Re: [AFMUG] Small PC for remote Troubleshooting

[Jaime Solorza]

Mondo rad

On Sep 24, 2016 7:23 PM, "Adam Moffett"  wrote:

> Wow, that's rad.
> and I haven't said anything was rad in about 20 years, so that really
> says something.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "TJ Trout" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/24/2016 5:27:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small PC for remote Troubleshooting
>
>
> http://www.tronsmart.com/products/tronsmart-ara-x5-plus
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Gino Villarini 
> wrote:
>
>> What you guys suggest for a remote displayless PC that we can use at
>> remote sites for troubleshooting/remote access via 4g?
>>
>> Case is that sometimes its quicker for our engineers to have remote
>> access to equipment via a remote desktop session than going step by step
>> with our field techs or tower crews.
>>
>> we just need browser, winbox, terminal
>>
>> lan port should be able to have vlan configured
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] How the cell companies do nat?

[Josh Reynolds]

CGNAT ftw.

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> CGNAT\NAT444 and IPv6.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"TJ Trout" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, September 24, 2016 11:07:07 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] How the cell companies do nat?
>
> With all of the problems that we face as wisps with doing scaled nat
> behind a public IP ( Google capcha, PlayStation, blocks etc )
>
> How are the cell companies (Verizon att etc) able to do nat on cellular
> handsets without having the same problems?
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] How the cell companies do nat?

[Mike Hammett]

CGNAT\NAT444 and IPv6. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "TJ Trout"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 11:07:07 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] How the cell companies do nat? 


With all of the problems that we face as wisps with doing scaled nat behind a 
public IP ( Google capcha, PlayStation, blocks etc ) 
How are the cell companies (Verizon att etc) able to do nat on cellular 
handsets without having the same problems? 

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Colin Stanners]

Some SCADA systems run at like 115kbaud with -103db receive sensitivity in
a 1mhz channel... that will survive a lot.

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> Depends on the system..  SCADA type radios have no problem with trees...
>
> On Sep 24, 2016 7:22 PM, "Adam Moffett"  wrote:
>
>> Might be worth a shot I guess.  Depends how strong your 900 is coming
>> in.
>>
>> Attenuation is attenuation though...whether it's LTE or something else.
>> If the path literally passes through a mile of trees then I'm surprised
>> even 900 works.
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "George Skorup" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: 9/24/2016 3:45:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>>
>>
>> And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't hear
>> those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.
>>
>> The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a mile
>> or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not only due to
>> power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it actually does "work"
>> (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to run with it. So we'll get
>> what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a
>> lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise floor. So we gain nothing and spent
>> a ton of money. Great idea. And we won't end up getting all of the
>> customers off of the 900 anyway, that I'm sure.
>>
>> On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>
>> In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, but
>> I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a few places
>> with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.
>>
>> From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can hang on
>> to a crummy signal longer than Wimax.  It was explained to me that Wimax
>> puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has to be received on
>> every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data interspersed among the
>> subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE
>> CPE in the same conditions can stay connected.   It also has lower mod
>> levels that let it operate right down to the noise floor.  And at least in
>> theory you'll get more throughput than you get in the same conditions on
>> Wimax.
>>
>> I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.  Just
>> because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're not intentionally
>> installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, so we really ought to
>> be ok on that front.
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "George Skorup" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>>
>>
>> Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? Obviously
>> 4x4 would give a slight advantage.
>>
>> My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. Linked
>> up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole bunch of low
>> modulation customers on a sector is not worth the investment. LTE, Wimax,
>> 450i 900.. whatever it may be.
>>
>> I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. Turned
>> out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel come "fix" it. I
>> won't say any names, but I now see what they did to get it working. It's in
>> the 3.5 band.. because I can see them on my 450's spectrum analyzer. From
>> multiple sectors on multiple towers, so I know what direction it's coming
>> from. And I have no doubt they're running it over powered.
>>
>> Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens.
>>
>> On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>
>> We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're running
>> Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e installations.  We have
>> a number of sites now that have entirely dual mode CPE so we're about to
>> pull the trigger on LTE.  We're installing four LTE base stations next week
>> on brand new sites, and assuming those go well we'll upgrade some existing
>> Wimax sites.
>>
>> So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more.  I'll definitely
>> report back.
>>
>> It's interesting that you phrase it as "if it works at all."  The issue
>> with Wimax has never been it "working", it's just that it comes with a lot
>> of quirks and it sucks at administration and troubleshooting.  I'm speaking
>> of Wimax in general here, not Telrad specificallyand I've used Wimax
>> from three different vendors now.  I have no fear about LTE working.  I
>> *am* afraid it will turn out to be cut from the same cloth as Wimax.
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "George Skorup" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: 9/23/2016 8:04:34 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[AFMUG] How the cell companies do nat?

[TJ Trout]

With all of the problems that we face as wisps with doing scaled nat behind
a public IP ( Google capcha, PlayStation, blocks etc )

How are the cell companies (Verizon att etc) able to do nat on cellular
handsets without having the same problems?

