Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 - IPv6 Box

[George Skorup]

I have more customers than public IPv4 addresses, so yeah, NAT is 
already in place. Planning on putting IPv6 on top of it. AKA dual stack. 
No DNS tricks needed. No out-of-WISP-budget core routing/NAT h/w needed.


If you're going to start handing out private IPv4 addresses to 
customers, do yourself a favor now and use the 100.64.0.0/10 CG-NAT 
pool. So if a customer BYOD's, you shouldn't have to worry about them 
going into bridge mode as could possibly happen when they detect a 
regular RFC1918 WAN address. Some Apple and Netgear stuff is known to do 
this. But if you're doing something like Calix 844's and don't give the 
customer a choice (or they don't get a choice in the case of the 844GE 
or outdoor NIDs), then maybe this doesn't matter to you.


On 10/1/2017 5:55 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

I don’t care which solution I use, but I need the following:
We can cease to acquire new IPV4 addresses.
Able to access IPV4 addresses if there is no V6 DNS for a URL.
Customers apps will work flawlessly.
So, I do not want to dual stack if it means I have to keep getting 
more V4 addresses.

If I can use private IP space for dual stack, fine.
*From:* George Skorup
*Sent:* Sunday, October 01, 2017 4:32 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 - IPv6 Box
What does that "box" do that DNS64+NAT64 doesn't?

What's the resistance to regular old dual stack, even if you gotta do 
IPv4 NAT/CGN due to lack of address space?


I'd be hesitant with DNS64/NAT64 w/ IPv6 only clients simply because 
of dumb customer devices. Dual-stack seems to be the safer, less 
headache prone approach. Especially the NAT64 thing, since I don't 
want to buy Juniper and the like, because I'm cheap. If MikroTik would 
support it, then maybe.


On 10/1/2017 4:26 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Chuck has asked about an IPv4 - IPv6 box. I don't know anything 
aboutit other than what's on their web site, but I came across this.



https://retevia.net/



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 - IPv6 Box

[Chuck McCown]

I sent them an email.  Will see what they have to offer. 

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017 3:26 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] IPv4 - IPv6 Box

Chuck has asked about an IPv4 - IPv6 box. I don't know anything about it other 
than what's on their web site, but I came across this.


https://retevia.net/




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 - IPv6 Box

[Chuck McCown]

I don’t care which solution I use, but I need the following:
We can cease to acquire new IPV4 addresses.
Able to access IPV4 addresses if there is no V6 DNS for a URL.
Customers apps will work flawlessly.  

So, I do not want to dual stack if it means I have to keep getting more V4 
addresses.
If I can use private IP space for dual stack, fine.  

From: George Skorup 
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017 4:32 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 - IPv6 Box

What does that "box" do that DNS64+NAT64 doesn't?

What's the resistance to regular old dual stack, even if you gotta do IPv4 
NAT/CGN due to lack of address space?

I'd be hesitant with DNS64/NAT64 w/ IPv6 only clients simply because of dumb 
customer devices. Dual-stack seems to be the safer, less headache prone 
approach. Especially the NAT64 thing, since I don't want to buy Juniper and the 
like, because I'm cheap. If MikroTik would support it, then maybe.


On 10/1/2017 4:26 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

  Chuck has asked about an IPv4 - IPv6 box. I don't know anything about it 
other than what's on their web site, but I came across this.


  https://retevia.net/




  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions

  Midwest Internet Exchange

  The Brothers WISP

Re: [AFMUG] IPv4 - IPv6 Box

[George Skorup]

What does that "box" do that DNS64+NAT64 doesn't?

What's the resistance to regular old dual stack, even if you gotta do 
IPv4 NAT/CGN due to lack of address space?


I'd be hesitant with DNS64/NAT64 w/ IPv6 only clients simply because of 
dumb customer devices. Dual-stack seems to be the safer, less headache 
prone approach. Especially the NAT64 thing, since I don't want to buy 
Juniper and the like, because I'm cheap. If MikroTik would support it, 
then maybe.


On 10/1/2017 4:26 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Chuck has asked about an IPv4 - IPv6 box. I don't know anything 
about it other than what's on their web site, but I came across this.



https://retevia.net/



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

[AFMUG] IPv4 - IPv6 Box

[Mike Hammett]

Chuck has asked about an IPv4 - IPv6 box. I don't know anything about it other 
than what's on their web site, but I came across this. 


https://retevia.net/ 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

[Jaime Solorza]

Gino... don't buy into bullshit...it's going to get worse before it gets
better...as soon as flow of goods improve, we will be able to help
better... greetings and hugs, Jaime

On Oct 1, 2017 11:29 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
wrote:

