Re: [AFMUG] Is it safe to turn on an 11ghz radio without an antenna?

[Eric Kuhnke]

Well... I meant the traditional coordination process part 101 such as for a
new 23 GHz link, not "get a blanket license and self report all your new
links which you can use immediately".

On Sep 23, 2016 1:34 PM, "Daniel White"  wrote:

> 80GHz is Part 101…
>
>
>
> 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 *Eric Kuhnke
> *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 1:17 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Is it safe to turn on an 11ghz radio without an
> antenna?
>
>
>
> An 800 yard 11 GHz link?  Really?  If ever there was a scenario that
> called for a 60 or 80 GHz radio system...Or if they absolutely insisted
> that a part 101 licensed link was necessary, 23 GHz and 1' antennas.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:08 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>
> Yep, I do that frequently. Just point them up at the ceiling. I usually
> leave the power where it's coordinated and rarely see it hotter than -40 or
> so.
>
> A local chemical company coordinated an 800 yard (really!?) 11GHz link.
> Their coordinated Rx was like -25dBm. Uh, OK. I forget what it was, maybe a
> PTP820.
>
>
>
> On 9/23/2016 10:57 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>
> you should be fine..
>
>
>
> put them side by side next to or close to each other.
>
> don't point them at each other...
>
> and they come with power turned down 6db ..
>
>
>
> Just don't forget to set the power as per your coordination when you are
> mounting / before you are trying to align.
>
>
>
> :)
>
>
>
> 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: *"Mathew Howard"  
> *To: *"af"  
> *Sent: *Friday, September 23, 2016 11:27:11 AM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] Is it safe to turn on an 11ghz radio without an
> antenna?
>
> Can I safely setup an 11ghz radio (Mimosa B11, in this case) on the bench
> without attaching it to the dish, or is there a risk it'll damage the radio?
>
> I seem to remember being told it was fine to turn on our SAFs without
> dishes, and I'm assuming these would be the same, but that was a long time
> ago...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
>

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

[Ken Hohhof]

Like everything with 900, you probably have to just try it.

What's clearer is that if most of your FSK subs are at 2X, then moving to 450i 
will probably net you a big capacity increase, you will be back in the real 
broadband business.

But with a marginal signal level and lots of interference, it's hard to 
predict.  It will give you some extra tools, like 5, 7 and 10 MHz channel 
widths.  And my (limited)  experience was yes we got better throughput and 
fewer losses of registration.

You do have to realize that with a 17 dBi CPE antenna and probably running full 
xmt power, you are probably over the 36 dBm EIRP limit by at least 6 dB in the 
upstream direction.  So do you use the KP 17.5 dBi yagi but tell the SM it only 
has a 10 or 12 dBi antenna?  From your numbers, I think you're going to have 
to.  Unless you have one of those situations where a wider beam to illuminate 
more foliage would actually perform better.

It you're going to try it, now's the time with the promotion.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay Weekley
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.  
For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the old 
stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to salvage 
them with the 450i 900 gear?

Dave wrote:
> George,
>  Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i
> 900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at some of the 
> penetration and numbers we able to see.
>  Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
> We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points 
> or more.
>
> The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that 
> can be sustained on an AP.
> Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with 
> about 20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package.
> I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
> I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really 
> close for what we see.
>  Yes, even through some pine
>
>
> On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>> 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. 

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

[George Skorup]

Well, what are you seeing now on that customer at -75? Are you getting 
>4Mbps aggregate on linktests? It's possible that the active filtering 
in the 450i will help. But if all you have right now is 1X (so maybe 
5-6dB above the noise floor), then you might get 1X MIMO-B or more 
likely 1X MIMO-A.


We're going to try a sector on Wednesday or Thursday. Small site with 
<10 customers. AP on a SuperStinger trying to blow through solid trees. 
Noise floor is about -70 or so. The farthest customer is just over 3/4 
of a mile and sitting at -65 (yeah, with a KP 17dBi yagi). 2X works most 
of the time. If we get any more bandwidth out of it, then we'll probably 
just leave it and pull the FSK down.


On 9/26/2016 11:33 PM, Jay Weekley wrote:
I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i 
is.  For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi 
on the old stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be 
able to salvage them with the 450i 900 gear?


Dave wrote:

George,
 Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i 
900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at

some of the penetration and numbers we able to see.
 Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points 
or more.


The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that 
can be sustained on an AP.
Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with 
about 20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package.

I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really 
close for what we see.

 Yes, even through some pine


On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:
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 

Re: [AFMUG] Anyone interested in some Alpha/Honda Telco DC generators?

[Philip Rankin]

Price?

On Sep 26, 2016 7:17 PM, "Gino Villarini"  wrote:

> Got a source for some Alpha Alphagen dcx3000 DC generators
>
> Units is the same as Honda EU3000, just DC output
>
> They are switchable between 36 and 48 v dc
>
> Units are used, running  with 14 day warranty
>
> 50' DC cable included
>
> Great for charging battery banks !
>

Re: [AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in

[Jay Weekley]

I've seen it too.  Send it to Paul or buy a replacement.

Chuck McCown wrote:
I am guessing some kind of ESD protection component shorted (if you 
are lucky).  Removing the part would fix the problem.  But if it is a 
logic input fried, that chip will have to be replace.  Paul is your 
guy for this kind of stuff.


-Original Message- From: Ken Hohhof
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 10:50 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in

I haven't had that happen on an AP, but I've had it happen on SMs.  
Probably
the problem occurred awhile ago and only got revealed when the AP 
rebooted.

I opened one of the SMs up thinking there was crud across the pins on the
jack, but no, and no amount of cleaning with alcohol would fix it.  I 
also
seem to remember Paul from PDMNet confirming it's not as simple as 
something

shorting the pins on the jack.  So it's repairable, but probably some
component needs to be replaced.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Baird
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:31 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in

I'm pretty sure I've seen this question posted before, but I don't recall
the verdict.  We had a power outage last night that outlasted the 
batteries
at a tower.  When the power finally came back on, one AP didn't come 
back.

Further investigation revealed that it seems to think there is a default
plug in it, but there isn't.  I've checked the default plug jack and 
there

is nothing foreign in it, and the pins all appear normal.  I've tried
booting it with an actual default plug in it, and then rebooting with it
out, thinking that perhaps that would reset something, but no dice.  Is
there some way to recover the radio when this happens?

Craig

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

[Jay Weekley]

I'm curious how the conversion from the legacy 900 gear to the 450i is.  
For example, if we have a customer with a -75 with a 17 db yagi on the 
old stuff but is having problems due to interference will we be able to 
salvage them with the 450i 900 gear?


Dave wrote:

George,
 Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i 
900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at

some of the penetration and numbers we able to see.
 Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points 
or more.


The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that 
can be sustained on an AP.
Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with 
about 20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package.

I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really 
close for what we see.

 Yes, even through some pine


On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:
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: 

Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[George Skorup]

Are you saying we need to riot? I'll pick up Steve on the way.

On 9/26/2016 10:31 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:


I was sitting here rattling my brain thinking "WTF is he talking 
about?" until I read his next comment.


I feel like I've been shot! Halp! ;)


On Sep 26, 2016 9:41 PM, "Mike Hammett" > wrote:


Well, that's what the news says.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Keefe John" >
*To: *af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Monday, September 26, 2016 9:33:35 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

why?


On 9/26/2016 8:43 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

Everyone's against policing these days.


;-)



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Josh Reynolds" 

*To: *af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Monday, September 26, 2016 6:55:27 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

Depends on if he wants to police or shape. To police you don't
need much of a buffer, and it's a very hard cutoff. To shape
(much better user experience), he'll need something like RED,
WRED, codel/fq_codel and deeper buffers.


On Sep 26, 2016 6:19 PM, "Keefe John" > wrote:

wouldn't you want zero queue buffers for true rate
limiting?  Buffers infer traffic shaping.


On 9/26/2016 3:37 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:

I wouldn't say most, but many do. Normally switches
don't have the proper buffer depth for that kind of
thing at scale, unless using those super high
throughput, very large buffer data center oriented
ASIC designs.


On Sep 26, 2016 3:27 PM, "TJ Trout" > wrote:

Do most managed switches like the netonix offer a
rate limiting/queue/bandwidth limit?

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Chris Wright
>
wrote:

They’re terribly inefficient, for one.

Chris Wright

Network Administrator

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of
*Cameron Crum
*Sent:* Monday, September 26, 2016 12:31 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth
over a gig

What is wrong with a simple queue?

