Re: [AFMUG] WaveWorks

[Matt Hoppes]

This person doesn't run white label VoIP do they?

> On Oct 27, 2017, at 01:06, Steve D  wrote:
> 
> This is the same outfit/person that spammed people to say that DoubleRadius 
> was shutting down and moving to his store.  Then this summer this same 
> douchenugget (with his personal email) spammed the Ubiquiti list with 
> profanity because WISPA mailserver started accidentally emailing everyone in 
> WISPA.
> 
> Classy guy still being classy.
> 
> -Steve D
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>> Agreed.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Sean Heskett" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:57:14 PM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] WaveWorks
>> 
>> 
>> Hey WaveWorks STOP MINING THE LIST EMAILS!!  
>> 
>> I’m not going to follow you on Facebook (mostly because I don’t have an 
>> account with the book of face).  But still it’s rude to scape email 
>> addresses to spam us.
>> 
>> /rant
>> 
>> -Sean
>> 
>> 
> 

[AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Paul McCall]

We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with 3ft 
dishes on each end,  that doesn't have enough BW for us long term, as we are 
going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.

I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty consistently and 
if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.  Sooo, I am looking for 
alternatives.   Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so a solution that 
favored that would be acceptable.

Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a "parallel path" a few miles south 
to do the same on very soon.  Something that could use the same dishes from the 
SAF would be good also.

I have some undeployed Mimosa B11's that we bought for a project and are still 
waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or maybe AF-11X 
or multiples thereof.  I might as well plan for the future since this is a 
"main artery" link.  We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels available to license.

Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !

Paul

Paul McCall, President
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800
pa...@pdmnet.net
www.pdmnet.com
www.floridabroadband.com

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Stefan Englhardt]

SAF again. Very stable HW.

 

We have done a NEC 18GHz Link recently as SAF had not enough TX-Power to get
2048QAM at 10km using 2ft dishes. Runs very reliable and is well built, too.
I dont like 3ft dishes as they get a lot windload and handling/alignment is
more difficult.

 

AF-11x got some SW Updates recently but still seems a bit of "cheap built"
for a licensed link.  But if there are backup links it might be
considerable. Cheap enough to keep spare parts.

 

 

 

Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Paul McCall
Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Oktober 2017 13:52
An: af@afmug.com
Betreff: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

 

We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with 3ft
dishes on each end,  that doesn't have enough BW for us long term, as we are
going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.  

 

I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty consistently
and if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.  Sooo, I am looking for
alternatives.   Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so a solution that
favored that would be acceptable.

 

Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a "parallel path" a few miles
south to do the same on very soon.  Something that could use the same dishes
from the SAF would be good also.

 

I have some undeployed Mimosa B11's that we bought for a project and are
still waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or
maybe AF-11X or multiples thereof.  I might as well plan for the future
since this is a "main artery" link.  We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels
available to license.

 

Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !

 

Paul

 

Paul McCall, President

PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.

658 Old Dixie Highway

Vero Beach, FL 32962

772-564-6800  

pa...@pdmnet.net  

www.pdmnet.com  

www.floridabroadband.com  

 

 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Lewis Bergman]

Depending on the split you need, I could get you some very aggressively
priced 11G SAF Lumina that are used, working when taken down, With dishes
or without. All you would have to do is buy the 1+1 mount or LACP them.
That would double your capacity and hopefully at least get you through a
deployed FTTH where replacement is pushed down the road. When you have to
replace it the money is there to do it.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:23 AM Stefan Englhardt  wrote:

> SAF again. Very stable HW.
>
>
>
> We have done a NEC 18GHz Link recently as SAF had not enough TX-Power to
> get 2048QAM at 10km using 2ft dishes. Runs very reliable and is well built,
> too. I dont like 3ft dishes as they get a lot windload and
> handling/alignment is more difficult.
>
>
>
> AF-11x got some SW Updates recently but still seems a bit of „cheap built“
> for a licensed link.  But if there are backup links it might be
> considerable. Cheap enough to keep spare parts.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *Paul McCall
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 27. Oktober 2017 13:52
> *An:* af@afmug.com
> *Betreff:* [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
>
>
>
> We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with 3ft
> dishes on each end,  that doesn’t have enough BW for us long term, as we
> are going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.
>
>
>
> I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty
> consistently and if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.  Sooo, I am
> looking for alternatives.   Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so a
> solution that favored that would be acceptable.
>
>
>
> Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a “parallel path” a few miles
> south to do the same on very soon.  Something that could use the same
> dishes from the SAF would be good also.
>
>
>
> I have some undeployed Mimosa B11’s that we bought for a project and are
> still waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or
> maybe AF-11X or multiples thereof.  I might as well plan for the future
> since this is a “main artery” link.  We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels
> available to license.
>
>
>
> Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul McCall, President
>
> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
>
> 658 Old Dixie Highway
> 
>
> Vero Beach, FL 32962
> 
>
> 772-564-6800 <(772)%20564-6800>
>
> pa...@pdmnet.net
>
> www.pdmnet.com
>
> www.floridabroadband.com
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mathew Howard]

B11's are going to get you the most capacity for the least amount of money,
but don't expect them to be as stable as the SAF link. I've been pretty
happy with our AF-11FX link, but you're only going to get around double the
capacity you have now, and I don't know if there's currently a way to do
multiples on one dish... it might make more sense to do like Lewis
suggested and add a second Lumina.

There are lots of options for higher capacity licensed links, but they
start to get pricey.

You could probably get Chuck to make you some adapters to hook up just
about anything to the SAF dishes.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paul McCall  wrote:

> We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with 3ft
> dishes on each end,  that doesn’t have enough BW for us long term, as we
> are going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.
>
>
>
> I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty
> consistently and if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.  Sooo, I am
> looking for alternatives.   Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so a
> solution that favored that would be acceptable.
>
>
>
> Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a “parallel path” a few miles
> south to do the same on very soon.  Something that could use the same
> dishes from the SAF would be good also.
>
>
>
> I have some undeployed Mimosa B11’s that we bought for a project and are
> still waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or
> maybe AF-11X or multiples thereof.  I might as well plan for the future
> since this is a “main artery” link.  We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels
> available to license.
>
>
>
> Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul McCall, President
>
> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
>
> 658 Old Dixie Highway
> 
>
> Vero Beach, FL 32962
> 
>
> 772-564-6800 <(772)%20564-6800>
>
> pa...@pdmnet.net
>
> www.pdmnet.com
>
> www.floridabroadband.com
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Adam Moffett]

You could probably get Chuck to make you some adapters to hook up just 
about anything to the SAF dishes.



If you're talking 2 or 3 footers, that might cost more than new dishes.

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mathew Howard]

It might (I really have no idea), but considering the labor costs to
remount and re-align them, it could still be cheaper overall anyway.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

>
> You could probably get Chuck to make you some adapters to hook up just
> about anything to the SAF dishes.
>
> If you're talking 2 or 3 footers, that might cost more than new dishes.
>

Re: [AFMUG] WaveWorks

[chuck]

Oh, I remember that.  What a hoot.  

From: Steve D 
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:06 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WaveWorks

This is the same outfit/person that spammed people to say that DoubleRadius was 
shutting down and moving to his store.  Then this summer this same douchenugget 
(with his personal email) spammed the Ubiquiti list with profanity because 
WISPA mailserver started accidentally emailing everyone in WISPA. 

Classy guy still being classy.

-Steve D

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

  Agreed.




  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions

  Midwest Internet Exchange

  The Brothers WISP






--

  From: "Sean Heskett" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:57:14 PM
  Subject: [AFMUG] WaveWorks 



  Hey WaveWorks STOP MINING THE LIST EMAILS!!  

  I’m not going to follow you on Facebook (mostly because I don’t have an 
account with the book of face).  But still it’s rude to scape email addresses 
to spam us.

  /rant

  -Sean

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[chuck]

Yeah, I have completed the Remec adapter and I have the info needed for SAF and 
all the others.  

The hold up has been the rubber boot for the cable that attaches to the radio.  
UBNT has supplied me a small amount.
They might supply more quantity in the future.  I can mold my own if I have to. 
 

Right now I am working on getting a quantity for Gino.  


From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 8:32 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link


  You could probably get Chuck to make you some adapters to hook up just about 
anything to the SAF dishes.


If you're talking 2 or 3 footers, that might cost more than new dishes.

[AFMUG] OT Netflix movie review

[chuck]

Really enjoyed this movie:
“Es por tu bien”

Light comedy. 