Re: [AFMUG] Krebs is back

[Mike Hammett]

Clear your DNS cache? 

Akamai was hosting it for free and they just couldn't justify hosting it for 
free anymore with a 620+ gb/s sustained (TCP from what I remember) attack. 

It's somewhere in Google now is all I know. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Ken Hohhof"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 9:59:38 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Krebs is back 



Still down for me. Maybe IP address changed and my DNS is stale? 

So is the story that Akamai/Cloudflare evicted his site after 600+ Gbps DDoS 
and Google offered to host it? 




From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 9:03 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Krebs is back 


Krebs is back online via Google. 

http://krebsonsecurity.com/ 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Jaime Solorza]

Depends on the system..  SCADA type radios have no problem with trees...

On Sep 24, 2016 7:22 PM, "Adam Moffett"  wrote:

> Might be worth a shot I guess.  Depends how strong your 900 is coming in.
>
> Attenuation is attenuation though...whether it's LTE or something else.
> If the path literally passes through a mile of trees then I'm surprised
> even 900 works.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "George Skorup" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/24/2016 3:45:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
> And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't hear
> those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.
>
> The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a mile
> or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not only due to
> power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it actually does "work"
> (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to run with it. So we'll get
> what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds a lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a
> lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise floor. So we gain nothing and spent
> a ton of money. Great idea. And we won't end up getting all of the
> customers off of the 900 anyway, that I'm sure.
>
> On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>
> In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, but
> I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a few places
> with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.
>
> From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can hang on
> to a crummy signal longer than Wimax.  It was explained to me that Wimax
> puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has to be received on
> every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data interspersed among the
> subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE sometimes cuts in an out, an LTE
> CPE in the same conditions can stay connected.   It also has lower mod
> levels that let it operate right down to the noise floor.  And at least in
> theory you'll get more throughput than you get in the same conditions on
> Wimax.
>
> I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.  Just
> because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're not intentionally
> installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, so we really ought to
> be ok on that front.
>
> -Adam
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "George Skorup" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
> Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? Obviously
> 4x4 would give a slight advantage.
>
> My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. Linked
> up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole bunch of low
> modulation customers on a sector is not worth the investment. LTE, Wimax,
> 450i 900.. whatever it may be.
>
> I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. Turned
> out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel come "fix" it. I
> won't say any names, but I now see what they did to get it working. It's in
> the 3.5 band.. because I can see them on my 450's spectrum analyzer. From
> multiple sectors on multiple towers, so I know what direction it's coming
> from. And I have no doubt they're running it over powered.
>
> Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens.
>
> On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>
> We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're running
> Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e installations.  We have
> a number of sites now that have entirely dual mode CPE so we're about to
> pull the trigger on LTE.  We're installing four LTE base stations next week
> on brand new sites, and assuming those go well we'll upgrade some existing
> Wimax sites.
>
> So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more.  I'll definitely report
> back.
>
> It's interesting that you phrase it as "if it works at all."  The issue
> with Wimax has never been it "working", it's just that it comes with a lot
> of quirks and it sucks at administration and troubleshooting.  I'm speaking
> of Wimax in general here, not Telrad specificallyand I've used Wimax
> from three different vendors now.  I have no fear about LTE working.  I
> *am* afraid it will turn out to be cut from the same cloth as Wimax.
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "George Skorup" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/23/2016 8:04:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
> Aren't you doing Telrad? Please let us know if it works at all.
>
> On 9/23/2016 4:05 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>
> I'll let you know in a few weeks.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: ch...@wbmfg.com
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/23/2016 5:01:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real 

Re: [AFMUG] Krebs is back

[Ken Hohhof]

Still down for me.  Maybe IP address changed and my DNS is stale?

 

So is the story that Akamai/Cloudflare evicted his site after 600+ Gbps DDoS 
and Google offered to host it?

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 9:03 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Krebs is back

 

Krebs is back online via Google.

http://krebsonsecurity.com/



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




 

[AFMUG] Krebs is back

[Mike Hammett]

Krebs is back online via Google. 

http://krebsonsecurity.com/ 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

Re: [AFMUG] Small PC for remote Troubleshooting

[Adam Moffett]

Wow, that's rad.
and I haven't said anything was rad in about 20 years, so that 
really says something.



-- Original Message --
From: "TJ Trout" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/24/2016 5:27:58 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small PC for remote Troubleshooting


http://www.tronsmart.com/products/tronsmart-ara-x5-plus

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Gino Villarini  
wrote:
What you guys suggest for a remote displayless PC that we can use at 
remote sites for troubleshooting/remote access via 4g?


Case is that sometimes its quicker for our engineers to have remote 
access to equipment via a remote desktop session than going step by 
step with our field techs or tower crews.


we just need browser, winbox, terminal

lan port should be able to have vlan configured

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Adam Moffett]

Might be worth a shot I guess.  Depends how strong your 900 is coming 
in.


