstream gxp2130.  After a few phone
> calls (3? 4?) the grandstream will basically stop talking to the
> plantronics, no dialtone will happen.  The phone has to be rebooted.
>
> My phone folks tell me several times a day.
>
> Has anyone experienced this?  Have any solution?  Should I rip the
> grandtreams out and put in yelteks?  I've heard they are betterbut
>
> One phone person I thought might have been weirdness - but two?
>
> Seems to be an ongoing issue
>
> CCing my phone folks so they can tell me if i misrepresented the problem.
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

2016-08-25 Thread Adam Moffett

Not in telecom.
DC Motors for machinery is all I can think of.

-- Original Message --
From: "Eric Kuhnke" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 8/25/2016 2:35:39 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

I know such things exist but have never encountered them in person, 
where would you have 140 or 150VDC power?

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

https://psui.com/product/teq-300wir/
https://psui.com/wp-content/uploads/products/Traco%20Power/DataSheets/teq300wir.pdf

Unfortunately the prices (even assuming a discount) look prohibitive.

Re: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?

2016-08-25 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm

If theyre going for 1M, Ill sell the bosses today

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Gino Villarini  wrote:

> WE have one for sale too! $1M 😂
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Graham McIntire  wrote:
>
>> We have a NN license I'd be happy to part with. It's completely useless
>> in our area around Dallas because of TowerStream. Hit me offlist and I'll
>> make a great deal.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>>> I have a suspicion that a certain large WISP aggregator is tired of UL
>>> and will be a big bidder on PALs in their territories.*  Also from the
>>> standpoint of valuation, wireless companies tend to be valued based on
>>> their licensed spectrum holdings.  Even warehoused spectrum seems to
>>> increase valuation, as long as it’s licensed.  CBRS spectrum isn’t quite
>>> like 600 MHz or 2.5 GHz spectrum, but still probably viewed as an asset,
>>> unlike unlicensed.
>>>
>>> *based on lots of Part 101 upgrades without corresponding last mile
>>> upgrades, plus stated interest in LTE
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 12:14 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?
>>>
>>> Last I heard was MAYBE by the end of the 2nd quarter of 2017.
>>>
>>> Jeff Broadwick
>>> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
>>> 312-205-2519 Office
>>> 574-220-7826 Cell
>>> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
>>>
>>> On Aug 5, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe Michael Anderson isn't using WQHV410.  Interesting the 2017
>>> expiration.  That's a reminder that most of them will be expiring in the
>>> next 1-2 years.  No worries, CBRS should be up and running by then, right?
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message- From: Sam Morris
>>> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:17 AM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?
>>>
>>> Does anyone have a (or know anyone who has a) 3.6-3.7 GHz license they
>>> aren't using and would like to sell (or donate)?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Sam
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
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] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

2016-08-25 Thread Bill Prince

I wonder if that is a misprint. I know a lot of power supplies that 
actually "don't care" if the input is AC or DC. So inputting 120 VAC 
works more-or-less the same are 120VDC. Off-line switching power 
supplies were a great innovation.



bp


On 8/25/2016 11:35 AM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
I know such things exist but have never encountered them in person, 
where would you have 140 or 150VDC power?




On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Ken Hohhof > wrote:


https://psui.com/product/teq-300wir/


https://psui.com/wp-content/uploads/products/Traco%20Power/DataSheets/teq300wir.pdf



Unfortunately the prices (even assuming a discount) look prohibitive.

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Robert Haas

Doh – so much for masking the ip’s..

 

*face palm*

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Robert Haas
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

 

No, I double checked for any more specific routes that encompass that range. I 
do have my /20 to a null route to keep from ping-pong’ing at edge routers, but 
I disabled it temporarily with no change.

 

No summary routes – the /32’s end up in the routing table as the sessions 
terminate.

 

Routing at other sites was correct – I could ping the customer and traceroute 
to them from the Braggcity router. Directly on the Bernie router it just times 
out and goes no where.

 

No MPLS

 

I added a static route – one to .208 and a second to .206 (to compare). The 
correct result would be a ping-pong between Bernie and Braggcity.

I attached the screen shot, the .208 just times out while the .206 ping-pongs 
like it should..

 

To expand on that – I then added .208 onto the loopback at Hayti. The screen 
shot shows the Bernie router having the route in the routing table but still 
the traffic is blackholed..

 

I’m scratching my head.. 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jesse DuPont
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 12:47 PM
To: af@afmug.com  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

 

Is it possible another router somewhere is announcing x.x.x.208/28 (or /29 or 
/30)? You mentioned there is no x.x.x.208/32 router in the route table, but 
what about other prefix lengths?

Are you summarizing your PPPoE prefixes into OSPF by putting them into another 
area and using area-ranges or do all the /32s just end up in all your routers' 
tables as PPPoE sessions come up?

Did you look at the route tables at Braggcity and Ross to ensure they show the 
correct outgoing iface for that /32 to reach the Hayti router?

Are you using MPLS at all?

If you add a static route for x.x.x.208/32 to Bernie, Braggcity and Ross, does 
that make any difference?

Jesse DuPont

Network Architect
email:   jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
Celerity Networks LLC

Celerity Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc

Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband


On 8/25/16 11:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I started to 
renumber some PPPoE pools.

Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 pool). 
Customer can’t surf and I can’t ping them from my office:

 

[office] – [Bernie Router] – [Braggcity Router] – [Ross Router] – [Hayti 
Router] – [customer]

 

A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting any 
type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest 
unreachable etc – just blackholes after my office router.

A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie router 
with no type of response.

 

Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route pointing to 
the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSA’s.

--

Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

 

--

Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the service 
starts working again.

 

--

 

Now – even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing table 
– traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. I 
should be getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.

 

This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there is no 
route to it:

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

 

Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

 

Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

 

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

 

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

 

  1 6 ms 6 ms 7 ms  z.z.z.z

  2 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

  3  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]  reports: Destination host unreachable.

 

Trace complete.

 

This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and there is 
no route to it.

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

 

Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

 

Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

 

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

 

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

 

  1 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms  z.z.z.z

  2 *** Request timed out.

  3 ** ^C

 

--

 

I’ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the traffic – I even put 
an accept rule in the forward chain for both the source and destination of 
x.x.x.208

Re: [AFMUG] new GIGE-POE-APCs backwards?

2016-08-25 Thread George Skorup

Thanks Chuck. We know you stand behind your products. It was simple 
enough for me to lift the sticker with a razor blade and move it to the 
other jack.


On 8/25/2016 3:40 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
I just notified all the distributors to check their stock.  Advance 
replacements are available.