(N.B. This is NOT “E tu mama tambien”.  )

Re: [AFMUG] OT Netflix movie review

[Jaime Solorza]

Ha...in our culture, mom snides are fighting words..common one..."la
tuya!!"

On Oct 27, 2017 9:22 AM,  wrote:

> Really enjoyed this movie:
> “Es por tu bien”
>
> Light comedy.
>
> (N.B. This is NOT “E tu mama tambien”.  )
>

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[George Skorup]

I have exactly 1 SAF Lumina link, 6GHz at 30 miles, that does ~360Mbps 
(56MHz/256QAM weak-FEC ACM). I have fiber on both sides of this link, so 
the full-duplex is needed. And even if it wasn't, I'd still want it for 
the sub-millisecond latency, and rain fades on other paths causing 
traffic reversal. We'll probably end up upgrading that to an IP20/PTP820 
within the next year or so.


So when you say 270Mbps... is that a 40 or 80MHz (56 usable) channel? 
But I thought 40MHz would yield ~250Mbps on a Lumina? Anyway... if it's 
40, can you re-coordinate for 80? I'd also agree with what others have 
said, get another set and do 2+0 since you want to keep the same 
antennas. I'm sure you can still find an OMC or whatever SAF calls it.


On 10/27/2017 6:51 AM, Paul McCall wrote:


We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with 
3ft dishes on each end, �that doesn�t have enough BW for us long term, 
as we are going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.


I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty 
consistently and if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.� Sooo, 
I am looking for alternatives.�� Its mainly one-way traffic of course, 
so a solution that favored that would be acceptable.


Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a �parallel path� a few 
miles south to do the same on very soon.� Something that could use the 
same dishes from the SAF would be good also.


I have some undeployed Mimosa B11�s that we bought for a project and 
are still waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use 
those, or maybe AF-11X or multiples thereof.� I might as well plan for 
the future since this is a �main artery� link.� We have sufficient 11 
Ghz channels available to license.


Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !

Paul

Paul McCall, President

PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.

658 Old Dixie Highway

Vero Beach, FL 32962

772-564-6800

pa...@pdmnet.net 

www.pdmnet.com 

www.floridabroadband.com 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Rory Conaway]

Matthew, what are you talking about, “not as stable”.  I’ve got several links 
up, one at 50 miles, that runs multiple hotels and food venues, most of which 
have VoIP and I’ve had zero issues for over a year.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 7:31 AM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

B11's are going to get you the most capacity for the least amount of money, but 
don't expect them to be as stable as the SAF link. I've been pretty happy with 
our AF-11FX link, but you're only going to get around double the capacity you 
have now, and I don't know if there's currently a way to do multiples on one 
dish... it might make more sense to do like Lewis suggested and add a second 
Lumina.
There are lots of options for higher capacity licensed links, but they start to 
get pricey.
You could probably get Chuck to make you some adapters to hook up just about 
anything to the SAF dishes.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paul McCall 
mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> wrote:
We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with 3ft 
dishes on each end,  that doesn’t have enough BW for us long term, as we are 
going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.

I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty consistently and 
if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.  Sooo, I am looking for 
alternatives.   Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so a solution that 
favored that would be acceptable.

Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a “parallel path” a few miles south 
to do the same on very soon.  Something that could use the same dishes from the 
SAF would be good also.

I have some undeployed Mimosa B11’s that we bought for a project and are still 
waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or maybe AF-11X 
or multiples thereof.  I might as well plan for the future since this is a 
“main artery” link.  We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels available to license.

Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !

Paul

Paul McCall, President
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
658 Old Dixie 
Highway
Vero Beach, FL 
32962
772-564-6800
pa...@pdmnet.net
www.pdmnet.com
www.floridabroadband.com

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mathew Howard]

I'm talking about things like the fact that think link uptime on one of our
B11 links is currently 1d 21h... despite the fact that there's absolutely
no reason that it should've dropped that I can find. On the other hand, our
other B11 link has an uptime of 216days (which was probably when one of the
radios was rebooted), but now when I was just checking it, the modulation
is stuck at 390 /1300 (PHY), for no apparent reason. It could be that there
are reasons for these things, which I just haven't figured out yet, but my
experience with SAF has been that you put it up and it does exactly what
you expect it to do... and you don't need to touch it for another 5 years.

I'm not saying the B11 is a bad radio, by any means, I'm just saying it
isn't the same as a SAF.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Rory Conaway 
wrote:

> Matthew, what are you talking about, “not as stable”.  I’ve got several
> links up, one at 50 miles, that runs multiple hotels and food venues, most
> of which have VoIP and I’ve had zero issues for over a year.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 7:31 AM
> *To:* af
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
>
>
>
> B11's are going to get you the most capacity for the least amount of
> money, but don't expect them to be as stable as the SAF link. I've been
> pretty happy with our AF-11FX link, but you're only going to get around
> double the capacity you have now, and I don't know if there's currently a
> way to do multiples on one dish... it might make more sense to do like
> Lewis suggested and add a second Lumina.
>
> There are lots of options for higher capacity licensed links, but they
> start to get pricey.
>
> You could probably get Chuck to make you some adapters to hook up just
> about anything to the SAF dishes.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paul McCall  wrote:
>
> We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with 3ft
> dishes on each end,  that doesn’t have enough BW for us long term, as we
> are going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.
>
>
>
> I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty
> consistently and if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.  Sooo, I am
> looking for alternatives.   Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so a
> solution that favored that would be acceptable.
>
>
>
> Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a “parallel path” a few miles
> south to do the same on very soon.  Something that could use the same
> dishes from the SAF would be good also.
>
>
>
> I have some undeployed Mimosa B11’s that we bought for a project and are
> still waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or
> maybe AF-11X or multiples thereof.  I might as well plan for the future
> since this is a “main artery” link.  We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels
> available to license.
>
>
>
> Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul McCall, President
>
> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
>
> 658 Old Dixie Highway
> 
>
> Vero Beach, FL 32962
> 
>
> 772-564-6800 <(772)%20564-6800>
>
> pa...@pdmnet.net
>
> www.pdmnet.com
>
> www.floridabroadband.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] WaveWorks

[Mitch Koep]

WOW

Just called WaveWorks to ask them to stop spamming

I got Bye Bye and he hung up

Interesting business tactic makes one wonder about customer support

and products

Maybe we should all avoid them and pass it on to contacts

Mitch


On 10/27/2017 10:16 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

Oh, I remember that.  What a hoot.
*From:* Steve D
*Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:06 PM
*To:* af
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] WaveWorks
This is the same outfit/person that spammed people to say that 
DoubleRadius was shutting down and moving to his store.  Then this 
summer this same douchenugget (with his personal email) spammed the 
Ubiquiti list with profanity because WISPA mailserver started 
accidentally emailing everyone in WISPA.

Classy guy still being classy.
-Steve D
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

Agreed.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Sean Heskett" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:57:14 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] WaveWorks


Hey WaveWorks STOP MINING THE LIST EMAILS!!
I’m not going to follow you on Facebook (mostly because I don’t
have an account with the book of face).  But still it’s rude to
scape email addresses to spam us.
/rant
-Sean

Re: [AFMUG] WaveWorks

[Mitch Koep]

Sir,

I am not WISPA???

Mitch


On 10/27/2017 12:14 PM, Paul Pazzaglini wrote:


WISPA,


How hypocritical are you? Your organization has been spamming me for a 
long time. I tried to get off your list and keep sending this same 
spam. Take me off your list.



WaveWorks




*From:* Mitch Koep 
*Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 1:10 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com; WISPA General List; Paul Pazzaglini
*Subject:* Re: WaveWorks

WOW

Just called WaveWorks to ask them to stop spamming

I got Bye Bye and he hung up

Interesting business tactic makes one wonder about customer support

and products

Maybe we should all avoid them and pass it on to contacts

Mitch


On 10/27/2017 10:16 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

Oh, I remember that.� What a hoot.
*From:* Steve D
*Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:06 PM
*To:* af
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] WaveWorks
This is the same outfit/person that spammed people to say that 
DoubleRadius was shutting down and moving to his store.� Then this 
summer this same douchenugget (with his personal email) spammed the 
Ubiquiti list with profanity because WISPA mailserver started 
accidentally emailing everyone in WISPA.

Classy guy still being classy.
-Steve D
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

Agreed.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Sean Heskett" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:57:14 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] WaveWorks


Hey WaveWorks STOP MINING THE LIST EMAILS!!
I�m not going to follow you on Facebook (mostly because I don�t
have an account with the book of face).� But still it�s rude to
scape email addresses to spam us.
/rant
-Sean

Re: [AFMUG] WaveWorks

[Adam Moffett]

Is it better not to feed the troll?