Attenuation is attenuation though...whether it's LTE or something else.  
If the path literally passes through a mile of trees then I'm surprised 
even 900 works.



-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/24/2016 3:45:44 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't hear 
those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.


The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a 
mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not 
only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it 
actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to 
run with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds a 
lot like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise 
floor. So we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. Great idea. And we 
won't end up getting all of the customers off of the 900 anyway, that 
I'm sure.


On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, 
but I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a 
few places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.


From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can hang 
on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax.  It was explained to me that 
Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has to be 
received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data interspersed 
among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE sometimes cuts in 
an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can stay connected.   It 
also has lower mod levels that let it operate right down to the noise 
floor.  And at least in theory you'll get more throughput than you get 
in the same conditions on Wimax.


I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.  
Just because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're not 
intentionally installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, so 
we really ought to be ok on that front.


-Adam


-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? 
Obviously 4x4 would give a slight advantage.


My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. 
Linked up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole 
bunch of low modulation customers on a sector is not worth the 
investment. LTE, Wimax, 450i 900.. whatever it may be.


I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. 
Turned out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel come 
"fix" it. I won't say any names, but I now see what they did to get 
it working. It's in the 3.5 band.. because I can see them on my 450's 
spectrum analyzer. From multiple sectors on multiple towers, so I 
know what direction it's coming from. And I have no doubt they're 
running it over powered.


Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens.

On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're 
running Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e 
installations.  We have a number of sites now that have entirely 
dual mode CPE so we're about to pull the trigger on LTE.  We're 
installing four LTE base stations next week on brand new sites, and 
assuming those go well we'll upgrade some existing Wimax sites.


So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more.  I'll definitely 
report back.


It's interesting that you phrase it as "if it works at all."  The 
issue with Wimax has never been it "working", it's just that it 
comes with a lot of quirks and it sucks at administration and 
troubleshooting.  I'm speaking of Wimax in general here, not Telrad 
specificallyand I've used Wimax from three different vendors 
now.  I have no fear about LTE working.  I am afraid it will turn 
out to be cut from the same cloth as Wimax.




-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 8:04:34 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


Aren't you doing Telrad? Please let us know if it works at all.

On 9/23/2016 4:05 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

I'll let you know in a few weeks.


-- Original Message --
From: ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 5:01:02 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


I wonder what LTE would do with the same RSSI.

From:Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Oh I also have somebody with a -88 who gets about half that.
900 was the last ditch effort 

Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[Jon Auer]

I'm using Ciena 3930s as CPE for our customers with 10G ports and, for
those that have subrate services, using them for shaping/policing.
It's a switch targetted at carrier ethernet demarc so it has many useful
QoS and OAM options.

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 1:10 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:

> What is the best way to throttle a customer to a specific bandwidth
> threshold when they are using over 1G of bandwidth?
>
> Should this be done at the switch? I have a feeling that a simple queue
> probably won't work...
>

Re: [AFMUG] Billing system survey rehash

[Simon Westlake]

Ivan, you want to tackle this one?

On 9/24/2016 5:36 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:


I didn't see the "how big of assholes are they" column. That would be 
really helpful. But otherwise a good comparison.



On Sat, Sep 24, 2016, 4:48 PM Simon Westlake  wrote:

Ivan,

Sorry for the mischaracterization - chart looks helpful. I
especially liked the notable facts. Very thorough!

On 9/24/2016 4:38 PM, Ivan Kohler wrote:


On 09/16/2016 06:01 AM, Simon Westlake wrote:


There's a couple of others that are mostly billing focused
(BillMax, Freeside) that are probably similar in functionality
to Platypus (although, I will confess, I am not intimately
familiar with them, so they could have some differences.)


Sorry to be late to the party.

Simon, I would respectfully say that your characterization of
Freeside as "billing focused" or similar to Platypus/Billmax
rather than a full platform is incorrect.  We're very much a
complete platform (for example, with all of the 7 modules you
list in your blog targeting Sonar's 1.0 release). Vlad, thanks
very much for the kind words - we're happy to have you as part of
our community as both a user and contributor to the codebase.

FWIW, I did some research and put together a chart with all 9
(nine!) billing vendors that are WISPA members.  Of course I
cannot help but be biased, so take it with an appropriate amount
of salt, but I was going for "useful information" rather than
"useless marketing spin".  Hope it helps!

Simon, Cameron, and anyone else, your comments/input are more
than welcome.

-- 


Ivan Kohler, President and Head Geek, Freeside Internet Services,
Inc.

