date:20160906

Whoops, Trango.  Sorry, got my T words mixed up.

-- Original Message --
From: "Jeremy Grip" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/6/2016 9:18:51 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Trango Apex Lynx/Orion feature request

Telrad or Trango support?

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 6, 2016, at 9:15 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

I just realized I suck at commas.  My apologies to grammar nazis.

-- Original Message --
From: "Adam Moffett" 
To: "Animal Farm" 
Sent: 9/6/2016 9:14:08 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Trango Apex Lynx/Orion feature request

I submitted the feature request below to Telrad's online ticketing 
system earlier today, and they replied that they'll pass the request 
to engineering.  If you use either the Apex Lynx or Apex Orion and if 
you agree with what I'm saying below then please add your voice to 
mine and ask for this feature.

""
Feature Request: I think each interface on the Apex Lynx should have 
a local management IP address. One on the SFP port, one on the CAT5 
port, and one on the RF interface. As an example, many units from 
Cambium have an address of 169.254.1.1 which is always accessible 
when directly attached to the ethernet port.

I think right now if I was to configure a unit for OOB management via 
GE1, then if GE1 was damaged I would permanently lose access to the 
device. If I configure for in band management via fiber, then I could 
(due to misconfiguration or malfunction) lose access to the device 
and require a climber to go up and press the reset button to restore 
access. Feel free to correct me if I have a misconception here, 
otherwise please consider adding permanent local IP's.

""

Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

2016-09-06 Thread Justin Wilson

Contact Jay from Midamerica Towers http://www.midamericatowers.com 
.  He has a couple of towers in Alabama and 
lives in Georgia now.  Jay is a true Tower God and could tell you whats up.

Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

---
http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth

http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric

> On Sep 6, 2016, at 5:13 PM, Jay Weekley  wrote:
> 
> We've got some towers that our climbers are concerned about because they feel 
> the guy wires are loose. We've had them checked by the HAM that built several 
> of our towers including one in question and he said they are fine but there 
> does seem to be a difference in the slack compared to other towers we own.  
> Is there hands on training we can get on tensioning guy wires or is someone 
> in the southeast willing to host two or three people for a few hours for 
> training?
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

UBNT forum is like survey monkey.
We are the Bilderbergers...  

From: George Skorup 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 9:07 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11

Ben, Matt and Chuck are here, and I'm sure others. They are not deaf and blind.

One thing the AF silicon has going for it is true FDD unlike Mimosa.

OK, I'll shut up until they reveal it for reelz and see what they came up with.

On 9/6/2016 8:58 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:

  One thing this group needs to understand is that if you don't interact 
directly with the UBNT on their forum (and draw up votes via popular opinion), 
they're likely to not give a fuck.

  They have a very large traffic volume on there, larger than any other 
manufacturer of WISP type equipment.

  Overwhelming group opinion CAN and HAS swayed them.

  If you don't care to participate, they don't care about your opinion - 
especially if you're not planning on buy several thousand or tens of thousands 
of units.

  On Sep 6, 2016 8:47 PM, "George Skorup"  wrote:

Hopefully they listened and will put a regular slip-fit waveguide interface 
on the final version. Something tells me they're going to run with the type N 
idea though. And I won't buy it. 

On 9/6/2016 8:35 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

  Oh, is this “that” radio...
  I didn’t see any N connectors in the FCC test report photo.  

  From: Josh Reynolds 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 7:33 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11

  Some people start forgetting things as they get older. /s

  On Sep 6, 2016 8:27 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

I thought we already had this discussion a couple times.  ;-)

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

From: "Josh Reynolds" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:26:04 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11

N connectors on top along with the GPS port

On Sep 6, 2016 8:24 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

  OK, I see the  photos in the first test report.  It says there are 4 
antenna ports.  I presume xpic.It does list a generic Radio Waves 
parabolic, but nothing specific for the interface.  I am guessing that you can 
pull the bottom off the case like a canopy and find 4 sma ports in there.  2 
for TX and 2 for RX.  External SMA to circular waveguide feed perhaps but they 
will need a circulator or something to split RX and TX externally.

  From: Eric Kuhnke 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:47 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11

  There are two photos of the unit but they do not show the coax 
connectors or waveguide port.

  On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

No photos.  Hopefully they will be coming.  

From: Josh Reynolds 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:38 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] AF11

https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

A handful of people is still just that.

*shrug* It's your call on how much impact your voice has.

On Sep 6, 2016 10:07 PM, "George Skorup"  wrote:

> Ben, Matt and Chuck are here, and I'm sure others. They are not deaf and
> blind.
>
> One thing the AF silicon has going for it is true FDD unlike Mimosa.
>
> OK, I'll shut up until they reveal it for reelz and see what they came up
> with.
>
> On 9/6/2016 8:58 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
>
> One thing this group needs to understand is that if you don't interact
> directly with the UBNT on their forum (and draw up votes via popular
> opinion), they're likely to not give a fuck.
>
> They have a very large traffic volume on there, larger than any other
> manufacturer of WISP type equipment.
>
> Overwhelming group opinion CAN and HAS swayed them.
>
> If you don't care to participate, they don't care about your opinion -
> especially if you're not planning on buy several thousand or tens of
> thousands of units.
>
> On Sep 6, 2016 8:47 PM, "George Skorup"  wrote:
>
> Hopefully they listened and will put a regular slip-fit waveguide
> interface on the final version. Something tells me they're going to run
> with the type N idea though. And I won't buy it.
>
>
> On 9/6/2016 8:35 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>
> Oh, is this “that” radio...
> I didn’t see any N connectors in the FCC test report photo.
>
> *From:* Josh Reynolds 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 7:33 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>
>
> Some people start forgetting things as they get older. /s
>
> On Sep 6, 2016 8:27 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
>
>> I thought we already had this discussion a couple times.  ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Josh Reynolds" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:26:04 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>>
>> N connectors on top along with the GPS port
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2016 8:24 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I see the  photos in the first test report.  It says there are 4
>>> antenna ports.  I presume xpic.It does list a generic Radio Waves
>>> parabolic, but nothing specific for the interface.  I am guessing that you
>>> can pull the bottom off the case like a canopy and find 4 sma ports in
>>> there.  2 for TX and 2 for RX.  External SMA to circular waveguide feed
>>> perhaps but they will need a circulator or something to split RX and TX
>>> externally.
>>>
>>> *From:* Eric Kuhnke 
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:47 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>>>
>>> There are two photos of the unit but they do not show the coax
>>> connectors or waveguide port.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>>
 No photos.  Hopefully they will be coming.

 *From:* Josh Reynolds 
 *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:38 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* [AFMUG] AF11


 https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

Ben, Matt and Chuck are here, and I'm sure others. They are not deaf and 
blind.


One thing the AF silicon has going for it is true FDD unlike Mimosa.

OK, I'll shut up until they reveal it for reelz and see what they came 
up with.


On 9/6/2016 8:58 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:


One thing this group needs to understand is that if you don't interact 
directly with the UBNT on their forum (and draw up votes via popular 
opinion), they're likely to not give a fuck.


They have a very large traffic volume on there, larger than any other 
manufacturer of WISP type equipment.


Overwhelming group opinion CAN and HAS swayed them.

If you don't care to participate, they don't care about your opinion - 
especially if you're not planning on buy several thousand or tens of 
thousands of units.



On Sep 6, 2016 8:47 PM, "George Skorup" > wrote:


Hopefully they listened and will put a regular slip-fit waveguide
interface on the final version. Something tells me they're going
to run with the type N idea though. And I won't buy it.


On 9/6/2016 8:35 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Oh, is this “that” radio...
I didn’t see any N connectors in the FCC test report photo.
*From:* Josh Reynolds 
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 7:33 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11

Some people start forgetting things as they get older. /s

On Sep 6, 2016 8:27 PM, "Mike Hammett" > wrote:

I thought we already had this discussion a couple times.  ;-)



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Josh Reynolds" >
*To: *af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:26:04 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11

N connectors on top along with the GPS port

On Sep 6, 2016 8:24 PM, "Chuck McCown" > wrote:

OK, I see the photos in the first test report.  It says
there are 4 antenna ports.  I presume xpic.It does
list a generic Radio Waves parabolic, but nothing
specific for the interface.  I am guessing that you can
pull the bottom off the case like a canopy and find 4 sma
ports in there.  2 for TX and 2 for RX. External SMA to
circular waveguide feed perhaps but they will need a
circulator or something to split RX and TX externally.
*From:* Eric Kuhnke 
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:47 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11
There are two photos of the unit but they do not show the
coax connectors or waveguide port.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Chuck McCown
> wrote:

No photos. Hopefully they will be coming.
*From:* Josh Reynolds 
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:38 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* [AFMUG] AF11

https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

Re: [AFMUG] UPS Recommendation

2016-09-06 Thread Jason McKemie

Where are you getting the Alpha units?  I'm thinking a FXM 350 should do
the job but I'm not finding a good supplier.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
wrote:

> I would still use Alpha.
>
>
>
> But I have simple APC rack mount units where there is little temperature
> variance for the unit and batteries.
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:32 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] UPS Recommendation
>
>
>
> Any recommendations for a UPS to use at a site with a generator backup? I
> was thinking about an Alpha unit, but the site is temperature-controlled,
> so that may be overkill.
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

2016-09-06 Thread Jon Langeler

What is it $1000/radio end? I'm not going to complain! I'm sure Mimosa pricing 
will adjust also...

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.

> On Sep 6, 2016, at 10:18 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
> 
> Sure, it'll be enough for a lot of links, but it won't get you a full gig...
> 
> 
>> On Sep 6, 2016 9:12 PM, "Jon Langeler"  wrote:
>> If it's dual polarity you won't need 80MHz wide. 40mhz x 2 should be plenty 
>> for -most- links. 
>> 
>> Jon Langeler
>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>> 
>>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Look at the page with the spectral analysis. It says 56 MHz produces a 65 - 
>>> 79 MHz wide carrier.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: "Mathew Howard" 
>>> To: "af" 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:00:23 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>>> 
>>> 56mhz is what they originally said, but don't the emission designators 
>>> listed here indicate it'll do 80mhz?
>>> 
 On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:
 I doubt in the year 2016 ubnt would design/build/ship a product that only 
 does 56 MHz ETSI size channels for an FCC/IC market...  60 and 80 are 
 allowed now. Coordination results permitting, of course.
 
 https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-122A1_Rcd.pdf
 
 
 
 
 
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> They're only 56 MHz wide.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> 
> The Brothers WISP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Eric Kuhnke" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:43:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11
> 
> 
> 1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels?
> 
> I am hopeful it won't suck.
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds  
>> wrote:
>> https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

1024QAM? Depends on the link. Need more margin? Add more dish.