-- Original Message --
From: "Mitch Koep" 
To: "Paul Pazzaglini" ; "af@afmug.com" ; 
"WISPA General List" 

Sent: 10/27/2017 1:17:18 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WaveWorks


Sir,

I am not WISPA???

Mitch


On 10/27/2017 12:14 PM, Paul Pazzaglini wrote:

WISPA,



How hypocritical are you? Your organization has been spamming me for a 
long time. I tried to get off your list and keep sending this same 
spam. Take me off your list.




WaveWorks




From: Mitch Koep  
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 1:10 PM
To:af@afmug.com; WISPA General List; Paul Pazzaglini
Subject: Re: WaveWorks
�
WOW

Just called WaveWorks to ask them to stop spamming

I got Bye Bye and he hung up

Interesting business tactic makes one wonder about customer support

and products

Maybe we should all avoid them and pass it on to contacts

Mitch


On 10/27/2017 10:16 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com  
wrote:

Oh, I remember that.� What a hoot.�
�
From:Steve D
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:06 PM
To:af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WaveWorks
�
This is the same outfit/person that spammed people to say that 
DoubleRadius was shutting down and moving to his store.� Then this 
summer this same douchenugget (with his personal email) spammed the 
Ubiquiti list with profanity because WISPA mailserver started 
accidentally emailing everyone in WISPA.

�
Classy guy still being classy.
�
-Steve D
�
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Mike Hammett  
wrote:

Agreed.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
 
 
 


Midwest Internet Exchange 
 
 


The Brothers WISP 





From: "Sean Heskett" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:57:14 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] WaveWorks


Hey WaveWorks STOP MINING THE LIST EMAILS!!�
�
I�m not going to follow you on Facebook (mostly because I don�t 
have an account with the book of face).� But still it�s rude to 
scape email addresses to spam us.

�
/rant
�
-Sean
�
�

�

Re: [AFMUG] WaveWorks

[chuck]

I love feeding trolls.

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 11:32 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WaveWorks

Is it better not to feed the troll?

-- Original Message --
From: "Mitch Koep" 
To: "Paul Pazzaglini" ; "af@afmug.com" ; "WISPA 
General List" 
Sent: 10/27/2017 1:17:18 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WaveWorks

  Sir,

  I am not WISPA???

  Mitch




  On 10/27/2017 12:14 PM, Paul Pazzaglini wrote:

WISPA,



How hypocritical are you? Your organization has been spamming me for a long 
time. I tried to get off your list and keep sending this same spam. Take me off 
your list.



WaveWorks







From: Mitch Koep mailto:af...@abwisp.com
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 1:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com; WISPA General List; Paul Pazzaglini
Subject: Re: WaveWorks 
�
WOW

Just called WaveWorks to ask them to stop spamming 


I got Bye Bye and he hung up

Interesting business tactic makes one wonder about customer support

and products


Maybe we should all avoid them and pass it on to contacts


Mitch




On 10/27/2017 10:16 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

  Oh, I remember that.� What a hoot.� 
  �
  From: Steve D 
  Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:06 PM
  To: af 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WaveWorks
  �
  This is the same outfit/person that spammed people to say that 
DoubleRadius was shutting down and moving to his store.� Then this summer 
this same douchenugget (with his personal email) spammed the Ubiquiti list with 
profanity because WISPA mailserver started accidentally emailing everyone in 
WISPA. 
  �
  Classy guy still being classy.
  �
  -Steve D
  �
  On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

Agreed.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Sean Heskett" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:57:14 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] WaveWorks 



Hey WaveWorks STOP MINING THE LIST EMAILS!!� 
�
I�m not going to follow you on Facebook (mostly because I don�t 
have an account with the book of face).� But still it�s rude to scape email 
addresses to spam us.
�
/rant
�
-Sean
�
�
  �

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Gino A. Villarini]

Problem with B11 is hat they are hex and would give you half of what you get on 
your current SAF license.  If you can get more channels, then you are ok

From: Af mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of 
Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Friday, October 27, 2017 at 10:30 AM
To: "af@afmug.com" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

B11's are going to get you the most capacity for the least amount of money, but 
don't expect them to be as stable as the SAF link. I've been pretty happy with 
our AF-11FX link, but you're only going to get around double the capacity you 
have now, and I don't know if there's currently a way to do multiples on one 
dish... it might make more sense to do like Lewis suggested and add a second 
Lumina.

There are lots of options for higher capacity licensed links, but they start to 
get pricey.

You could probably get Chuck to make you some adapters to hook up just about 
anything to the SAF dishes.




Gino A. Villarini


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

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

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paul McCall 
mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> wrote:
We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with 3ft 
dishes on each end,  that doesn’t have enough BW for us long term, as we are 
going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.

I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty consistently and 
if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.  Sooo, I am looking for 
alternatives.   Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so a solution that 
favored that would be acceptable.

Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a “parallel path” a few miles south 
to do the same on very soon.  Something that could use the same dishes from the 
SAF would be good also.

I have some undeployed Mimosa B11’s that we bought for a project and are still 
waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or maybe AF-11X 
or multiples thereof.  I might as well plan for the future since this is a 
“main artery” link.  We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels available to license.

Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !

Paul

Paul McCall, President
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
658 Old Dixie 
Highway
Vero Beach, FL 
32962
772-564-6800
pa...@pdmnet.net
www.pdmnet.com
www.floridabroadband.com

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Steve Jones]

dont go from saf to mimosa, just dont

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Mathew Howard 
wrote:

> I'm talking about things like the fact that think link uptime on one of
> our B11 links is currently 1d 21h... despite the fact that there's
> absolutely no reason that it should've dropped that I can find. On the
> other hand, our other B11 link has an uptime of 216days (which was probably
> when one of the radios was rebooted), but now when I was just checking it,
> the modulation is stuck at 390 /1300 (PHY), for no apparent reason. It
> could be that there are reasons for these things, which I just haven't
> figured out yet, but my experience with SAF has been that you put it up and
> it does exactly what you expect it to do... and you don't need to touch it
> for another 5 years.
>
> I'm not saying the B11 is a bad radio, by any means, I'm just saying it
> isn't the same as a SAF.
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
>
>> Matthew, what are you talking about, “not as stable”.  I’ve got several
>> links up, one at 50 miles, that runs multiple hotels and food venues, most
>> of which have VoIP and I’ve had zero issues for over a year.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
>> *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 7:31 AM
>> *To:* af
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina
>> link
>>
>>
>>
>> B11's are going to get you the most capacity for the least amount of
>> money, but don't expect them to be as stable as the SAF link. I've been
>> pretty happy with our AF-11FX link, but you're only going to get around
>> double the capacity you have now, and I don't know if there's currently a
>> way to do multiples on one dish... it might make more sense to do like
>> Lewis suggested and add a second Lumina.
>>
>> There are lots of options for higher capacity licensed links, but they
>> start to get pricey.
>>
>> You could probably get Chuck to make you some adapters to hook up just
>> about anything to the SAF dishes.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paul McCall  wrote:
>>
>> We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with
>> 3ft dishes on each end,  that doesn’t have enough BW for us long term, as
>> we are going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.
>>
>>
>>
>> I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty
>> consistently and if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.  Sooo, I am
>> looking for alternatives.   Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so a
>> solution that favored that would be acceptable.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a “parallel path” a few miles
>> south to do the same on very soon.  Something that could use the same
>> dishes from the SAF would be good also.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have some undeployed Mimosa B11’s that we bought for a project and are
>> still waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or
>> maybe AF-11X or multiples thereof.  I might as well plan for the future
>> since this is a “main artery” link.  We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels
>> available to license.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul McCall, President
>>
>> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
>>
>> 658 Old Dixie Highway
>> 
>>
>> Vero Beach, FL 32962
>> 
>>
>> 772-564-6800 <(772)%20564-6800>
>>
>> pa...@pdmnet.net
>>
>> www.pdmnet.com
>>
>> www.floridabroadband.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Paul McCall]

When I say 270Mb, it means the modulation is on the edge with 3ft dishes which 
was a conscious design suggestion / decision 4 years ago because of the extra 
tower cost and wind load.