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Carlos
Alcantar > wrote:

we do it with ciena/cyan equipment as well.
Your going to be looking at more of a MEF type
of switch that can handle this of feature.


​
Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314
  

Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[Josh Reynolds]

I was sitting here rattling my brain thinking "WTF is he talking about?"
until I read his next comment.

I feel like I've been shot! Halp! ;)

On Sep 26, 2016 9:41 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> Well, that's what the news says.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Keefe John" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Monday, September 26, 2016 9:33:35 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig
>
> why?
>
> On 9/26/2016 8:43 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> Everyone's against policing these days.
>
>
> ;-)
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Josh Reynolds"  
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Monday, September 26, 2016 6:55:27 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig
>
> Depends on if he wants to police or shape. To police you don't need much
> of a buffer, and it's a very hard cutoff. To shape (much better user
> experience), he'll need something like RED, WRED, codel/fq_codel and deeper
> buffers.
>
> On Sep 26, 2016 6:19 PM, "Keefe John"  wrote:
>
> wouldn't you want zero queue buffers for true rate limiting?  Buffers
> infer traffic shaping.
>
> On 9/26/2016 3:37 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
>
> I wouldn't say most, but many do. Normally switches don't have the proper
> buffer depth for that kind of thing at scale, unless using those super high
> throughput, very large buffer data center oriented ASIC designs.
>
> On Sep 26, 2016 3:27 PM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:
>
>> Do most managed switches like the netonix offer a rate
>> limiting/queue/bandwidth limit?
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Chris Wright 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> They’re terribly inefficient, for one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris Wright
>>>
>>> Network Administrator
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Cameron Crum
>>> *Sent:* Monday, September 26, 2016 12:31 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What is wrong with a simple queue?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Carlos Alcantar 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> we do it with ciena/cyan equipment as well.  Your going to be looking at
>>> more of a MEF type of switch that can handle this of feature.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​
>>> Carlos Alcantar
>>> Race Communications / Race Team Member
>>> 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
>>> Phone: +1 415 376 3314 <%2B1%20415%20376%203314> / car...@race.com /
>>> http://www.race.com
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> From: Af  on behalf of Jon Auer 
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:29:25 PM
>>> To: Animal Farm
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig
>>>
>>> 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 >> voltbb.com>> 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] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[Ken Hohhof]

Play on words?

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Keefe John
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 9:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

 

why?

 

On 9/26/2016 8:43 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

Everyone's against policing these days.


;-)



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





  _  


From: "Josh Reynolds"   
To: af@afmug.com  
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 6:55:27 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

Depends on if he wants to police or shape. To police you don't need much of a 
buffer, and it's a very hard cutoff. To shape (much better user experience), 
he'll need something like RED, WRED, codel/fq_codel and deeper buffers.

 

On Sep 26, 2016 6:19 PM, "Keefe John"  > wrote:

wouldn't you want zero queue buffers for true rate limiting?  Buffers infer 
traffic shaping.

 

On 9/26/2016 3:37 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:

I wouldn't say most, but many do. Normally switches don't have the proper 
buffer depth for that kind of thing at scale, unless using those super high 
throughput, very large buffer data center oriented ASIC designs.

 

On Sep 26, 2016 3:27 PM, "TJ Trout"  > 
wrote:

Do most managed switches like the netonix offer a rate limiting/queue/bandwidth 
limit?

 

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Chris Wright  > wrote:



They’re terribly inefficient, for one.

 

Chris Wright

Network Administrator

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com  ] On Behalf 
Of Cameron Crum
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:31 PM
To: af@afmug.com  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

 

What is wrong with a simple queue?

 

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Carlos Alcantar  > wrote:

we do it with ciena/cyan equipment as well.  Your going to be looking at more 
of a MEF type of switch that can handle this of feature.


​
Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314   / car...@race.com 
  / http://www.race.com



From: Af  > on behalf of Jon 
Auer  >
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:29:25 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

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] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[Mike Hammett]

Well, that's what the news says. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Keefe John"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 9:33:35 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig 


why? 


On 9/26/2016 8:43 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



Everyone's against policing these days. 


;-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Josh Reynolds"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 6:55:27 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig 


Depends on if he wants to police or shape. To police you don't need much of a 
buffer, and it's a very hard cutoff. To shape (much better user experience), 
he'll need something like RED, WRED, codel/fq_codel and deeper buffers. 


On Sep 26, 2016 6:19 PM, "Keefe John" < keefe...@ethoplex.com > wrote: 




wouldn't you want zero queue buffers for true rate limiting? Buffers infer 
traffic shaping. 



On 9/26/2016 3:37 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: 




I wouldn't say most, but many do. Normally switches don't have the proper 
buffer depth for that kind of thing at scale, unless using those super high 
throughput, very large buffer data center oriented ASIC designs. 



On Sep 26, 2016 3:27 PM, "TJ Trout" < t...@voltbb.com > wrote: 




Do most managed switches like the netonix offer a rate limiting/queue/bandwidth 
limit? 


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Chris Wright < ch...@velociter.net > wrote: 





They’re terribly inefficient, for one. 

Chris Wright 
Network Administrator 

From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Cameron Crum 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:31 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig 


What is wrong with a simple queue? 



On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Carlos Alcantar < car...@race.com > wrote: 
we do it with ciena/cyan equipment as well. Your going to be looking at more of 
a MEF type of switch that can handle this of feature. 


 
Carlos Alcantar 
Race Communications / Race Team Member 
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010 
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com 


 
From: Af < af-boun...@afmug.com > on behalf of Jon Auer < j...@tapodi.net > 
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:29:25 PM 
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig 

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 < t...@voltbb.com > 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] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[Keefe John]

why?


On 9/26/2016 8:43 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

Everyone's against policing these days.


;-)



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Josh Reynolds" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Monday, September 26, 2016 6:55:27 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

Depends on if he wants to police or shape. To police you don't need 
much of a buffer, and it's a very hard cutoff. To shape (much better 
user experience), he'll need something like RED, WRED, codel/fq_codel 
and deeper buffers.



On Sep 26, 2016 6:19 PM, "Keefe John" > wrote:


wouldn't you want zero queue buffers for true rate limiting? 
Buffers infer traffic shaping.



On 9/26/2016 3:37 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:

I wouldn't say most, but many do. Normally switches don't have
the proper buffer depth for that kind of thing at scale,
unless using those super high throughput, very large buffer
data center oriented ASIC designs.


On Sep 26, 2016 3:27 PM, "TJ Trout" > wrote:

Do most managed switches like the netonix offer a rate
limiting/queue/bandwidth limit?

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Chris Wright
> wrote:

They’re terribly inefficient, for one.

Chris Wright

Network Administrator

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Cameron Crum
*Sent:* Monday, September 26, 2016 12:31 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

What is wrong with a simple queue?

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Carlos Alcantar
> wrote:

we do it with ciena/cyan equipment as well.  Your
going to be looking at more of a MEF type of switch
that can handle this of feature.


​
Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314  /
car...@race.com  /
http://www.race.com



From: Af > on behalf of Jon Auer
>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:29:25 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

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] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[Mike Hammett]

Everyone's against policing these days. 


;-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Josh Reynolds"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 6:55:27 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig 


Depends on if he wants to police or shape. To police you don't need much of a 
buffer, and it's a very hard cutoff. To shape (much better user experience), 
he'll need something like RED, WRED, codel/fq_codel and deeper buffers. 


On Sep 26, 2016 6:19 PM, "Keefe John" < keefe...@ethoplex.com > wrote: 




wouldn't you want zero queue buffers for true rate limiting? Buffers infer 
traffic shaping. 



On 9/26/2016 3:37 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: 




I wouldn't say most, but many do. Normally switches don't have the proper 
buffer depth for that kind of thing at scale, unless using those super high 
throughput, very large buffer data center oriented ASIC designs. 



On Sep 26, 2016 3:27 PM, "TJ Trout" < t...@voltbb.com > wrote: 




Do most managed switches like the netonix offer a rate limiting/queue/bandwidth 
limit? 


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Chris Wright < ch...@velociter.net > wrote: 





They’re terribly inefficient, for one. 

Chris Wright 
Network Administrator 

From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Cameron Crum 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:31 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig 


What is wrong with a simple queue? 



On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Carlos Alcantar < car...@race.com > wrote: 
we do it with ciena/cyan equipment as well. Your going to be looking at more of 
a MEF type of switch that can handle this of feature. 