>
> boo.  there is no "translate all" button here like there is on facebook.
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jaime Solorza 
> *To:* Animal Farm 
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 1, 2017 10:08 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME
>
> Gino, no le hagas caso a las pendejadas que estan pasando con este
> crisis.  Aun que no quieras se van acer pior.   Estamos poniendo presion
> para que reciban la ayuda que merecen.  Estamos listos para asistir cuando
> se mejore El flujo de equipo... saludos y in abrazo, Jaime
>
> On Oct 1, 2017 6:15 AM, "Gino A. Villarini"  wrote:
>
> Going to AK you fly over Canada, do you fill paperwork for that?
>
> From: Af  on behalf of Mathew Howard <
> mhoward...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Date: Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 5:56 PM
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME
>
> I don't know... I've never heard of having to deal with any kind customs
> stuff going to AK or HI, but I also haven't ever sent anything to either
> state that wasn't through the USPS.
>
> Lewis is probably right that it's mainly about collecting import duties.
> It could also have to do with the fact that there are other countries
> between the US mainland and PR, which isn't the case for Hawaii.
>
>
>
> *Gino A. Villarini*
> President
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> Is it different than Hawaii or Alaska than it is for PR?
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Mathew Howard" 
>> *To: *"af" 
>> *Sent: *Saturday, September 30, 2017 1:31:53 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME
>>
>> I thought both Fedex and UPS had to go through customs to get into Puerto
>> Rico... USPS doesn't though.
>>
>> It seems like if it's a direct flight from the USA to another part of the
>> USA you shouldn't have to mess with that stuff, even if it is going over
>> international waters, but apparently that's not the case.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It traverses international waters
>>>
>>> On Sep 30, 2017 9:59 AM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>>>
 We have had similar issues with UPS to PR.  FedEx is not a problem.

 *From:* Jaime Solorza
 *Sent:* Saturday, September 30, 2017 8:56 AM
 *To:* Animal Farm
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

 Shipping to other countries, this is common...last I heard, Puerto Rico
 is part of USA...

 On Sep 30, 2017 8:53 AM, "Robert"  wrote:

> Sounds like, if he has Homeland Security expediting Warehouse requests
> to Streakwave, he is now riding the Government express train.   I suspect
> that he's going to get his stuff, and more, shipped even faster.  Let's
> hope!!!
>
> On 9/30/17 7:46 AM, George Skorup wrote:
>
>> I sent Gino a PacketFlux generator control board earlier this year,
>> or last, I forget. Had to fill out customs docs. Can't remember if it was
>> UPS or FedEx. We called and the rep was like, yeah, you gotta do that.
>> That's some stupid ass shit.
>>
>> On 9/30/2017 9:32 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>>
>>> Confiscated.ï¿1Ž2 Hmmm.ï¿1Ž2 What justification could they have for
>>> that.
>>> ï¿1Ž2
>>>
>>> *From:* Gino A. Villarini
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, September 30, 2017 4:28 AM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME
>>> ï¿1Ž2
>>> So I had all my gear staged and ready to be picked up today and
>>> delivered tomorrow, only to find out that all FEDEX and UPS flights to 
>>> PR
>>> were confiscated by feds..ï¿1Ž2 1 step fwd, 3 backï¿1Ž2
>>>
>>> *//*ï¿1Ž2
>>>
>>>
>>> */Gino A. Villarini/*
>>>
>>> President
>>> 

Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

[Mathew Howard]

Ah, ok. That's just what I found on the internet, so it's not surprising if
it's not entirely accurate. The reason UPS wants customs forms filled out
does seem to be something to do with local tax, rather than actually going
through customs, as far as I can tell though... but again, that's just
based on what I've been reading, and I could be misunderstanding.

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Gino A. Villarini 
wrote:

> Actually that is not correct. That used to be the case 10 years ago, but
> that was replaced by a local sale tax.
>
> From: Af  on behalf of Mathew Howard <
> mhoward...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Date: Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 11:01 AM
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME
>
> Apparently, the reason that Fedex and UPS make you fill out customs forms
> when you ship to Puerto Rico isn't actually because it has to go through US
> customs (according to what I was reading, it doesn't), but because Puerto
> Rico collects tax on everything that's shipped there... I guess it's the
> same as the local sales tax.
>
>
>
> *Gino A. Villarini*
> President
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Gino A. Villarini 
> wrote:
>
>> Going to AK you fly over Canada, do you fill paperwork for that?
>>
>> From: Af  on behalf of Mathew Howard <
>> mhoward...@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Date: Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 5:56 PM
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME
>>
>> I don't know... I've never heard of having to deal with any kind customs
>> stuff going to AK or HI, but I also haven't ever sent anything to either
>> state that wasn't through the USPS.
>>
>> Lewis is probably right that it's mainly about collecting import duties.
>> It could also have to do with the fact that there are other countries
>> between the US mainland and PR, which isn't the case for Hawaii.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>> President
>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>> Is it different than Hawaii or Alaska than it is for PR?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Mathew Howard" 
>>> *To: *"af" 
>>> *Sent: *Saturday, September 30, 2017 1:31:53 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME
>>>
>>> I thought both Fedex and UPS had to go through customs to get into
>>> Puerto Rico... USPS doesn't though.
>>>
>>> It seems like if it's a direct flight from the USA to another part of
>>> the USA you shouldn't have to mess with that stuff, even if it is going
>>> over international waters, but apparently that's not the case.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Steve Jones >> > wrote:
>>>
 It traverses international waters