I thought the Luminas (at least the ones I have) can only do 56Mhz or 
something, as opposed to the new ones that can do the full 80 mhz?   If I had a 
Lumina where I can jump up the channel size, that would be ideal, another 30% 
throughput.  Couple that with another link on the same antenna would be hippie 
skippy 😊

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 11:51 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

I have exactly 1 SAF Lumina link, 6GHz at 30 miles, that does ~360Mbps 
(56MHz/256QAM weak-FEC ACM). I have fiber on both sides of this link, so the 
full-duplex is needed. And even if it wasn't, I'd still want it for the 
sub-millisecond latency, and rain fades on other paths causing traffic 
reversal. We'll probably end up upgrading that to an IP20/PTP820 within the 
next year or so.

So when you say 270Mbps... is that a 40 or 80MHz (56 usable) channel? But I 
thought 40MHz would yield ~250Mbps on a Lumina? Anyway... if it's 40, can you 
re-coordinate for 80? I'd also agree with what others have said, get another 
set and do 2+0 since you want to keep the same antennas. I'm sure you can still 
find an OMC or whatever SAF calls it.
On 10/27/2017 6:51 AM, Paul McCall wrote:
We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with 3ft 
dishes on each end, �that doesn�t have enough BW for us long term, as we 
are going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.�
�
I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty consistently and 
if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.� Sooo, I am looking for 
alternatives.�� Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so a solution that 
favored that would be acceptable.
�
Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a �parallel path� a few miles 
south to do the same on very soon.� Something that could use the same dishes 
from the SAF would be good also.
�
I have some undeployed Mimosa B11�s that we bought for a project and are 
still waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or maybe 
AF-11X or multiples thereof.� I might as well plan for the future since this 
is a �main artery� link.� We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels available to 
license.
�
Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !
�
Paul
�
Paul McCall, President
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800�
pa...@pdmnet.net
www.pdmnet.com
www.floridabroadband.com
�
�

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mathew Howard]

The Lumina can only do 56mhz... if that's what you're using, it's all
you'll get out of it. I think you'd have to go to the Integra to get the
full 80mhz with SAF.

There are some pretty cheap radios out there now though that can use a full
80mhz. If I remember right, Alcoma and Cablefree both will sell links for
somewhere around $4k that will do about 650Mbps on an 80mhz channel... but
I have no experience with either one, other than that I got pricing from
them both at one point. I think there are some others out there for similar
prices as well.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Paul McCall  wrote:

> When I say 270Mb, it means the modulation is on the edge with 3ft dishes
> which was a conscious design suggestion / decision 4 years ago because of
> the extra tower cost and wind load.
>
>
>
> I thought the Luminas (at least the ones I have) can only do 56Mhz or
> something, as opposed to the new ones that can do the full 80 mhz?   If I
> had a Lumina where I can jump up the channel size, that would be ideal,
> another 30% throughput.  Couple that with another link on the same antenna
> would be hippie skippy 😊
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup
> *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 11:51 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
>
>
>
> I have exactly 1 SAF Lumina link, 6GHz at 30 miles, that does ~360Mbps
> (56MHz/256QAM weak-FEC ACM). I have fiber on both sides of this link, so
> the full-duplex is needed. And even if it wasn't, I'd still want it for the
> sub-millisecond latency, and rain fades on other paths causing traffic
> reversal. We'll probably end up upgrading that to an IP20/PTP820 within the
> next year or so.
>
> So when you say 270Mbps... is that a 40 or 80MHz (56 usable) channel? But
> I thought 40MHz would yield ~250Mbps on a Lumina? Anyway... if it's 40, can
> you re-coordinate for 80? I'd also agree with what others have said, get
> another set and do 2+0 since you want to keep the same antennas. I'm sure
> you can still find an OMC or whatever SAF calls it.
>
> On 10/27/2017 6:51 AM, Paul McCall wrote:
>
> We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with 3ft
> dishes on each end, �that doesn�t have enough BW for us long term, as
> we are going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.�
>
> �
>
> I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty
> consistently and if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.� Sooo, I
> am looking for alternatives.�� Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so
> a solution that favored that would be acceptable.
>
> �
>
> Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a �parallel path� a few
> miles south to do the same on very soon.� Something that could use the
> same dishes from the SAF would be good also.
>
> �
>
> I have some undeployed Mimosa B11�s that we bought for a project and are
> still waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or
> maybe AF-11X or multiples thereof.� I might as well plan for the future
> since this is a �main artery� link.� We have sufficient 11 Ghz
> channels available to license.
>
> �
>
> Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !
>
> �
>
> Paul
>
> �
>
> Paul McCall, President
>
> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
>
> 658 Old Dixie Highway
> 
>
> Vero Beach, FL 32962
> 
>
> 772
> -564-6800�
>
>
> pa...@pdmnet.net
>
> www.pdmnet.com
>
> www.floridabroadband.com
>
> �
>
> �
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Unbound DNS server with Raspberry Pi

[Steve Jones]

is there a tool thats good for generating those kinds of graphs in bind?
and is there a rule of thumb on queries/sec per #subs that is expected?

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Graham McIntire  wrote:

> We run our primary resolvers on Raspberry Pis with unbound. I routinely
> test them against GRC's DNS benchmark test https://www.grc.com/dns/
> benchmark.htm and they come out significantly faster than any other
> server out of the entire list. Been using Pi2s for 2+ years now without a
> single hiccup and just upgraded them to pi3 this week.
>
> Here's some graphs to show how heavily they're used:
> http://g.vntx.net/a72a8dc4-4804-4fe0-b6d1-1cd279b4070e.png
>
> And the cpu usage for the same period:
> http://g.vntx.net/5e0b9e98-f774-4057-a1d0-2b37c15bde37.png
>
> Graham McIntire
> Verona Networks
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Matt  wrote:
>
>> I would used Centos 7. I had trouble with older unbound versions included
>> with centos and some newer domain extensions.  Installed epel on Centos
>> then PowerDNS.  Works great.  Used Pi for a bit, plenty power, but switched
>> to using a VM on Proxmox now.  I don't think anything that can run a modern
>> linux os is going to even notice a DNS server running.  They consume so few
>> resources even with thousands of users.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Darin Steffl 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Will the latest Raspberry Pi 3 model with quad-core processor be able to
>>> handle a significant DNS load with Unbound running on Linux? I can't seem
>>> to find much data out there showing what to expect for performance with
>>> different CPU and hardware options.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> --
>>> Darin Steffl
>>> Minnesota WiFi
>>> www.mnwifi.com
>>> 507-634-WiFi
>>>  Like us on Facebook
>>> 
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Unbound DNS server with Raspberry Pi

[Micah Miller]

Cacti w/Bind 9.7 template?

https://docs.cacti.net/usertemplate:host:bind9.7

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Steve Jones 
wrote:

> is there a tool thats good for generating those kinds of graphs in bind?
> and is there a rule of thumb on queries/sec per #subs that is expected?
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Graham McIntire  wrote:
>
>> We run our primary resolvers on Raspberry Pis with unbound. I routinely
>> test them against GRC's DNS benchmark test https://www.grc.com/dns/b
>> enchmark.htm and they come out significantly faster than any other
>> server out of the entire list. Been using Pi2s for 2+ years now without a
>> single hiccup and just upgraded them to pi3 this week.
>>
>> Here's some graphs to show how heavily they're used:
>> http://g.vntx.net/a72a8dc4-4804-4fe0-b6d1-1cd279b4070e.png
>>
>> And the cpu usage for the same period:
>> http://g.vntx.net/5e0b9e98-f774-4057-a1d0-2b37c15bde37.png
>>
>> Graham McIntire
>> Verona Networks
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Matt 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I would used Centos 7. I had trouble with older unbound versions
>>> included with centos and some newer domain extensions.  Installed epel on
>>> Centos then PowerDNS.  Works great.  Used Pi for a bit, plenty power, but
>>> switched to using a VM on Proxmox now.  I don't think anything that can run
>>> a modern linux os is going to even notice a DNS server running.  They
>>> consume so few resources even with thousands of users.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Darin Steffl 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hello,

 Will the latest Raspberry Pi 3 model with quad-core processor be able
 to handle a significant DNS load with Unbound running on Linux? I can't
 seem to find much data out there showing what to expect for performance
 with different CPU and hardware options.

 Thanks

 --
 Darin Steffl
 Minnesota WiFi
 www.mnwifi.com
 507-634-WiFi
  Like us on Facebook
 

>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
Micah Miller
Network/Server Administrator
Network Business Systems, Inc.
Phone: 309-944-8823

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Rory Conaway]

If you have a 40Mhz channel, the B11’s can pull 480Mbps+ depending on 
modulation rates.  If you have 80MHz channels, they can pull 1Gbps.  Seriously, 
if he has them in stock, why go buy more radios?   I’m not saying there aren’t 
different radios out there but I’ve made more money off of one link of B11’s in 
one year than the net worth of many of the smaller WISPS out there.  That being 
said, we finally hit their bandwidth limit on one link and we are upgrading to 
PTP820’s in 2 bands for redundancy and capacity.  But I wouldn’t have been able 
to afford the original installation of PTP820’s when we started this project.  
I still have several links up and haven’t had a single failure.  How is that a 
bad thing?