 
Carlos Alcantar 
Race Communications / Race Team Member 
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010 
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com 


 
From: Af < af-boun...@afmug.com > on behalf of Jon Auer < j...@tapodi.net > 
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:29:25 PM 
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig 

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 < t...@voltbb.com > 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] How long of a pull can I do?

[Chris Fabien]

I think you would have better than 50/50 odds of success. Pulling swivel
would be a good idea. Make a poor man's break away by using 1200 pound mule
tape and cut about halfway through it. We use that trick whatever we have
to pull with a truck.

[AFMUG] Anyone interested in some Alpha/Honda Telco DC generators?

[Gino Villarini]

Got a source for some Alpha Alphagen dcx3000 DC generators

Units is the same as Honda EU3000, just DC output

They are switchable between 36 and 48 v dc

Units are used, running  with 14 day warranty

50' DC cable included

Great for charging battery banks !

Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[Josh Reynolds]

Depends on if he wants to police or shape. To police you don't need much of
a buffer, and it's a very hard cutoff. To shape (much better user
experience), he'll need something like RED, WRED, codel/fq_codel and deeper
buffers.

On Sep 26, 2016 6:19 PM, "Keefe John"  wrote:

wouldn't you want zero queue buffers for true rate limiting?  Buffers infer
traffic shaping.

On 9/26/2016 3:37 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:

I wouldn't say most, but many do. Normally switches don't have the proper
buffer depth for that kind of thing at scale, unless using those super high
throughput, very large buffer data center oriented ASIC designs.

On Sep 26, 2016 3:27 PM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:

> Do most managed switches like the netonix offer a rate
> limiting/queue/bandwidth limit?
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Chris Wright  wrote:
>
>> They’re terribly inefficient, for one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Wright
>>
>> Network Administrator
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Cameron Crum
>> *Sent:* Monday, September 26, 2016 12:31 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig
>>
>>
>>
>> What is wrong with a simple queue?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Carlos Alcantar  wrote:
>>
>> we do it with ciena/cyan equipment as well.  Your going to be looking at
>> more of a MEF type of switch that can handle this of feature.
>>
>>
>> ​
>> Carlos Alcantar
>> Race Communications / Race Team Member
>> 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
>> Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com
>>
>>
>> 
>> From: Af  on behalf of Jon Auer 
>> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:29:25 PM
>> To: Animal Farm
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig
>>
>> 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 > b.com>> 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

[Mark - Myakka Technologies]

Sterling,

+1

-- 
Best regards,
 Markmailto:m...@mailmt.com

Myakka Technologies, Inc.
www.MyakkaTech.com

Proud Sponsor of the Myakka City Relay For Life
http://www.RelayForLife.org/MyakkaCityFL

Please Donate at Please Donate at http://www.myakkatech.com/RFL.html
--

Monday, September 26, 2016, 12:27:33 PM, you wrote:

SJ> As a long time user and ongoing user of Platypus I agree with what Justin 
is saying.

SJ> ￜ

SJ> Their team has always been responsive and willing to help us
SJ> out on modules or support for any part of it.

SJ> ￜ

SJ> They got me up and running on my new stuff for a very good price.

SJ> ￜ

SJ> And they update often, so that column item needs to change.

SJ> ￜ

SJ> I do wish they would invest some major resources into a total
SJ> client/app/web end redo though.

SJ> It would be extremely painful to implement, but Plat is
SJ> really the SQL database at heart with runtime modules running
SJ> things.

SJ> So it would be POSSIBLE to redo the ￜfrontￜ end of those things.

SJ> ￜ

SJ> ￜ

SJ> ￜ

SJ> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com]On Behalf Of Justin Thornton
SJ> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 10:04 AM
SJ> To: af@afmug.com
SJ> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Billing system survey rehash

SJ> ￜ

SJ> I take some issue with this characterization of Platypus.ￜ
SJ> While we have never been the flashiest or anywhere close to the
SJ> best at marketing, Platypus has long been on a consistent
SJ> development schedule with multiple releases each year.ￜ We have
SJ> also taken pride in the flexibility of Platypus and how it can
SJ> bend to work with whatever tools our customers prefer and are
SJ> already familiar with, and how the billing results can be
SJ> manipulated to provide most any results they desire.ￜ So when a
SJ> customer comes to us asking about CDR billing, integrating with
SJ> monitoring tools, communicating with Sandvine, provisioning LTE,
SJ> adding line items from Dish, DirecTv, SiriusXM, etc. for a unified
SJ> statement or whatever it might be, we don't typically need to add
SJ> a new feature and release a new version.ￜ We just point the
SJ> customer to where their request can fit into our existing
SJ> architecture and assist them with the configuration.


SJ> ￜ


SJ> All of the billing platforms who operate in this space have
SJ> their strengths and weaknesses and none of us are the right
SJ> solution for everyone, but Platypus is still actively under
SJ> development and here to serve those who are a good fit for us.ￜ I
SJ> just don't want their to be any confusion over that.


SJ> ￜ


SJ> ￜ


SJ> Justin Thornton


SJ> Platypus ISP Billing


SJ> ￜ


SJ> ￜ

SJ> ￜ

SJ> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Ivan Kohler
SJ>  wrote:

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

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



SJ> ￜ

SJ> Sorry to be late to the party.

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

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

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

Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[Keefe John]

wouldn't you want zero queue buffers for true rate limiting? Buffers 
infer traffic shaping.



On 9/26/2016 3:37 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:


I wouldn't say most, but many do. Normally switches don't have the 
proper buffer depth for that kind of thing at scale, unless using 
those super high throughput, very large buffer data center oriented 
ASIC designs.



On Sep 26, 2016 3:27 PM, "TJ Trout" > wrote:


Do most managed switches like the netonix offer a rate
limiting/queue/bandwidth limit?

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Chris Wright > wrote:

They’re terribly inefficient, for one.

Chris Wright

Network Administrator

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Cameron Crum
*Sent:* Monday, September 26, 2016 12:31 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

What is wrong with a simple queue?

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Carlos Alcantar
> wrote:

we do it with ciena/cyan equipment as well.  Your going to be
looking at more of a MEF type of switch that can handle this
of feature.


​
Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314  /
car...@race.com  / http://www.race.com



From: Af >
on behalf of Jon Auer >
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:29:25 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

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] How long of a pull can I do?

[Jaime Solorza]

I saw an outfit tape wire ropes (2) to the fiber .They used vacuum
trick to get jet and then mule tape to pull in wire rope Fiber
followed.. Two guys at each end with two way radios..

On Sep 26, 2016 4:21 PM, "Adam Moffett"  wrote:

> I've seen 00 electrical wire done that way, but I imagine that's a bit
> less sensitive to stretching than fiber.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Ken Hohhof" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/26/2016 6:12:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?
>
>
> I had a customer pulled coax from their 2way tower through a pipe under
> the parking lot with mule tape tied to the back of their skid loader.  Not
> saying I recommend it, and not sure how much lube they used.
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Monday, September 26, 2016 5:04 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?
>
>
>
> Empty 2" conduit by the way, with a string.
>
>
>
> I could use the string to pull in a mule tape or a rope, and maybe I could
> use a capstan to pull the fiber.  I don't have a tension limited winch,
> and I'm not sure if that could be done by hand.
>
>
>
> I've done 700' by handand it wasn't easy.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Adam Moffett" 
>
> To: "Animal Farm" 
>
> Sent: 9/26/2016 5:59:33 PM
>
> Subject: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?
>
>
>
> Would I be stupid to try and pull a 48 count loose tube fiber 1500' in one
> shot?  There are bends, but no elbows.
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

[chuck]

Normally you want to have less than 600 lbs of tension on the fiber.  I have 
pulled them with backhoes and pickups and bunches of people.
But a small fiber in a large duct that is straight with lots a lube should be 
easy.  

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 4:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

I've seen 00 electrical wire done that way, but I imagine that's a bit less 
sensitive to stretching than fiber.


-- Original Message --
From: "Ken Hohhof" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/26/2016 6:12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

  I had a customer pulled coax from their 2way tower through a pipe under the 
parking lot with mule tape tied to the back of their skid loader.  Not saying I 
recommend it, and not sure how much lube they used.

   

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
  Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 5:04 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

   

  Empty 2" conduit by the way, with a string.

   

  I could use the string to pull in a mule tape or a rope, and maybe I could 
use a capstan to pull the fiber.  I don't have a tension limited winch, and I'm 
not sure if that could be done by hand.

   

  I've done 700' by handand it wasn't easy.