Open-source billing, ticketing and provisioning -
http://freeside.biz/



Freeside 
Azotel  Billmax DirectLink AdminPlatypus
Powercode   Sonar
VISPWISPMon
WISPA member✔   ✔   ✔   ✔   ✔   ✔   ✔   
✔   ✔
WISP features   ✔   ✔   ✖   ✖   ✖   ✔   ✔   
✔   ✔
CDR billing / Telco features✔   ✖   ✖   ✖   ✖   
✖   new/preliminary
✖   ✖
Fiber ISP features  ✔   ✖   ✖   ✖   ✖   ✖   ✖   
✖   ✔
Deployment  Hosted or Premise   Hosted  Premise Hosted  Premise
Premise Hosted  Hosted  Premise
Client  Web Web Web Web Windows Web Web 
Web Web
License Open-source Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary
Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary 
Proprietary
Price   No per-customer or license charges. Can purchase
implementation, support, and customization services.
$?/customer/month   $?/customer/month   $0.50/customer/month100
customers free, then $0.05-$0.70/customer/month
$0.63-$1.40/customer/month  $0.50-$1.25/customer/month
$0.90-$1.30/customer/month  $0.95-$1.30/customer/month
Ongoing development Active (new major version this year)Active
Active  Active (new product)Minimal Active  Active (new
product)Active  Active (new major version last year)
Vendor size Small   Small   TinyTinyMedium  Large   Small
Medium  Tiny
Vendor business/ownership   Billing softwareBilling software
(sold through distributors) Billing and geologic software   MDU
ISP (VideoDirect)   Domain names, mobile phone service (OpenSRS,
Ting, Tucows)   WISP (Bertram wireless) Billing software
Billing
software, managed ISP services (call center, email/web hosting)
Billing software
Since   19982005 (2010 USA) 1997201519962003
20151996
2010
Notable fact(s) Mature and full-featured ISP and CDR billing.
New UI, WISP mapping features and hosted option.Simple hosted
system for small WISPs, almost like a franchise Old ISP system,
dormant for years, revived in 2012  New system with MDU features
Barely maintained, on life support for a decade Giant
over-the-top trade show booths (compensating for something?)
Ex-Powercode team, early access discount, rapid development Can
also host your email and answer your support calls  No longer
requires Adobe Flash





-- 
Simon Westlake

Skype: Simon_Sonar
Email:simon@sonar.software 
Phone: (702) 447-1247
---
Sonar Software Inc
The next generation of ISP billing and OSS
https://sonar.software



--
Simon Westlake
Skype: Simon_Sonar
Email: simon@sonar.software
Phone: (702) 447-1247
---
Sonar Software Inc
The next generation of ISP billing and OSS
https://sonar.software

Re: [AFMUG] Small PC for remote Troubleshooting

[Simon Westlake]

If you want something a little more powerful, I just bought one of 
these, put an SSD in it, and it's working pretty well:


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883285369

There are tons of little PCs out now, from tiny ones on a stick to stuff 
like this HP and lots in between as well. I would think your biggest 
concern if you're going to leave it at a tower site is going to be the 
operating temperature range though.


On 9/24/2016 5:50 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:

very nice

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 5:27 PM, TJ Trout > wrote:


http://www.tronsmart.com/products/tronsmart-ara-x5-plus


On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Gino Villarini
> wrote:

What you guys suggest for a remote displayless PC that we can
use at remote sites for troubleshooting/remote access via 4g?

Case is that sometimes its quicker for our engineers to have
remote access to equipment via a remote desktop session than
going step by step with our field techs or tower crews.

we just need browser, winbox, terminal

lan port should be able to have vlan configured





--
Simon Westlake
Skype: Simon_Sonar
Email: simon@sonar.software
Phone: (702) 447-1247
---
Sonar Software Inc
The next generation of ISP billing and OSS
https://sonar.software

Re: [AFMUG] Small PC for remote Troubleshooting

[Gino Villarini]

very nice

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 5:27 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:

> http://www.tronsmart.com/products/tronsmart-ara-x5-plus
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Gino Villarini 
> wrote:
>
>> What you guys suggest for a remote displayless PC that we can use at
>> remote sites for troubleshooting/remote access via 4g?
>>
>> Case is that sometimes its quicker for our engineers to have remote
>> access to equipment via a remote desktop session than going step by step
>> with our field techs or tower crews.
>>
>> we just need browser, winbox, terminal
>>
>> lan port should be able to have vlan configured
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Small PC for remote Troubleshooting

[Faisal Imtiaz]

the NUC series of small footprint pc's... 

Or maybe this would be better suited for the job ! 

http://shop.proxicast.com/shopping/proxicast-pocketport-2-pocket-sized-3g-4g-lte-usb-cellular-modem-bridge-mini-router.html
 

:) 

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

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

> From: "Gino Villarini" 
> To: "Animal Farm" 
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 5:22:55 PM
> Subject: [AFMUG] Small PC for remote Troubleshooting

> What you guys suggest for a remote displayless PC that we can use at remote
> sites for troubleshooting/remote access via 4g?
> Case is that sometimes its quicker for our engineers to have remote access to
> equipment via a remote desktop session than going step by step with our field
> techs or tower crews.