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 11:49 AM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

The Lumina can only do 56mhz... if that's what you're using, it's all you'll 
get out of it. I think you'd have to go to the Integra to get the full 80mhz 
with SAF.
There are some pretty cheap radios out there now though that can use a full 
80mhz. If I remember right, Alcoma and Cablefree both will sell links for 
somewhere around $4k that will do about 650Mbps on an 80mhz channel... but I 
have no experience with either one, other than that I got pricing from them 
both at one point. I think there are some others out there for similar prices 
as well.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Paul McCall 
mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> wrote:
When I say 270Mb, it means the modulation is on the edge with 3ft dishes which 
was a conscious design suggestion / decision 4 years ago because of the extra 
tower cost and wind load.

I thought the Luminas (at least the ones I have) can only do 56Mhz or 
something, as opposed to the new ones that can do the full 80 mhz?   If I had a 
Lumina where I can jump up the channel size, that would be ideal, another 30% 
throughput.  Couple that with another link on the same antenna would be hippie 
skippy 😊

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of George Skorup
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 11:51 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

I have exactly 1 SAF Lumina link, 6GHz at 30 miles, that does ~360Mbps 
(56MHz/256QAM weak-FEC ACM). I have fiber on both sides of this link, so the 
full-duplex is needed. And even if it wasn't, I'd still want it for the 
sub-millisecond latency, and rain fades on other paths causing traffic 
reversal. We'll probably end up upgrading that to an IP20/PTP820 within the 
next year or so.

So when you say 270Mbps... is that a 40 or 80MHz (56 usable) channel? But I 
thought 40MHz would yield ~250Mbps on a Lumina? Anyway... if it's 40, can you 
re-coordinate for 80? I'd also agree with what others have said, get another 
set and do 2+0 since you want to keep the same antennas. I'm sure you can still 
find an OMC or whatever SAF calls it.
On 10/27/2017 6:51 AM, Paul McCall wrote:
We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with 3ft 
dishes on each end, �that doesn�t have enough BW for us long term, as we 
are going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.�
�
I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty consistently and 
if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.� Sooo, I am looking for 
alternatives.�� Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so a solution that 
favored that would be acceptable.
�
Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a �parallel path� a few miles 
south to do the same on very soon.� Something that could use the same dishes 
from the SAF would be good also.
�
I have some undeployed Mimosa B11�s that we bought for a project and are 
still waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or maybe 
AF-11X or multiples thereof.� I might as well plan for the future since this 
is a �main artery� link.� We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels available to 
license.
�
Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !
�
Paul
�
Paul McCall, President
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
658 Old Dixie 
Highway
Vero Beach, FL 
32962
772-564-6800�
pa...@pdmnet.net
www.pdmnet.com
www.floridabroadband.com
�
�

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Bill Prince]

We had a Mimosa B11 link that was just a total PITA. Poor throughput, 
half duplex, losing the link, etc. We replaced it with an AF11X and it's 
running 650/650 full duplex, no drops. So maybe the B11 is a good 
product, but we won't buy any more.



bp


On 10/27/2017 8:51 AM, Rory Conaway wrote:


Matthew, what are you talking about, “not as stable”.  I’ve got 
several links up, one at 50 miles, that runs multiple hotels and food 
venues, most of which have VoIP and I’ve had zero issues for over a year.


Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
*Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 7:31 AM
*To:* af
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

B11's are going to get you the most capacity for the least amount of 
money, but don't expect them to be as stable as the SAF link. I've 
been pretty happy with our AF-11FX link, but you're only going to get 
around double the capacity you have now, and I don't know if there's 
currently a way to do multiples on one dish... it might make more 
sense to do like Lewis suggested and add a second Lumina.


There are lots of options for higher capacity licensed links, but they 
start to get pricey.


You could probably get Chuck to make you some adapters to hook up just 
about anything to the SAF dishes.


On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paul McCall > wrote:


We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with 
3ft dishes on each end,  that doesn’t have enough BW for us long term, 
as we are going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.


I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty 
consistently and if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.  Sooo, 
I am looking for alternatives.   Its mainly one-way traffic of course, 
so a solution that favored that would be acceptable.


Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a “parallel path” a few 
miles south to do the same on very soon. Something that could use the 
same dishes from the SAF would be good also.


I have some undeployed Mimosa B11’s that we bought for a project and 
are still waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use 
those, or maybe AF-11X or multiples thereof.  I might as well plan for 
the future since this is a “main artery” link.  We have sufficient 11 
Ghz channels available to license.


Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !

Paul

Paul McCall, President

PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.

658 Old Dixie Highway 



Vero Beach, FL 32962 



772-564-6800 

pa...@pdmnet.net 

www.pdmnet.com 

www.floridabroadband.com 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, that's the thing... there are several options that can do ~650Mbps
for about the same cost as a B11 (or significantly less, with the AF11FX),
but to get more than that gets expensive pretty quickly. That's where I see
the B11 as a good fit... it works in those places where you need lots of
bandwidth, but can't justify spending $10k+ on a link.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

> We had a Mimosa B11 link that was just a total PITA. Poor throughput, half
> duplex, losing the link, etc. We replaced it with an AF11X and it's running
> 650/650 full duplex, no drops. So maybe the B11 is a good product, but we
> won't buy any more.
>
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 10/27/2017 8:51 AM, Rory Conaway wrote:
>
> Matthew, what are you talking about, “not as stable”.  I’ve got several
> links up, one at 50 miles, that runs multiple hotels and food venues, most
> of which have VoIP and I’ve had zero issues for over a year.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 7:31 AM
> *To:* af
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link
>
>
>
> B11's are going to get you the most capacity for the least amount of
> money, but don't expect them to be as stable as the SAF link. I've been
> pretty happy with our AF-11FX link, but you're only going to get around
> double the capacity you have now, and I don't know if there's currently a
> way to do multiples on one dish... it might make more sense to do like
> Lewis suggested and add a second Lumina.
>
> There are lots of options for higher capacity licensed links, but they
> start to get pricey.
>
> You could probably get Chuck to make you some adapters to hook up just
> about anything to the SAF dishes.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paul McCall  wrote:
>
> We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with 3ft
> dishes on each end,  that doesn’t have enough BW for us long term, as we
> are going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.
>
>
>
> I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty
> consistently and if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.  Sooo, I am
> looking for alternatives.   Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so a
> solution that favored that would be acceptable.
>
>
>
> Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a “parallel path” a few miles
> south to do the same on very soon.  Something that could use the same
> dishes from the SAF would be good also.
>
>
>
> I have some undeployed Mimosa B11’s that we bought for a project and are
> still waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or
> maybe AF-11X or multiples thereof.  I might as well plan for the future
> since this is a “main artery” link.  We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels
> available to license.
>
>
>
> Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul McCall, President
>
> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
>
> 658 Old Dixie Highway
> 
>
> Vero Beach, FL 32962
> 
>
> 772-564-6800 <%28772%29%20564-6800>
>
> pa...@pdmnet.net
>
> www.pdmnet.com
>
> www.floridabroadband.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Bill Prince]

If you have the spectrum. We have tried several links using a "full 
boat" B11 configuration, and have been unable to coordinate a single 
one. Even in places where no other 11 GHz links are nearby.


bp


On 10/27/2017 1:16 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Yeah, that's the thing... there are several options that can do 
~650Mbps for about the same cost as a B11 (or significantly less, with 
the AF11FX), but to get more than that gets expensive pretty quickly. 
That's where I see the B11 as a good fit... it works in those places 
where you need lots of bandwidth, but can't justify spending $10k+ on 
a link.


On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Bill Prince > wrote:


We had a Mimosa B11 link that was just a total PITA. Poor
throughput, half duplex, losing the link, etc. We replaced it with
an AF11X and it's running 650/650 full duplex, no drops. So maybe
the B11 is a good product, but we won't buy any more.


bp


On 10/27/2017 8:51 AM, Rory Conaway wrote:


Matthew, what are you talking about, “not as stable”. I’ve got
several links up, one at 50 miles, that runs multiple hotels and
food venues, most of which have VoIP and I’ve had zero issues for
over a year.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
*Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 7:31 AM
*To:* af
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF
Lumina link

B11's are going to get you the most capacity for the least amount
of money, but don't expect them to be as stable as the SAF link.
I've been pretty happy with our AF-11FX link, but you're only
going to get around double the capacity you have now, and I don't
know if there's currently a way to do multiples on one dish... it
might make more sense to do like Lewis suggested and add a second
Lumina.