 On Sep 30, 2017 9:59 AM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

> We have had similar issues with UPS to PR.  FedEx is not a problem.
>
> *From:* Jaime Solorza
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 30, 2017 8:56 AM
> *To:* Animal Farm
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME
>
> Shipping to other countries, this is common...last I heard, Puerto
> Rico is part of USA...
>
> On Sep 30, 2017 8:53 AM, "Robert"  wrote:
>
>> Sounds like, if he has Homeland Security expediting Warehouse
>> requests to Streakwave, he is now riding the Government express train.   
>> I
>> suspect that he's going to get his stuff, and more, shipped even faster.
>> Let's hope!!!
>>
>> On 9/30/17 7:46 AM, George Skorup wrote:
>>
>>> I sent Gino a PacketFlux generator control board earlier this year,
>>> or last, I forget. Had to fill out customs docs. Can't remember if it 
>>> was
>>> UPS or FedEx. We called and the rep was like, yeah, you gotta do that.
>>> That's some stupid ass shit.
>>>
>>> On 9/30/2017 9:32 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>>>
 Confiscated.ï¿1Ž2 Hmmm.ï¿1Ž2 What justification could they have for
 

Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

boo.  there is no "translate all" button here like there is on facebook.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jaime Solorza 
  To: Animal Farm 
  Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 10:08 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME


  Gino, no le hagas caso a las pendejadas que estan pasando con este crisis.  
Aun que no quieras se van acer pior.   Estamos poniendo presion para que 
reciban la ayuda que merecen.  Estamos listos para asistir cuando se mejore El 
flujo de equipo... saludos y in abrazo, Jaime


  On Oct 1, 2017 6:15 AM, "Gino A. Villarini"  wrote:

Going to AK you fly over Canada, do you fill paperwork for that? 


From: Af  on behalf of Mathew Howard 

Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
Date: Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 5:56 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME



I don't know... I've never heard of having to deal with any kind customs 
stuff going to AK or HI, but I also haven't ever sent anything to either state 
that wasn't through the USPS. 


Lewis is probably right that it's mainly about collecting import duties. It 
could also have to do with the fact that there are other countries between the 
US mainland and PR, which isn't the case for Hawaii.





  Gino A. Villarini
 
  President 
  Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 




On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

  Is it different than Hawaii or Alaska than it is for PR?




  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions

  Midwest Internet Exchange

  The Brothers WISP






--

  From: "Mathew Howard" 
  To: "af" 
  Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2017 1:31:53 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME


  I thought both Fedex and UPS had to go through customs to get into Puerto 
Rico... USPS doesn't though.


  It seems like if it's a direct flight from the USA to another part of the 
USA you shouldn't have to mess with that stuff, even if it is going over 
international waters, but apparently that's not the case.



  On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Steve Jones  
wrote:

It traverses international waters


On Sep 30, 2017 9:59 AM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

  We have had similar issues with UPS to PR.  FedEx is not a problem.  

  From: Jaime Solorza 
  Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2017 8:56 AM
  To: Animal Farm 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

  Shipping to other countries, this is common...last I heard, Puerto 
Rico is part of USA...

  On Sep 30, 2017 8:53 AM, "Robert"  wrote:

Sounds like, if he has Homeland Security expediting Warehouse 
requests to Streakwave, he is now riding the Government express train.   I 
suspect that he's going to get his stuff, and more, shipped even faster.  Let's 
hope!!!

On 9/30/17 7:46 AM, George Skorup wrote:

  I sent Gino a PacketFlux generator control board earlier this 
year, or last, I forget. Had to fill out customs docs. Can't remember if it was 
UPS or FedEx. We called and the rep was like, yeah, you gotta do that. That's 
some stupid ass shit.