> we just need browser, winbox, terminal

> lan port should be able to have vlan configured

Re: [AFMUG] Small PC for remote Troubleshooting

[TJ Trout]

http://www.tronsmart.com/products/tronsmart-ara-x5-plus

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Gino Villarini  wrote:

> What you guys suggest for a remote displayless PC that we can use at
> remote sites for troubleshooting/remote access via 4g?
>
> Case is that sometimes its quicker for our engineers to have remote access
> to equipment via a remote desktop session than going step by step with our
> field techs or tower crews.
>
> we just need browser, winbox, terminal
>
> lan port should be able to have vlan configured
>

[AFMUG] Small PC for remote Troubleshooting

[Gino Villarini]

What you guys suggest for a remote displayless PC that we can use at remote
sites for troubleshooting/remote access via 4g?

Case is that sometimes its quicker for our engineers to have remote access
to equipment via a remote desktop session than going step by step with our
field techs or tower crews.

we just need browser, winbox, terminal

lan port should be able to have vlan configured

Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[Paul Stewart]

Policing or shaping ... switch or router ... depends on whether you want to be 
harsh or somewhat forgiving on capping the bandwidth ... routers do it better 
typically but really depends on your gear and where you want to apply it

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 24, 2016, at 2:20 PM, Jaime Solorza  wrote:
> 
> Shut down his LAN port That works Lol.Can't you limit with Vlan
> 
> 
>> On Sep 24, 2016 12:10 PM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:
>> What is the best way to throttle a customer to a specific bandwidth 
>> threshold when they are using over 1G of bandwidth?
>> 
>> Should this be done at the switch? I have a feeling that a simple queue 
>> probably won't work...

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[George Skorup]

And what happens when the noise floor increases and the eNB can't hear 
those shitty CPEs anymore? Nevermind, that question answered itself.


The boss keeps wanting to try an LTE sector at sites where we have a 
mile or more deep trees (where we know 900 FSK barely works now, not 
only due to power levels but noise floor too). My fear is that it 
actually does "work" (meaning horrible mod levels) and he'll want to run 
with it. So we'll get what, a couple Mbps out of a sector. Sounds a lot 
like 900 FSK. Sounds a lot like 900 450i with a horrible noise floor. So 
we gain nothing and spent a ton of money. Great idea. And we won't end 
up getting all of the customers off of the 900 anyway, that I'm sure.


On 9/24/2016 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, 
but I think feature was released only a month or so ago. We have a few 
places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.
From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can hang 
on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax.  It was explained to me that 
Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has to be 
received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data interspersed 
among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE sometimes cuts in 
an out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can stay connected.   It 
also has lower mod levels that let it operate right down to the noise 
floor.  And at least in theory you'll get more throughput than you get 
in the same conditions on Wimax.
I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.  
Just because they work doesn't mean you want them. We're not 
intentionally installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, so 
we really ought to be ok on that front.

-Adam
-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" >
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? 
Obviously 4x4 would give a slight advantage.


My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. 
Linked up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole 
bunch of low modulation customers on a sector is not worth the 
investment. LTE, Wimax, 450i 900.. whatever it may be.


I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. 
Turned out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel come 
"fix" it. I won't say any names, but I now see what they did to get 
it working. It's in the 3.5 band.. because I can see them on my 450's 
spectrum analyzer. From multiple sectors on multiple towers, so I 
know what direction it's coming from. And I have no doubt they're 
running it over powered.


Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens.

On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're 
running Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e 
installations.  We have a number of sites now that have entirely 
dual mode CPE so we're about to pull the trigger on LTE.  We're 
installing four LTE base stations next week on brand new sites, and 
assuming those go well we'll upgrade some existing Wimax sites.
So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more. I'll definitely 
report back.
It's interesting that you phrase it as "if it works at all."  The 
issue with Wimax has never been it "working", it's just that it 
comes with a lot of quirks and it sucks at administration and 
troubleshooting.  I'm speaking of Wimax in general here, not Telrad 
specificallyand I've used Wimax from three different vendors 
now.  I have no fear about LTE working.  I _am_ afraid it will turn 
out to be cut from the same cloth as Wimax.

-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" >
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: 9/23/2016 8:04:34 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Aren't you doing Telrad? Please let us know if it works at all.

On 9/23/2016 4:05 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

I'll let you know in a few weeks.
-- Original Message --
From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: 9/23/2016 5:01:02 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

I wonder what LTE would do with the same RSSI.
*From:* Adam Moffett 
*Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
Oh I also have somebody with a -88 who gets about half that.
900 was the last ditch effort for both of these.
With wimax from the same tower we got a big fat nothing at both 
locations.