On Sep 6, 2016 9:18 PM, "Mathew Howard"  wrote:

> Sure, it'll be enough for a lot of links, but it won't get you a full
> gig...
>
> On Sep 6, 2016 9:12 PM, "Jon Langeler"  wrote:
>
>> If it's dual polarity you won't need 80MHz wide. 40mhz x 2 should be
>> plenty for -most- links.
>>
>> Jon Langeler
>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>> Look at the page with the spectral analysis. It says 56 MHz produces a 65
>> - 79 MHz wide carrier.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Mathew Howard" 
>> *To: *"af" 
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:00:23 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>>
>> 56mhz is what they originally said, but don't the emission designators
>> listed here indicate it'll do 80mhz?
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt in the year 2016 ubnt would design/build/ship a product that
>>> only does 56 MHz ETSI size channels for an FCC/IC market...  60 and 80 are
>>> allowed now. Coordination results permitting, of course.
>>>
>>> https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-122A1_Rcd.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>>
 They're only 56 MHz wide.



 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions 
 
 
 
 
 Midwest Internet Exchange 
 
 
 
 The Brothers WISP 
 


 
 --
 *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
 *To: *af@afmug.com
 *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:43:38 PM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11


 1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels?

 I am hopeful it won't suck.



 On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds 
 wrote:

> https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX
>



>>>
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

2016-09-06 Thread Mathew Howard

Sure, it'll be enough for a lot of links, but it won't get you a full
gig...

On Sep 6, 2016 9:12 PM, "Jon Langeler"  wrote:

> If it's dual polarity you won't need 80MHz wide. 40mhz x 2 should be
> plenty for -most- links.
>
> Jon Langeler
> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>
> On Sep 6, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
> Look at the page with the spectral analysis. It says 56 MHz produces a 65
> - 79 MHz wide carrier.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Mathew Howard" 
> *To: *"af" 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:00:23 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>
> 56mhz is what they originally said, but don't the emission designators
> listed here indicate it'll do 80mhz?
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:
>
>> I doubt in the year 2016 ubnt would design/build/ship a product that only
>> does 56 MHz ETSI size channels for an FCC/IC market...  60 and 80 are
>> allowed now. Coordination results permitting, of course.
>>
>> https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-122A1_Rcd.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>> They're only 56 MHz wide.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:43:38 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>>>
>>>
>>> 1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels?
>>>
>>> I am hopeful it won't suck.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

2016-09-06 Thread Jon Langeler

If it's dual polarity you won't need 80MHz wide. 40mhz x 2 should be plenty for 
-most- links. 

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.

> On Sep 6, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> Look at the page with the spectral analysis. It says 56 MHz produces a 65 - 
> 79 MHz wide carrier.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> 
> The Brothers WISP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Mathew Howard" 
> To: "af" 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:00:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11
> 
> 56mhz is what they originally said, but don't the emission designators listed 
> here indicate it'll do 80mhz?
> 
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:
>> I doubt in the year 2016 ubnt would design/build/ship a product that only 
>> does 56 MHz ETSI size channels for an FCC/IC market...  60 and 80 are 
>> allowed now. Coordination results permitting, of course.
>> 
>> https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-122A1_Rcd.pdf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>> They're only 56 MHz wide.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: "Eric Kuhnke" 
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:43:38 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels?
>>> 
>>> I am hopeful it won't suck.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
 https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX
 
> 
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

One thing this group needs to understand is that if you don't interact
directly with the UBNT on their forum (and draw up votes via popular
opinion), they're likely to not give a fuck.

They have a very large traffic volume on there, larger than any other
manufacturer of WISP type equipment.

Overwhelming group opinion CAN and HAS swayed them.

If you don't care to participate, they don't care about your opinion -
especially if you're not planning on buy several thousand or tens of
thousands of units.

On Sep 6, 2016 8:47 PM, "George Skorup"  wrote:

Hopefully they listened and will put a regular slip-fit waveguide interface
on the final version. Something tells me they're going to run with the type
N idea though. And I won't buy it.

On 9/6/2016 8:35 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Oh, is this “that” radio...
I didn’t see any N connectors in the FCC test report photo.

*From:* Josh Reynolds 
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 7:33 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11

Some people start forgetting things as they get older. /s

On Sep 6, 2016 8:27 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> I thought we already had this discussion a couple times.  ;-)
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Josh Reynolds" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:26:04 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>
> N connectors on top along with the GPS port
>
> On Sep 6, 2016 8:24 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>
>> OK, I see the  photos in the first test report.  It says there are 4
>> antenna ports.  I presume xpic.It does list a generic Radio Waves
>> parabolic, but nothing specific for the interface.  I am guessing that you
>> can pull the bottom off the case like a canopy and find 4 sma ports in
>> there.  2 for TX and 2 for RX.  External SMA to circular waveguide feed
>> perhaps but they will need a circulator or something to split RX and TX
>> externally.
>>
>> *From:* Eric Kuhnke 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:47 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>>
>> There are two photos of the unit but they do not show the coax connectors
>> or waveguide port.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>>> No photos.  Hopefully they will be coming.
>>>
>>> *From:* Josh Reynolds 
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:38 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] AF11
>>>
>>>
>>> https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

They have a "thing". I'm sure they'll talk about it at or around October.

On Sep 6, 2016 8:47 PM, "George Skorup"  wrote:

> Hopefully they listened and will put a regular slip-fit waveguide
> interface on the final version. Something tells me they're going to run
> with the type N idea though. And I won't buy it.
>
> On 9/6/2016 8:35 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>
> Oh, is this “that” radio...
> I didn’t see any N connectors in the FCC test report photo.
>
> *From:* Josh Reynolds 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 7:33 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>
>
> Some people start forgetting things as they get older. /s
>
> On Sep 6, 2016 8:27 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
>
>> I thought we already had this discussion a couple times.  ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Josh Reynolds" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:26:04 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>>
>> N connectors on top along with the GPS port
>>
>> On Sep 6, 2016 8:24 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I see the  photos in the first test report.  It says there are 4
>>> antenna ports.  I presume xpic.It does list a generic Radio Waves
>>> parabolic, but nothing specific for the interface.  I am guessing that you
>>> can pull the bottom off the case like a canopy and find 4 sma ports in
>>> there.  2 for TX and 2 for RX.  External SMA to circular waveguide feed
>>> perhaps but they will need a circulator or something to split RX and TX
>>> externally.
>>>
>>> *From:* Eric Kuhnke 
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:47 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>>>
>>> There are two photos of the unit but they do not show the coax
>>> connectors or waveguide port.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>>
 No photos.  Hopefully they will be coming.

 *From:* Josh Reynolds 
 *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:38 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* [AFMUG] AF11


 https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

heh heh 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Mathew Howard"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:47:00 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 


Oh... I see. I was hoping all our complaining had resulted in changes... oh 
well. 


On Sep 6, 2016 8:20 PM, "Mike Hammett" < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Look at the page with the spectral analysis. It says 56 MHz produces a 65 - 79 
MHz wide carrier. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Mathew Howard" < mhoward...@gmail.com > 
To: "af" < af@afmug.com > 
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:00:23 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 


56mhz is what they originally said, but don't the emission designators listed 
here indicate it'll do 80mhz? 



On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Eric Kuhnke < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > wrote: 




I doubt in the year 2016 ubnt would design/build/ship a product that only does 
56 MHz ETSI size channels for an FCC/IC market... 60 and 80 are allowed now. 
Coordination results permitting, of course. 


https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-122A1_Rcd.pdf 









On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




They're only 56 MHz wide. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:43:38 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 





1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels? 


I am hopeful it won't suck. 





On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds < j...@kyneticwifi.com > wrote: 



https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

2016-09-06 Thread Mathew Howard

Oh... I see. I was hoping all our complaining had resulted in changes... oh
well.

On Sep 6, 2016 8:20 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> Look at the page with the spectral analysis. It says 56 MHz produces a 65
> - 79 MHz wide carrier.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Mathew Howard" 
> *To: *"af" 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:00:23 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>
> 56mhz is what they originally said, but don't the emission designators
> listed here indicate it'll do 80mhz?
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:
>
>> I doubt in the year 2016 ubnt would design/build/ship a product that only
>> does 56 MHz ETSI size channels for an FCC/IC market...  60 and 80 are
>> allowed now. Coordination results permitting, of course.
>>
>> https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-122A1_Rcd.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>> They're only 56 MHz wide.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:43:38 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>>>
>>>
>>> 1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels?
>>>
>>> I am hopeful it won't suck.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

Hopefully they listened and will put a regular slip-fit waveguide 
interface on the final version. Something tells me they're going to run 
with the type N idea though. And I won't buy it.


On 9/6/2016 8:35 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Oh, is this “that” radio...
I didn’t see any N connectors in the FCC test report photo.
*From:* Josh Reynolds 
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 7:33 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11

Some people start forgetting things as they get older. /s

On Sep 6, 2016 8:27 PM, "Mike Hammett" > wrote:


I thought we already had this discussion a couple times.  ;-)



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Josh Reynolds" >
*To: *af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:26:04 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11

N connectors on top along with the GPS port

On Sep 6, 2016 8:24 PM, "Chuck McCown" > wrote:

OK, I see the  photos in the first test report.  It says there
are 4 antenna ports.  I presume xpic.It does list a
generic Radio Waves parabolic, but nothing specific for the
interface.  I am guessing that you can pull the bottom off the
case like a canopy and find 4 sma ports in there.  2 for TX
and 2 for RX.  External SMA to circular waveguide feed perhaps
but they will need a circulator or something to split RX and
TX externally.
*From:* Eric Kuhnke 
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:47 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11
There are two photos of the unit but they do not show the coax
connectors or waveguide port.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Chuck McCown > wrote:

No photos. Hopefully they will be coming.
*From:* Josh Reynolds 
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:38 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* [AFMUG] AF11

https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

Oh, is this “that” radio...
I didn’t see any N connectors in the FCC test report photo.  

From: Josh Reynolds 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 7:33 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11

Some people start forgetting things as they get older. /s

On Sep 6, 2016 8:27 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

  I thought we already had this discussion a couple times.  ;-)

  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions

  Midwest Internet Exchange

  The Brothers WISP

--

  From: "Josh Reynolds" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:26:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11

  N connectors on top along with the GPS port

  On Sep 6, 2016 8:24 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

OK, I see the  photos in the first test report.  It says there are 4 
antenna ports.  I presume xpic.It does list a generic Radio Waves 
parabolic, but nothing specific for the interface.  I am guessing that you can 
pull the bottom off the case like a canopy and find 4 sma ports in there.  2 
for TX and 2 for RX.  External SMA to circular waveguide feed perhaps but they 
will need a circulator or something to split RX and TX externally.