  On 9/30/2017 9:32 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Confiscated.ï¿1Ž2 Hmmm.ï¿1Ž2 What justification could they have 
for that.
ï¿1Ž2

*From:* Gino A. Villarini
*Sent:* Saturday, September 30, 2017 4:28 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

ï¿1Ž2
So I had all my gear staged and ready to be picked up today and 
delivered tomorrow, only to find out that all FEDEX and UPS flights to PR were 
confiscated by feds..ï¿1Ž2 1 step fwd, 3 backï¿1Ž2

*//*ï¿1Ž2


*/Gino A. Villarini/*

President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

[Gino A. Villarini]

Gracias Jaime

From: Af > on behalf of Jaime 
Solorza >
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>
Date: Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 11:08 AM
To: "af@afmug.com" >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

Gino, no le hagas caso a las pendejadas que estan pasando con este crisis.  Aun 
que no quieras se van acer pior.   Estamos poniendo presion para que reciban la 
ayuda que merecen.  Estamos listos para asistir cuando se mejore El flujo de 
equipo... saludos y in abrazo, Jaime




Gino A. Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]

On Oct 1, 2017 6:15 AM, "Gino A. Villarini" 
> wrote:
Going to AK you fly over Canada, do you fill paperwork for that?

From: Af > on behalf of 
Mathew Howard >
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>
Date: Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 5:56 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" >

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

I don't know... I've never heard of having to deal with any kind customs stuff 
going to AK or HI, but I also haven't ever sent anything to either state that 
wasn't through the USPS.

Lewis is probably right that it's mainly about collecting import duties. It 
could also have to do with the fact that there are other countries between the 
US mainland and PR, which isn't the case for Hawaii.




Gino A. Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Mike Hammett 
> wrote:
Is it different than Hawaii or Alaska than it is for PR?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]




From: "Mathew Howard" >
To: "af" >
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2017 1:31:53 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

I thought both Fedex and UPS had to go through customs to get into Puerto 
Rico... USPS doesn't though.

It seems like if it's a direct flight from the USA to another part of the USA 
you shouldn't have to mess with that stuff, even if it is going over 
international waters, but apparently that's not the case.

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
It traverses international waters

On Sep 30, 2017 9:59 AM, "Chuck McCown" 
> wrote:
We have had similar issues with UPS to PR.  FedEx is not a problem.

From: Jaime Solorza
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2017 8:56 AM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

Shipping to other countries, this is common...last I heard, Puerto Rico is part 
of USA...

On Sep 30, 2017 8:53 AM, "Robert"  wrote:
Sounds like, if he has Homeland Security expediting Warehouse requests to 
Streakwave, he is now riding the Government express train.   I suspect that 
he's going to get his stuff, and more, shipped even faster.  Let's hope!!!

On 9/30/17 7:46 AM, George Skorup wrote:
I sent Gino a PacketFlux generator control board earlier this year, or last, I 
forget. Had to fill out customs docs. Can't remember if it was UPS or FedEx. We 
called and the rep was like, yeah, you gotta do that. That's some stupid ass 
shit.

On 9/30/2017 9:32 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Confiscated.ï¿1Ž2 Hmmm.ï¿1Ž2 What justification could they have for that.
ï¿1Ž2

*From:* Gino A. Villarini
*Sent:* Saturday, September 30, 2017 4:28 AM
*To:* 

Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

[Gino A. Villarini]

Actually that is not correct. That used to be the case 10 years ago, but that 
was replaced by a local sale tax.

From: Af > on behalf of 
Mathew Howard >
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>
Date: Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 11:01 AM
To: "af@afmug.com" >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

Apparently, the reason that Fedex and UPS make you fill out customs forms when 
you ship to Puerto Rico isn't actually because it has to go through US customs 
(according to what I was reading, it doesn't), but because Puerto Rico collects 
tax on everything that's shipped there... I guess it's the same as the local 
sales tax.




Gino A. Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Gino A. Villarini 
> wrote:
Going to AK you fly over Canada, do you fill paperwork for that?

From: Af > on behalf of 
Mathew Howard >
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>
Date: Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 5:56 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

I don't know... I've never heard of having to deal with any kind customs stuff 
going to AK or HI, but I also haven't ever sent anything to either state that 
wasn't through the USPS.

Lewis is probably right that it's mainly about collecting import duties. It 
could also have to do with the fact that there are other countries between the 
US mainland and PR, which isn't the case for Hawaii.




Gino A. Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Mike Hammett 
> wrote:
Is it different than Hawaii or Alaska than it is for PR?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]




From: "Mathew Howard" >
To: "af" >
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2017 1:31:53 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

I thought both Fedex and UPS had to go through customs to get into Puerto 
Rico... USPS doesn't though.

It seems like if it's a direct flight from the USA to another part of the USA 
you shouldn't have to mess with that stuff, even if it is going over 
international waters, but apparently that's not the case.

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
It traverses international waters

On Sep 30, 2017 9:59 AM, "Chuck McCown" 
> wrote:
We have had similar issues with UPS to PR.  FedEx is not a problem.

From: Jaime Solorza
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2017 8:56 AM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

Shipping to other countries, this is common...last I heard, Puerto Rico is part 
of USA...

On Sep 30, 2017 8:53 AM, "Robert"  wrote:
Sounds like, if he has Homeland Security expediting Warehouse requests to 
Streakwave, he is now riding the Government express train.   I suspect that 
he's going to get his stuff, and more, shipped even faster.  Let's hope!!!