*From:* George Skorup 
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 24, 2016 8:10 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] new GIGE-POE-APCs backwards?
Yep, got busy, just tried it. The new ones are just marked backwards. 
So FYI for Chuck and everyone else. Make sure your techs know about 
this so they don't end up injecting power into a switch or router 
port. I did that a couple weeks ago with a SyncInjector not paying 
attention to what I was doing. At least now I know that the trip 
auto-reset on the new firmware works. :)


On 8/24/2016 8:48 PM, Nate Burke wrote:
I have 2 sitting on my desk a couple months old, they are like your 
OLD photo.  Try to power up a radio, it'll either power on the POE 
port or do nothing in the other one.  I don't think you could fry 
anything with that test (I'm guessing the jumpers are still the same)


On 8/24/2016 8:33 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
I am home and my stash of them is at the office, but I checked a 
photo of a box I built maybe 2 years ago and judging from where the 
cables go, the GIGE-POE-APC I used then is just like the one in your 
photo.

*From:* George Skorup 
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 24, 2016 7:41 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] new GIGE-POE-APCs backwards?
Looks like the new one is using a newer Pulse transformer? So did 
the POE jack change with it? The traces on the boards look the same. 
Same board revision. I'm confused. The sticker is also upside down, 
so I'm thinking someone just stuck them on the wrong jack? Woulda 
been very nice if the tabs were flipped up too. Oh well, I can live 
with it.




On 8/24/2016 7:22 PM, George Skorup wrote:

Nope.

On 8/24/2016 7:19 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Are the tabs flipped from previous also?

-Original Message- From: George Skorup Sent: Wednesday, 
August 24, 2016 7:13 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] new 
GIGE-POE-APCs backwards?
Chuck, I just got some new ones dropped shipped from you today. 
They have the "POE" label on the RJ45 closest to the terminal 
block. These have always had the POE on the one opposite the 
terminal block. Are these just marked wrong?

Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

2016-08-25 Thread Eric Kuhnke

I don't think it is a misprint, I have seen other high-voltage input DC:DC
converters (you can find some from Sager/Powergate), but they're much rarer
than things which have a top-end input voltage maximum of around
76VDC...Really curious what sort of weird industrial applications are
relatively low wattage at a couple hundred watts load for a device, and
need that kind of input.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Bill Prince  wrote:

> I wonder if that is a misprint. I know a lot of power supplies that
> actually "don't care" if the input is AC or DC. So inputting 120 VAC works
> more-or-less the same are 120VDC. Off-line switching power supplies were a
> great innovation.
>
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 8/25/2016 11:35 AM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>
> I know such things exist but have never encountered them in person, where
> would you have 140 or 150VDC power?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> https://psui.com/product/teq-300wir/
>> https://psui.com/wp-content/uploads/products/Traco%20Power/D
>> ataSheets/teq300wir.pdf
>>
>> Unfortunately the prices (even assuming a discount) look prohibitive.
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

2016-08-25 Thread Adam Moffett

I think it's more like you have a 110 VDC power supply for the motors in 
your machine and you want to convert that to lower voltage for 
electronic controls.  Variable input voltage is good because when the 
motors kick on you might see voltage jump around.


17 years ago I was a draftsman drawing wiring diagrams for process 
equipment.  Pretty sure I've seen something like that.




-- Original Message --
From: "Eric Kuhnke" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 8/25/2016 3:08:14 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

I don't think it is a misprint, I have seen other high-voltage input 
DC:DC converters (you can find some from Sager/Powergate), but they're 
much rarer than things which have a top-end input voltage maximum of 
around 76VDC...Really curious what sort of weird industrial 
applications are relatively low wattage at a couple hundred watts load 
for a device, and need that kind of input.


On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Bill Prince  
wrote:
I wonder if that is a misprint. I know a lot of power supplies that 
actually "don't care" if the input is AC or DC. So inputting 120 VAC 
works more-or-less the same are 120VDC. Off-line switching power 
supplies were a great innovation.




bp 
On 8/25/2016 11:35 AM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
I know such things exist but have never encountered them in person, 
where would you have 140 or 150VDC power?




On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

https://psui.com/product/teq-300wir/
https://psui.com/wp-content/uploads/products/Traco%20Power/DataSheets/teq300wir.pdf

Unfortunately the prices (even assuming a discount) look 
prohibitive.

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Ken Hohhof

Probably not relevant to your problem, but where we blackhole route a block for 
a tower PPPoE pool, we also put in an ospf-out route filter to discard /32 
prefix lengths, to avoid the individual /32 routes going in every routing table 
around our network.  Now if you had mobile CPE with static IP assignments that 
you wanted to follow the CPE around your network, that would be different.  But 
you could still do that with a non-pool address.

From: Robert Haas 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

No, I double checked for any more specific routes that encompass that range. I 
do have my /20 to a null route to keep from ping-pong’ing at edge routers, but 
I disabled it temporarily with no change.

No summary routes – the /32’s end up in the routing table as the sessions 
terminate.

Routing at other sites was correct – I could ping the customer and traceroute 
to them from the Braggcity router. Directly on the Bernie router it just times 
out and goes no where.

No MPLS

I added a static route – one to .208 and a second to .206 (to compare). The 
correct result would be a ping-pong between Bernie and Braggcity.

I attached the screen shot, the .208 just times out while the .206 ping-pongs 
like it should..

To expand on that – I then added .208 onto the loopback at Hayti. The screen 
shot shows the Bernie router having the route in the routing table but still 
the traffic is blackholed..

I’m scratching my head.. 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jesse DuPont
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 12:47 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Is it possible another router somewhere is announcing x.x.x.208/28 (or /29 or 
/30)? You mentioned there is no x.x.x.208/32 router in the route table, but 
what about other prefix lengths?

Are you summarizing your PPPoE prefixes into OSPF by putting them into another 
area and using area-ranges or do all the /32s just end up in all your routers' 
tables as PPPoE sessions come up?

Did you look at the route tables at Braggcity and Ross to ensure they show the 
correct outgoing iface for that /32 to reach the Hayti router?

Are you using MPLS at all?

If you add a static route for x.x.x.208/32 to Bernie, Braggcity and Ross, does 
that make any difference?

Jesse DuPont

Network Architect
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
Celerity Networks LLC

Celerity Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc

Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband

On 8/25/16 11:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

  Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I started 
to renumber some PPPoE pools.

  Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 
pool). Customer can’t surf and I can’t ping them from my office:

  [office] – [Bernie Router] – [Braggcity Router] – [Ross Router] – [Hayti 
Router] – [customer]

  A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting any 
type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest 
unreachable etc – just blackholes after my office router.

  A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie router 
with no type of response.

  Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route pointing 
to the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSA’s.

  --

  Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

  --

  Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the 
service starts working again.

  --

  Now – even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing 
table – traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. I 
should be getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.

  This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there is no 
route to it:

  C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

  Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

  Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

  Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

  Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

  Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

  C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

  Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

  over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 6 ms 6 ms 7 ms  z.z.z.z

2 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

3  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]  reports: Destination host unreachable.