   

   

  -- Original Message --

  From: "Adam Moffett" 

  To: "Animal Farm" 

  Sent: 9/26/2016 5:59:33 PM

  Subject: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

   

Would I be stupid to try and pull a 48 count loose tube fiber 1500' in one 
shot?  There are bends, but no elbows.

 

Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

[Adam Moffett]

I've seen 00 electrical wire done that way, but I imagine that's a bit 
less sensitive to stretching than fiber.



-- Original Message --
From: "Ken Hohhof" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/26/2016 6:12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

I had a customer pulled coax from their 2way tower through a pipe under 
the parking lot with mule tape tied to the back of their skid loader.  
Not saying I recommend it, and not sure how much lube they used.




From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 5:04 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?



Empty 2" conduit by the way, with a string.



I could use the string to pull in a mule tape or a rope, and maybe I 
could use a capstan to pull the fiber.  I don't have a tension limited 
winch, and I'm not sure if that could be done by hand.




I've done 700' by handand it wasn't easy.





-- Original Message --

From: "Adam Moffett" 

To: "Animal Farm" 

Sent: 9/26/2016 5:59:33 PM

Subject: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?



Would I be stupid to try and pull a 48 count loose tube fiber 1500' in 
one shot?  There are bends, but no elbows.

Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

[chuck]

Be good to have a pig and blowing machine on the other machine.  

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 4:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

Easy.  I would suck in a pull string with a vacuum (tie an old bread sack to 
the end).  
Then use the pull string (jet line) to pull in mule tape.

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 4:04 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

Empty 2" conduit by the way, with a string.

I could use the string to pull in a mule tape or a rope, and maybe I could use 
a capstan to pull the fiber.  I don't have a tension limited winch, and I'm not 
sure if that could be done by hand.

I've done 700' by handand it wasn't easy.


-- Original Message --
From: "Adam Moffett" 
To: "Animal Farm" 
Sent: 9/26/2016 5:59:33 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

  Would I be stupid to try and pull a 48 count loose tube fiber 1500' in one 
shot?  There are bends, but no elbows.

Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

[Josh Reynolds]

Probably, but I wouldn't risk it. I'd break it up into 500ft shots and use
a swivel loop on the end of the fiber to pull without twisting.

On Sep 26, 2016 4:59 PM, "Adam Moffett"  wrote:

> Would I be stupid to try and pull a 48 count loose tube fiber 1500' in one
> shot?  There are bends, but no elbows.
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

[chuck]

Easy.  I would suck in a pull string with a vacuum (tie an old bread sack to 
the end).  
Then use the pull string (jet line) to pull in mule tape.

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 4:04 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

Empty 2" conduit by the way, with a string.

I could use the string to pull in a mule tape or a rope, and maybe I could use 
a capstan to pull the fiber.  I don't have a tension limited winch, and I'm not 
sure if that could be done by hand.

I've done 700' by handand it wasn't easy.


-- Original Message --
From: "Adam Moffett" 
To: "Animal Farm" 
Sent: 9/26/2016 5:59:33 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

  Would I be stupid to try and pull a 48 count loose tube fiber 1500' in one 
shot?  There are bends, but no elbows.

Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

[Ken Hohhof]

I had a customer pulled coax from their 2way tower through a pipe under the 
parking lot with mule tape tied to the back of their skid loader.  Not saying I 
recommend it, and not sure how much lube they used.

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 5:04 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

 

Empty 2" conduit by the way, with a string.

 

I could use the string to pull in a mule tape or a rope, and maybe I could use 
a capstan to pull the fiber.  I don't have a tension limited winch, and I'm not 
sure if that could be done by hand.

 

I've done 700' by handand it wasn't easy.

 

 

-- Original Message --

From: "Adam Moffett"  >

To: "Animal Farm"  >

Sent: 9/26/2016 5:59:33 PM

Subject: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

 

Would I be stupid to try and pull a 48 count loose tube fiber 1500' in one 
shot?  There are bends, but no elbows.

 

Re: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

[Adam Moffett]

Empty 2" conduit by the way, with a string.

I could use the string to pull in a mule tape or a rope, and maybe I 
could use a capstan to pull the fiber.  I don't have a tension limited 
winch, and I'm not sure if that could be done by hand.


I've done 700' by handand it wasn't easy.


-- Original Message --
From: "Adam Moffett" 
To: "Animal Farm" 
Sent: 9/26/2016 5:59:33 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

Would I be stupid to try and pull a 48 count loose tube fiber 1500' in 
one shot?  There are bends, but no elbows.

[AFMUG] How long of a pull can I do?

[Adam Moffett]

Would I be stupid to try and pull a 48 count loose tube fiber 1500' in 
one shot?  There are bends, but no elbows.

Re: [AFMUG] 450 on 14.2 (Build 30) Low Traffic, High Frame Utilization

[Ken Hohhof]

FWIW, based on comments from the list, we recently tried a couple of the
450D SMs on some underperforming links.  Actually we were going straight
from 430 SMs in compatibility mode to the 450D,  so I don’t know what we
would have gotten by popping a regular 450 SM into the dish.  But on this
small sample, the signal and stability improved noticeably.  Hard to say
exactly why.  But it might be worth a try.  If you’re down at 1X or 2X
though, finding a different tower might be necessary.

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Wright
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 3:24 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450 on 14.2 (Build 30) Low Traffic, High Frame
Utilization

 

Aha, thanks! Bummer that a couple bad eggs spoil the entire AP. We’ll have
to go out and improve these relics from when we had lower standards. 

 

Chris Wright

Network Administrator

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450 on 14.2 (Build 30) Low Traffic, High Frame
Utilization

 

Look at the AP's power tab on the sessions page. Do you see any SMs at
MIMO-A and/or less than 8X/6X modulation? That's the downlink rate to the
SMs. 4X is going to eat up some air time. 2X and 1X is obviously even worse.
MIMO-A is even more ungood.

I know Aaron talked about adding support to penalize low mod SMs so they
will have less effect on air time utilization. I hope that's coming in 14.3.
Or maybe he said for 15.0. I don't remember.

On 9/26/2016 2:07 PM, Chris Wright wrote:

I have a couple 450 APs showing relatively low traffic (20mbps) but 100%
downlink frame utilization on a 20mhz channel. I�ve seen this AP do twice
as much traffic with less frame utilization in the past, so what would be
causing this?

�

VC Count: 48

�

Frame Configuration:

Downlink Data: 75%

Contention Slots: 6

Broadcast Repeat Count: 2

�

Chris Wright

Network Administrator

�

 

Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[Adam Moffett]

QoS?
Policies?
Lots of possible.

-- Original Message --
From: "TJ Trout" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 9/26/2016 4:43:39 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

Humm, I have a IBM/Blade networks G8124 but I'm not finding anything in 
the documentation, Any idea what this would commonly be called?


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Josh Reynolds  
wrote:
I wouldn't say most, but many do. Normally switches don't have the 
proper buffer depth for that kind of thing at scale, unless using 
those super high throughput, very large buffer data center oriented 
ASIC designs.



On Sep 26, 2016 3:27 PM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:
Do most managed switches like the netonix offer a rate 
limiting/queue/bandwidth limit?


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Chris Wright  
wrote:

They’re terribly inefficient, for one.



Chris Wright

Network Administrator



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Cameron Crum
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:31 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig



What is wrong with a simple queue?



On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Carlos Alcantar  
wrote:


we do it with ciena/cyan equipment as well.  Your going to be 
looking at more of a MEF type of switch that can handle this of 
feature.



​
Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com



From: Af  on behalf of Jon Auer 


Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:29:25 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

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] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[TJ Trout]

Humm, I have a IBM/Blade networks G8124 but I'm not finding anything in the
documentation, Any idea what this would commonly be called?

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:

> I wouldn't say most, but many do. Normally switches don't have the proper
> buffer depth for that kind of thing at scale, unless using those super high
> throughput, very large buffer data center oriented ASIC designs.
>
> On Sep 26, 2016 3:27 PM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:
>
>> Do most managed switches like the netonix offer a rate
>> limiting/queue/bandwidth limit?
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Chris Wright 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> They’re terribly inefficient, for one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris Wright
>>>
>>> Network Administrator
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Cameron Crum
>>> *Sent:* Monday, September 26, 2016 12:31 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What is wrong with a simple queue?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Carlos Alcantar 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> we do it with ciena/cyan equipment as well.  Your going to be looking at
>>> more of a MEF type of switch that can handle this of feature.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​
>>> Carlos Alcantar
>>> Race Communications / Race Team Member
>>> 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
>>> Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> From: Af  on behalf of Jon Auer 
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:29:25 PM
>>> To: Animal Farm
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig
>>>
>>> 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 >> b.com>> 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] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[Josh Reynolds]

I wouldn't say most, but many do. Normally switches don't have the proper
buffer depth for that kind of thing at scale, unless using those super high
throughput, very large buffer data center oriented ASIC designs.