On 9/30/17 7:46 AM, George Skorup wrote:
I sent Gino a PacketFlux generator control board earlier this year, or last, I 
forget. Had to fill out customs docs. Can't remember if it was UPS or FedEx. We 
called and the rep was like, yeah, you gotta do that. That's some stupid ass 
shit.

On 9/30/2017 9:32 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Re: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)

[Jaime Solorza]

I had to relocate and shield a Bridge wave 80GHz radio using building
corner due to interference... original installer mounted them one above the
other with about 1 ft separation vertically.   So test in lab first to get
idea of how much space you need ...

On Oct 1, 2017 9:12 AM, "Mathew Howard"  wrote:

> They're still only 18dbi according to the data sheet... unless I was
> reading that wrong. That's the same as the 30 degree sector.
>
> While you may not be able to do much more than 1Gbps symmetrical, most of
> us don't actually need symmetrical connections.
>
> I'm a little sceptical that ABAB is going to work well... we have two of
> the PTP radios back to back, and they definitely interfere with eachother
> if they're on the same channel. I guess it might work with more vertical
> separation, but I couldn't easily try that (I think we only have about 4'
> between them... I'd need a taller tower to get more in this case).
>
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> The new one has a beamforming antenna with more gain.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Stefan Englhardt" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Sunday, October 1, 2017 5:57:03 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)
>>
>> The ptmp-sector has very low gain compared to the ptp product. So cpes
>> have to be very close. Hard to find more than 8 clients this near ...
>>
>> > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>> > Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von fiber...@mail.com
>> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 1. Oktober 2017 09:22
>> > An: af@afmug.com
>> > Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)
>> >
>> > Ignitenet uses 2 Ghz channels, so there are only three channels
>> available, but a
>> > vendor representative has stated that you can reuse frequencies in an
>> ABAB
>> > pattern. Of note is that even if it has 16 beams of 10 degrees, it can
>> only
>> > support 8 clients. It's unclear whether a later upgrade to 32 clients
>> requires
>> > new hardware or not. The 2.5G bandwidth is aggregate, so you cannot do
>> > more than 1G symmetrical. Asymmetric speeds are supported.
>> >
>> >
>> > Website and datasheet:
>> > https://www.ignitenet.com/products/ml-2-5g-60-bf-sector/
>> > https://www.ignitenet.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/MetroLinq-2.5G-60-
>> > BF-sector-datasheet.pdf
>> >
>> > Jared
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017
>> > From: "Ryan Ray" 
>> > To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> > Subject: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)
>> >
>> > Searched around and didn't see anyone talking about these. Do they work?
>> > Can I put three of these up channels 2,3,4 and have 360 degree gigabit
>> > coverage in 60GHz? Any gotcha's I need to know? Does frequency reuse
>> work?
>> > Same range as the existing point to point model?
>> >
>> > So many applications if this is all the case.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)

[Mathew Howard]

They're still only 18dbi according to the data sheet... unless I was
reading that wrong. That's the same as the 30 degree sector.

While you may not be able to do much more than 1Gbps symmetrical, most of
us don't actually need symmetrical connections.

I'm a little sceptical that ABAB is going to work well... we have two of
the PTP radios back to back, and they definitely interfere with eachother
if they're on the same channel. I guess it might work with more vertical
separation, but I couldn't easily try that (I think we only have about 4'
between them... I'd need a taller tower to get more in this case).

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> The new one has a beamforming antenna with more gain.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Stefan Englhardt" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Sunday, October 1, 2017 5:57:03 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)
>
> The ptmp-sector has very low gain compared to the ptp product. So cpes
> have to be very close. Hard to find more than 8 clients this near ...
>
> > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> > Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von fiber...@mail.com
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 1. Oktober 2017 09:22
> > An: af@afmug.com
> > Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)
> >
> > Ignitenet uses 2 Ghz channels, so there are only three channels
> available, but a
> > vendor representative has stated that you can reuse frequencies in an
> ABAB
> > pattern. Of note is that even if it has 16 beams of 10 degrees, it can
> only
> > support 8 clients. It's unclear whether a later upgrade to 32 clients
> requires
> > new hardware or not. The 2.5G bandwidth is aggregate, so you cannot do
> > more than 1G symmetrical. Asymmetric speeds are supported.
> >
> >
> > Website and datasheet:
> > https://www.ignitenet.com/products/ml-2-5g-60-bf-sector/
> > https://www.ignitenet.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/MetroLinq-2.5G-60-
> > BF-sector-datasheet.pdf
> >
> > Jared
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017
> > From: "Ryan Ray" 
> > To: "af@afmug.com" 
> > Subject: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)
> >
> > Searched around and didn't see anyone talking about these. Do they work?
> > Can I put three of these up channels 2,3,4 and have 360 degree gigabit
> > coverage in 60GHz? Any gotcha's I need to know? Does frequency reuse
> work?
> > Same range as the existing point to point model?
> >
> > So many applications if this is all the case.
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