-- Original Message --
From: "Adam Moffett" >

To: af@afmug.com 

Re: [AFMUG] 24x7 coverage

[Paul Stewart]

Good question ... this would only be for a few things in particular.  Dealing 
with network events/alerts, outages, escalations, and managed services 
primarily  and also maintenance activity too

Basically a third tier support group 

Thanks

Paul 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 24, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
> 
> Nope, but I’ve got a philosophical question for those who do.  I know if 
> customers find out they can call you at 2am, some will, just to pay their 
> bill or ask opinions about buying a new computer.
>  
> So is this fine with you, as long as you’re paying for 24x7 staff, might as 
> well spread out the call volume?  Or do you still want people to call during 
> normal business hours for routine things?  I know if I was paying outsourced 
> after hours support by the call, I probably wouldn’t want people calling in 
> the middle of the night just to chat.
>  
> Also,  what is your plan to keep your people from being like the Maytag 
> repairman, sitting there collecting a paycheck to watch cat videos?  Stock 
> the trucks?  Firmware upgrades?  Program radios and process returned 
> equipment?  Paperwork?  Computer repair?
>  
> It would be tempting to have them call past due accounts at 2am, but I guess 
> it is frowned upon for US to call THEM after hours.
>  
>  
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 10:27 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] 24x7 coverage
>  
> Anyone on the list doing a manned 24x7 NOC themselves?  I'm looking into some 
> options and wrestling with shift length, schedules, number of people etc 
>  
> Thinking at moment of 10 hour shifts using 6 teams which allows for 
> overlapping at busiest times of day 
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Paul 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Adam Moffett]

They apparently do have a 5.1ghz versionor are working on one.  I 
don't recall which.



-- Original Message --
From: "Bill Prince" 
To: "Motorola III" 
Sent: 9/24/2016 1:39:17 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


That would imply that it "should" work in other frequencies as well,
such as 5 GHz and 2 GHz?

bp


On 9/24/2016 9:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:

 It also has lower mod levels that let it operate right down to the
 noise floor.  And at least in theory you'll get more throughput than
 you get in the same conditions on Wimax.

Re: [AFMUG] 24x7 coverage

[Mark Radabaugh]

If they are willing to pay the bill at 2:00am it’s OK with me - at least they 
paid.  

If they are not taking calls we have them deal with prepping new radios to go 
out the door, resetting and reprogramming returned equipment, going through the 
signal graphs looking for customers with issues, some have specific projects 
depending on what they are good at (or interested in).  One takes care of some 
internal websites, another has been working on our security system, etc.   My 
19 year old college student works Sundays taking calls - he is the one I don’t 
mind paying 8 hours to study :-)

Mark

> On Sep 24, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
> 
> Nope, but I’ve got a philosophical question for those who do.  I know if 
> customers find out they can call you at 2am, some will, just to pay their 
> bill or ask opinions about buying a new computer.
>  
> So is this fine with you, as long as you’re paying for 24x7 staff, might as 
> well spread out the call volume?  Or do you still want people to call during 
> normal business hours for routine things?  I know if I was paying outsourced 
> after hours support by the call, I probably wouldn’t want people calling in 
> the middle of the night just to chat.
>  
> Also,  what is your plan to keep your people from being like the Maytag 
> repairman, sitting there collecting a paycheck to watch cat videos?  Stock 
> the trucks?  Firmware upgrades?  Program radios and process returned 
> equipment?  Paperwork?  Computer repair?
>  
> It would be tempting to have them call past due accounts at 2am, but I guess 
> it is frowned upon for US to call THEM after hours.
>  
>   <>
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On 
> Behalf Of Paul Stewart
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 10:27 AM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: [AFMUG] 24x7 coverage
>  
> Anyone on the list doing a manned 24x7 NOC themselves?  I'm looking into some 
> options and wrestling with shift length, schedules, number of people etc 
>  
> Thinking at moment of 10 hour shifts using 6 teams which allows for 
> overlapping at busiest times of day 
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Paul 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone

Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[Jaime Solorza]

Shut down his LAN port That works Lol.Can't you limit with Vlan

On Sep 24, 2016 12:10 PM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:

> What is the best way to throttle a customer to a specific bandwidth
> threshold when they are using over 1G of bandwidth?
>
> Should this be done at the switch? I have a feeling that a simple queue
> probably won't work...
>

[AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[TJ Trout]

What is the best way to throttle a customer to a specific bandwidth
threshold when they are using over 1G of bandwidth?

Should this be done at the switch? I have a feeling that a simple queue
probably won't work...

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Bill Prince]

That would imply that it "should" work in other frequencies as well,
such as 5 GHz and 2 GHz?

bp


On 9/24/2016 9:47 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
> It also has lower mod levels that let it operate right down to the
> noise floor.  And at least in theory you'll get more throughput than
> you get in the same conditions on Wimax.

Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

[Adam Moffett]

In Wimax it's 4x4I'm pretty sure we'll have 4x4 in LTE as well, but 
I think feature was released only a month or so ago.  We have a few 
places with split sectors, so we'll be able to compare to 2x2.