From: Eric Kuhnke 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:47 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11

There are two photos of the unit but they do not show the coax connectors 
or waveguide port.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  No photos.  Hopefully they will be coming.  

  From: Josh Reynolds 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:38 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: [AFMUG] AF11

  https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

Re: [AFMUG] OT Six Seater Truck

2016-09-06 Thread Sterling Jacobson

Thanks everyone, good information.

I start shopping this month.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 8:49 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Six Seater Truck

My 2013 Ford F-150 super crew v6 ecoboost will fit 6 comfortably. 3 in the 
back, 3 in the front after folding the center console up. Seat belts for all as 
well. I get approx. 20mpg and with the ecoboost I can pull my fully loaded 21ft 
camper as if it weren't there.

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Eric Kuhnke 
> wrote:

Funny story about those, they were shipped with seats in the back to avoid the 
"chicken tax". Google it.

On Sep 1, 2016 7:30 PM, "Chuck McCown" 
> wrote:
Subaru Brat.

-Original Message- From: Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 6:28 PM
To: 'af@afmug.com'
Subject: [AFMUG] OT Six Seater Truck

I've never owned a truck for myself, but I want to buy one now and need some 
help.

I really want to buy the new Ford Raptor, lol!

But my wife mandated that the truck seat six people and cost $10k-$20k.

So I'll have to wait a couple of years until my oldest son leaves the house 
before I go for the Raptor I guess.

I have no idea which model/make of trucks are capable of seating all six of our 
family.

What are some options I would be looking at?

And what is a 'good' truck in this price range?

Someone told me the Dodge truck after year 2012 is the best value.

Never owned a Dodge though, so I'm not sure about that.

I like Toyota, so the Tundra looks appealing, and I think some versions of it 
seat six with the fold down console in the middle, right?

But those are expensive.

I sold all my water toys since Utah Lake is now a mud puddle, so I don't really 
have much need for towing capacity right now.

Re: [AFMUG] UPS Recommendation

2016-09-06 Thread Sterling Jacobson

I would still use Alpha.

But I have simple APC rack mount units where there is little temperature 
variance for the unit and batteries.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:32 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] UPS Recommendation

Any recommendations for a UPS to use at a site with a generator backup? I was 
thinking about an Alpha unit, but the site is temperature-controlled, so that 
may be overkill.

Re: [AFMUG] Trango Apex Lynx/Orion feature request

The modem and data ports are on an internal ethernet switch. There's one 
SVI, aka IBM. I'm sure they could add more SVIs, but it would likely be 
on a separate VLAN for each interface. Just a wild guess on my part 
though. You also have the dedicated OMU management port which does have 
its own IP address. Just remember that you get only one default gateway.


I have several ApexPlus links that replaced old unlicensed stuff, so 
there was only one cable available, which goes into the data port on 
each side. No management ports are cabled. It sucks, but it is what it is.


On 9/6/2016 8:15 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

I just realized I suck at commas.  My apologies to grammar nazis.
-- Original Message --
From: "Adam Moffett" >
To: "Animal Farm" >
Sent: 9/6/2016 9:14:08 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Trango Apex Lynx/Orion feature request
I submitted the feature request below to Telrad's online ticketing 
system earlier today, and they replied that they'll pass the request 
to engineering.  If you use either the Apex Lynx or Apex Orion and if 
you agree with what I'm saying below then please add your voice to 
mine and ask for this feature.

""
Feature Request: I think each interface on the Apex Lynx should have 
a local management IP address. One on the SFP port, one on the CAT5 
port, and one on the RF interface. As an example, many units from 
Cambium have an address of 169.254.1.1 which is always accessible 
when directly attached to the ethernet port.
I think right now if I was to configure a unit for OOB management via 
GE1, then if GE1 was damaged I would permanently lose access to the 
device. If I configure for in band management via fiber, then I could 
(due to misconfiguration or malfunction) lose access to the device 
and require a climber to go up and press the reset button to restore 
access. Feel free to correct me if I have a misconception here, 
otherwise please consider adding permanent local IP's.

""

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

Some people start forgetting things as they get older. /s

On Sep 6, 2016 8:27 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> I thought we already had this discussion a couple times.  ;-)
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Josh Reynolds" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:26:04 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>
> N connectors on top along with the GPS port
>
> On Sep 6, 2016 8:24 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>
>> OK, I see the  photos in the first test report.  It says there are 4
>> antenna ports.  I presume xpic.It does list a generic Radio Waves
>> parabolic, but nothing specific for the interface.  I am guessing that you
>> can pull the bottom off the case like a canopy and find 4 sma ports in
>> there.  2 for TX and 2 for RX.  External SMA to circular waveguide feed
>> perhaps but they will need a circulator or something to split RX and TX
>> externally.
>>
>> *From:* Eric Kuhnke 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:47 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>>
>> There are two photos of the unit but they do not show the coax connectors
>> or waveguide port.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>>> No photos.  Hopefully they will be coming.
>>>
>>> *From:* Josh Reynolds 
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:38 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] AF11
>>>
>>>
>>> https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[AFMUG] UPS Recommendation

2016-09-06 Thread Jason McKemie

Any recommendations for a UPS to use at a site with a generator backup? I
was thinking about an Alpha unit, but the site is temperature-controlled,
so that may be overkill.

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

I thought we already had this discussion a couple times. ;-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Josh Reynolds"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:26:04 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 


N connectors on top along with the GPS port 


On Sep 6, 2016 8:24 PM, "Chuck McCown" < ch...@wbmfg.com > wrote: 






OK, I see the photos in the first test report. It says there are 4 antenna 
ports. I presume xpic. It does list a generic Radio Waves parabolic, but 
nothing specific for the interface. I am guessing that you can pull the bottom 
off the case like a canopy and find 4 sma ports in there. 2 for TX and 2 for 
RX. External SMA to circular waveguide feed perhaps but they will need a 
circulator or something to split RX and TX externally. 




From: Eric Kuhnke 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:47 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 


There are two photos of the unit but they do not show the coax connectors or 
waveguide port. 



On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Chuck McCown < ch...@wbmfg.com > wrote: 






No photos. Hopefully they will be coming. 




From: Josh Reynolds 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:38 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] AF11 


https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

Actually, I did find three links worth where I can use B11s to their fullest. 

People stopped coming out with new 56 MHz wide products a couple years ago. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Josh Reynolds"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:24:46 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 


How many places do you have in your market where you an take up 160MHz of 11GHz 
spectrum? 
Honest question. 
I do agree though, they should go for it if enough people who can actually use 
it request it. 


On Sep 6, 2016 8:20 PM, "Mike Hammett" < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




I berated them about it months ago. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:58:44 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 



I doubt in the year 2016 ubnt would design/build/ship a product that only does 
56 MHz ETSI size channels for an FCC/IC market... 60 and 80 are allowed now. 
Coordination results permitting, of course. 


https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-122A1_Rcd.pdf 







On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




They're only 56 MHz wide. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:43:38 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 





1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels? 


I am hopeful it won't suck. 





On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds < j...@kyneticwifi.com > wrote: 



https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

N connectors on top along with the GPS port

On Sep 6, 2016 8:24 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

> OK, I see the  photos in the first test report.  It says there are 4
> antenna ports.  I presume xpic.It does list a generic Radio Waves
> parabolic, but nothing specific for the interface.  I am guessing that you
> can pull the bottom off the case like a canopy and find 4 sma ports in
> there.  2 for TX and 2 for RX.  External SMA to circular waveguide feed
> perhaps but they will need a circulator or something to split RX and TX
> externally.
>
> *From:* Eric Kuhnke 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:47 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>
> There are two photos of the unit but they do not show the coax connectors
> or waveguide port.
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> No photos.  Hopefully they will be coming.
>>
>> *From:* Josh Reynolds 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:38 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] AF11
>>
>>
>> https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

How many places do you have in your market where you an take up 160MHz of
11GHz spectrum?

Honest question.

I do agree though, they should go for it if enough people who can actually
use it request it.

On Sep 6, 2016 8:20 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> I berated them about it months ago.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:58:44 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>
> I doubt in the year 2016 ubnt would design/build/ship a product that only
> does 56 MHz ETSI size channels for an FCC/IC market...  60 and 80 are
> allowed now. Coordination results permitting, of course.
>
> https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-122A1_Rcd.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> They're only 56 MHz wide.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:43:38 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>>
>>
>> 1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels?
>>
>> I am hopeful it won't suck.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

OK, I see the  photos in the first test report.  It says there are 4 antenna 
ports.  I presume xpic.It does list a generic Radio Waves parabolic, but 
nothing specific for the interface.  I am guessing that you can pull the bottom 
off the case like a canopy and find 4 sma ports in there.  2 for TX and 2 for 
RX.  External SMA to circular waveguide feed perhaps but they will need a 
circulator or something to split RX and TX externally.

From: Eric Kuhnke 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:47 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11

There are two photos of the unit but they do not show the coax connectors or 
waveguide port.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  No photos.  Hopefully they will be coming.  

  From: Josh Reynolds 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:38 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: [AFMUG] AF11

  https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

2016-09-06 Thread Seth Mattinen


On 9/6/16 18:20, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

80 is in a future firmware release hahahahahhahahahahahahhaha




So it'll be soon, right?

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

Maybe it's like how a lot of Remec ODUs will let you set them to 80MHz, 
but they run at 56MHz only. Seems kinda silly not to support 80MHz.


On 9/6/2016 8:19 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

It is 56 MHz.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:58:44 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11

I doubt in the year 2016 ubnt would design/build/ship a product that 
only does 56 MHz ETSI size channels for an FCC/IC market...  60 and 80 
are allowed now. Coordination results permitting, of course.


https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-122A1_Rcd.pdf





On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Mike Hammett > wrote:


They're only 56 MHz wide.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Eric Kuhnke" >
*To: *af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:43:38 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11


1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels?

I am hopeful it won't suck.



On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds
> wrote:

https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

I berated them about it months ago. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:58:44 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 



I doubt in the year 2016 ubnt would design/build/ship a product that only does 
56 MHz ETSI size channels for an FCC/IC market... 60 and 80 are allowed now. 
Coordination results permitting, of course. 


https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-122A1_Rcd.pdf 







On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




They're only 56 MHz wide. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:43:38 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 





1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels? 


I am hopeful it won't suck. 