On Sep 26, 2016 3:27 PM, "TJ Trout"  wrote:

> Do most managed switches like the netonix offer a rate
> limiting/queue/bandwidth limit?
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Chris Wright  wrote:
>
>> They’re terribly inefficient, for one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Wright
>>
>> Network Administrator
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Cameron Crum
>> *Sent:* Monday, September 26, 2016 12:31 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig
>>
>>
>>
>> What is wrong with a simple queue?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Carlos Alcantar  wrote:
>>
>> we do it with ciena/cyan equipment as well.  Your going to be looking at
>> more of a MEF type of switch that can handle this of feature.
>>
>>
>> ​
>> Carlos Alcantar
>> Race Communications / Race Team Member
>> 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
>> Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com
>>
>>
>> 
>> From: Af  on behalf of Jon Auer 
>> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:29:25 PM
>> To: Animal Farm
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig
>>
>> 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 > b.com>> 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] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[TJ Trout]

Do most managed switches like the netonix offer a rate
limiting/queue/bandwidth limit?

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Chris Wright  wrote:

> They’re terribly inefficient, for one.
>
>
>
> Chris Wright
>
> Network Administrator
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Cameron Crum
> *Sent:* Monday, September 26, 2016 12:31 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig
>
>
>
> What is wrong with a simple queue?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Carlos Alcantar  wrote:
>
> we do it with ciena/cyan equipment as well.  Your going to be looking at
> more of a MEF type of switch that can handle this of feature.
>
>
> ​
> Carlos Alcantar
> Race Communications / Race Team Member
> 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
> Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com
>
>
> 
> From: Af  on behalf of Jon Auer 
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:29:25 PM
> To: Animal Farm
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig
>
> 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  voltbb.com>> 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] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[Chris Wright]

They’re terribly inefficient, for one.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Cameron Crum
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:31 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

What is wrong with a simple queue?

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Carlos Alcantar 
> wrote:
we do it with ciena/cyan equipment as well.  Your going to be looking at more 
of a MEF type of switch that can handle this of feature.


​
Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / 
car...@race.com / http://www.race.com



From: Af > on behalf of Jon 
Auer >
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:29:25 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

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] 450 on 14.2 (Build 30) Low Traffic, High Frame Utilization

[Chris Wright]

Aha, thanks! Bummer that a couple bad eggs spoil the entire AP. We'll have to 
go out and improve these relics from when we had lower standards.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450 on 14.2 (Build 30) Low Traffic, High Frame Utilization

Look at the AP's power tab on the sessions page. Do you see any SMs at MIMO-A 
and/or less than 8X/6X modulation? That's the downlink rate to the SMs. 4X is 
going to eat up some air time. 2X and 1X is obviously even worse. MIMO-A is 
even more ungood.

I know Aaron talked about adding support to penalize low mod SMs so they will 
have less effect on air time utilization. I hope that's coming in 14.3. Or 
maybe he said for 15.0. I don't remember.
On 9/26/2016 2:07 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
I have a couple 450 APs showing relatively low traffic (20mbps) but 100% 
downlink frame utilization on a 20mhz channel. I�ve seen this AP do twice as 
much traffic with less frame utilization in the past, so what would be causing 
this?
�
VC Count: 48
�
Frame Configuration:
Downlink Data: 75%
Contention Slots: 6
Broadcast Repeat Count: 2
�
Chris Wright
Network Administrator
�

Re: [AFMUG] 450 on 14.2 (Build 30) Low Traffic, High Frame Utilization

[Eric Muehleisen]

That would be wonderful. I need this feature sooner rather than later. I
have a sector with 50 subs that reaches 100% utilized most nights because
of the two subs that are at 1x. Of course these two subs use the most
bandwidth. Unfortunately, they cannot be moved to another AP at this time.

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:33 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> Look at the AP's power tab on the sessions page. Do you see any SMs at
> MIMO-A and/or less than 8X/6X modulation? That's the downlink rate to the
> SMs. 4X is going to eat up some air time. 2X and 1X is obviously even
> worse. MIMO-A is even more ungood.
>
> I know Aaron talked about adding support to penalize low mod SMs so they
> will have less effect on air time utilization. I hope that's coming in
> 14.3. Or maybe he said for 15.0. I don't remember.
>
> On 9/26/2016 2:07 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
>
> I have a couple 450 APs showing relatively low traffic (20mbps) but 100%
> downlink frame utilization on a 20mhz channel. I�ve seen this AP do twice
> as much traffic with less frame utilization in the past, so what would be
> causing this?
>
> �
>
> VC Count: 48
>
> �
>
> *Frame Configuration:*
>
> Downlink Data: 75%
>
> Contention Slots: 6
>
> Broadcast Repeat Count: 2
>
> *�*
>
> Chris Wright
>
> Network Administrator
>
> �
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 450 on 14.2 (Build 30) Low Traffic, High Frame Utilization

[George Skorup]

Look at the AP's power tab on the sessions page. Do you see any SMs at 
MIMO-A and/or less than 8X/6X modulation? That's the downlink rate to 
the SMs. 4X is going to eat up some air time. 2X and 1X is obviously 
even worse. MIMO-A is even more ungood.


I know Aaron talked about adding support to penalize low mod SMs so they 
will have less effect on air time utilization. I hope that's coming in 
14.3. Or maybe he said for 15.0. I don't remember.


On 9/26/2016 2:07 PM, Chris Wright wrote:


I have a couple 450 APs showing relatively low traffic (20mbps) but 
100% downlink frame utilization on a 20mhz channel. I�ve seen this AP 
do twice as much traffic with less frame utilization in the past, so 
what would be causing this?


VC Count: 48

*Frame Configuration:*

Downlink Data: 75%

Contention Slots: 6

Broadcast Repeat Count: 2

**

Chris Wright

Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[Cameron Crum]

What is wrong with a simple queue?

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Carlos Alcantar  wrote:

> we do it with ciena/cyan equipment as well.  Your going to be looking at
> more of a MEF type of switch that can handle this of feature.
>
>
> ​
> Carlos Alcantar
> Race Communications / Race Team Member
> 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
> Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com
>
>
> 
> From: Af  on behalf of Jon Auer 
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:29:25 PM
> To: Animal Farm
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig
>
> 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  voltbb.com>> 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] 450 on 14.2 (Build 30) Low Traffic, High Frame Utilization

[Ken Hohhof]

First question would be what modulation the higher traffic SMs are at, and
what their link tests look like.  If you have subs at 2X or MIMO-A, that
will suck up lots of capacity.  Generally you want your high BW users at 6X
or 8X.

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Wright
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 2:07 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] 450 on 14.2 (Build 30) Low Traffic, High Frame Utilization

 

I have a couple 450 APs showing relatively low traffic (20mbps) but 100%
downlink frame utilization on a 20mhz channel. I've seen this AP do twice as
much traffic with less frame utilization in the past, so what would be
causing this?

 

VC Count: 48

 

Frame Configuration:

Downlink Data: 75%

Contention Slots: 6

Broadcast Repeat Count: 2

 

Chris Wright

Network Administrator

 

[AFMUG] 450 on 14.2 (Build 30) Low Traffic, High Frame Utilization

[Chris Wright]

I have a couple 450 APs showing relatively low traffic (20mbps) but 100% 
downlink frame utilization on a 20mhz channel. I've seen this AP do twice as 
much traffic with less frame utilization in the past, so what would be causing 
this?

VC Count: 48

Frame Configuration:
Downlink Data: 75%
Contention Slots: 6
Broadcast Repeat Count: 2

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in

[Ken Hohhof]

I've had it happen on P10 boards.

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 1:32 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in

I had a 5700BH20 with over a year uptime. Same thing, power went out and it
was default plugged when it booted back up. Yeah, in that year it could've
been an ESD event that killed the diode or whatever it is that goes bad. We
had this happening enough that I asked Cambium to allow us to
override/ignore the default plug, but that never went anywhere. Kinda moot
now since 13.4.1 is the end of the yellow brick road.