There are lots of options for higher capacity licensed links, but
they start to get pricey.

You could probably get Chuck to make you some adapters to hook up
just about anything to the SAF dishes.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paul McCall mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> wrote:

We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz
with 3ft dishes on each end,  that doesn’t have enough BW for us
long term, as we are going to do another hop from there (7.3
miles), then FTTH.

I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty
consistently and if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that. 
Sooo, I am looking for alternatives.   Its mainly one-way traffic
of course, so a solution that favored that would be acceptable.

Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a “parallel path” a
few miles south to do the same on very soon.  Something that
could use the same dishes from the SAF would be good also.

I have some undeployed Mimosa B11’s that we bought for a project
and are still waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I
could use those, or maybe AF-11X or multiples thereof.  I might
as well plan for the future since this is a “main artery” link. 
We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels available to license.

Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !

Paul

Paul McCall, President

PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.

658 Old Dixie Highway



Vero Beach, FL 32962



772-564-6800 

pa...@pdmnet.net 

www.pdmnet.com 

www.floridabroadband.com 

Re: [AFMUG] Good Weather App/site

[Nathan Anderson]

?I used to be the same way, but over the last couple of years, most web sites 
have just gone beyond the pale.  It is ridiculous how much CPU-time is being 
consumed by some open tabs, simply on account of the ads.  If I want my laptop 
battery NOT to last, then I don't use ad blockers.


https://marco.org/2015/08/11/ad-blocking-ethics?


-- Nathan


From: Af  on behalf of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 6:59 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Good Weather App/site

I'm morally opposed to most ad blockers. Any other business that advertises 
should be as well.



-
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: "Eric Kuhnke" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 3:33:08 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Good Weather App/site

people still browse without ublock origin?

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm?hl=en

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/



On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:25 PM, George Skorup 
mailto:george.sko...@cbcast.com>> wrote:
I haven't noticed too many problems with the Android app. Once you start the 
radar loop, it does take a few seconds to buffer some frames.

OTOH, the website is a piece of shit. Ads galore. Those alone are half the 
loading time. Waiting on Google Analytics this, DoubleClick, that. It reminds 
me of the ePMP GUI before they made it not need 16 CPU cores and 128GB of RAM 
anymore.


On 10/26/2017 10:21 AM, Nate Burke wrote:
I've used Wunderground for years, but their recent updates have basically 
broken things.  The Droid App no longer correctly displays the radar.  It 
sometimes won't update, or only displays a few frames of animation, or only 
loads part of the radar overlay. On a PC, their site now takes 10-20 seconds to 
load, and at least for me, the Wundermap keeps sending me to the radar in LA, 
and uses the CPU Resources of a small computing cluster.  And even then still 
doesn't load correctly.

What else is out there that gives good Radar loop and 7-10 day local forecast.  
I don't care about other things like 'click here to see the worlds 7 worst 
storms that have trapped kittens who are rescued by lemurs'  like 
weather.com seems to think is the most important reason 
you go to their site.

Re: [AFMUG] Good Weather App/site

[Mathew Howard]

I prefer to just not go to websites that have that obnoxious of ads...

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Nathan Anderson  wrote:

> ​I used to be the same way, but over the last couple of years, most web
> sites have just gone beyond the pale.  It is ridiculous how much CPU-time
> is being consumed by some open tabs, simply on account of the ads.  If I
> want my laptop battery NOT to last, then I don't use ad blockers.
>
>
> https://marco.org/2015/08/11/ad-blocking-ethics​
>
>
> -- Nathan
> --
> *From:* Af  on behalf of Mike Hammett <
> af...@ics-il.net>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 6:59 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Good Weather App/site
>
> I'm morally opposed to most ad blockers. Any other business that
> advertises should be as well.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, October 26, 2017 3:33:08 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] OT: Good Weather App/site
>
> people still browse without ublock origin?
>
> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/
> cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm?hl=en
>
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:25 PM, George Skorup 
> wrote:
>
>> I haven't noticed too many problems with the Android app. Once you start
>> the radar loop, it does take a few seconds to buffer some frames.
>>
>> OTOH, the website is a piece of shit. Ads galore. Those alone are half
>> the loading time. Waiting on Google Analytics this, DoubleClick, that. It
>> reminds me of the ePMP GUI before they made it not need 16 CPU cores and
>> 128GB of RAM anymore.
>>
>>
>> On 10/26/2017 10:21 AM, Nate Burke wrote:
>>
>>> I've used Wunderground for years, but their recent updates have
>>> basically broken things.  The Droid App no longer correctly displays the
>>> radar.  It sometimes won't update, or only displays a few frames of
>>> animation, or only loads part of the radar overlay. On a PC, their site now
>>> takes 10-20 seconds to load, and at least for me, the Wundermap keeps
>>> sending me to the radar in LA, and uses the CPU Resources of a small
>>> computing cluster.  And even then still doesn't load correctly.
>>>
>>> What else is out there that gives good Radar loop and 7-10 day local
>>> forecast.  I don't care about other things like 'click here to see the
>>> worlds 7 worst storms that have trapped kittens who are rescued by lemurs'
>>> like weather.com seems to think is the most important reason you go to
>>> their site.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Good Weather App/site

[Nathan Anderson]

?These days, it seems to be virtually all of them, because rather than handle 
ad sales themselves (which would give them some modicum of control), they all 
subscribe to the same basic set of sleazy ad networks.  And you have no idea 
until you've already clicked on the link...


-- Nathan


From: Af  on behalf of Mathew Howard 

Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 2:10 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Good Weather App/site

I prefer to just not go to websites that have that obnoxious of ads...

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Nathan Anderson 
mailto:nath...@fsr.com>> wrote:

?I used to be the same way, but over the last couple of years, most web sites 
have just gone beyond the pale.  It is ridiculous how much CPU-time is being 
consumed by some open tabs, simply on account of the ads.  If I want my laptop 
battery NOT to last, then I don't use ad blockers.


https://marco.org/2015/08/11/ad-blocking-ethics?


-- Nathan


From: Af mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of Mike 
Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net>>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 6:59 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Good Weather App/site

I'm morally opposed to most ad blockers. Any other business that advertises 
should be as well.



-
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: "Eric Kuhnke" mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 3:33:08 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Good Weather App/site

people still browse without ublock origin?

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm?hl=en

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/



On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:25 PM, George Skorup 
mailto:george.sko...@cbcast.com>> wrote:
I haven't noticed too many problems with the Android app. Once you start the 
radar loop, it does take a few seconds to buffer some frames.

OTOH, the website is a piece of shit. Ads galore. Those alone are half the 
loading time. Waiting on Google Analytics this, DoubleClick, that. It reminds 
me of the ePMP GUI before they made it not need 16 CPU cores and 128GB of RAM 
anymore.


On 10/26/2017 10:21 AM, Nate Burke wrote:
I've used Wunderground for years, but their recent updates have basically 
broken things.  The Droid App no longer correctly displays the radar.  It 
sometimes won't update, or only displays a few frames of animation, or only 
loads part of the radar overlay. On a PC, their site now takes 10-20 seconds to 
load, and at least for me, the Wundermap keeps sending me to the radar in LA, 
and uses the CPU Resources of a small computing cluster.  And even then still 
doesn't load correctly.

What else is out there that gives good Radar loop and 7-10 day local forecast.  
I don't care about other things like 'click here to see the worlds 7 worst 
storms that have trapped kittens who are rescued by lemurs'  like 
weather.com seems to think is the most important reason 
you go to their site.