  Trace complete.

  This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and there is 
no route to it.

  C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

  Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

  Request timed out.

  Request timed out.

  Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

  Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

  C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

  Trac

Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

2016-08-25 Thread Ken Hohhof

I have no experience in the railroad business, but I suspect those are common 
battery voltages for railcar/locomotive electronics.

From: Bill Prince 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 2:00 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

I wonder if that is a misprint. I know a lot of power supplies that actually 
"don't care" if the input is AC or DC. So inputting 120 VAC works more-or-less 
the same are 120VDC. Off-line switching power supplies were a great innovation.

bp

On 8/25/2016 11:35 AM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

  I know such things exist but have never encountered them in person, where 
would you have 140 or 150VDC power?

  On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

https://psui.com/product/teq-300wir/

https://psui.com/wp-content/uploads/products/Traco%20Power/DataSheets/teq300wir.pdf

Unfortunately the prices (even assuming a discount) look prohibitive.

Re: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?

2016-08-25 Thread Ken Hohhof

I think you need to conjure up a mental image of Dr. Evil while reading that 
post.

From: Rick Harnish 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 12:20 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?

HaHa, that is a greater price increase that the EpiPen!  100,000%  

Respectfully,

Rick Harnish

Director of WISP Markets

Baicells Technologies, N.A.

Mobile: +1.972.922.1443

Email: rick.harn...@baicells.com

Follow us on Facebook for the latest news

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 5:13 AM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?

WE have one for sale too! $1M 😂

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Graham McIntire  wrote:

  We have a NN license I'd be happy to part with. It's completely useless in 
our area around Dallas because of TowerStream. Hit me offlist and I'll make a 
great deal.

  On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

I have a suspicion that a certain large WISP aggregator is tired of UL and 
will be a big bidder on PALs in their territories.*  Also from the standpoint 
of valuation, wireless companies tend to be valued based on their licensed 
spectrum holdings.  Even warehoused spectrum seems to increase valuation, as 
long as it’s licensed.  CBRS spectrum isn’t quite like 600 MHz or 2.5 GHz 
spectrum, but still probably viewed as an asset, unlike unlicensed.

*based on lots of Part 101 upgrades without corresponding last mile 
upgrades, plus stated interest in LTE

From: Jeff Broadwick - Lists 

Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 12:14 PM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?

Last I heard was MAYBE by the end of the 2nd quarter of 2017.

Jeff Broadwick 

ConVergence Technologies, Inc.

312-205-2519 Office

574-220-7826 Cell

jbroadw...@converge-tech.com

On Aug 5, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

  Maybe Michael Anderson isn't using WQHV410.  Interesting the 2017 
expiration.  That's a reminder that most of them will be expiring in the next 
1-2 years.  No worries, CBRS should be up and running by then, right?

  -Original Message- From: Sam Morris
  Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:17 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?

  Does anyone have a (or know anyone who has a) 3.6-3.7 GHz license they
  aren't using and would like to sell (or donate)?

  Thanks
  Sam

Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

2016-08-25 Thread Eric Kuhnke

Hm

http://www.powerstream.com/locomotive-battery-facts.htm

72VDC?

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> I have no experience in the railroad business, but I suspect those are
> common battery voltages for railcar/locomotive electronics.
>
>
> *From:* Bill Prince 
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 2:00 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?
>
>
> I wonder if that is a misprint. I know a lot of power supplies that
> actually "don't care" if the input is AC or DC. So inputting 120 VAC works
> more-or-less the same are 120VDC. Off-line switching power supplies were a
> great innovation.
>
>
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 8/25/2016 11:35 AM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>
> I know such things exist but have never encountered them in person, where
> would you have 140 or 150VDC power?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> https://psui.com/product/teq-300wir/
>> https://psui.com/wp-content/uploads/products/Traco%20Power/D
>> ataSheets/teq300wir.pdf
>>
>> Unfortunately the prices (even assuming a discount) look prohibitive.
>>
>>
>
>
>

[AFMUG] Service in Coatsville IN

2016-08-25 Thread Roland Houin

does anyone service

Coatsville, In 46121 at
2518 South County Road 550 West.

We have a customer who moved from our area to Coatsville.
desperate for service

Roland Houin
Fourway.Net

Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

2016-08-25 Thread jesse . dupont



A lot of power substation control equipment is high voltage DC (100-300 VDC).


Get Outlook for Android






On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:14 PM -0600, "Adam Moffett"  
wrote:
















I think it's more like you have a 110 VDC power supply for the motors in your 
machine and you want to convert that to lower voltage for electronic controls.  
Variable input voltage is good because when the motors kick on you might see 
voltage jump around.
 
17 years ago I was a draftsman drawing wiring diagrams for process equipment.  
Pretty sure I've seen something like that.
 
 
 
-- Original Message --
From: "Eric Kuhnke" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 8/25/2016 3:08:14 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?
 


I don't think it is a misprint, I have seen other high-voltage input DC:DC 
converters (you can find some from Sager/Powergate), but they're much rarer 
than things which have a top-end input voltage maximum of around 76VDC...    
Really curious what sort of weird industrial applications are relatively low 
wattage at a couple hundred watts load for a device, and need that kind of 
input.



On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Bill Prince  wrote:





I wonder if that is a misprint. I know a lot of power supplies that actually 
"don't care" if the input is AC or DC. So inputting 120 VAC works more-or-less 
the same are 120VDC. Off-line switching power supplies were a great innovation.




bp



On 8/25/2016 11:35 AM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:


I know such things exist but have never encountered them in person, where would 
you have 140 or 150VDC power?





On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:



https://psui.com/product/teq-300wir/
https://psui.com/wp-content/uploads/products/Traco%20Power/DataSheets/teq300wir.pdf

Unfortunately the prices (even assuming a discount) look prohibitive.

Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

2016-08-25 Thread Gerard Dupont III

We primarily use Traco now. We use the TSP 360-124 and TSP BCM24. They
are approx $300 for the pair. The nice thing is they have a temp probe
to help keep from boiling the batteries.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
> https://psui.com/product/teq-300wir/
> https://psui.com/wp-content/uploads/products/Traco%20Power/DataSheets/teq300wir.pdf
>
> Unfortunately the prices (even assuming a discount) look prohibitive.
>

Re: [AFMUG] PMP450d vs reflector

2016-08-25 Thread Matt

Old thread but do you see 3db more signal with them vs a standard sm with
reflector?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:51 AM, SmarterBroadband <
li...@smarterbroadband.com> wrote:

> We use them a lot.  Most installs.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Daniel White
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:13 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450d vs reflector
>
>
>
> Personally I like them.  Reflectors and the classic Canopy case SM’s are
> certainly more popular though.
>
>
>
> There are a number of WISP’s that buy them though.  I think the 4 pack and
> only 20Mbps/Unlimited keys turns some people off.
>
>
>
> Daniel White
>
> Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales
>
> ConVergence Technologies
>
> Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
>
> dwh...@converge-tech.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *timothy steele
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 28, 2016 4:06 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450d vs reflector
>
>
>
> Looks like power and gain are the same but the 450d has more of a narrow
> antenna pattern then using a dish so I would expect to see better results
> don't have 1 to try though..
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 5:55 PM Jon Langeler 
> wrote:
>
> Someone bought one that's not government?
>
> Jon Langeler
> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>
> > On Jun 28, 2016, at 5:38 PM, Matt  wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone compared a PMP450d to a PMP450 5ghz SM with reflector?  I
> > have a problem CPE I need just a bit more gain and wandered if that
> > will get me over the hump.
> >
> > What about a 3.65 SM with reflector vs the PMP450 3.6 with integrated
> antenna?
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
> 
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

2016-08-25 Thread Gerard Dupont III

Just realized that was DC-DC. For those we use the Traco TMDC 60-4824
or TMDC 60-4848.

http://assets.tracopower.com/20160817133249/TMDC60/documents/tmdc60-datasheet.pdf

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Gerard Dupont III  wrote:
> We primarily use Traco now. We use the TSP 360-124 and TSP BCM24. They
> are approx $300 for the pair. The nice thing is they have a temp probe
> to help keep from boiling the batteries.
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>> https://psui.com/product/teq-300wir/
>> https://psui.com/wp-content/uploads/products/Traco%20Power/DataSheets/teq300wir.pdf
>>
>> Unfortunately the prices (even assuming a discount) look prohibitive.
>>

Re: [AFMUG] plantronics headsets

2016-08-25 Thread CBB - Jay Fuller

Same model phone ? 

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Josh Reynolds" 
To: 
Cc: "Pete Rice" , "Laura Nichols" 

Subject: [AFMUG] plantronics headsets
Date: Thu, Aug 25, 2016 1:50 PM

No idea with the Plantronics. We used Jabra universal headsets with ours (with 
lifters) and our office staff really liked them.

On Aug 25, 2016 1:35 PM, "CBB - Jay Fuller"  wrote:

We have two plantronics headsets - model "Plantronics Wideband CO54" that we 
are trying to get to work with a grandstream 
gxp2130.  After a few phone calls (3? 4?) the grandstream will basically 
stop talking to the plantronics, no dialtone will happen.  The phone has to 
be rebooted.

My phone folks tell me several times a day.

Has anyone experienced this?  Have any 
solution?  Should I rip the grandtreams out and put in yelteks?  I've 
heard they are betterbut

One phone person I thought might have been weirdness - but 
two?   

Seems to be an ongoing issue

CCing my phone folks so they can tell me if i 
misrepresented the problem.

Re: [AFMUG] plantronics headsets

2016-08-25 Thread Josh Reynolds

2160's and 2140's, same model line.

On Aug 25, 2016 2:56 PM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
wrote:

>
> Same model phone ?
>
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
>
> - Reply message -
> From: "Josh Reynolds" 
> To: 
> Cc: "Pete Rice" , "Laura Nichols" <
> la...@cyberbroadband.net>
> Subject: [AFMUG] plantronics headsets
> Date: Thu, Aug 25, 2016 1:50 PM
>
> No idea with the Plantronics. We used Jabra universal headsets with ours
> (with lifters) and our office staff really liked them.
>
> On Aug 25, 2016 1:35 PM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> We have two plantronics headsets - model "Plantronics Wideband CO54" that
>> we are trying to get to work with a grandstream gxp2130.  After a few phone
>> calls (3? 4?) the grandstream will basically stop talking to the
>> plantronics, no dialtone will happen.  The phone has to be rebooted.
>>
>> My phone folks tell me several times a day.
>>
>> Has anyone experienced this?  Have any solution?  Should I rip the
>> grandtreams out and put in yelteks?  I've heard they are betterbut
>>
>> One phone person I thought might have been weirdness - but two?
>>
>> Seems to be an ongoing issue
>>
>> CCing my phone folks so they can tell me if i misrepresented the problem.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] plantronics headsets

2016-08-25 Thread Josh Reynolds

Btw, they have a compatibility matrix.

http://www.grandstream.com/sites/default/files/Resources/GXP2130_2140_2160_2170_2135_Headset_compatibility.pdf

On Aug 25, 2016 2:57 PM, "Josh Reynolds"  wrote:

> 2160's and 2140's, same model line.
>
> On Aug 25, 2016 2:56 PM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Same model phone ?
>>
>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
>>
>> - Reply message -
>> From: "Josh Reynolds" 
>> To: 
>> Cc: "Pete Rice" , "Laura Nichols" <
>> la...@cyberbroadband.net>
>> Subject: [AFMUG] plantronics headsets
>> Date: Thu, Aug 25, 2016 1:50 PM
>>
>> No idea with the Plantronics. We used Jabra universal headsets with ours
>> (with lifters) and our office staff really liked them.
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2016 1:35 PM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We have two plantronics headsets - model "Plantronics Wideband CO54" that
>>> we are trying to get to work with a grandstream gxp2130.  After a few phone
>>> calls (3? 4?) the grandstream will basically stop talking to the
>>> plantronics, no dialtone will happen.  The phone has to be rebooted.
>>>
>>> My phone folks tell me several times a day.
>>>
>>> Has anyone experienced this?  Have any solution?  Should I rip the
>>> grandtreams out and put in yelteks?  I've heard they are betterbut
>>>
>>> One phone person I thought might have been weirdness - but two?
>>>
>>> Seems to be an ongoing issue
>>>
>>> CCing my phone folks so they can tell me if i misrepresented the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] Service in Coatsville IN

2016-08-25 Thread Rick Harnish

Check with Eric Rogers at Precision Data Solutions

Respectfully,

Rick Harnish
Director of WISP Markets
Baicells Technologies, N.A.
Mobile: +1.972.922.1443
Email: rick.harn...@baicells.com
Follow us on Facebook for the latest news

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Roland Houin
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 3:20 PM
To: afmug 
Subject: [AFMUG] Service in Coatsville IN

does anyone service

Coatsville, In 46121 at
2518 South County Road 550 West.

We have a customer who moved from our area to Coatsville.
desperate for service

Roland Houin
Fourway.Net

Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

2016-08-25 Thread Chuck McCown

Stepper  motor drivers?

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 12:51 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

Not in telecom.
DC Motors for machinery is all I can think of.

-- Original Message --
From: "Eric Kuhnke" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 8/25/2016 2:35:39 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco competition for Mean Well RSD?

  I know such things exist but have never encountered them in person, where 
would you have 140 or 150VDC power?

  On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

https://psui.com/product/teq-300wir/

https://psui.com/wp-content/uploads/products/Traco%20Power/DataSheets/teq300wir.pdf

Unfortunately the prices (even assuming a discount) look prohibitive.