From what I understand, LTE's frame structure is such that it can hang 
on to a crummy signal longer than Wimax.  It was explained to me that 
Wimax puts the synchronization data in the pre-amble which has to be 
received on every subcarrier, whereas LTE has that data interspersed 
among the subcarriers, so where your weak wimax CPE sometimes cuts in an 
out, an LTE CPE in the same conditions can stay connected.   It also has 
lower mod levels that let it operate right down to the noise floor.  And 
at least in theory you'll get more throughput than you get in the same 
conditions on Wimax.


I have the same reservations as you about the low mod levels thing.  
Just because they work doesn't mean you want them.  We're not 
intentionally installing anything weaker than a -80 RSSI right now, so 
we really ought to be ok on that front.


-Adam


-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 11:23:57 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Well, let me ask this. Are you doing 2x2 or 4x4 on the Telrad? 
Obviously 4x4 would give a slight advantage.


My whole thing is, OK, it might work through a shit ton of trees. 
Linked up and able to move some traffic is one thing. But a whole bunch 
of low modulation customers on a sector is not worth the investment. 
LTE, Wimax, 450i 900.. whatever it may be.


I know of a Telrad installation where they couldn't make it work. 
Turned out to be interference. They had some guys from Israel come 
"fix" it. I won't say any names, but I now see what they did to get it 
working. It's in the 3.5 band.. because I can see them on my 450's 
spectrum analyzer. From multiple sectors on multiple towers, so I know 
what direction it's coming from. And I have no doubt they're running it 
over powered.


Welp, we have a BaiCells demo kit, so we'll see what happens.

On 9/23/2016 9:52 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
We've had Telrad Compact 1000's for around 2.5 years, but they're 
running Wimax firmware because we were replacing older 16e 
installations.  We have a number of sites now that have entirely dual 
mode CPE so we're about to pull the trigger on LTE.  We're installing 
four LTE base stations next week on brand new sites, and assuming 
those go well we'll upgrade some existing Wimax sites.


So yeah, within the next few weeks I'll know more.  I'll definitely 
report back.


It's interesting that you phrase it as "if it works at all."  The 
issue with Wimax has never been it "working", it's just that it comes 
with a lot of quirks and it sucks at administration and 
troubleshooting.  I'm speaking of Wimax in general here, not Telrad 
specificallyand I've used Wimax from three different vendors now.  
I have no fear about LTE working.  I am afraid it will turn out to be 
cut from the same cloth as Wimax.




-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 8:04:34 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


Aren't you doing Telrad? Please let us know if it works at all.

On 9/23/2016 4:05 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

I'll let you know in a few weeks.


-- Original Message --
From: ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 5:01:02 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


I wonder what LTE would do with the same RSSI.

From:Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 2:46 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

Oh I also have somebody with a -88 who gets about half that.
900 was the last ditch effort for both of these.
With wimax from the same tower we got a big fat nothing at both 
locations.



-- Original Message --
From: "Adam Moffett" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:44:21 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


On the other end of the quality spectrum:

Link Test with Bridging
VCDownlinkUplinkAggregatePacket TransmitPacket 
ReceiveActualActual196.07 Mbps1.32 Mbps7.39 Mbps,  474 pps821 (410 
pps)128(64 pps)
That's a -85 on a 5mhz channel.  On any wider channel I lose this 
guy.




-- Original Message --
From: "Dave" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/23/2016 4:17:36 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?


This is from one of ours
Current Results StatusStats for LUID: 3   Test Duration: 5   Pkt 
Length: 1714   Test Direction Bi-Directional


RF Link Test
VCDownlinkUplinkAggregatePacket TransmitPacket 
ReceiveActualActual1926.13 Mbps6.78 Mbps32.92 Mbps,  2367 pps2389 
(477 pps)9450(1890 pps)

Efficiency
DownlinkUplinkEfficiencyFragments
countEfficiencyFragments
countActualExpectedActualExpected100%25525425525478%8412466231
Link Test ran on 03:59:48 

Re: [AFMUG] 24x7 coverage

[Ken Hohhof]

Nope, but I’ve got a philosophical question for those who do.  I know if 
customers find out they can call you at 2am, some will, just to pay their bill 
or ask opinions about buying a new computer.

 

So is this fine with you, as long as you’re paying for 24x7 staff, might as 
well spread out the call volume?  Or do you still want people to call during 
normal business hours for routine things?  I know if I was paying outsourced 
after hours support by the call, I probably wouldn’t want people calling in the 
middle of the night just to chat.

 

Also,  what is your plan to keep your people from being like the Maytag 
repairman, sitting there collecting a paycheck to watch cat videos?  Stock the 
trucks?  Firmware upgrades?  Program radios and process returned equipment?  
Paperwork?  Computer repair?

 

It would be tempting to have them call past due accounts at 2am, but I guess it 
is frowned upon for US to call THEM after hours.