On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds < j...@kyneticwifi.com > wrote: 



https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

80 is in a future firmware release hahahahahhahahahahahahhaha


lolz

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> It is 56 MHz.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:58:44 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>
> I doubt in the year 2016 ubnt would design/build/ship a product that only
> does 56 MHz ETSI size channels for an FCC/IC market...  60 and 80 are
> allowed now. Coordination results permitting, of course.
>
> https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-122A1_Rcd.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> They're only 56 MHz wide.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:43:38 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>>
>>
>> 1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels?
>>
>> I am hopeful it won't suck.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
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] AF11

Look at the page with the spectral analysis. It says 56 MHz produces a 65 - 79 
MHz wide carrier. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Mathew Howard"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:00:23 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 


56mhz is what they originally said, but don't the emission designators listed 
here indicate it'll do 80mhz? 



On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Eric Kuhnke < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > wrote: 




I doubt in the year 2016 ubnt would design/build/ship a product that only does 
56 MHz ETSI size channels for an FCC/IC market... 60 and 80 are allowed now. 
Coordination results permitting, of course. 


https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-122A1_Rcd.pdf 









On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




They're only 56 MHz wide. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:43:38 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 





1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels? 


I am hopeful it won't suck. 





On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds < j...@kyneticwifi.com > wrote: 



https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

Re: [AFMUG] Trango Apex Lynx/Orion feature request

2016-09-06 Thread Jeremy Grip

Telrad or Trango support?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 6, 2016, at 9:15 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> 
> I just realized I suck at commas.  My apologies to grammar nazis.
>  
>  
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Adam Moffett" 
> To: "Animal Farm" 
> Sent: 9/6/2016 9:14:08 PM
> Subject: [AFMUG] Trango Apex Lynx/Orion feature request
>  
>> I submitted the feature request below to Telrad's online ticketing system 
>> earlier today, and they replied that they'll pass the request to 
>> engineering.  If you use either the Apex Lynx or Apex Orion and if you agree 
>> with what I'm saying below then please add your voice to mine and ask for 
>> this feature. 
>>  
>> ""
>> Feature Request: I think each interface on the Apex Lynx should have a local 
>> management IP address. One on the SFP port, one on the CAT5 port, and one on 
>> the RF interface. As an example, many units from Cambium have an address of 
>> 169.254.1.1 which is always accessible when directly attached to the 
>> ethernet port.
>>  
>> I think right now if I was to configure a unit for OOB management via GE1, 
>> then if GE1 was damaged I would permanently lose access to the device. If I 
>> configure for in band management via fiber, then I could (due to 
>> misconfiguration or malfunction) lose access to the device and require a 
>> climber to go up and press the reset button to restore access. Feel free to 
>> correct me if I have a misconception here, otherwise please consider adding 
>> permanent local IP's.
>> ""
>>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

It is 56 MHz. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:58:44 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 



I doubt in the year 2016 ubnt would design/build/ship a product that only does 
56 MHz ETSI size channels for an FCC/IC market... 60 and 80 are allowed now. 
Coordination results permitting, of course. 


https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-122A1_Rcd.pdf 







On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




They're only 56 MHz wide. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:43:38 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 





1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels? 


I am hopeful it won't suck. 





On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds < j...@kyneticwifi.com > wrote: 



https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

Re: [AFMUG] Trango Apex Lynx/Orion feature request

I just realized I suck at commas.  My apologies to grammar nazis.

-- Original Message --
From: "Adam Moffett" 
To: "Animal Farm" 
Sent: 9/6/2016 9:14:08 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Trango Apex Lynx/Orion feature request

I submitted the feature request below to Telrad's online ticketing 
system earlier today, and they replied that they'll pass the request to 
engineering.  If you use either the Apex Lynx or Apex Orion and if you 
agree with what I'm saying below then please add your voice to mine and 
ask for this feature.

""
Feature Request: I think each interface on the Apex Lynx should have a 
local management IP address. One on the SFP port, one on the CAT5 port, 
and one on the RF interface. As an example, many units from Cambium 
have an address of 169.254.1.1 which is always accessible when directly 
attached to the ethernet port.

I think right now if I was to configure a unit for OOB management via 
GE1, then if GE1 was damaged I would permanently lose access to the 
device. If I configure for in band management via fiber, then I could 
(due to misconfiguration or malfunction) lose access to the device and 
require a climber to go up and press the reset button to restore 
access. Feel free to correct me if I have a misconception here, 
otherwise please consider adding permanent local IP's.

""

[AFMUG] Trango Apex Lynx/Orion feature request

I submitted the feature request below to Telrad's online ticketing 
system earlier today, and they replied that they'll pass the request to 
engineering.  If you use either the Apex Lynx or Apex Orion and if you 
agree with what I'm saying below then please add your voice to mine and 
ask for this feature.


""
Feature Request: I think each interface on the Apex Lynx should have a 
local management IP address. One on the SFP port, one on the CAT5 port, 
and one on the RF interface. As an example, many units from Cambium have 
an address of 169.254.1.1 which is always accessible when directly 
attached to the ethernet port.


I think right now if I was to configure a unit for OOB management via 
GE1, then if GE1 was damaged I would permanently lose access to the 
device. If I configure for in band management via fiber, then I could 
(due to misconfiguration or malfunction) lose access to the device and 
require a climber to go up and press the reset button to restore access. 
Feel free to correct me if I have a misconception here, otherwise please 
consider adding permanent local IP's.

""

Re: [AFMUG] outdoor weatherproof enclosure

we just ordered some of these for an upper cross connect, theyre only 70
bucks from alternate vendors and come in all kinds of sizes. configurations
http://www.winncom.com/en/products/H141206HF-6P

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:59 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> enclosurehub.com
>
> We've been using the 20x16x10 fiberglass enclosures for small-ish sites.
> Well, I did find a way to cram 20lbs of shit in that 10lb box for a grain
> elevator rebuild a couple months ago. 4x PTP links. 4x FSK sectors. 4x 450
> sectors. That's the one where I double rail mounted a CRS125. Sync
> Injector. SM base. 8-port 10/100 POE injector. Fuse blocks. AD-155b. 9Ah
> batteries. Three of Chuck's PRM4's chassis' and GigE-APCs. And 13 friggin
> Shireen gel cables going up. So, more like 30lbs of shit in a 10lb box.
>
> I order them with the aluminum panel, drill and tap for 6-32 wherever I
> want stuff.
>
>
> On 9/6/2016 7:35 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>
>> That Jirous seems to be about 12x12.
>>
>> This one is going to be double the square area:
>> http://www.l-com.com/nema-enclosures-18x16x8-nema-rated-120-
>> vac-enclosures
>>
>> I've used a bunch of those, but I don't think I'll get anymore because
>> they never seem to be quite big enough.
>>
>> Next time it's Hoffman or Weigmann for me.
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Dev" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: 9/6/2016 1:47:50 PM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] outdoor weatherproof enclosure
>>
>> I have been using the Jirous Gentlebox JE-300, which has been really
>>> nice, but need something a little larger, can anyone recommend something
>>> that’s reasonably priced and has decent availability that’s something like
>>> double the size?
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
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] AF11

2016-09-06 Thread Mathew Howard

56mhz is what they originally said, but don't the emission designators
listed here indicate it'll do 80mhz?

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

> I doubt in the year 2016 ubnt would design/build/ship a product that only
> does 56 MHz ETSI size channels for an FCC/IC market...  60 and 80 are
> allowed now. Coordination results permitting, of course.
>
> https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-122A1_Rcd.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> They're only 56 MHz wide.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:43:38 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>>
>>
>> 1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels?
>>
>> I am hopeful it won't suck.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] outdoor weatherproof enclosure


enclosurehub.com

We've been using the 20x16x10 fiberglass enclosures for small-ish sites. 
Well, I did find a way to cram 20lbs of shit in that 10lb box for a 
grain elevator rebuild a couple months ago. 4x PTP links. 4x FSK 
sectors. 4x 450 sectors. That's the one where I double rail mounted a 
CRS125. Sync Injector. SM base. 8-port 10/100 POE injector. Fuse blocks. 
AD-155b. 9Ah batteries. Three of Chuck's PRM4's chassis' and GigE-APCs. 
And 13 friggin Shireen gel cables going up. So, more like 30lbs of shit 
in a 10lb box.


I order them with the aluminum panel, drill and tap for 6-32 wherever I 
want stuff.


On 9/6/2016 7:35 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

That Jirous seems to be about 12x12.

This one is going to be double the square area:
http://www.l-com.com/nema-enclosures-18x16x8-nema-rated-120-vac-enclosures 



I've used a bunch of those, but I don't think I'll get anymore because 
they never seem to be quite big enough.


Next time it's Hoffman or Weigmann for me.


-- Original Message --
From: "Dev" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/6/2016 1:47:50 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] outdoor weatherproof enclosure

I have been using the Jirous Gentlebox JE-300, which has been really 
nice, but need something a little larger, can anyone recommend 
something that’s reasonably priced and has decent availability that’s 
something like double the size?

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

I doubt in the year 2016 ubnt would design/build/ship a product that only
does 56 MHz ETSI size channels for an FCC/IC market...  60 and 80 are
allowed now. Coordination results permitting, of course.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-122A1_Rcd.pdf

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> They're only 56 MHz wide.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:43:38 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11
>
>
> 1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels?
>
> I am hopeful it won't suck.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
>
>> https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX
>>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

They're only 56 MHz wide. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 7:43:38 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11 



1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels? 


I am hopeful it won't suck. 





On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds < j...@kyneticwifi.com > wrote: 



https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

There are two photos of the unit but they do not show the coax connectors
or waveguide port.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> No photos.  Hopefully they will be coming.
>
> *From:* Josh Reynolds 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:38 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] AF11
>
>
> https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

No photos.  Hopefully they will be coming.  

From: Josh Reynolds 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:38 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] AF11

https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

Re: [AFMUG] AF11

1024QAM, dual polarity, 80 MHz wide channels?

I am hopeful it won't suck.



On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:

> https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX
>

[AFMUG] AF11

https://fccid.io/SWX-AF11FX

Re: [AFMUG] outdoor weatherproof enclosure


That Jirous seems to be about 12x12.

This one is going to be double the square area:
http://www.l-com.com/nema-enclosures-18x16x8-nema-rated-120-vac-enclosures

I've used a bunch of those, but I don't think I'll get anymore because 
they never seem to be quite big enough.


Next time it's Hoffman or Weigmann for me.


-- Original Message --
From: "Dev" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/6/2016 1:47:50 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] outdoor weatherproof enclosure

I have been using the Jirous Gentlebox JE-300, which has been really 
nice, but need something a little larger, can anyone recommend 
something that’s reasonably priced and has decent availability that’s 
something like double the size?

Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

There is, from a technical perspective, it's just costly...  Concrete
x-raying services such as you would employ before core-drilling a hole
through a slab in a major office building.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> I always worry about the guy anchors.  No good way to inspect or test
> them.
>
> *From:* Daniel White 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 5:43 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training
>
>
> Safety is something never to screw with.
>
>
>
> I’d find a local tower company to come out and do a check.  That should
> come with a report indicating what the spec range is and what the tower is
> currently at.
>
>
>
> My GoogleFo found this:  http://www.allcomm.com/towers/
> maintenance_inspection.htm
>
>
>
> 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 *CBB - Jay Fuller
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 6, 2016 4:41 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training
>
>
>
>
>
> Might be better to have a tower company come and look at our towers once a
> year?
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 5:15 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training
>
>
>
> my guy might be able to do that, he is an instructor for the railroad, he
> does a yearly mini tower climbing/safety for us. Unless you send your guys
> to become certified inspectors, nobody will give you anything that is
> formal, and youll have to sign a release of liability, but better to know
> the info than not
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:16 PM,  wrote:
>
> You gotta wonder how the ham checked it.  I would want to know the type of
> tensiometer.  If he came back with "what is a tensiometer" then I would be
> concerned about climbing it too.
>
> -Original Message- From: Jay Weekley
> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 3:13 PM
> To: Principal WISPA Member List ; Animal Farm
> Subject: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training
>
>
>
> We've got some towers that our climbers are concerned about because they
> feel the guy wires are loose. We've had them checked by the HAM that
> built several of our towers including one in question and he said they
> are fine but there does seem to be a difference in the slack compared to
> other towers we own.  Is there hands on training we can get on
> tensioning guy wires or is someone in the southeast willing to host two
> or three people for a few hours for training?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
>

Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

Probably he plucked like a guitar string and figured if it didn't break 
it was ok.
I've seen a HAM tower guyed with poly rope.  I told him he had to climb 
it himself if he wanted the antenna on it.  He did it, the whole 
structure swayed while he was on it.  No thanks.



-- Original Message --
From: ch...@wbmfg.com
To: "Principal WISPA Member List" ; "Animal Farm" 


Sent: 9/6/2016 5:16:48 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

You gotta wonder how the ham checked it.  I would want to know the type 
of tensiometer.  If he came back with "what is a tensiometer" then I 
would be concerned about climbing it too.


-Original Message- From: Jay Weekley
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 3:13 PM
To: Principal WISPA Member List ; Animal Farm
Subject: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

We've got some towers that our climbers are concerned about because 
they

feel the guy wires are loose. We've had them checked by the HAM that
built several of our towers including one in question and he said they
are fine but there does seem to be a difference in the slack compared 
to

other towers we own.  Is there hands on training we can get on
tensioning guy wires or is someone in the southeast willing to host two
or three people for a few hours for training?

Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

2016-09-06 Thread CBB - Jay Fuller

Yup.  We have dealt with Allcomm before.
That would be my suggestion.

  - Original Message - 
  From: Daniel White 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:43 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

  Safety is something never to screw with.

  I’d find a local tower company to come out and do a check.  That should come 
with a report indicating what the spec range is and what the tower is currently 
at.

  My GoogleFo found this:  
http://www.allcomm.com/towers/maintenance_inspection.htm

  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 CBB - Jay Fuller
  Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 4:41 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

  Might be better to have a tower company come and look at our towers once a 
year?

- Original Message - 

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 

To: af@afmug.com 

Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 5:15 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

my guy might be able to do that, he is an instructor for the railroad, he 
does a yearly mini tower climbing/safety for us. Unless you send your guys to 
become certified inspectors, nobody will give you anything that is formal, and 
youll have to sign a release of liability, but better to know the info than not 

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:16 PM,  wrote:

  You gotta wonder how the ham checked it.  I would want to know the type 
of tensiometer.  If he came back with "what is a tensiometer" then I would be 
concerned about climbing it too.

  -Original Message- From: Jay Weekley
  Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 3:13 PM
  To: Principal WISPA Member List ; Animal Farm
  Subject: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training 

  We've got some towers that our climbers are concerned about because they
  feel the guy wires are loose. We've had them checked by the HAM that
  built several of our towers including one in question and he said they
  are fine but there does seem to be a difference in the slack compared to
  other towers we own.  Is there hands on training we can get on
  tensioning guy wires or is someone in the southeast willing to host two
  or three people for a few hours for training? 

-- 

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.

   Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: [AFMUG] I hate lightning...

I am scared to ask, but... were you using protection?  (Hopefully not mine...)

From: Sam Lambie 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 5:53 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] I hate lightning...

Got rousted out of bed last night at 1:30. Went out to the site to discover 4 - 
450 AP's were hit and DOA, 1 backhaul and a Cisco Switch all dead.

Got it limping along and went to bed at 4 am. Drove 220 miles today to pick up 
some spare 450i ap's from another WISP in Colorado so I can replace them at 6 
am tomorrow. It's raining cats and dogs right now.

Kinda can't wait for the snow to fall

-- 

-- 
Sam Lambie
Taosnet Wireless Tech.
575-758-7598 Office
www.Taosnet.com

Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

I always worry about the guy anchors.  No good way to inspect or test them.  

From: Daniel White 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 5:43 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

Safety is something never to screw with.

I’d find a local tower company to come out and do a check.  That should come 
with a report indicating what the spec range is and what the tower is currently 
at.

My GoogleFo found this:  
http://www.allcomm.com/towers/maintenance_inspection.htm

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 CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 4:41 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

Might be better to have a tower company come and look at our towers once a year?

  - Original Message - 

  From: That One Guy /sarcasm 

  To: af@afmug.com 

  Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 5:15 PM

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

  my guy might be able to do that, he is an instructor for the railroad, he 
does a yearly mini tower climbing/safety for us. Unless you send your guys to 
become certified inspectors, nobody will give you anything that is formal, and 
youll have to sign a release of liability, but better to know the info than not 

  On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:16 PM,  wrote:

You gotta wonder how the ham checked it.  I would want to know the type of 
tensiometer.  If he came back with "what is a tensiometer" then I would be 
concerned about climbing it too.

-Original Message- From: Jay Weekley
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 3:13 PM
To: Principal WISPA Member List ; Animal Farm
Subject: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training 

We've got some towers that our climbers are concerned about because they
feel the guy wires are loose. We've had them checked by the HAM that
built several of our towers including one in question and he said they
are fine but there does seem to be a difference in the slack compared to
other towers we own.  Is there hands on training we can get on
tensioning guy wires or is someone in the southeast willing to host two
or three people for a few hours for training? 

  -- 

  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.

 Virus-free. www.avast.com

[AFMUG] I hate lightning...

2016-09-06 Thread Sam Lambie

Got rousted out of bed last night at 1:30. Went out to the site to discover
4 - 450 AP's were hit and DOA, 1 backhaul and a Cisco Switch all dead.
Got it limping along and went to bed at 4 am. Drove 220 miles today to pick
up some spare 450i ap's from another WISP in Colorado so I can replace them
at 6 am tomorrow. It's raining cats and dogs right now.

Kinda can't wait for the snow to fall

-- 
-- 
*Sam Lambie*
Taosnet Wireless Tech.
575-758-7598 Office
www.Taosnet.com

Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

2016-09-06 Thread Daniel White

Safety is something never to screw with.



I’d find a local tower company to come out and do a check.  That should come 
with a report indicating what the spec range is and what the tower is currently 
at.



My GoogleFo found this:  
http://www.allcomm.com/towers/maintenance_inspection.htm



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 CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 4:41 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training





Might be better to have a tower company come and look at our towers once a year?



- Original Message -

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 

To: af@afmug.com 

Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 5:15 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training



my guy might be able to do that, he is an instructor for the railroad, he does 
a yearly mini tower climbing/safety for us. Unless you send your guys to become 
certified inspectors, nobody will give you anything that is formal, and youll 
have to sign a release of liability, but better to know the info than not



On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:16 PM,  > 
wrote:

You gotta wonder how the ham checked it.  I would want to know the type of 
tensiometer.  If he came back with "what is a tensiometer" then I would be 
concerned about climbing it too.

-Original Message- From: Jay Weekley
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 3:13 PM
To: Principal WISPA Member List ; Animal Farm
Subject: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training



We've got some towers that our climbers are concerned about because they
feel the guy wires are loose. We've had them checked by the HAM that
built several of our towers including one in question and he said they
are fine but there does seem to be a difference in the slack compared to
other towers we own.  Is there hands on training we can get on
tensioning guy wires or is someone in the southeast willing to host two
or three people for a few hours for training?







--

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.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

we are trying to have that done every three on the few towers we are still
on

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:41 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller 
wrote:

>
> Might be better to have a tower company come and look at our towers once a
> year?
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 5:15 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training
>
> my guy might be able to do that, he is an instructor for the railroad, he
> does a yearly mini tower climbing/safety for us. Unless you send your guys
> to become certified inspectors, nobody will give you anything that is
> formal, and youll have to sign a release of liability, but better to know
> the info than not
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:16 PM,  wrote:
>
>> You gotta wonder how the ham checked it.  I would want to know the type
>> of tensiometer.  If he came back with "what is a tensiometer" then I would
>> be concerned about climbing it too.
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Jay Weekley
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 3:13 PM
>> To: Principal WISPA Member List ; Animal Farm
>> Subject: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training
>>
>>
>> We've got some towers that our climbers are concerned about because they
>> feel the guy wires are loose. We've had them checked by the HAM that
>> built several of our towers including one in question and he said they
>> are fine but there does seem to be a difference in the slack compared to
>> other towers we own.  Is there hands on training we can get on
>> tensioning guy wires or is someone in the southeast willing to host two
>> or three people for a few hours for training?
>>
>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>
>


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

Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

2016-09-06 Thread CBB - Jay Fuller

Might be better to have a tower company come and look at our towers once a year?

  - Original Message - 
  From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 5:15 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

  my guy might be able to do that, he is an instructor for the railroad, he 
does a yearly mini tower climbing/safety for us. Unless you send your guys to 
become certified inspectors, nobody will give you anything that is formal, and 
youll have to sign a release of liability, but better to know the info than not 

  On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:16 PM,  wrote:

You gotta wonder how the ham checked it.  I would want to know the type of 
tensiometer.  If he came back with "what is a tensiometer" then I would be 
concerned about climbing it too.

-Original Message- From: Jay Weekley
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 3:13 PM
To: Principal WISPA Member List ; Animal Farm
Subject: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

We've got some towers that our climbers are concerned about because they
feel the guy wires are loose. We've had them checked by the HAM that
built several of our towers including one in question and he said they
are fine but there does seem to be a difference in the slack compared to
other towers we own.  Is there hands on training we can get on
tensioning guy wires or is someone in the southeast willing to host two
or three people for a few hours for training? 