Re: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?

2016-08-25 Thread Jason McKemie

I'll sell mine for $950k.

On Thursday, August 25, 2016, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If theyre going for 1M, Ill sell the bosses today
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Gino Villarini  > wrote:
>
>> WE have one for sale too! $1M 😂
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Graham McIntire > > wrote:
>>
>>> We have a NN license I'd be happy to part with. It's completely useless
>>> in our area around Dallas because of TowerStream. Hit me offlist and I'll
>>> make a great deal.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Ken Hohhof >> > wrote:
>>>
 I have a suspicion that a certain large WISP aggregator is tired of UL
 and will be a big bidder on PALs in their territories.*  Also from the
 standpoint of valuation, wireless companies tend to be valued based on
 their licensed spectrum holdings.  Even warehoused spectrum seems to
 increase valuation, as long as it’s licensed.  CBRS spectrum isn’t quite
 like 600 MHz or 2.5 GHz spectrum, but still probably viewed as an asset,
 unlike unlicensed.

 *based on lots of Part 101 upgrades without corresponding last mile
 upgrades, plus stated interest in LTE

 *From:* Jeff Broadwick - Lists

 *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 12:14 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com 
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?

 Last I heard was MAYBE by the end of the 2nd quarter of 2017.

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

 On Aug 5, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Ken Hohhof >>> > wrote:

 Maybe Michael Anderson isn't using WQHV410.  Interesting the 2017
 expiration.  That's a reminder that most of them will be expiring in the
 next 1-2 years.  No worries, CBRS should be up and running by then, right?

 -Original Message- From: Sam Morris
 Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:17 AM
 To: af@afmug.com 
 Subject: [AFMUG] 3.6 GHz Licenses for Sale?

 Does anyone have a (or know anyone who has a) 3.6-3.7 GHz license they
 aren't using and would like to sell (or donate)?

 Thanks
 Sam

>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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] Big Guns align behind CBRS LTE in 3.5 ghz

2016-08-25 Thread par...@cyberbroadband.net

:

SSent from my V erizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Mike Hammett" 
To: 
Subject: [AFMUG] Big Guns align behind CBRS LTE in 3.5 ghz
Date: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 4:28 PM
Yes.

-Mike HammettIntelligent Computing SolutionsMidwest Internet ExchangeThe 
Brothers WISP

From: "Dan Petermann" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 4:22:28 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Big Guns align behind CBRS LTE in 3.5 ghz

Isn’t the spectrum available for use until the PAL license holder actually 
starts transmitting?
Isn’t that the whole point of the database?
On Aug 24, 2016, at 2:02 PM, Rick Harnish  
wrote:There are approximately 500,000 PAL licenses, (7) 10 MHz per license per 
census tract. No company can buy more than four licenses per census tract. 
There is also an additional 80 MHz of GAA spectrum, which will include 
3.65-3.7.  
I would guess metro areas will go fairly high but rural areas not so much. 
Since the census tracts are so small, small WISPs may see more value in their 
coverage area than the big guys.
In my opinion, this is the best opportunity for WISPs to gain access to 
affordable licensed spectrum ever. Also, there is opportunistic use of licensed 
PAL spectrum, if it is not being used as governed by the SAS database. 
Read the rules, keep up on the upcoming auction proceedings, identify the 
census tracts in your area and get prepared to bid!

Respectively,
Rick HarnishDirector of WISP MarketsDirect: 972.922.1443Baicells Technologies 
N.A. Inc.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DroidOn Aug 24, 2016 2:45 PM, Jason 
McKemie  wrote:
Maybe, I'm having a pessimistic kind of week.

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016, Mike Hammett  wrote:
I don't believe they can purchase all of the GAA, well, not one company anyway.

I think you're also over-estimating the geographic reach that they'll be 
purchasing licenses in.

-Mike HammettIntelligent Computing SolutionsMidwest Internet ExchangeThe 
Brothers WISP

From: "Jason McKemie" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 2:38:23 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Big Guns align behind CBRS LTE in 3.5 ghz

They could purchase all of the exclusive-use spectrum though.  The 3.65 band is 
pretty much worthless around here anymore as-is.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Keefe John  wrote:

70 mhz is reserved for GAA

On 8/24/2016 12:48 PM, Jason McKemie
wrote:

Why not?

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Keefe
John 
wrote:

They can't buy them all.

On 8/24/2016 12:26 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

Bad if they bid on PAL's in your area. 
Probably none of us could outbid those guys.

-- Original Message --
From: "Mike Hammett" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 8/24/2016 1:24:33 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Big Guns align behind CBRS
LTE in 3.5 ghz

Good
thing or bad thing?

-

Mike
Hammett

Intelligent Computing
Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

From:
"Gino Villarini" 

To: "Animal Farm" 

Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016
12:23:38 PM

Subject: [AFMUG] Big Guns align
behind CBRS LTE in 3.5 ghz

http://telecoms.com/475034/google-intel-nokia-qualcomm-and-other-form-3-5-ghz-alliance/

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Bruce Robertson

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons 
why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets, 
anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback 
addresses.  All your weird OSPF problems will go away.  My apologies if 
I'm misunderstanding the problem, but my point still stands.


On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:


Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I 
started to renumber some PPPoE pools.


Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from 
x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping them from my 
office:


[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross Router] ï¿½ 
[Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer]


A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not 
getting any type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP 
Host Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes after my 
office router.


A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie 
router with no type of response.


Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route 
pointing to the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSAï¿½s.


--

Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

--

Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and 
the service starts working again.


--

Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the 
routing table ï¿½ traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still 
getting blackholed.. I should be getting a Destination host 
unreachable from the Bernie router.


This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there 
is no route to it:


C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1 6 ms 6 ms 7 ms  z.z.z.z

  2 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

  3  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]  reports: Destination host unreachable.

Trace complete.

This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and 
there is no route to it.


C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1 6 ms 6 ms 6 ms  z.z.z.z

  2 *** Request timed out.

  3 ** ^C

--

Iï¿½ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the traffic ï¿½ I 
even put an accept rule in the forward chain for both the source and 
destination of x.x.x.208 and neither increment at all. So the traffic 
is not even making out of the routing flow and into the firewall..


Any pointers are where to start troubleshooting next?

!DSPAM:2,57bf295962076342819562!

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread jesse . dupont



Regardless of the culprit, the cause of this will be a misconfiguration of some 
kind and likely not even with OSPF. OSPF is not weird, nor does it behave 
badly; it merely reacts to conditions based on a predetermined set of 
algorithms which are very well documented and implemented, especially for IPv4. 
OSPF builds a FIB and based on that FIB, it modifies the route table. Both of 
those are correct in this case.


All that said, I fully embrace the model you laid it and have been using it for 
some time. It makes perfect sense to me to use a non-link-state protocol to 
distribute prefixes that are not based on the state of a link.