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 10:27 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] 24x7 coverage

 

Anyone on the list doing a manned 24x7 NOC themselves?  I'm looking into some 
options and wrestling with shift length, schedules, number of people etc 

 

Thinking at moment of 10 hour shifts using 6 teams which allows for overlapping 
at busiest times of day 

 

Thanks

 

Paul 


Sent from my iPhone

[AFMUG] 24x7 coverage

[Paul Stewart]

Anyone on the list doing a manned 24x7 NOC themselves?  I'm looking into some 
options and wrestling with shift length, schedules, number of people etc 

Thinking at moment of 10 hour shifts using 6 teams which allows for overlapping 
at busiest times of day 

Thanks

Paul 

Sent from my iPhone

Re: [AFMUG] Conference Sessions Feedback

[Jaime Solorza]

Ha.. Mr Congeniality

On Sep 24, 2016 6:14 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> If you had attended those sessions, you'd know. ;-)
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Paul Stewart" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, September 24, 2016 6:08:52 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Conference Sessions Feedback
>
> What conference?
>
> On Sep 23, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
> I am soliciting feedback from anyone that attended the Virtualization or
> Bandwidth sessions this past spring. Onlist or offlist are fine.
>
> What would you look for in both?
>
> What would you look for in an automation session?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> 
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Conference Sessions Feedback

[Jeff Broadwick - Lists]

I guess I was half right...  :-)

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

> On Sep 24, 2016, at 8:15 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> Well, the the feedback solicited would have been from the WISPAmerica 
> conference, to be used towards similar sessions at WISPAApalooza.  ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> 
> The Brothers WISP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Jeff Broadwick - Lists" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 6:48:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Conference Sessions Feedback
> 
> Wispapalooza 
> 
> Jeff Broadwick
> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
> 312-205-2519 Office
> 574-220-7826 Cell
> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
> 
> On Sep 24, 2016, at 7:08 AM, Paul Stewart  wrote:
> 
> What conference?
> 
> On Sep 23, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> I am soliciting feedback from anyone that attended the Virtualization or 
> Bandwidth sessions this past spring. Onlist or offlist are fine.
> 
> What would you look for in both?
> 
> What would you look for in an automation session?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> 
> The Brothers WISP
> 
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Conference Sessions Feedback

[Mike Hammett]

Well, the the feedback solicited would have been from the WISPAmerica 
conference, to be used towards similar sessions at WISPAApalooza. ;-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jeff Broadwick - Lists"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 6:48:25 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Conference Sessions Feedback 


Wispapalooza 

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

On Sep 24, 2016, at 7:08 AM, Paul Stewart < p...@paulstewart.org > wrote: 




What conference? 





On Sep 23, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 


I am soliciting feedback from anyone that attended the Virtualization or 
Bandwidth sessions this past spring. Onlist or offlist are fine. 

What would you look for in both? 

What would you look for in an automation session? 

Thanks. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

Re: [AFMUG] Conference Sessions Feedback

[Mike Hammett]

If you had attended those sessions, you'd know. ;-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Paul Stewart"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 6:08:52 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Conference Sessions Feedback 

What conference? 





On Sep 23, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 


I am soliciting feedback from anyone that attended the Virtualization or 
Bandwidth sessions this past spring. Onlist or offlist are fine. 

What would you look for in both? 

What would you look for in an automation session? 

Thanks. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

Re: [AFMUG] Conference Sessions Feedback

[Jeff Broadwick - Lists]

Wispapalooza 

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

> On Sep 24, 2016, at 7:08 AM, Paul Stewart  wrote:
> 
> What conference?
> 
>> On Sep 23, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>> 
>> I am soliciting feedback from anyone that attended the Virtualization or 
>> Bandwidth sessions this past spring. Onlist or offlist are fine.
>> 
>> What would you look for in both?
>> 
>> What would you look for in an automation session?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP
>> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Conference Sessions Feedback

[Paul Stewart]

What conference?

> On Sep 23, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> I am soliciting feedback from anyone that attended the Virtualization or 
> Bandwidth sessions this past spring. Onlist or offlist are fine.
> 
> What would you look for in both?
> 
> What would you look for in an automation session?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>   
>  
>  
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>   
>  
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
>   
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Ubiquiti AC client with Mimosa AP

[Jason McKemie]

Mimosa's can work with either. I was just hoping for some reciprocity. I
understand manufacturers keying their APs to work with only their
SM/SU/etc. The other way around just doesn't make any sense to me.

On Friday, September 23, 2016, Josh Reynolds  wrote:

> Damned if you do, damned if you don't. They needed to break out from
> wifi completely to make certain things work now and in the future.
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Jason McKemie
> > wrote:
> > Thanks. That was what I figured, wanted to make sure though. That's some
> > weak sauce Ubiquiti.
> >
> > On Friday, September 23, 2016, Jeremy  > wrote:
> >>
> >> Ubiquiti AC is proprietary
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Jason McKemie
> >> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Will this work? Or are the ubiquiti AC radios stuck in airmax only
> mode?
> >>
> >>
> >
>