[Jaime Solorza]

Gino, no le hagas caso a las pendejadas que estan pasando con este crisis.
Aun que no quieras se van acer pior.   Estamos poniendo presion para que
reciban la ayuda que merecen.  Estamos listos para asistir cuando se mejore
El flujo de equipo... saludos y in abrazo, Jaime

On Oct 1, 2017 6:15 AM, "Gino A. Villarini"  wrote:

Going to AK you fly over Canada, do you fill paperwork for that?

From: Af  on behalf of Mathew Howard <
mhoward...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
Date: Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 5:56 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

I don't know... I've never heard of having to deal with any kind customs
stuff going to AK or HI, but I also haven't ever sent anything to either
state that wasn't through the USPS.

Lewis is probably right that it's mainly about collecting import duties. It
could also have to do with the fact that there are other countries between
the US mainland and PR, which isn't the case for Hawaii.



*Gino A. Villarini*
President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Is it different than Hawaii or Alaska than it is for PR?
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Mathew Howard" 
> *To: *"af" 
> *Sent: *Saturday, September 30, 2017 1:31:53 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME
>
> I thought both Fedex and UPS had to go through customs to get into Puerto
> Rico... USPS doesn't though.
>
> It seems like if it's a direct flight from the USA to another part of the
> USA you shouldn't have to mess with that stuff, even if it is going over
> international waters, but apparently that's not the case.
>
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> It traverses international waters
>>
>> On Sep 30, 2017 9:59 AM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>>
>>> We have had similar issues with UPS to PR.  FedEx is not a problem.
>>>
>>> *From:* Jaime Solorza
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, September 30, 2017 8:56 AM
>>> *To:* Animal Farm
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME
>>>
>>> Shipping to other countries, this is common...last I heard, Puerto Rico
>>> is part of USA...
>>>
>>> On Sep 30, 2017 8:53 AM, "Robert"  wrote:
>>>
 Sounds like, if he has Homeland Security expediting Warehouse requests
 to Streakwave, he is now riding the Government express train.   I suspect
 that he's going to get his stuff, and more, shipped even faster.  Let's
 hope!!!

 On 9/30/17 7:46 AM, George Skorup wrote:

> I sent Gino a PacketFlux generator control board earlier this year, or
> last, I forget. Had to fill out customs docs. Can't remember if it was UPS
> or FedEx. We called and the rep was like, yeah, you gotta do that. That's
> some stupid ass shit.
>
> On 9/30/2017 9:32 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>
>> Confiscated.ï¿1Ž2 Hmmm.ï¿1Ž2 What justification could they have for
>> that.
>> ï¿1Ž2
>>
>> *From:* Gino A. Villarini
>> *Sent:* Saturday, September 30, 2017 4:28 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME
>> ï¿1Ž2
>> So I had all my gear staged and ready to be picked up today and
>> delivered tomorrow, only to find out that all FEDEX and UPS flights to PR
>> were confiscated by feds..ï¿1Ž2 1 step fwd, 3 backï¿1Ž2
>>
>> *//*ï¿1Ž2
>>
>>
>> */Gino A. Villarini/*
>>
>> President
>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

[Mathew Howard]

Apparently, the reason that Fedex and UPS make you fill out customs forms
when you ship to Puerto Rico isn't actually because it has to go through US
customs (according to what I was reading, it doesn't), but because Puerto
Rico collects tax on everything that's shipped there... I guess it's the
same as the local sales tax.

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Gino A. Villarini  wrote:

> Going to AK you fly over Canada, do you fill paperwork for that?
>
> From: Af  on behalf of Mathew Howard <
> mhoward...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Date: Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 5:56 PM
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME
>
> I don't know... I've never heard of having to deal with any kind customs
> stuff going to AK or HI, but I also haven't ever sent anything to either
> state that wasn't through the USPS.
>
> Lewis is probably right that it's mainly about collecting import duties.
> It could also have to do with the fact that there are other countries
> between the US mainland and PR, which isn't the case for Hawaii.
>
>
>
> *Gino A. Villarini*
> President
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> Is it different than Hawaii or Alaska than it is for PR?
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Mathew Howard" 
>> *To: *"af" 
>> *Sent: *Saturday, September 30, 2017 1:31:53 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME
>>
>> I thought both Fedex and UPS had to go through customs to get into Puerto
>> Rico... USPS doesn't though.
>>
>> It seems like if it's a direct flight from the USA to another part of the
>> USA you shouldn't have to mess with that stuff, even if it is going over
>> international waters, but apparently that's not the case.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It traverses international waters
>>>
>>> On Sep 30, 2017 9:59 AM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>>>
 We have had similar issues with UPS to PR.  FedEx is not a problem.