  -- 

  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] Tower maintenance training

my guy might be able to do that, he is an instructor for the railroad, he
does a yearly mini tower climbing/safety for us. Unless you send your guys
to become certified inspectors, nobody will give you anything that is
formal, and youll have to sign a release of liability, but better to know
the info than not

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:16 PM,  wrote:

> You gotta wonder how the ham checked it.  I would want to know the type of
> tensiometer.  If he came back with "what is a tensiometer" then I would be
> concerned about climbing it too.
>
> -Original Message- From: Jay Weekley
> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 3:13 PM
> To: Principal WISPA Member List ; Animal Farm
> Subject: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training
>
>
> We've got some towers that our climbers are concerned about because they
> feel the guy wires are loose. We've had them checked by the HAM that
> built several of our towers including one in question and he said they
> are fine but there does seem to be a difference in the slack compared to
> other towers we own.  Is there hands on training we can get on
> tensioning guy wires or is someone in the southeast willing to host two
> or three people for a few hours for training?
>



-- 
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] Outsourced IT

A good ticketing system that tracks billable time and gives you history on
the customer, a good remote access method, we use turbomeeting because its
perpetual and we own the hardware, and onenote is excellent for
documentation

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Do any of you do outsourced IT department services? What sort of
> applications do you feel essential to that work? Looking for whatever makes
> my life the easiest.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
>



-- 
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] OT Stock

Isn’t the old expression something like buy on the rumor, sell on the news?

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 4:38 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Stock

http://bgr.com/2016/09/06/apple-event-iphone-7-iphone-7-plus-apple-watch-macbook-pro/

I would think it will open high and move up a bit.  

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 3:36 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Stock

What, because their batteries don’t explode?

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 4:33 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] OT Stock

Anyone buy Apple today?

Re: [AFMUG] OT Stock

2016-09-06 Thread chuck

http://bgr.com/2016/09/06/apple-event-iphone-7-iphone-7-plus-apple-watch-macbook-pro/

I would think it will open high and move up a bit.  

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 3:36 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Stock

What, because their batteries don’t explode?

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 4:33 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] OT Stock

Anyone buy Apple today?

Re: [AFMUG] OT Stock

What, because their batteries don’t explode?

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 4:33 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] OT Stock

Anyone buy Apple today?

[AFMUG] OT Stock

2016-09-06 Thread chuck

Anyone buy Apple today?

[AFMUG] Outsourced IT

Do any of you do outsourced IT department services? What sort of applications 
do you feel essential to that work? Looking for whatever makes my life the 
easiest. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP

Re: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

2016-09-06 Thread chuck

You gotta wonder how the ham checked it.  I would want to know the type of 
tensiometer.  If he came back with "what is a tensiometer" then I would be 
concerned about climbing it too.

-Original Message- 
From: Jay Weekley

Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 3:13 PM
To: Principal WISPA Member List ; Animal Farm
Subject: [AFMUG] Tower maintenance training

We've got some towers that our climbers are concerned about because they
feel the guy wires are loose. We've had them checked by the HAM that
built several of our towers including one in question and he said they
are fine but there does seem to be a difference in the slack compared to
other towers we own.  Is there hands on training we can get on
tensioning guy wires or is someone in the southeast willing to host two
or three people for a few hours for training?

Re: [AFMUG] call back when you fix your g and 9 keys

2016-09-06 Thread Jay Weekley


I assume it's a laptop.  Maybe a USB keyboard?

Ken Hohhof wrote:
Customer calls, I tell him it looks like someone may have pressed the 
reset button on his Netgear router, and would he open his web browser 
and type routerlogin.net for the web address.
He tries but says the "g" key isn't working on his computer.  OK, try 
192.168.1.1.  Nope, the "9" key isn't working.  OK, how about your 
smartphone.  He says it isn't letting him open any apps.
OK, I'm sure someone is going to say there is some hotkey workaround, 
but I threw up my hands and told him to call back when he had a 
working computer.

Seems strange that "g" and "9" look similar.

Re: [AFMUG] call back when you fix your g and 9 keys

haha, you could have given yourself a real headache by walking him through
using the onscreen keyboard

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Customer calls, I tell him it looks like someone may have pressed the
> reset button on his Netgear router, and would he open his web browser and
> type routerlogin.net for the web address.
>
> He tries but says the "g" key isn't working on his computer.  OK, try
> 192.168.1.1.  Nope, the "9" key isn't working.  OK, how about your
> smartphone.  He says it isn't letting him open any apps.
>
> OK, I'm sure someone is going to say there is some hotkey workaround, but
> I threw up my hands and told him to call back when he had a working
> computer.
>
> Seems strange that "g" and "9" look similar.
>



-- 
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] DNS separation

2016-09-06 Thread Jesse DuPont


  
  
We do it exactly as George said.


  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
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 9/6/16 1:47 PM, George Skorup wrote:


  
  I have three machines on the network. Master at the NOC and two
  slaves at towers. They handle our domains, PTRs, etc. As well as
  DNS for customers. Recursion is locked down to our address blocks
  only. I also have an anycast address shared between all three. The
  infrastructure devices use that for lookups.
  
  Use BIND views to separate things if you're paranoid.
  
  On 9/6/2016 2:26 PM, Josh Baird
wrote:
  
  
I wouldn't be overly concerned about your
  recursive boxes being authoritative for your internal (only)
  zones.  You already have mechanisms in place to prevent
  external clients from using them for recursive services.

  On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:20 PM, That
One Guy /sarcasm 
wrote:

  Im putting our recursive sservers up for
our network to use, theyre access limited by ACL and
external router firewall policies to our networks only


There will be four total servers NS1 and NS2 are
  our current authoritative only servers, they are
  public facingfor our domains and our ARIN allocation


I read many conflicting best practices, so ...


NS3 and NS4 I am tempted to make slaves to NS1 (its
  the master for all zones) and put our RFC 1918 space
  on NS1, however this creates a security dilema in that
  a new bind vulnerability could expose our internal
  space structure, not that its a huge deal today, I
  would prefer to not have made a poor choice for ease
  today that causes a problem down the road.
Im tempted to delegate a subdomain (infrastructure.domain.com or
  whatever) to NS3 for rfc1918 record, but then that
  puts authoritative master zone records on a recursive
  server which all the best practices suggest avoiding.


I suppose i can put forwarders in for this up to
  NS1/2 on the recursive servers and use bind views to
  limit the internal zones




What is recommended in this scenario?


Also, with a set of recursive servers, is it
  possible to sync the cache between the two so I can
  load balance the servers (we wont likely ever have
  enough load from our network for it to ever be an
  issue)
  
  
  -- 
  

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

[AFMUG] call back when you fix your g and 9 keys

Customer calls, I tell him it looks like someone may have pressed the reset 
button on his Netgear router, and would he open his web browser and type 
routerlogin.net for the web address.

He tries but says the "g" key isn't working on his computer.  OK, try 
192.168.1.1.  Nope, the "9" key isn't working.  OK, how about your smartphone.  
He says it isn't letting him open any apps.

OK, I'm sure someone is going to say there is some hotkey workaround, but I 
threw up my hands and told him to call back when he had a working computer.

Seems strange that "g" and "9" look similar.

Re: [AFMUG] DNS separation

I have three machines on the network. Master at the NOC and two slaves 
at towers. They handle our domains, PTRs, etc. As well as DNS for 
customers. Recursion is locked down to our address blocks only. I also 
have an anycast address shared between all three. The infrastructure 
devices use that for lookups.


Use BIND views to separate things if you're paranoid.

On 9/6/2016 2:26 PM, Josh Baird wrote:
I wouldn't be overly concerned about your recursive boxes being 
authoritative for your internal (only) zones.  You already have 
mechanisms in place to prevent external clients from using them for 
recursive services.


On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:20 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
> wrote:


Im putting our recursive sservers up for our network to use,
theyre access limited by ACL and external router firewall policies
to our networks only

There will be four total servers NS1 and NS2 are our current
authoritative only servers, they are public facingfor our domains
and our ARIN allocation

I read many conflicting best practices, so ...

NS3 and NS4 I am tempted to make slaves to NS1 (its the master for
all zones) and put our RFC 1918 space on NS1, however this creates
a security dilema in that a new bind vulnerability could expose
our internal space structure, not that its a huge deal today, I
would prefer to not have made a poor choice for ease today that
causes a problem down the road.
Im tempted to delegate a subdomain (infrastructure.domain.com
 or whatever) to NS3 for rfc1918
record, but then that puts authoritative master zone records on a
recursive server which all the best practices suggest avoiding.

I suppose i can put forwarders in for this up to NS1/2 on the
recursive servers and use bind views to limit the internal zones


What is recommended in this scenario?

Also, with a set of recursive servers, is it possible to sync the
cache between the two so I can load balance the servers (we wont
likely ever have enough load from our network for it to ever be an
issue)

-- 
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] DNS separation

2016-09-06 Thread Josh Baird

I wouldn't be overly concerned about your recursive boxes being
authoritative for your internal (only) zones.  You already have mechanisms
in place to prevent external clients from using them for recursive services.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:20 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Im putting our recursive sservers up for our network to use, theyre access
> limited by ACL and external router firewall policies to our networks only
>
> There will be four total servers NS1 and NS2 are our current authoritative
> only servers, they are public facingfor our domains and our ARIN allocation
>
> I read many conflicting best practices, so ...
>
> NS3 and NS4 I am tempted to make slaves to NS1 (its the master for all
> zones) and put our RFC 1918 space on NS1, however this creates a security
> dilema in that a new bind vulnerability could expose our internal space
> structure, not that its a huge deal today, I would prefer to not have made
> a poor choice for ease today that causes a problem down the road.
> Im tempted to delegate a subdomain (infrastructure.domain.com or
> whatever) to NS3 for rfc1918 record, but then that puts authoritative
> master zone records on a recursive server which all the best practices
> suggest avoiding.
>
> I suppose i can put forwarders in for this up to NS1/2 on the recursive
> servers and use bind views to limit the internal zones
>
>
> What is recommended in this scenario?
>
> Also, with a set of recursive servers, is it possible to sync the cache
> between the two so I can load balance the servers (we wont likely ever have
> enough load from our network for it to ever be an issue)
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

[AFMUG] DNS separation

Im putting our recursive sservers up for our network to use, theyre access
limited by ACL and external router firewall policies to our networks only

There will be four total servers NS1 and NS2 are our current authoritative
only servers, they are public facingfor our domains and our ARIN allocation

I read many conflicting best practices, so ...

NS3 and NS4 I am tempted to make slaves to NS1 (its the master for all
zones) and put our RFC 1918 space on NS1, however this creates a security
dilema in that a new bind vulnerability could expose our internal space
structure, not that its a huge deal today, I would prefer to not have made
a poor choice for ease today that causes a problem down the road.
Im tempted to delegate a subdomain (infrastructure.domain.com or whatever)
to NS3 for rfc1918 record, but then that puts authoritative master zone
records on a recursive server which all the best practices suggest avoiding.