Now, if we can just get Mikrotik to work out the next-hop recursive resolution 
issue so we can use BGP to distribute v6 prefixes...


Get Outlook for Android






On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:28 PM -0600, "Bruce Robertson"  wrote:











  

  
  
I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many
reasons why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool,
server subnets, anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute
router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All your weird OSPF problems will go
away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm misunderstanding the problem, but my
point still stands.



On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas
  wrote:



  
  
  
  


Alright, this problem has raised it head
  again on my network since I started to renumber some PPPoE
  pools.


Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE
  x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer canï¿½t surf and
  I canï¿½t ping them from my office:


ï¿½


[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity
  Router] ï¿½ [Ross Router] ï¿½ [Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer]


ï¿½


A traceroute from my office dies @ the
  Bernie router but I am not getting any type of ICMP response
  from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest
  unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes after my office router.


A traceroute from the Customer to the
  office again dies at the Bernie router with no type of
  response.


ï¿½


Checking the routing table on the Bernie
  router shows a valid route pointing to the Braggcity router.
  It is also in the OSPF LSAï¿½s.


--


Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has
  no issue at all.


ï¿½


--


Force the original customer to a new ip
  address of x.x.x.205/32 and the service starts working again.


ï¿½


--


ï¿½


Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route
  to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing table ï¿½ traffic destined to the
  x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. I should be
  getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.


ï¿½


This is correct the correct response .206
  is not being used and there is no route to it:


C:\Users
etadmin>ping x.x.x.206


ï¿½


Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:


Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host
  unreachable.


Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host
  unreachable.


ï¿½


Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:


ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost =
  0 (0% loss),


ï¿½


C:\Users
etadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206


ï¿½


Tracing route to
  host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]


over a maximum of 30 hops:


ï¿½


ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½ z.z.z.z


ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½
  y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]


ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports:
  Destination host unreachable.


ï¿½


Trace complete.


ï¿½


This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though
  it is not being used and there is no route to it.


C:\Users
etadmin>ping x.x.x.208


ï¿½


Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:


Request timed out.


Request timed out.


ï¿½


Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:


ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost =
  2 (100% loss),


ï¿½


C:\Users
etadmin>tracert x.x.x.208


ï¿½


Tracing route to
  host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]


over a maximum of 30 hops:


ï¿½


ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ z.z.z.z


ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 
Request
  timed out.


ï¿½ 3ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ^C


ï¿½


--


ï¿½


Iï¿½ve verified there is no firewall that

Re: [AFMUG] Big Guns align behind CBRS LTE in 3.5 ghz

2016-08-25 Thread David Milholen


When can we apply for our pal for this band?

We actively use 3.65-3.7 inside an entire county while bordering inside 
a few neighboring counties.


Currently GAA till 2018.  Lots of customers on this band and still 
growing not going to move to easy.




On 8/25/2016 6:20 PM, par...@cyberbroadband.net wrote:

:

SSent from my V erizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Mike Hammett" 
To: 
Subject: [AFMUG] Big Guns align behind CBRS LTE in 3.5 ghz
Date: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 4:28 PM


Yes.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Dan Petermann" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Wednesday, August 24, 2016 4:22:28 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Big Guns align behind CBRS LTE in 3.5 ghz

Isn’t the spectrum available for use until the PAL license holder 
actually starts transmitting?


Isn’t that the whole point of the database?

On Aug 24, 2016, at 2:02 PM, Rick Harnish > wrote:


There are approximately 500,000 PAL licenses, (7) 10 MHz per
license per census tract. No company can buy more than four
licenses per census tract. There is also an additional 80 MHz of
GAA spectrum, which will include 3.65-3.7.

I would guess metro areas will go fairly high but rural areas not
so much. Since the census tracts are so small, small WISPs may see
more value in their coverage area than the big guys.

In my opinion, this is the best opportunity for WISPs to gain
access to affordable licensed spectrum ever. Also, there is
opportunistic use of licensed PAL spectrum, if it is not being
used as governed by the SAS database.

Read the rules, keep up on the upcoming auction proceedings,
identify the census tracts in your area and get prepared to bid!


/Respectively,/
/
/
/Rick Harnish/
/Director of WISP Markets/
/Direct: 972.922.1443/
/Baicells Technologies N.A. Inc./
/
/
/Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Droid/
On Aug 24, 2016 2:45 PM, Jason McKemie
mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>> wrote:

Maybe, I'm having a pessimistic kind of week.

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016, Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote:

I don't believe they can purchase all of the GAA, well,
not one company anyway.

I think you're also over-estimating the geographic reach
that they'll be purchasing licenses in.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 






*From: *"Jason McKemie" 
*To: *af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Wednesday, August 24, 2016 2:38:23 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Big Guns align behind CBRS LTE in
3.5 ghz

They could purchase all of the exclusive-use spectrum
though.  The 3.65 band is pretty much worthless around
here anymore as-is.

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Keefe John
 wrote:

70 mhz is reserved for GAA


On 8/24/2016 12:48 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:

Why not?

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Keefe John
 wrote:

They can't buy them all.


On 8/24/2016 12:26 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

Bad if they bid on PAL's in your area. 
Probably none of us could outbid those guys.

-- Original Message --
From: "Mike Hammett" 
To: af@afmug.co

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Faisal Imtiaz

Interesting proposition 

How to do you manage the ibgp mesh requirement ? 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Bruce Robertson" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 7:28:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

> I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons why 
> you
> use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets, anything}
> routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All
> your weird OSPF problems will go away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm misunderstanding
> the problem, but my point still stands.

> On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

>> Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I started 
>> to
>> renumber some PPPoE pools.

>> Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 
>> pool).
>> Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping them from my office:

>> ï¿½

>> [office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross Router] ï¿½ 
>> [Hayti
>> Router] ï¿½ [customer]

>> ï¿½

>> A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting any
>> type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest
>> unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes after my office router.

>> A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie router
>> with no type of response.

>> ï¿½

>> Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route pointing 
>> to
>> the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSAï¿½s.

>> --

>> Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

>> ï¿½

>> --

>> Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the 
>> service
>> starts working again.

>> ï¿½

>> --

>> ï¿½

>> Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing 
>> table
>> ï¿½ traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. I
>> should be getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.

>> ï¿½

>> This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there is no
>> route to it:

>> C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

>> ï¿½

>> Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

>> Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

>> Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

>> ï¿½

>> Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

>> ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

>> ï¿½

>> C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

>> ï¿½

>> Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

>> over a maximum of 30 hops:

>> ï¿½

>> ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½ z.z.z.z

>> ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com
>> [y.y.y.1]

>> ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports: Destination host 
>> unreachable.

>> ï¿½

>> Trace complete.

>> ï¿½

>> This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and there 
>> is no
>> route to it.