 *From:* Jaime Solorza
 *Sent:* Saturday, September 30, 2017 8:56 AM
 *To:* Animal Farm
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

 Shipping to other countries, this is common...last I heard, Puerto Rico
 is part of USA...

 On Sep 30, 2017 8:53 AM, "Robert"  wrote:

> Sounds like, if he has Homeland Security expediting Warehouse requests
> to Streakwave, he is now riding the Government express train.   I suspect
> that he's going to get his stuff, and more, shipped even faster.  Let's
> hope!!!
>
> On 9/30/17 7:46 AM, George Skorup wrote:
>
>> I sent Gino a PacketFlux generator control board earlier this year,
>> or last, I forget. Had to fill out customs docs. Can't remember if it was
>> UPS or FedEx. We called and the rep was like, yeah, you gotta do that.
>> That's some stupid ass shit.
>>
>> On 9/30/2017 9:32 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>>
>>> Confiscated.ï¿1Ž2 Hmmm.ï¿1Ž2 What justification could they have for
>>> that.
>>> ï¿1Ž2
>>> *From:* Gino A. Villarini
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, September 30, 2017 4:28 AM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME
>>> ï¿1Ž2
>>> So I had all my gear staged and ready to be picked up today and
>>> delivered tomorrow, only to find out that all FEDEX and UPS flights to 
>>> PR
>>> were confiscated by feds..ï¿1Ž2 1 step fwd, 3 backï¿1Ž2
>>>
>>> *//*ï¿1Ž2
>>>
>>> */Gino A. Villarini/*
>>>
>>> President
>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)

[Mike Hammett]

The new one has a beamforming antenna with more gain. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Stefan Englhardt"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Sunday, October 1, 2017 5:57:03 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector) 

The ptmp-sector has very low gain compared to the ptp product. So cpes have to 
be very close. Hard to find more than 8 clients this near ... 

> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- 
> Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von fiber...@mail.com 
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 1. Oktober 2017 09:22 
> An: af@afmug.com 
> Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector) 
> 
> Ignitenet uses 2 Ghz channels, so there are only three channels available, 
> but a 
> vendor representative has stated that you can reuse frequencies in an ABAB 
> pattern. Of note is that even if it has 16 beams of 10 degrees, it can only 
> support 8 clients. It's unclear whether a later upgrade to 32 clients 
> requires 
> new hardware or not. The 2.5G bandwidth is aggregate, so you cannot do 
> more than 1G symmetrical. Asymmetric speeds are supported. 
> 
> 
> Website and datasheet: 
> https://www.ignitenet.com/products/ml-2-5g-60-bf-sector/ 
> https://www.ignitenet.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/MetroLinq-2.5G-60- 
> BF-sector-datasheet.pdf 
> 
> Jared 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017 
> From: "Ryan Ray"  
> To: "af@afmug.com"  
> Subject: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector) 
> 
> Searched around and didn't see anyone talking about these. Do they work? 
> Can I put three of these up channels 2,3,4 and have 360 degree gigabit 
> coverage in 60GHz? Any gotcha's I need to know? Does frequency reuse work? 
> Same range as the existing point to point model? 
> 
> So many applications if this is all the case. 

Re: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)

[Brett A Mansfield]

They are 2000MHz wide channels, but there 4 channels, not 3. 

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

> On Oct 1, 2017, at 1:21 AM, fiber...@mail.com wrote:
> 
> Ignitenet uses 2 Ghz channels, so there are only three channels available, 
> but a vendor representative has stated that you can reuse frequencies in an 
> ABAB pattern. Of note is that even if it has 16 beams of 10 degrees, it can 
> only support 8 clients. It's unclear whether a later upgrade to 32 clients 
> requires new hardware or not. The 2.5G bandwidth is aggregate, so you cannot 
> do more than 1G symmetrical. Asymmetric speeds are supported. 
> 
> 
> Website and datasheet:
> https://www.ignitenet.com/products/ml-2-5g-60-bf-sector/
> https://www.ignitenet.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/MetroLinq-2.5G-60-BF-sector-datasheet.pdf
> 
> Jared
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017
> From: "Ryan Ray" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)
> 
> Searched around and didn't see anyone talking about these. Do they work? Can 
> I put three of these up channels 2,3,4 and have 360 degree gigabit coverage 
> in 60GHz? Any gotcha's I need to know? Does frequency reuse work? Same range 
> as the existing point to point model?
>  
> So many applications if this is all the case. 

Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

[Gino A. Villarini]

Going to AK you fly over Canada, do you fill paperwork for that?