Re: [AFMUG] Good Weather App/site

[Josh Luthman]

I use this:
http://inxwireless.com/rain/


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

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Nathan Anderson  wrote:

> ​These days, it seems to be virtually all of them, because rather than
> handle ad sales themselves (which would give them some modicum of control),
> they all subscribe to the same basic set of sleazy ad networks.  And you
> have no idea until you've already clicked on the link...
>
>
> -- Nathan
> --
> *From:* Af  on behalf of Mathew Howard <
> mhoward...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2017 2:10 PM
> *To:* af
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Good Weather App/site
>
> I prefer to just not go to websites that have that obnoxious of ads...
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Nathan Anderson  wrote:
>
>> ​I used to be the same way, but over the last couple of years, most web
>> sites have just gone beyond the pale.  It is ridiculous how much CPU-time
>> is being consumed by some open tabs, simply on account of the ads.  If I
>> want my laptop battery NOT to last, then I don't use ad blockers.
>>
>>
>> https://marco.org/2015/08/11/ad-blocking-ethics​
>>
>>
>> -- Nathan
>> --
>> *From:* Af  on behalf of Mike Hammett <
>> af...@ics-il.net>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 6:59 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Good Weather App/site
>>
>> I'm morally opposed to most ad blockers. Any other business that
>> advertises should be as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Thursday, October 26, 2017 3:33:08 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] OT: Good Weather App/site
>>
>> people still browse without ublock origin?
>>
>> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa
>> lhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm?hl=en
>>
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:25 PM, George Skorup 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't noticed too many problems with the Android app. Once you start
>>> the radar loop, it does take a few seconds to buffer some frames.
>>>
>>> OTOH, the website is a piece of shit. Ads galore. Those alone are half
>>> the loading time. Waiting on Google Analytics this, DoubleClick, that. It
>>> reminds me of the ePMP GUI before they made it not need 16 CPU cores and
>>> 128GB of RAM anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/26/2017 10:21 AM, Nate Burke wrote:
>>>
 I've used Wunderground for years, but their recent updates have
 basically broken things.  The Droid App no longer correctly displays the
 radar.  It sometimes won't update, or only displays a few frames of
 animation, or only loads part of the radar overlay. On a PC, their site now
 takes 10-20 seconds to load, and at least for me, the Wundermap keeps
 sending me to the radar in LA, and uses the CPU Resources of a small
 computing cluster.  And even then still doesn't load correctly.

 What else is out there that gives good Radar loop and 7-10 day local
 forecast.  I don't care about other things like 'click here to see the
 worlds 7 worst storms that have trapped kittens who are rescued by lemurs'
 like weather.com seems to think is the most important reason you go to
 their site.

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Sonar password requirements too strict?

[Josh Luthman]

Brett - try KeePass.  It's Android/iphone/mac/Windows


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

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Brett A Mansfield <
li...@silverlakeinternet.com> wrote:

> I don’t like password managers. They make logging into things take
> forever. Also, I haven’t found one for Mac that I like.
>
> I was first talking about my password when setting it up. It doesn’t
> matter if it is customer facing or my admin password, I should be able to
> choose my level of security. An 8 character password is secure enough for
> me and my small organization.
>
> But customer passwords certainly need to be easier and more relaxed.
>
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
>
> On Oct 26, 2017, at 1:28 AM, Ryan Ray  wrote:
>
> I just realized you were talking about customer facing passwords, which
> absolutely should be somewhat easy as people seem to be pretty blase' about
> their password security, but anyone with a lick of tech knowledge should be
> using a password manager with a random long password for every site. I use
> 1password which has apps for Windows, osx, ios, android and browser
> extensions. Then every password is as long as the site will let me with
> random characters.
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Brett A Mansfield <
> li...@silverlakeinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh no, admin password should be very strong. But I am just barely playing
>> with this for the first time and I didn’t know they made it so you can
>> change the requirements. I’m quite impressed with sonar so far. It looks
>> like it will take a very long time to setup because of how many features
>> there are.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Brett A Mansfield
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2017, at 7:03 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>> Oh, for the customers.  That is a different kettle of pickles.  I agree,
>> customer passwords can be less secure in my opinion.
>> I thought you were talking about your admin password.
>>
>> *From:* Brett A Mansfield
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 25, 2017 6:50 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Sonar password requirements too strict?
>>
>> I can tell already that it will be a serious challenge. I have a lot of
>> customers that will be calling me just to complain that they cannot get
>> into their account because the password requirements are too strict and
>> they forgot their password again.
>>
>> Should I not be able to choose my own password requirements?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Brett A Mansfield
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>> Absolutely not.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Brett A Mansfield" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 25, 2017 7:32:07 PM
>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] Sonar password requirements too strict?
>>
>> Anyone here that uses sonar find the password requirements to be too
>> strict? 12 character requirement.
>>
>> When it comes to passwords, I should get to choose any password I want
>> when I’m paying someone for a service. I have the same issue with Apples
>> new stuff.
>>
>> I just spun up a new instance of sonar to try it out. I haven’t even
>> passed the password change screen yet and I think I’ve already decided to
>> cancel.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Brett A Mansfield
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Seth Mattinen]

On 10/27/17 1:25 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
If you have the spectrum. We have tried several links using a "full 
boat" B11 configuration, and have been unable to coordinate a single 
one. Even in places where no other 11 GHz links are nearby.



Isn't the keyhole something like 250 miles in 11GHz?

Re: [AFMUG] Sonar password requirements too strict?

[Brett A Mansfield]

Thanks. I’ll check it out.

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

> On Oct 27, 2017, at 5:11 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
> 
> Brett - try KeePass.  It's Android/iphone/mac/Windows
> 
> 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Brett A Mansfield 
>>  wrote:
>> I don’t like password managers. They make logging into things take forever. 
>> Also, I haven’t found one for Mac that I like.
>> 
>> I was first talking about my password when setting it up. It doesn’t matter 
>> if it is customer facing or my admin password, I should be able to choose my 
>> level of security. An 8 character password is secure enough for me and my 
>> small organization. 
>> 
>> But customer passwords certainly need to be easier and more relaxed. 
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Brett A Mansfield
>> 
>>> On Oct 26, 2017, at 1:28 AM, Ryan Ray  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I just realized you were talking about customer facing passwords, which 
>>> absolutely should be somewhat easy as people seem to be pretty blase' about 
>>> their password security, but anyone with a lick of tech knowledge should be 
>>> using a password manager with a random long password for every site. I use 
>>> 1password which has apps for Windows, osx, ios, android and browser 
>>> extensions. Then every password is as long as the site will let me with 
>>> random characters.
>>> 
 On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Brett A Mansfield 
  wrote:
 Oh no, admin password should be very strong. But I am just barely playing 
 with this for the first time and I didn’t know they made it so you can 
 change the requirements. I’m quite impressed with sonar so far. It looks 
 like it will take a very long time to setup because of how many features 
 there are. 
 
 Thank you,
 Brett A Mansfield
 
> On Oct 25, 2017, at 7:03 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> 
> Oh, for the customers.  That is a different kettle of pickles.  I agree, 
> customer passwords can be less secure in my opinion. 
> I thought you were talking about your admin password. 
>  
> From: Brett A Mansfield
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 6:50 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Sonar password requirements too strict?
>  
> I can tell already that it will be a serious challenge. I have a lot of 
> customers that will be calling me just to complain that they cannot get 
> into their account because the password requirements are too strict and 
> they forgot their password again. 
>  
> Should I not be able to choose my own password requirements?
> 
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
> 
>> On Oct 25, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>> 
>> Absolutely not.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Brett A Mansfield" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 7:32:07 PM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] Sonar password requirements too strict?
>> 
>> Anyone here that uses sonar find the password requirements to be too 
>> strict? 12 character requirement. 
>> 
>> When it comes to passwords, I should get to choose any password I want 
>> when I’m paying someone for a service. I have the same issue with Apples 
>> new stuff. 
>> 
>> I just spun up a new instance of sonar to try it out. I haven’t even 
>> passed the password changescreen yet and I think I’ve already 
>> decided to cancel.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Brett A Mansfield
>>  
>>> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Eric Kuhnke]

If he wants to keep his existing FDD band plan license and channel sizes, I
don't see how a B11 would be any more capacity at all, since it would be
replacing a 256QAM radio link with a 256QAM radio link. The B11 is only
high capacity when you give it huge channel sizes or let it do its special
weird pseudo-FDD band plan.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:

> B11's are going to get you the most capacity for the least amount of
> money, but don't expect them to be as stable as the SAF link. I've been
> pretty happy with our AF-11FX link, but you're only going to get around
> double the capacity you have now, and I don't know if there's currently a
> way to do multiples on one dish... it might make more sense to do like
> Lewis suggested and add a second Lumina.
>
> There are lots of options for higher capacity licensed links, but they
> start to get pricey.
>
> You could probably get Chuck to make you some adapters to hook up just
> about anything to the SAF dishes.
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paul McCall  wrote:
>
>> We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with
>> 3ft dishes on each end,  that doesn’t have enough BW for us long term, as
>> we are going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.
>>
>>
>>
>> I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty
>> consistently and if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.  Sooo, I am
>> looking for alternatives.   Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so a
>> solution that favored that would be acceptable.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a “parallel path” a few miles
>> south to do the same on very soon.  Something that could use the same
>> dishes from the SAF would be good also.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have some undeployed Mimosa B11’s that we bought for a project and are
>> still waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or
>> maybe AF-11X or multiples thereof.  I might as well plan for the future
>> since this is a “main artery” link.  We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels
>> available to license.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul McCall, President
>>
>> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
>>
>> 658 Old Dixie Highway
>> 
>>
>> Vero Beach, FL 32962
>> 
>>
>> 772-564-6800 <(772)%20564-6800>
>>
>> pa...@pdmnet.net
>>
>> www.pdmnet.com
>>
>> www.floridabroadband.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Mathew Howard]

Well, no, a B11 wouldn't get more capacity using the same channels... I'm
pretty sure it would do quite a bit less, actually. We're assuming he'd be
able to license new channels.