>> C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

>> ï¿½

>> Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

>> Request timed out.

>> Request timed out.

>> ï¿½

>> Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

>> ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

>> ï¿½

>> C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

>> ï¿½

>> Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]

>> over a maximum of 30 hops:

>> ï¿½

>> ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ z.z.z.z

>> ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
>> Request timed out.

>> ï¿½ 3ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ^C

>> ï¿½

>> --

>> ï¿½

>> Iï¿½ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the traffic ï¿½ I even
>> put an accept rule in the forward chain for both the source and destination 
>> of
>> x.x.x.208 and neither increment at all. So the traffic is not even making out
>> of the routing flow and into the firewall..

>> ï¿½

>> Any pointers are where to start troubleshooting next?
>> !DSPAM:2,57bf295962076342819562!

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Mike Hammett

I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using OSPF for 
the loopbacks works. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Bruce Robertson"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness 

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons why 
you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets, anything} 
routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All 
your weird OSPF problems will go away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm misunderstanding 
the problem, but my point still stands. 


On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote: 




Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I started to 
renumber some PPPoE pools. 
Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 pool). 
Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping them from my office: 
ï¿½ 
[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross Router] ï¿½ 
[Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer] 
ï¿½ 
A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting any 
type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest 
unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes after my office router. 
A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie router 
with no type of response. 
ï¿½ 
Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route pointing to 
the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSAï¿½s. 
-- 
Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all. 
ï¿½ 
-- 
Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the service 
starts working again. 
ï¿½ 
-- 
ï¿½ 
Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing 
table ï¿½ traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. 
I should be getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router. 
ï¿½ 
This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there is no 
route to it: 
C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206 
ï¿½ 
Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data: 
Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable. 
Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable. 
ï¿½ 
Ping statistics for x.x.x.206: 
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss), 
ï¿½ 
C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206 
ï¿½ 
Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206] 
over a maximum of 30 hops: 
ï¿½ 
ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½ z.z.z.z 
ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com 
[y.y.y.1] 
ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports: Destination host unreachable. 
ï¿½ 
Trace complete. 
ï¿½ 
This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and there is 
no route to it. 
C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208 
ï¿½ 
Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data: 
Request timed out. 
Request timed out. 
ï¿½ 
Ping statistics for x.x.x.208: 
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss), 
ï¿½ 
C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208 
ï¿½ 
Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208] 
over a maximum of 30 hops: 
ï¿½ 
ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ z.z.z.z 
ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 
Request timed out. 
ï¿½ 3ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ^C 
ï¿½ 
-- 
ï¿½ 
Iï¿½ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the traffic ï¿½ I even 
put an accept rule in the forward chain for both the source and destination of 
x.x.x.208 and neither increment at all. So the traffic is not even making out 
of the routing flow and into the firewall.. 
ï¿½ 
Any pointers are where to start troubleshooting next? 
!DSPAM:2,57bf295962076342819562!

Re: [AFMUG] Big Guns align behind CBRS LTE in 3.5 ghz

2016-08-25 Thread Seth Mattinen


On 8/25/16 7:24 PM, David Milholen wrote:

When can we apply for our pal for this band?



Maybe in a year. Long way from that still.

Re: [AFMUG] Big Guns align behind CBRS LTE in 3.5 ghz

2016-08-25 Thread Jeff Broadwick - Lists

At best, 2nd quarter 2017.  My bet is the end of 2017z

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

> On Aug 25, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
> 
>> On 8/25/16 7:24 PM, David Milholen wrote:
>> When can we apply for our pal for this band?
> 
> 
> Maybe in a year. Long way from that still.

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread David Milholen

He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in 
networks




On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using 
OSPF for the loopbacks works.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Bruce Robertson" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many 
reasons why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server 
subnets, anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router 
loopback addresses.ï¿½ All your weird OSPF problems will go away.ï¿½ 
My apologies if I'm misunderstanding the problem, but my point still 
stands.


On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since
I started to renumber some PPPoE pools.

Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from
x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping them
from my office:

ï¿½

[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross
Router] ï¿½ [Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer]

ï¿½

A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not
getting any type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no
ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes
after my office router.

A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the
Bernie router with no type of response.

ï¿½

Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid
route pointing to the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF
LSAï¿½s.

--

Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

ï¿½

--

Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32
and the service starts working again.

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the
routing table ï¿½ traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still
getting blackholed.. I should be getting a Destination host
unreachable from the Bernie router.

ï¿½

This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and
there is no route to it:

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½ z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½
y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports: Destination host
unreachable.

ï¿½

Trace complete.

ï¿½

This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used
and there is no route to it.

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
*ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Request timed out.

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ^C

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Iï¿½ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the traffic
ï¿½ I even put an accept rule in the forward chain for both the
source and destination of x.x.x.208 and neither increment at all.
So the traffic is not even making out of the routing flow and into
the firewall..

ï¿½

Any pointers are where to start troubleshooting next?

!DSPAM:2,57bf295962076342819562! 






--

Re: [AFMUG] Big Guns align behind CBRS LTE in 3.5 ghz

2016-08-25 Thread David Milholen


Thats good because our NN runs out in 2018 dec



On 8/25/2016 9:38 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists wrote:

At best, 2nd quarter 2017.  My bet is the end of 2017z

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

On Aug 25, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Seth Mattinen > wrote:



On 8/25/16 7:24 PM, David Milholen wrote:

When can we apply for our pal for this band?



Maybe in a year. Long way from that still.


--

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Jesse DuPont


  
  
Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and
possibly management subnets for radios) and "access" network
prefixes (customer-facing) are distributed via iBGP.
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all
other routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh
and provides redundancy.


  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Jesse DuPont

  Network
  Architect
  email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
  Celerity Networks LLC
  Celerity
  Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc
  Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband
  

  

On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen
  wrote:


  
  He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses
listed in networks
  
  
  
  On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett
wrote:
  
  

I've heard this concept a few times now.
  I'm not sure how only using OSPF for the loopbacks works.
  
  

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent
  Computing Solutions

Midwest
  Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

  
  

  
  
  From: "Bruce
Robertson" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of
many reasons why you use iBGP to distribute {customer,
dynamic pool, server subnets, anything} routes, and use OSPF
*only* to distribute router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All your
weird OSPF problems will go away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm
misunderstanding the problem, but my point still stands.