I suppose i can put forwarders in for this up to NS1/2 on the recursive
servers and use bind views to limit the internal zones


What is recommended in this scenario?

Also, with a set of recursive servers, is it possible to sync the cache
between the two so I can load balance the servers (we wont likely ever have
enough load from our network for it to ever be an issue)

-- 
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 Possibly Compromised

2016-09-06 Thread Josh Luthman

Bruh just use Powercode and be done with it.


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

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Dave  wrote:

> I am still waiting on a solution to do port 443 redirection without
> breaking it :)
>
>
>
> On 09/06/2016 12:51 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>
> Butch evans script is relatively inexpensive
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Rob Genovesi 
> wrote:
>
>> If it's not a DNS server for clients just go to IP -> DNS and uncheck
>> "Allow Remote Requests"  ... and add firewall rules.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Jason McKemie <
>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, admittedly I haven't done much other than mess around with some
>>> blacklists on this one.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>>
 Instill some basic network security. I block input to potentially
 harmful ports, but a better way is to only allow input on ports you want.



 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions 
 
 
 
 
 Midwest Internet Exchange 
 
 
 
 The Brothers WISP 
 


 
 --
 *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
 *To: *af@afmug.com
 *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 12:14:31 PM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised

 Well, disabling remote requests dropped it off steeply.  I'll have to
 look into that.  Is that enabled by default?

 On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Bruce Robertson 
 wrote:

> Good point.
>
> On 09/06/2016 10:11 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:
>
> I'd think that I would see some internal network activity if this were
> the case though.  Also, the source IPs appear to be from all over the 
> world.
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Bruce Robertson 
> wrote:
>
>> In  my experience, that's usually your mobile devices nattering with
>> the mother ship, like doing backups and uploading recent pictures. 
>> iPhones
>> are especially bad about this.
>>
>> On 09/06/2016 09:57 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:
>>
>>> So I've noticed some strange behavior on my home connection
>>> (Comcast).  The Mikrotik that I am using shows a constant Tx on the WAN
>>> port of around 3-5Mbps and between 200-300pps, Rx is just a few kbps.  
>>> This
>>> activity appears to be strictly on the WAN port.  If I disable a 
>>> firewall
>>> rule that accepts input, the activity ceases - but devices behind the
>>> router lose connectivity.
>>>
>>> Any ideas?  I've got all IP services disabled except winbox, which
>>> is restricted to my local network.
>>> wbr>8!
>>>
>>
>>
> !DSPAM:2,57cef8d652678869110723!
>
>
>


>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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 Possibly Compromised

2016-09-06 Thread Dave

I am still waiting on a solution to do port 443 redirection without 
breaking it :)

On 09/06/2016 12:51 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

Butch evans script is relatively inexpensive

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Rob Genovesi > wrote:

If it's not a DNS server for clients just go to IP -> DNS and
uncheck "Allow Remote Requests"  ... and add firewall rules.

-Rob

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Jason McKemie
> wrote:

Yeah, admittedly I haven't done much other than mess around
with some blacklists on this one.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Mike Hammett
> wrote:

Instill some basic network security. I block input to
potentially harmful ports, but a better way is to only
allow input on ports you want.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

*From: *"Jason McKemie" >
*To: *af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 12:14:31 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised

Well, disabling remote requests dropped it off steeply. 
I'll have to look into that.  Is that enabled by default?

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Bruce Robertson
> wrote:

Good point.

On 09/06/2016 10:11 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:

I'd think that I would see some internal network
activity if this were the case though. Also, the
source IPs appear to be from all over the world.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Bruce Robertson
> wrote:

In my experience, that's usually your mobile
devices nattering with the mother ship, like
doing backups and uploading recent pictures.
iPhones are especially bad about this.

On 09/06/2016 09:57 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:

So I've noticed some strange behavior on
my home connection (Comcast). The Mikrotik
that I am using shows a constant Tx on the
WAN port of around 3-5Mbps and between
200-300pps, Rx is just a few kbps.  This
activity appears to be strictly on the WAN
port. If I disable a firewall rule that
accepts input, the activity ceases - but
devices behind the router lose connectivity.

Any ideas? I've got all IP services
disabled except winbox, which is
restricted to my local network.
wbr>8!

!DSPAM:2,57cef8d652678869110723! 

--
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] ePMP 2.6.2 - (was 2.5.5)

2016-09-06 Thread Dave

Packet drop could cause a bad dns response ?

On 07/01/2016 10:16 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
From what Dan posted it said the bug happens when the DNS server
doesn't respond. Are you finding something different?

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

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Paul McCall > wrote:

No, we do our own DNS (always have). But, even though the DNS is
accessible and working perfectly, the SM craps out (no local
Ethernet data works) when we put our DNS numbers in the SM. Take
them out and the SM works fine. The RF interface works fine
either way.

I was just stating that Cambiums comment about “and the DNS server
does not respond to the device” would seem to imply that you have
an invalid DNS server. And, I am saying that is not the case.

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Thursday, June 30, 2016 6:43 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 2.6.2 - (was 2.5.5)

Hmm. Looks like Paul isn't doing his own DNS server ;)

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

On Jun 30, 2016 6:01 PM, "Mike Hammett" > wrote:

Hi,

We have determined the defect.

The problem occurs when there is a valid DNS server on the
device and the DNS server does not respond to the device. To
avoid the problem until we come out with a fix, either make
sure the DNS server always responds or make sure no IP address
is specified for the DNS server either statically or from DHCP.

We are working on a fix now and will post this as soon as it
is ready.

If the problem occurs, the device will become accessible, but
it will take about 15 minutes.

Dan

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

*From: *"Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc"
>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, June 30, 2016 4:11:11 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 2.6.2 - (was 2.5.5)

This ONLY applies if you add DNS to the device.

*Tyson Burris, President**
**Internet Communications Inc.**
**739 Commerce Dr.**
**Franklin, IN 46131**
***
*317-738-0320 Daytime #*
*317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #*
*Online: www.surfici.net *

ICI

*What can ICI do for you?*

*Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh
Wifi/Hotzones - IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.*
**
*CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the*
*addressee shown. It contains information that is*
*confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,*
*dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by*
*unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly*
*prohibited.*

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Paul McCall
*Sent:* Thursday, June 30, 2016 4:43 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] ePMP 2.6.2 - (was 2.5.5)

Guys,

Just be aware there is a known issue with 2.6.2 that can cause
the radio to not respond on the Ethernet side. It’s a known
issue on Cambium’s site. It bit is in the butt a couple times
this week. We have found that its best to NOT but DNS in AT
ALL to be safe, as their description of the problem and
“solution” doesn’t necessarily match our experience. We had
working DNS values in several radios and they wouldn’t respond
until we removed them.

http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/ePMP-2000-and-1000/Serious-issue-with-2-6-2-on-brand-new-Force-180s/m-p/56370/highlight/false#M6825

Paul

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

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised

2016-09-06 Thread Josh Luthman

100% of the time you enable DNS resolving you want to firewall the WAN
interface for this very reason.


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

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> Got it. I think part of the issue here is that since I was using it at
> home I left the Mikrotik default config installed - normally I wipe this
> and start from scratch.
>
> On Tuesday, September 6, 2016, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, “remote” doesn’t mean what you probably think.  More like
>> remote and local, anything except the Mikrotik itself.  So if any clients
>> are using this as their resolver (DNS proxy), it needs to be enabled, with
>> firewall rules.  If you aren’t using the Mikrotik as a DNS proxy, you can
>> disable remote requests.
>>
>> *From:* Jason McKemie
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 12:20 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised
>>
>> Well, disabling remote requests worked well enough at the moment.  I'll
>> have to work on the firewall setup though.
>>
>> Thanks all, I'm still not working correctly from the 3 day weekend
>> obviously.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>> If you leave it long enough, Comcast will shut off your account.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 12:17:23 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised
>>>
>>> Yeah, admittedly I haven't done much other than mess around with some
>>> blacklists on this one.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>>
 Instill some basic network security. I block input to potentially
 harmful ports, but a better way is to only allow input on ports you want.



 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions 
 
 
 
 
 Midwest Internet Exchange 
 
 
 
 The Brothers WISP 
 


 
 --
 *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
 *To: *af@afmug.com
 *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 12:14:31 PM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised

 Well, disabling remote requests dropped it off steeply.  I'll have to
 look into that.  Is that enabled by default?

 On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Bruce Robertson 
 wrote:

> Good point.
>
> On 09/06/2016 10:11 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:
>
> I'd think that I would see some internal network activity if this were
> the case though.  Also, the source IPs appear to be from all over the 
> world.
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Bruce Robertson 
> wrote:
>
>> In  my experience, that's usually your mobile devices nattering with
>> the mother ship, like doing backups and uploading recent pictures. 
>> iPhones
>> are especially bad about this.
>>
>> On 09/06/2016 09:57 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:
>>
>>> So I've noticed some strange behavior on my home connection
>>> (Comcast).  The Mikrotik that I am using shows a constant Tx on the WAN
>>> port of around 3-5Mbps and between 200-300pps, Rx is just a few kbps.  
>>> This
>>> activity appears to be strictly on the WAN port.  If I disable a 
>>> firewall
>>> rule that accepts input, the activity ceases - but devices behind the
>>> router lose connectivity.
>>>
>>> Any ideas?  I've got all IP services disabled except winbox, which
>>> is restricted to my local network.
>>> wbr>8!

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised

2016-09-06 Thread Tim Reichhart

Could be DDOS attack on dns this happen to me on my mikrotik. 

Tim

-Original Message-
From: "Jason McKemie" 
To: af@afmug.com
Date: 09/06/16 02:03 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised

I'd think that I would see some internal network activity if this were the case 
though.  Also, the source IPs appear to be from all over the world.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Bruce Robertson  wrote:
In  my experience, that's usually your mobile devices nattering with the mother 
ship, like doing backups and uploading recent pictures. iPhones are especially 
bad about this.

On 09/06/2016 09:57 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:
So I've noticed some strange behavior on my home connection (Comcast).  The 
Mikrotik that I am using shows a constant Tx on the WAN port of around 3-5Mbps 
and between 200-300pps, Rx is just a few kbps.  This activity appears to be 
strictly on the WAN port.  If I disable a firewall rule that accepts input, the 
activity ceases - but devices behind the router lose connectivity.

Any ideas?  I've got all IP services disabled except winbox, which is 
restricted to my local network.
 !DSPAM:2,57cef58248051021720198!

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised

2016-09-06 Thread Jason McKemie

Got it. I think part of the issue here is that since I was using it at home
I left the Mikrotik default config installed - normally I wipe this and
start from scratch.