On Oct 27, 2017 7:23 PM, "Eric Kuhnke"  wrote:

If he wants to keep his existing FDD band plan license and channel sizes, I
don't see how a B11 would be any more capacity at all, since it would be
replacing a 256QAM radio link with a 256QAM radio link. The B11 is only
high capacity when you give it huge channel sizes or let it do its special
weird pseudo-FDD band plan.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:

> B11's are going to get you the most capacity for the least amount of
> money, but don't expect them to be as stable as the SAF link. I've been
> pretty happy with our AF-11FX link, but you're only going to get around
> double the capacity you have now, and I don't know if there's currently a
> way to do multiples on one dish... it might make more sense to do like
> Lewis suggested and add a second Lumina.
>
> There are lots of options for higher capacity licensed links, but they
> start to get pricey.
>
> You could probably get Chuck to make you some adapters to hook up just
> about anything to the SAF dishes.
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paul McCall  wrote:
>
>> We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with
>> 3ft dishes on each end,  that doesn’t have enough BW for us long term, as
>> we are going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.
>>
>>
>>
>> I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty
>> consistently and if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.  Sooo, I am
>> looking for alternatives.   Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so a
>> solution that favored that would be acceptable.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a “parallel path” a few miles
>> south to do the same on very soon.  Something that could use the same
>> dishes from the SAF would be good also.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have some undeployed Mimosa B11’s that we bought for a project and are
>> still waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or
>> maybe AF-11X or multiples thereof.  I might as well plan for the future
>> since this is a “main artery” link.  We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels
>> available to license.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul McCall, President
>>
>> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
>>
>> 658 Old Dixie Highway
>> 
>>
>> Vero Beach, FL 32962
>> 
>>
>> 772-564-6800 <(772)%20564-6800>
>>
>> pa...@pdmnet.net
>>
>> www.pdmnet.com
>>
>> www.floridabroadband.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Rory Conaway]

A B11 can transmit on both channels simultaneously in the same direction and 
it’s MIMO.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 5:50 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

Well, no, a B11 wouldn't get more capacity using the same channels... I'm 
pretty sure it would do quite a bit less, actually. We're assuming he'd be able 
to license new channels.

On Oct 27, 2017 7:23 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" 
mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
If he wants to keep his existing FDD band plan license and channel sizes, I 
don't see how a B11 would be any more capacity at all, since it would be 
replacing a 256QAM radio link with a 256QAM radio link. The B11 is only high 
capacity when you give it huge channel sizes or let it do its special weird 
pseudo-FDD band plan.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Mathew Howard 
mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
B11's are going to get you the most capacity for the least amount of money, but 
don't expect them to be as stable as the SAF link. I've been pretty happy with 
our AF-11FX link, but you're only going to get around double the capacity you 
have now, and I don't know if there's currently a way to do multiples on one 
dish... it might make more sense to do like Lewis suggested and add a second 
Lumina.
There are lots of options for higher capacity licensed links, but they start to 
get pricey.
You could probably get Chuck to make you some adapters to hook up just about 
anything to the SAF dishes.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paul McCall 
mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> wrote:
We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with 3ft 
dishes on each end,  that doesn’t have enough BW for us long term, as we are 
going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.

I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty consistently and 
if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.  Sooo, I am looking for 
alternatives.   Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so a solution that 
favored that would be acceptable.

Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a “parallel path” a few miles south 
to do the same on very soon.  Something that could use the same dishes from the 
SAF would be good also.

I have some undeployed Mimosa B11’s that we bought for a project and are still 
waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or maybe AF-11X 
or multiples thereof.  I might as well plan for the future since this is a 
“main artery” link.  We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels available to license.

Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !

Paul

Paul McCall, President
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
658 Old Dixie 
Highway
Vero Beach, FL 
32962
772-564-6800
pa...@pdmnet.net
www.pdmnet.com
www.floridabroadband.com

Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

[Rory Conaway]

Just ran a test we have on a 16 mile link and pulling 420-435Mbps on a 40MHz 
link.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 8:07 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

A B11 can transmit on both channels simultaneously in the same direction and 
it’s MIMO.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 5:50 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Considerations for upgrading passed SAF Lumina link

Well, no, a B11 wouldn't get more capacity using the same channels... I'm 
pretty sure it would do quite a bit less, actually. We're assuming he'd be able 
to license new channels.

On Oct 27, 2017 7:23 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" 
mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
If he wants to keep his existing FDD band plan license and channel sizes, I 
don't see how a B11 would be any more capacity at all, since it would be 
replacing a 256QAM radio link with a 256QAM radio link. The B11 is only high 
capacity when you give it huge channel sizes or let it do its special weird 
pseudo-FDD band plan.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Mathew Howard 
mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
B11's are going to get you the most capacity for the least amount of money, but 
don't expect them to be as stable as the SAF link. I've been pretty happy with 
our AF-11FX link, but you're only going to get around double the capacity you 
have now, and I don't know if there's currently a way to do multiples on one 
dish... it might make more sense to do like Lewis suggested and add a second 
Lumina.
There are lots of options for higher capacity licensed links, but they start to 
get pricey.
You could probably get Chuck to make you some adapters to hook up just about 
anything to the SAF dishes.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paul McCall 
mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> wrote:
We have a 4 year old Lumina link from our core, 12.9 miles, 11Ghz with 3ft 
dishes on each end,  that doesn’t have enough BW for us long term, as we are 
going to do another hop from there (7.3 miles), then FTTH.

I get around 270Mbit from it, and we already use 120Mit pretty consistently and 
if another tower OSPFs to it, more than that.  Sooo, I am looking for 
alternatives.   Its mainly one-way traffic of course, so a solution that 
favored that would be acceptable.

Cost is a factor of course, as I also have a “parallel path” a few miles south 
to do the same on very soon.  Something that could use the same dishes from the 
SAF would be good also.

I have some undeployed Mimosa B11’s that we bought for a project and are still 
waiting on some tower rights to get settled. I could use those, or maybe AF-11X 
or multiples thereof.  I might as well plan for the future since this is a 
“main artery” link.  We have sufficient 11 Ghz channels available to license.

Thoughts and suggestions are appreciated !

Paul

Paul McCall, President
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
658 Old Dixie 
Highway
Vero Beach, FL 
32962
772-564-6800
pa...@pdmnet.net
www.pdmnet.com
www.floridabroadband.com

Re: [AFMUG] Sonar password requirements too strict?

[Harold Bledsoe]

Kettle of pickles? Is that for making pickle tea?

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:03 AM Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Oh, for the customers.  That is a different kettle of pickles.  I agree,
> customer passwords can be less secure in my opinion.
> I thought you were talking about your admin password.
>
> *From:* Brett A Mansfield
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 25, 2017 6:50 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Sonar password requirements too strict?
>
> I can tell already that it will be a serious challenge. I have a lot of
> customers that will be calling me just to complain that they cannot get
> into their account because the password requirements are too strict and
> they forgot their password again.
>
> Should I not be able to choose my own password requirements?
>
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
>
> On Oct 25, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
> Absolutely not.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Brett A Mansfield" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 25, 2017 7:32:07 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] Sonar password requirements too strict?
>
> Anyone here that uses sonar find the password requirements to be too
> strict? 12 character requirement.
>
> When it comes to passwords, I should get to choose any password I want
> when I’m paying someone for a service. I have the same issue with Apples
> new stuff.
>
> I just spun up a new instance of sonar to try it out. I haven’t even
> passed the password change screen yet and I think I’ve already decided to
> cancel.
>
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
>
>
> --

Harold Bledsoe