From: Af > on behalf of 
Mathew Howard >
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>
Date: Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 5:56 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

I don't know... I've never heard of having to deal with any kind customs stuff 
going to AK or HI, but I also haven't ever sent anything to either state that 
wasn't through the USPS.

Lewis is probably right that it's mainly about collecting import duties. It 
could also have to do with the fact that there are other countries between the 
US mainland and PR, which isn't the case for Hawaii.




Gino A. Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Mike Hammett 
> wrote:
Is it different than Hawaii or Alaska than it is for PR?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]




From: "Mathew Howard" >
To: "af" >
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2017 1:31:53 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

I thought both Fedex and UPS had to go through customs to get into Puerto 
Rico... USPS doesn't though.

It seems like if it's a direct flight from the USA to another part of the USA 
you shouldn't have to mess with that stuff, even if it is going over 
international waters, but apparently that's not the case.

On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
It traverses international waters

On Sep 30, 2017 9:59 AM, "Chuck McCown" 
> wrote:
We have had similar issues with UPS to PR.  FedEx is not a problem.

From: Jaime Solorza
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2017 8:56 AM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME

Shipping to other countries, this is common...last I heard, Puerto Rico is part 
of USA...

On Sep 30, 2017 8:53 AM, "Robert"  wrote:
Sounds like, if he has Homeland Security expediting Warehouse requests to 
Streakwave, he is now riding the Government express train.   I suspect that 
he's going to get his stuff, and more, shipped even faster.  Let's hope!!!

On 9/30/17 7:46 AM, George Skorup wrote:
I sent Gino a PacketFlux generator control board earlier this year, or last, I 
forget. Had to fill out customs docs. Can't remember if it was UPS or FedEx. We 
called and the rep was like, yeah, you gotta do that. That's some stupid ass 
shit.

On 9/30/2017 9:32 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Confiscated.ï¿1Ž2 Hmmm.ï¿1Ž2 What justification could they have for that.
ï¿1Ž2
*From:* Gino A. Villarini
*Sent:* Saturday, September 30, 2017 4:28 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] THANKS FEDS FOR SCREWING ME
ï¿1Ž2
So I had all my gear staged and ready to be picked up today and delivered 
tomorrow, only to find out that all FEDEX and UPS flights to PR were 
confiscated by feds..ï¿1Ž2 1 step fwd, 3 backï¿1Ž2

*//*ï¿1Ž2

*/Gino A. Villarini/*

President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

Re: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)

[Stefan Englhardt]

The ptmp-sector has very low gain compared to the ptp product. So cpes have to 
be very close. Hard to find more than 8 clients this near ...

> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von fiber...@mail.com
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 1. Oktober 2017 09:22
> An: af@afmug.com
> Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)
> 
> Ignitenet uses 2 Ghz channels, so there are only three channels available, 
> but a
> vendor representative has stated that you can reuse frequencies in an ABAB
> pattern. Of note is that even if it has 16 beams of 10 degrees, it can only
> support 8 clients. It's unclear whether a later upgrade to 32 clients requires
> new hardware or not. The 2.5G bandwidth is aggregate, so you cannot do
> more than 1G symmetrical. Asymmetric speeds are supported.
> 
> 
> Website and datasheet:
> https://www.ignitenet.com/products/ml-2-5g-60-bf-sector/
> https://www.ignitenet.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/MetroLinq-2.5G-60-
> BF-sector-datasheet.pdf
> 
> Jared
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017
> From: "Ryan Ray" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)
> 
> Searched around and didn't see anyone talking about these. Do they work?
> Can I put three of these up channels 2,3,4 and have 360 degree gigabit
> coverage in 60GHz? Any gotcha's I need to know? Does frequency reuse work?
> Same range as the existing point to point model?
> 
> So many applications if this is all the case.

Re: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)

[fiberrun]

Ignitenet uses 2 Ghz channels, so there are only three channels available, but 
a vendor representative has stated that you can reuse frequencies in an ABAB 
pattern. Of note is that even if it has 16 beams of 10 degrees, it can only 
support 8 clients. It's unclear whether a later upgrade to 32 clients requires 
new hardware or not. The 2.5G bandwidth is aggregate, so you cannot do more 
than 1G symmetrical. Asymmetric speeds are supported. 


Website and datasheet:
https://www.ignitenet.com/products/ml-2-5g-60-bf-sector/
https://www.ignitenet.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/MetroLinq-2.5G-60-BF-sector-datasheet.pdf

Jared


 

Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017
From: "Ryan Ray" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: [AFMUG] MetroLinq 2.5G 60-BF-18 (120 Degree Sector)

Searched around and didn't see anyone talking about these. Do they work? Can I 
put three of these up channels 2,3,4 and have 360 degree gigabit coverage in 
60GHz? Any gotcha's I need to know? Does frequency reuse work? Same range as 
the existing point to point model?
 
So many applications if this is all the case.