The P8 and P9 boards had this happen frequently. P10 and P11's almost never.
FSK isn't even worth getting fixed anymore. Just buy some cheap used radios
for spares and send the bad ones to the round filing cabinet. That's what
we've been doing for two years now.

On 9/26/2016 11:54 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
> I am guessing some kind of ESD protection component shorted (if you 
> are lucky).  Removing the part would fix the problem.  But if it is a 
> logic input fried, that chip will have to be replace.  Paul is your 
> guy for this kind of stuff.
>
> -Original Message- From: Ken Hohhof
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 10:50 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in
>
> I haven't had that happen on an AP, but I've had it happen on SMs.  
> Probably
> the problem occurred awhile ago and only got revealed when the AP 
> rebooted.
> I opened one of the SMs up thinking there was crud across the pins on 
> the jack, but no, and no amount of cleaning with alcohol would fix it.  
> I also seem to remember Paul from PDMNet confirming it's not as simple 
> as something shorting the pins on the jack.  So it's repairable, but 
> probably some component needs to be replaced.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Baird
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:31 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in
>
> I'm pretty sure I've seen this question posted before, but I don't recall
> the verdict.  We had a power outage last night that outlasted the 
> batteries
> at a tower.  When the power finally came back on, one AP didn't come 
> back.
> Further investigation revealed that it seems to think there is a default
> plug in it, but there isn't.  I've checked the default plug jack and 
> there
> is nothing foreign in it, and the pins all appear normal.  I've tried
> booting it with an actual default plug in it, and then rebooting with it
> out, thinking that perhaps that would reset something, but no dice.  Is
> there some way to recover the radio when this happens?
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in

[George Skorup]

I had a 5700BH20 with over a year uptime. Same thing, power went out and 
it was default plugged when it booted back up. Yeah, in that year it 
could've been an ESD event that killed the diode or whatever it is that 
goes bad. We had this happening enough that I asked Cambium to allow us 
to override/ignore the default plug, but that never went anywhere. Kinda 
moot now since 13.4.1 is the end of the yellow brick road.


The P8 and P9 boards had this happen frequently. P10 and P11's almost 
never. FSK isn't even worth getting fixed anymore. Just buy some cheap 
used radios for spares and send the bad ones to the round filing 
cabinet. That's what we've been doing for two years now.


On 9/26/2016 11:54 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
I am guessing some kind of ESD protection component shorted (if you 
are lucky).  Removing the part would fix the problem.  But if it is a 
logic input fried, that chip will have to be replace.  Paul is your 
guy for this kind of stuff.


-Original Message- From: Ken Hohhof
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 10:50 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in

I haven't had that happen on an AP, but I've had it happen on SMs.  
Probably
the problem occurred awhile ago and only got revealed when the AP 
rebooted.

I opened one of the SMs up thinking there was crud across the pins on the
jack, but no, and no amount of cleaning with alcohol would fix it.  I 
also
seem to remember Paul from PDMNet confirming it's not as simple as 
something

shorting the pins on the jack.  So it's repairable, but probably some
component needs to be replaced.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Baird
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:31 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in

I'm pretty sure I've seen this question posted before, but I don't recall
the verdict.  We had a power outage last night that outlasted the 
batteries
at a tower.  When the power finally came back on, one AP didn't come 
back.

Further investigation revealed that it seems to think there is a default
plug in it, but there isn't.  I've checked the default plug jack and 
there

is nothing foreign in it, and the pins all appear normal.  I've tried
booting it with an actual default plug in it, and then rebooting with it
out, thinking that perhaps that would reset something, but no dice.  Is
there some way to recover the radio when this happens?

Craig

Re: [AFMUG] Billing system survey rehash

[Chuck McCown]

Never had a problem with Plat at Beehive that I recall.  

From: Wireless Administrator 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Billing system survey rehash

+1 for Platypus.

 

I feel Justin has provided a VERY fair assessment of their product.  We’ve been 
running this billing system for many years and are quite pleased with the 
system and support.

 

Steven Bastardi

President

The Home Town Network Inc.

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Justin Thornton
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:04 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Billing system survey rehash

 

I take some issue with this characterization of Platypus.  While we have never 
been the flashiest or anywhere close to the best at marketing, Platypus has 
long been on a consistent development schedule with multiple releases each 
year.  We have also taken pride in the flexibility of Platypus and how it can 
bend to work with whatever tools our customers prefer and are already familiar 
with, and how the billing results can be manipulated to provide most any 
results they desire.  So when a customer comes to us asking about CDR billing, 
integrating with monitoring tools, communicating with Sandvine, provisioning 
LTE, adding line items from Dish, DirecTv, SiriusXM, etc. for a unified 
statement or whatever it might be, we don't typically need to add a new feature 
and release a new version.  We just point the customer to where their request 
can fit into our existing architecture and assist them with the configuration.

 

All of the billing platforms who operate in this space have their strengths and 
weaknesses and none of us are the right solution for everyone, but Platypus is 
still actively under development and here to serve those who are a good fit for 
us.  I just don't want their to be any confusion over that.

 

 

Justin Thornton

Platypus ISP Billing

 

 

 

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 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/

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  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/month
 100 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
 Tiny
 Tiny
 Medium
 Large
 Small
 Medium
 Tiny
 
  Vendor business/ownership
 Billing software
 Billing software 

Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

[Carlos Alcantar]

we do it with ciena/cyan equipment as well.  Your going to be looking at more 
of a MEF type of switch that can handle this of feature.


​
Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com



From: Af  on behalf of Jon Auer 
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:29:25 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Throttling bandwidth over a gig

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

[Wireless Administrator]

+1 for Platypus.

 

I feel Justin has provided a VERY fair assessment of their product.  We’ve been 
running this billing system for many years and are quite pleased with the 
system and support.

 

Steven Bastardi

President

The Home Town Network Inc.

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Justin Thornton
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 12:04 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Billing system survey rehash

 

I take some issue with this characterization of Platypus.  While we have never 
been the flashiest or anywhere close to the best at marketing, Platypus has 
long been on a consistent development schedule with multiple releases each 
year.  We have also taken pride in the flexibility of Platypus and how it can 
bend to work with whatever tools our customers prefer and are already familiar 
with, and how the billing results can be manipulated to provide most any 
results they desire.  So when a customer comes to us asking about CDR billing, 
integrating with monitoring tools, communicating with Sandvine, provisioning 
LTE, adding line items from Dish, DirecTv, SiriusXM, etc. for a unified 
statement or whatever it might be, we don't typically need to add a new feature 
and release a new version.  We just point the customer to where their request 
can fit into our existing architecture and assist them with the configuration.

 

All of the billing platforms who operate in this space have their strengths and 
weaknesses and none of us are the right solution for everyone, but Platypus is 
still actively under development and here to serve those who are a good fit for 
us.  I just don't want their to be any confusion over that.

 

 

Justin Thornton

Platypus ISP Billing

 

 

 

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 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 Admin

Platypus

Powercode

Sonar

VISP

WISPMon


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/month

100 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

Tiny

Tiny

Medium

Large

Small

Medium

Tiny


Vendor business/ownership

Billing software

Billing 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

1998

2005 (2010 USA)

1997

2015

1996

2003

2015

1996

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 

Re: [AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in

[Chuck McCown]

I am guessing some kind of ESD protection component shorted (if you are 
lucky).  Removing the part would fix the problem.  But if it is a logic 
input fried, that chip will have to be replace.  Paul is your guy for this 
kind of stuff.


-Original Message- 
From: Ken Hohhof

Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 10:50 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in

I haven't had that happen on an AP, but I've had it happen on SMs.  Probably
the problem occurred awhile ago and only got revealed when the AP rebooted.
I opened one of the SMs up thinking there was crud across the pins on the
jack, but no, and no amount of cleaning with alcohol would fix it.  I also
seem to remember Paul from PDMNet confirming it's not as simple as something
shorting the pins on the jack.  So it's repairable, but probably some
component needs to be replaced.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Baird
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:31 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in

I'm pretty sure I've seen this question posted before, but I don't recall
the verdict.  We had a power outage last night that outlasted the batteries
at a tower.  When the power finally came back on, one AP didn't come back.
Further investigation revealed that it seems to think there is a default
plug in it, but there isn't.  I've checked the default plug jack and there
is nothing foreign in it, and the pins all appear normal.  I've tried
booting it with an actual default plug in it, and then rebooting with it
out, thinking that perhaps that would reset something, but no dice.  Is
there some way to recover the radio when this happens?