On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert
  Haas wrote:


  
  
Alright, this problem has raised it
  head again on my network since I started to renumber
  some PPPoE pools.
Customer gets a new IP address via
  PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer
  canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping them from my office:
ï¿½
[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½
  [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross Router] ï¿½ [Hayti
  Router] ï¿½ [customer]
ï¿½
A traceroute from my office dies @
  the Bernie router but I am not getting any type of
  ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host
  Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes
  after my office router.
A traceroute from the Customer to
  the office again dies at the Bernie router with no
  type of response.
ï¿½
Checking the routing table on the
  Bernie router shows a valid route pointing to the
  Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSAï¿½s.
--
Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32
  and has no issue at all.
ï¿½
--
Force the original customer to a
  new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the service starts
  working again.
ï¿½
--
ï¿½
Now ï¿½ even though there is no
  valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing table ï¿½
  traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still
  getting blackholed.. I should be getting a Destination
  host unreachable from the Bernie router.
ï¿½
This is correct the correct
  response .206 is not being used and there is no route
  to it:
C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206
ï¿½
Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of
  data:
Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination
  host unreachable.
Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination
  host unreachable.
ï¿½
Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2,
  Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
ï¿½
C:\Users\netadmin>tracert
  74.91.65.206
ï¿½
Tracing route to
  host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetwork

Re: [AFMUG] COMMERCIAL: anyone using trillian IM?

2016-08-25 Thread Charles Boening

We run an in-house Trillian server.  It’s integrated with AD and we use GPO for 
client deployment.  I must say it works really well.

It does integrate with the public Trillian servers and public users can add 
your private server as well.  This is nice for us as we have several customers 
and vendors that use Trillian as well.

We ran an Openfire server for many years before switching.  I just couldn’t 
find a client that we really liked that wasn’t overly bloated and slow.

When we first deployed we uncovered a couple minor bugs related to how URLs are 
shared between public and private servers.  The Trillian team was all over it 
and provided a new build in a reasonable amount of time.  They are very 
responsive and easy to communicate with.

Just my $0.02.  ☺

__

Charles Boening
Network Manager
800-858-2399 | Office
charl...@calore.net

www.cot.net | Find us on 
Facebook
__
Cal-Ore  | Real. Local. Trusted. Professional.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 1:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: COMMERCIAL:[AFMUG] anyone using trillian IM?

We run an openfire server and have always used the spak im client for 
interoffice communication between TS, CS and and administration
the problem is we never knew who was where and it required a different username 
on each device, workstation, mobile, laptop, etc without configuring a boot on 
the openfire server, just a pita to remember to login logout everytime you 
changed locations if you wanted uniformity, and histories only logged on the 
server, so if i popped on my laptop on the same account as my workstation it 
wouldnt have the workstation history.

trillian solves this as you connect to the trillian server and it connects to 
your inhouse im server (or yahoo aol or facebook, etc) from multiple devices at 
the same time

They have a free client with their server with ads or whatever, a paid client 
with some features, and an in house server with perpetual licensing and 
optional renewal

It seems to meet the need, however, im my previous interweb miscreient days it 
was trillian and ICQ i used to deliver sub7 packages to my unsuspecting 
victims, ie, it was a toy software. It seems to have grown, but is it still a 
toy software?

--
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] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Bruce Robertson


Route reflectors.

On 08/25/2016 07:30 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

Interesting proposition

How to do you manage the ibgp mesh requirement ?

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net



*From: *"Bruce Robertson" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 7:28:42 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many
reasons why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool,
server subnets, anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to
distribute router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All your weird OSPF
problems will go away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm misunderstanding the
problem, but my point still stands.

On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network
since I started to renumber some PPPoE pools.

Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from
x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping
them from my office:

ï¿½

[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross
Router] ï¿½ [Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer]

ï¿½

A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am
not getting any type of ICMP response from the Bernie router
ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc ï¿½ just
blackholes after my office router.

A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the
Bernie router with no type of response.

ï¿½

Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid
route pointing to the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF
LSAï¿½s.

--

Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

ï¿½

--

Force the original customer to a new ip address of
x.x.x.205/32 and the service starts working again.

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in
the routing table ï¿½ traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP
is still getting blackholed.. I should be getting a
Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.

ï¿½

This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used
and there is no route to it:

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½
z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½
y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports: Destination
host unreachable.

ï¿½

Trace complete.

ï¿½

This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being
used and there is no route to it.

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½
z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
*ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Request timed out.

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ^C

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Iï¿½ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the
traffic ï¿½ I even put an accept rule in the forward chain for
both the source and destination of x.x.x.208 and neither
increment at all. So the traffic is not even making out of the
routing flow and into the firewall..

ï¿½

Any pointers are where to start troubleshooting next?



!DSPAM:2,57bfa9b9213521526810955!

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

2016-08-25 Thread Bruce Robertson

Yes, sorry.  You have to include the /32 loopbacks and the /30 (or 
whatever) PTP links between routers.  Or if you have a bunch of routers 
connected by one broadcast domain, you can use OSPF on that.


On 08/25/2016 07:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:


He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in 
networks




On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using 
OSPF for the loopbacks works.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Bruce Robertson" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many 
reasons why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, 
server subnets, anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute 
router loopback addresses.ï¿½ All your weird OSPF problems will go 
away.ï¿½ My apologies if I'm misunderstanding the problem, but my 
point still stands.


On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network
since I started to renumber some PPPoE pools.

Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from
x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer canï¿½t surf and I canï¿½t ping them
from my office:

ï¿½

[office] ï¿½ [Bernie Router] ï¿½ [Braggcity Router] ï¿½ [Ross
Router] ï¿½ [Hayti Router] ï¿½ [customer]

ï¿½

A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not
getting any type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no
ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc ï¿½ just blackholes
after my office router.

A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the
Bernie router with no type of response.

ï¿½

Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid
route pointing to the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF
LSAï¿½s.

--

Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

ï¿½

--

Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32
and the service starts working again.

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Now ï¿½ even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in
the routing table ï¿½ traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is
still getting blackholed.. I should be getting a Destination host
unreachable from the Bernie router.

ï¿½

This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and
there is no route to it:

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 7 msï¿½ z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½
y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1]

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] ï¿½reports: Destination host
unreachable.

ï¿½

Trace complete.

ï¿½

This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used
and there is no route to it.

C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208

ï¿½

Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.

Request timed out.

ï¿½

Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),

ï¿½

C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208

ï¿½

Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]

over a maximum of 30 hops:

ï¿½

ï¿½ 1ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ 6 msï¿½ z.z.z.z

ï¿½ 2ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
*ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Request timed out.

ï¿½ 3ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ *ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ^C

ï¿½

--

ï¿½

Iï¿½ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the
traffic ï¿½ I even put an accept rule in the forward chain for
both the source and destination of x.x.x.208 and neither
increment at all. So the traffic is not even making

[AFMUG] Google Fiber information

2016-08-25 Thread Rory Conaway

https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Report-Google-Fiber-to-Cut-Staff-After-User-Totals-Disappoint-137750

Rory Conaway * Triad Wireless * CEO
4226 S. 37th Street * Phoenix * AZ 85040
602-426-0542
r...@triadwireless.net
www.triadwireless.net

"Baseball, it is said, is only a game.  True.  And the Grand Canyon is only a 
hole in Arizona".  -  George Frederick Will

56 matches

Mail list logo