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Unfortunately, “remote” doesn’t mean what you probably think.  More like
> remote and local, anything except the Mikrotik itself.  So if any clients
> are using this as their resolver (DNS proxy), it needs to be enabled, with
> firewall rules.  If you aren’t using the Mikrotik as a DNS proxy, you can
> disable remote requests.
>
> *From:* Jason McKemie
> 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 12:20 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised
>
> Well, disabling remote requests worked well enough at the moment.  I'll
> have to work on the firewall setup though.
>
> Thanks all, I'm still not working correctly from the 3 day weekend
> obviously.
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Mike Hammett  > wrote:
>
>> If you leave it long enough, Comcast will shut off your account.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" > >
>> *To: *af@afmug.com 
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 12:17:23 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised
>>
>> Yeah, admittedly I haven't done much other than mess around with some
>> blacklists on this one.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Mike Hammett > > wrote:
>>
>>> Instill some basic network security. I block input to potentially
>>> harmful ports, but a better way is to only allow input on ports you want.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" >> >
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com 
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 12:14:31 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised
>>>
>>> Well, disabling remote requests dropped it off steeply.  I'll have to
>>> look into that.  Is that enabled by default?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Bruce Robertson >> > wrote:
>>>
 Good point.

 On 09/06/2016 10:11 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:

 I'd think that I would see some internal network activity if this were
 the case though.  Also, the source IPs appear to be from all over the 
 world.

 On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Bruce Robertson > wrote:

> In  my experience, that's usually your mobile devices nattering with
> the mother ship, like doing backups and uploading recent pictures. iPhones
> are especially bad about this.
>
> On 09/06/2016 09:57 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:
>
>> So I've noticed some strange behavior on my home connection
>> (Comcast).  The Mikrotik that I am using shows a constant Tx on the WAN
>> port of around 3-5Mbps and between 200-300pps, Rx is just a few kbps.  
>> This
>> activity appears to be strictly on the WAN port.  If I disable a firewall
>> rule that accepts input, the activity ceases - but devices behind the
>> router lose connectivity.
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised

Butch evans script is relatively inexpensive

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Rob Genovesi 
wrote:

> If it's not a DNS server for clients just go to IP -> DNS and uncheck
> "Allow Remote Requests"  ... and add firewall rules.
>
> -Rob
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, admittedly I haven't done much other than mess around with some
>> blacklists on this one.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>> Instill some basic network security. I block input to potentially
>>> harmful ports, but a better way is to only allow input on ports you want.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 12:14:31 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised
>>>
>>> Well, disabling remote requests dropped it off steeply.  I'll have to
>>> look into that.  Is that enabled by default?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Bruce Robertson  wrote:
>>>
 Good point.

 On 09/06/2016 10:11 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:

 I'd think that I would see some internal network activity if this were
 the case though.  Also, the source IPs appear to be from all over the 
 world.

 On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Bruce Robertson 
 wrote:

> In  my experience, that's usually your mobile devices nattering with
> the mother ship, like doing backups and uploading recent pictures. iPhones
> are especially bad about this.
>
> On 09/06/2016 09:57 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:
>
>> So I've noticed some strange behavior on my home connection
>> (Comcast).  The Mikrotik that I am using shows a constant Tx on the WAN
>> port of around 3-5Mbps and between 200-300pps, Rx is just a few kbps.  
>> This
>> activity appears to be strictly on the WAN port.  If I disable a firewall
>> rule that accepts input, the activity ceases - but devices behind the
>> router lose connectivity.
>>
>> Any ideas?  I've got all IP services disabled except winbox, which is
>> restricted to my local network.
>> wbr>8!
>>
>
>
 !DSPAM:2,57cef8d652678869110723!



>>>
>>>
>>
>


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

[AFMUG] outdoor weatherproof enclosure

2016-09-06 Thread Dev

I have been using the Jirous Gentlebox JE-300, which has been really nice, but 
need something a little larger, can anyone recommend something that’s 
reasonably priced and has decent availability that’s something like double the 
size?

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised

Unfortunately, “remote” doesn’t mean what you probably think.  More like remote 
and local, anything except the Mikrotik itself.  So if any clients are using 
this as their resolver (DNS proxy), it needs to be enabled, with firewall 
rules.  If you aren’t using the Mikrotik as a DNS proxy, you can disable remote 
requests.

From: Jason McKemie 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 12:20 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised

Well, disabling remote requests worked well enough at the moment.  I'll have to 
work on the firewall setup though. 

Thanks all, I'm still not working correctly from the 3 day weekend obviously.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

  If you leave it long enough, Comcast will shut off your account.

  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions

  Midwest Internet Exchange

  The Brothers WISP

--

  From: "Jason McKemie" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 12:17:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised

  Yeah, admittedly I haven't done much other than mess around with some 
blacklists on this one. 

  On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

Instill some basic network security. I block input to potentially harmful 
ports, but a better way is to only allow input on ports you want.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

From: "Jason McKemie" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 12:14:31 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised

Well, disabling remote requests dropped it off steeply.  I'll have to look 
into that.  Is that enabled by default?

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Bruce Robertson  wrote:

  Good point.

  On 09/06/2016 10:11 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:

I'd think that I would see some internal network activity if this were 
the case though.  Also, the source IPs appear to be from all over the world.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Bruce Robertson  wrote:

  In  my experience, that's usually your mobile devices nattering with 
the mother ship, like doing backups and uploading recent pictures. iPhones are 
especially bad about this.

  On 09/06/2016 09:57 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:

So I've noticed some strange behavior on my home connection 
(Comcast).  The Mikrotik that I am using shows a constant Tx on the WAN port of 
around 3-5Mbps and between 200-300pps, Rx is just a few kbps.  This activity 
appears to be strictly on the WAN port.  If I disable a firewall rule that 
accepts input, the activity ceases - but devices behind the router lose 
connectivity.

Any ideas?  I've got all IP services disabled except winbox, which 
is restricted to my local network.
wbr>8! 

!DSPAM:2,57cef8d652678869110723!

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised

2016-09-06 Thread Bruce Robertson


Yes, unfortunately.

On 09/06/2016 10:14 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:
Well, disabling remote requests dropped it off steeply.  I'll have to 
look into that.  Is that enabled by default?


On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Bruce Robertson > wrote:


Good point.

On 09/06/2016 10:11 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:

I'd think that I would see some internal network activity if this
were the case though.  Also, the source IPs appear to be from all
over the world.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Bruce Robertson > wrote:

In  my experience, that's usually your mobile devices
nattering with the mother ship, like doing backups and
uploading recent pictures. iPhones are especially bad about this.

On 09/06/2016 09:57 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:

So I've noticed some strange behavior on my home
connection (Comcast).  The Mikrotik that I am using shows
a constant Tx on the WAN port of around 3-5Mbps and
between 200-300pps, Rx is just a few kbps.  This activity
appears to be strictly on the WAN port.  If I disable a
firewall rule that accepts input, the activity ceases -
but devices behind the router lose connectivity.

Any ideas?  I've got all IP services disabled except
winbox, which is restricted to my local network.
wbr>8!



wbr>57cef8d652678869110723! 



!DSPAM:2,57cef97b53691120820311!

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised

2016-09-06 Thread Rob Genovesi

If it's not a DNS server for clients just go to IP -> DNS and uncheck
"Allow Remote Requests"  ... and add firewall rules.

-Rob

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> Yeah, admittedly I haven't done much other than mess around with some
> blacklists on this one.
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> Instill some basic network security. I block input to potentially harmful
>> ports, but a better way is to only allow input on ports you want.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, September 6, 2016 12:14:31 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised
>>
>> Well, disabling remote requests dropped it off steeply.  I'll have to
>> look into that.  Is that enabled by default?
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Bruce Robertson  wrote:
>>
>>> Good point.
>>>
>>> On 09/06/2016 10:11 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd think that I would see some internal network activity if this were
>>> the case though.  Also, the source IPs appear to be from all over the world.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Bruce Robertson  wrote:
>>>
 In  my experience, that's usually your mobile devices nattering with
 the mother ship, like doing backups and uploading recent pictures. iPhones
 are especially bad about this.

 On 09/06/2016 09:57 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:

> So I've noticed some strange behavior on my home connection
> (Comcast).  The Mikrotik that I am using shows a constant Tx on the WAN
> port of around 3-5Mbps and between 200-300pps, Rx is just a few kbps.  
> This
> activity appears to be strictly on the WAN port.  If I disable a firewall
> rule that accepts input, the activity ceases - but devices behind the
> router lose connectivity.
>
> Any ideas?  I've got all IP services disabled except winbox, which is
> restricted to my local network.
> wbr>8!
>


>>> !DSPAM:2,57cef8d652678869110723!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised

Instill some basic network security. I block input to potentially harmful 
ports, but a better way is to only allow input on ports you want. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jason McKemie"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 12:14:31 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised 


Well, disabling remote requests dropped it off steeply. I'll have to look into 
that. Is that enabled by default? 


On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Bruce Robertson < br...@pooh.com > wrote: 



Good point. 


On 09/06/2016 10:11 AM, Jason McKemie wrote: 



I'd think that I would see some internal network activity if this were the case 
though. Also, the source IPs appear to be from all over the world. 


On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Bruce Robertson < br...@pooh.com > wrote: 


In my experience, that's usually your mobile devices nattering with the mother 
ship, like doing backups and uploading recent pictures. iPhones are especially 
bad about this. 

On 09/06/2016 09:57 AM, Jason McKemie wrote: 


So I've noticed some strange behavior on my home connection (Comcast). The 
Mikrotik that I am using shows a constant Tx on the WAN port of around 3-5Mbps 
and between 200-300pps, Rx is just a few kbps. This activity appears to be 
strictly on the WAN port. If I disable a firewall rule that accepts input, the 
activity ceases - but devices behind the router lose connectivity. 

Any ideas? I've got all IP services disabled except winbox, which is restricted 
to my local network. 
wbr>8! 






!DSPAM:2,57cef8d652678869110723!

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised

2016-09-06 Thread Matt

Does the Mikrotik DNS cache listen on both TCP and UDP port 53?  In
past I always dropped both in input chain on the pppoe interface but I
am not sure it actually listens on the TCP port?

> Assuming you have DNS set to Allow Remote Requests (which must be on for
> local customers to use the Mikrotik as their DNS server), make sure you have
> an Input chain rule to drop UDP and TCP destination port 53 on the WAN
> interface.  Mikrotik’s QuickSet leaves the router open to DNS amplification
> attacks.
>
> Also check if you have NTP server enabled, that’s another amplification
> attack method.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik Possibly Compromised