Craig

Re: [AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in

[Ken Hohhof]

I haven't had that happen on an AP, but I've had it happen on SMs.  Probably
the problem occurred awhile ago and only got revealed when the AP rebooted.
I opened one of the SMs up thinking there was crud across the pins on the
jack, but no, and no amount of cleaning with alcohol would fix it.  I also
seem to remember Paul from PDMNet confirming it's not as simple as something
shorting the pins on the jack.  So it's repairable, but probably some
component needs to be replaced.


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Baird
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:31 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in

I'm pretty sure I've seen this question posted before, but I don't recall
the verdict.  We had a power outage last night that outlasted the batteries
at a tower.  When the power finally came back on, one AP didn't come back.
Further investigation revealed that it seems to think there is a default
plug in it, but there isn't.  I've checked the default plug jack and there
is nothing foreign in it, and the pins all appear normal.  I've tried
booting it with an actual default plug in it, and then rebooting with it
out, thinking that perhaps that would reset something, but no dice.  Is
there some way to recover the radio when this happens?

Craig

[AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in

[Craig Baird]

I'm pretty sure I've seen this question posted before, but I don't  
recall the verdict.  We had a power outage last night that outlasted  
the batteries at a tower.  When the power finally came back on, one AP  
didn't come back.  Further investigation revealed that it seems to  
think there is a default plug in it, but there isn't.  I've checked  
the default plug jack and there is nothing foreign in it, and the pins  
all appear normal.  I've tried booting it with an actual default plug  
in it, and then rebooting with it out, thinking that perhaps that  
would reset something, but no dice.  Is there some way to recover the  
radio when this happens?


Craig

Re: [AFMUG] Billing system survey rehash

[Sterling Jacobson]

As a long time user and ongoing user of Platypus I agree with what Justin is 
saying.

Their team has always been responsive and willing to help us out on modules or 
support for any part of it.

They got me up and running on my new stuff for a very good price.

And they update often, so that column item needs to change.

I do wish they would invest some major resources into a total client/app/web 
end redo though.
It would be extremely painful to implement, but Plat is really the SQL database 
at heart with runtime modules running things.
So it would be POSSIBLE to redo the ‘front’ end of those things.



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Justin Thornton
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 10:04 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Billing system survey rehash

I take some issue with this characterization of Platypus.  While we have never 
been the flashiest or anywhere close to the best at marketing, Platypus has 
long been on a consistent development schedule with multiple releases each 
year.  We have also taken pride in the flexibility of Platypus and how it can 
bend to work with whatever tools our customers prefer and are already familiar 
with, and how the billing results can be manipulated to provide most any 
results they desire.  So when a customer comes to us asking about CDR billing, 
integrating with monitoring tools, communicating with Sandvine, provisioning 
LTE, adding line items from Dish, DirecTv, SiriusXM, etc. for a unified 
statement or whatever it might be, we don't typically need to add a new feature 
and release a new version.  We just point the customer to where their request 
can fit into our existing architecture and assist them with the configuration.

All of the billing platforms who operate in this space have their strengths and 
weaknesses and none of us are the right solution for everyone, but Platypus is 
still actively under development and here to serve those who are a good fit for 
us.  I just don't want their to be any confusion over that.


Justin Thornton
Platypus ISP Billing



On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 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 Admin]

[Platypus]

[Powercode]

[Sonar]

[VISP]

[WISPMon]

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/month

100 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

Tiny

Tiny

Medium

Large

Small

Medium

Tiny

Vendor business/ownership

Billing software

Billing 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)

Re: [AFMUG] 13.2.1 > 14.1.2

[Ken Hohhof]

Also, make sure to update the AP before deploying SMs with 14.1.2.

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sam Lambie
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 10:51 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 13.2.1 > 14.1.2

 

Yeah I have seen that too. All SM's get updated before leaving the shop.

 

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:33 PM, George Skorup  > wrote:

Just FYI, if you have 13.2.1 SMs on 14.1.2 APs (or I suppose 14.2/14.2.x), get 
the SMs updated ASAP.

I have the entire 450 network on 14.1.2 now. We've been going through SMs like 
crazy. The guys are putting new out of box SMs on the network which are still 
coming loaded with 13.2.1. And for whatever reason, 256QAM doesn't work with 
this combo. I thought the links just weren't good enough for 8X, but I've 
updated 10 or so this week and all of them now get 8X, at least on the downlink.




-- 

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

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

[Ken Hohhof]

Are you talking about the 14.5 or 17.5 dBi yagis from KP?  I would hate to use 
a 6 ft yagi as my standard for all installs, also when going through trees 
especially near the subscriber, experience says higher gain / narrower beam 
isn’t always better.

 

Another thing, what are you setting the antenna gain to in the SM?  In our case 
upstream is often the challenge because the AP sees so much interference, so 
receive gain at the CPE while dialing down the xmt power to maintain +36 dBm 
EIRP may not work.

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 10:03 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?

 

George,
 Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i 900 gear 
and for what its worth we have been amazed at 
some of the penetration and numbers we able to see. 
 Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points or more.

The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that can be 
sustained on an AP. 
Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with about 20 subs 
with a 5x5 sustained rate package.
I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really close for 
what we see.
 Yes, even through some pine



On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:

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 

Re: [AFMUG] 13.2.1 > 14.1.2

[Sam Lambie]

Yeah I have seen that too. All SM's get updated before leaving the shop.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:33 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> Just FYI, if you have 13.2.1 SMs on 14.1.2 APs (or I suppose 14.2/14.2.x),
> get the SMs updated ASAP.
>
> I have the entire 450 network on 14.1.2 now. We've been going through SMs
> like crazy. The guys are putting new out of box SMs on the network which
> are still coming loaded with 13.2.1. And for whatever reason, 256QAM
> doesn't work with this combo. I thought the links just weren't good enough
> for 8X, but I've updated 10 or so this week and all of them now get 8X, at
> least on the downlink.
>



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

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

[Jaime Solorza]

I made SCADA comment regarding 900MHz performance only... Not for Internet
data usage per se.   Some SCADA systems do connect to Internet but it is
typically monitoring, alarming or maintenance,... Not for watching
NetFleece... Many Are upgrading to 5GHz for more bandwidth and camera
surveillance... I have several clients doing this on small scale.   EPWU
has over 800 sites now using MDS licensed and unlicensed 900 so a change is
coming but it's going to be combination of 11Ghz and 5Ghz I am told.

On Sep 25, 2016 2:00 PM, "Adam Moffett"  wrote:

> It's the whole sector.  You definitely don't want anybody at QPSK, and IMO
> you don't actually want customers who can't get 64QAM.  Anybody running
> QPSK would be an unhappy customer and he'd weaken the whole sector.
>
> The point of the chart was this: I said earlier, "even 900 doesn't work
> with a mile of forest in the way".  People responded, "but SCADA at
> 115kbps!".  My rebuttal is that crappy speeds are already an option, but
> they don't count as "working" if you're selling internet access.
>
> I'm not sure about the SNR question.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Ken Hohhof" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 9/25/2016 3:30:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
> Something that always seems fuzzy with WIMAX and now LTE is whether you
> can have a bunch of subscribers all getting that throughput simultaneously,
> or if that’s the entire sector capacity.  If the entire sector capacity is
> 0.91 Mbps download shared over however many customers you need to make that
> basestation profitable, then it’s silly to talk about an MCS0 link.  In
> fact, even the MCS10 numbers from that chart wouldn’t really be useful for
> fixed broadband service.  For best effort connectivity from a mobile
> client, maybe it’s acceptable.
>
>
>
> The other thing is I remember one vendor saying their SNR numbers were per
> subcarrier or something, and you had to add a fudge factor of something
> like 10 dB to do an apples-to-apples comparison with the non LTE world.
> Not sure if that applies here.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 25, 2016 2:02 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
>
> I dunno, but the chart says it theoretically works at an SINR of -6.7db
>
> Seems insane.
>
>
>
> At the other end of the chart at MCS28 you're getting 42.46mbps x
> 6.61mbps.and that's supposed to work with 24 SINR.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Chuck McCown" 
>
> To: af@afmug.com
>
> Sent: 9/25/2016 12:17:14 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
>
> What is 0-QPSK?  CW?
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Moffett 
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 25, 2016 5:09 AM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com ; af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz PMP450i :: Any real numbers?
>
>
>
> Undoubtedly true guys, but same thing.  Assuming this table comes through,
> it's showing you the bottom mod levels on LTE at 10mhz channel size.  So
> yeah, in theory we could hook up somebody at -100 and it would "work", but
> you'd be spending a lot of money to not get much capacity.  SCADA might
> "work" for George's internet customers in the same sense that scraping the
> bottom on LTE would "work".
>
>
>
> Modulation and Coding Scheme
>
> Max troughtput [Mbps]
>
> SINR (dB)
>
> Receiver Sensitivity (dBm)
>
> Minimum by DL/UL split
>
> Required SINR at Cell Edge (dB)
>
> DL MCS
>
> UL MCS
>
> DL
>
> UL
>
> DL
>
> UL
>
> DL
>
> UL
>
> DL
>
> UL
>
> 0-QPSK
>
> 0-QPSK
>
> 0.91 Mbps
>
> 0.25 Mbps
>
> -1.2 dB
>
> -1.0 dB
>
> -6.7 dB
>
> -3.3 dB
>
> -106.1 dBm
>
> -102.3 dBm
>
> 1-QPSK
>
> 1-QPSK
>
> 1.18 Mbps
>
> 0.32 Mbps
>
> 0.0 dB
>
> 0.1 dB
>
> -5.6 dB
>
> -2.4 dB
>
> -105.1 dBm
>
> -101.4 dBm
>
> 2-QPSK
>
> 2-QPSK
>
> 1.45 Mbps
>
> 0.40 Mbps
>
> 0.7 dB
>
> 0.7 dB
>
> -4.8 dB
>
> -1.6 dB
>
> -104.3 dBm
>
> -100.6 dBm
>
> 3-QPSK
>
> 3-QPSK
>
> 1.87 Mbps
>
> 0.51 Mbps
>
> 1.7 dB
>
> 1.7 dB
>
> -3.8 dB
>
> -0.5 dB
>
> -103.3 dBm
>
> -99.5 dBm
>
> 4-QPSK
>
> 4-QPSK
>
> 2.38 Mbps
>
> 0.65 Mbps
>
> 2.7 dB
>
> 2.8 dB
>
> -2.8 dB
>
> 0.4 dB
>
> -102.2 dBm
>
> -98.5 dBm
>
> 5-QPSK
>
> 5-QPSK
>
> 2.88 Mbps
>
> 0.79 Mbps
>
> 3.6 dB
>
> 3.5 dB
>
> -1.7 dB
>
> 1.3 dB
>
> -101.1 dBm
>
> -97.7 dBm
>
> 6-QPSK
>
> 6-QPSK
>
> 3.38 Mbps
>
> 0.93 Mbps
>
> 4.6 dB
>
> 4.2 dB
>
> -0.7 dB
>
> 2.2 dB
>
> -100.2 dBm
>
> -96.7 dBm
>
> 7-QPSK
>
> 7-QPSK
>
> 4.07 Mbps
>
> 1.12 Mbps
>
> 5.6 dB
>
> 5.3 dB
>
> 0.6 dB
>
> 3.4 dB
>
> -98.9 dBm
>
> -95.6 dBm
>
> 8-QPSK
>
> 8-QPSK
>
> 4.57 Mbps
>
> 1.25 Mbps
>
> 6.5 dB
>
> 6.0 dB
>
> 1.5 dB
>
> 4.2 dB
>
> -97.9 dBm
>
> -94.7 dBm
>
> 9-QPSK
>
> 9-QPSK
>
> 5.24 Mbps
>
> 1.44 Mbps
>
> 7.6 dB
>
> 6.9 dB
>
> 2.5 dB
>
> 5.6 dB
>
> -97.0 dBm
>
> -93.3 dBm
>
> 10-16QAM
>
> 10-QPSK
>
> 5.24 Mbps
>
> 1.58 Mbps
>
> 7.7 dB
>
> 7.6 dB
>
> 2.5 

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

[Dave]

George,
 Myself and another ISP here in Arkansas have been using the new 450i 
900 gear and for what its worth we have been amazed at

some of the penetration and numbers we able to see.
 Using KP sectors and yagis is the ticket.
We have been able to increase marginal shots in upwards of 10+ points or 
more.


The only gotcha I have with the stuff is the number of clients that can 
be sustained on an AP.
Which all revolves around Frame Utilization. We have been ok with about 
20 subs with a 5x5 sustained rate package.

I am sure you could squeeze more by tweaking the sustained and burst.
I used the Capacity planner cambium has for this and it was really close 
for what we see.

 Yes, even through some pine


On 09/24/2016 02:45 PM, George Skorup wrote:
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.

Re: [AFMUG] Unifi Controller questions

[Eric Muehleisen]

Perfect. Thank you!

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Jesse DuPont  wrote:

> As Josh said, the controller going out does not affect the APs. In fact,
> the controller can be offline for quite some time and won't affect the AP,
> even if the AP reboots.
>
> Upgrading the controller will not cause an outage to the AP's unless
> automatic upgrades is enabled.
>
> I typically disable automatic upgrades and kick them off in maintenance
> window.
>
> *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 9/26/16 7:42 AM, Eric Muehleisen wrote:
>
> For those that have used Unifi extensively, I have a couple questions that
> I can't quite find on the forums.
>
> 1. If the controller goes offline, does that have an effect on the AP's is
> serving? Or do they continue to operate normally?
>
> 2a. Will upgrading the controller cause an outage to the AP's?
>
> 2b. Will it help if I disable "automatic upgrade" and upgrade the AP's
> during a maint. window after the controller has been upgrade?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Unifi Controller questions

[Josh Reynolds]

Side note to all this, the controller can now schedule config and data
backups. The cloud access feature is very nice for remote access too... No
holes in firewall to punch, and works behind NAT.

On Sep 26, 2016 8:51 AM, "Jesse DuPont" 
wrote:

> As Josh said, the controller going out does not affect the APs. In fact,
> the controller can be offline for quite some time and won't affect the AP,
> even if the AP reboots.
>
> Upgrading the controller will not cause an outage to the AP's unless
> automatic upgrades is enabled.
>
> I typically disable automatic upgrades and kick them off in maintenance
> window.
>
> *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 9/26/16 7:42 AM, Eric Muehleisen wrote:
>
> For those that have used Unifi extensively, I have a couple questions that
> I can't quite find on the forums.
>
> 1. If the controller goes offline, does that have an effect on the AP's is
> serving? Or do they continue to operate normally?
>
> 2a. Will upgrading the controller cause an outage to the AP's?
>
> 2b. Will it help if I disable "automatic upgrade" and upgrade the AP's
> during a maint. window after the controller has been upgrade?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Unifi Controller questions

[Jesse DuPont]

  
  
As Josh said, the controller going out does not affect the APs. In
fact, the controller can be offline for quite some time and won't
affect the AP, even if the AP reboots.

Upgrading the controller will not cause an outage to the AP's unless
automatic upgrades is enabled.

I typically disable automatic upgrades and kick them off in
maintenance window.


  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
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 9/26/16 7:42 AM, Eric Muehleisen
  wrote:


  For those that have used Unifi extensively, I have
a couple questions that I can't quite find on the forums.


1. If the controller goes offline, does that have an effect
  on the AP's is serving? Or do they continue to operate
  normally?


2a. Will upgrading the controller cause an outage to the
  AP's?


2b. Will it help if I disable "automatic upgrade" and
  upgrade the AP's during a maint. window after the controller
  has been upgrade?


Thanks!
  


  

Re: [AFMUG] Unifi Controller questions

[Josh Baird]

The controller going offline shouldn't affect the AP's unless the
controller is being used for any authentication/captive portal
functionality as far as I know.

Josh

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Eric Muehleisen  wrote:

> For those that have used Unifi extensively, I have a couple questions that
> I can't quite find on the forums.
>
> 1. If the controller goes offline, does that have an effect on the AP's is
> serving? Or do they continue to operate normally?
>
> 2a. Will upgrading the controller cause an outage to the AP's?
>
> 2b. Will it help if I disable "automatic upgrade" and upgrade the AP's
> during a maint. window after the controller has been upgrade?
>
> Thanks!
>

[AFMUG] Unifi Controller questions

[Eric Muehleisen]

For those that have used Unifi extensively, I have a couple questions that
I can't quite find on the forums.

1. If the controller goes offline, does that have an effect on the AP's is
serving? Or do they continue to operate normally?

2a. Will upgrading the controller cause an outage to the AP's?

2b. Will it help if I disable "automatic upgrade" and upgrade the AP's
during a maint. window after the controller has been upgrade?

Thanks!