Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

[Christopher Gray]

I usually see:

NLOS = Non Line-of-Sight
nLOS = near Line-of-Sight


--

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:28 PM,  wrote:

> Interesting, I didn’t now little “n” had a definition.
>
> *From:* Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:45 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS
>
> They claim nLOS not NLOS. To cambium,  1/16 fresnel impact is nLOS
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 5:52 PM Christopher Gray 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm definitely not expecting Cambium to go through a forest in 5 GHz...
>> but they specifically claim NLOS capability.
>>
>> I have several NLOS 5 GHz links going through leaves at very short ranges
>> that are relatively stable (all ePMP). I'm just curious about what makes
>> them claim their NLOS is better.
>>
>> I'll look into the subcarries as Stanners suggested.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Josh Baird  wrote:
>>
>>> NLOS "magic" in 5ghz?  Don't hold your breath, man.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Christopher Gray <
>>> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been told the PTP650 (and 670) have some sort of magic that helps
>>>> with NLOS links. I've always assume this was a result of the custom
>>>> chipset. Do these radios actually perform better than others in similar
>>>> signal NLOS environments?
>>>>
>>>> The PTP550 is based on a WiFi chipset... does it have any of the NLOS
>>>> magic?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In NLOS situations, would the PTP650 / PTP550 be expected to
>>>> significantly outperform the airFiber-X hardware?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you - Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

[Christopher Gray]

I'm definitely not expecting Cambium to go through a forest in 5 GHz... but
they specifically claim NLOS capability.

I have several NLOS 5 GHz links going through leaves at very short ranges
that are relatively stable (all ePMP). I'm just curious about what makes
them claim their NLOS is better.

I'll look into the subcarries as Stanners suggested.



--

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Josh Baird  wrote:

> NLOS "magic" in 5ghz?  Don't hold your breath, man.
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Christopher Gray <
> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> I've been told the PTP650 (and 670) have some sort of magic that helps
>> with NLOS links. I've always assume this was a result of the custom
>> chipset. Do these radios actually perform better than others in similar
>> signal NLOS environments?
>>
>> The PTP550 is based on a WiFi chipset... does it have any of the NLOS
>> magic?
>>
>>
>> In NLOS situations, would the PTP650 / PTP550 be expected to
>> significantly outperform the airFiber-X hardware?
>>
>> Thank you - Chris
>>
>>
>

[AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

[Christopher Gray]

I've been told the PTP650 (and 670) have some sort of magic that helps with
NLOS links. I've always assume this was a result of the custom chipset. Do
these radios actually perform better than others in similar signal NLOS
environments?

The PTP550 is based on a WiFi chipset... does it have any of the NLOS magic?


In NLOS situations, would the PTP650 / PTP550 be expected to significantly
outperform the airFiber-X hardware?

Thank you - Chris

[AFMUG] OT - NMS With Nice Custom Dashboard and Camera Integration?

[Christopher Gray]

I'd like to setup a small dashboard with some graphs, gauges, a camera, and
possibly some switch inputs (for sending SNMP messages to devices). I've
done this sort of thing in LabView a long time ago with custom electronics,
but it occurs to me it could probably be done with a typical open-source
NMS since the devices are all SNMP and the camera has a live stream.

Any suggestions for NMS software (or other software) that would be good for
collecting data from a few SNMP devices and making a nice-looking dashboard
with a camera display?

Re: [AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?

[Christopher Gray]

Adam,

This looks like it will work quite well! So far with some tests I've found
100% success, which is the foundation for some good test results.


Example from a VM through a couple Juniper switches to a MikroTik:
# ping 10.11.1.3 -i 0.001 -f -c 1
PING 10.11.1.3 (10.11.1.3) 56(84) bytes of data.

 --- 10.11.1.3 ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 1ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.111/0.122/2.160/0.037 ms, ipg/ewma 1.000/0.118 ms


I'll calculate just like you described + the average ping time to account
for ping replies lost at the beginning of the failure.

I'm not looking to do this everywhere on everything (which would be a
reason to re-consider where my time should be spent), I'm doing testing on
the existing failover methods I've been using. If I find anything is really
not as good as I thought (or much better), then I can use that to guide
future design decisions.

Thank you for your help, Chris


On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> It also occurred to me just now that you might want to add -c 1 or
> similar to end the ping command after a certain point.
> When you kill it with ctrl+c you can have a false drop reported because
> you might have killed it in between a request and reply.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Adam Moffett" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 1/29/2018 12:25:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?
>
> Maybe it's obvious, but this method ought to be fairly accurate IF the
> time from one ping to another is very consistent.  I don't know the
> specific cause of the cases where the command is unable to satisfy the
> request for 1 ping per .001 second.  Obviously if that cause leads to
> variance from one ping to another then the accuracy suffers.
>
>
> Even if you don't get 1 ping per ms, you might be able to estimate as:
> (pings transmitted / time = time per ping)
> and
> (failover time = time per ping * (pings transmitted - pings received))
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?

[Christopher Gray]

I don't need a 'visual' tool, although graphical representations of data
sets are usually useful. I'm looking for *any* tool that will do the job
reasonably.

Pinging will not help solve the issue I'm looking for. It is my
understanding that a ping and response would both be dropped during the
outage time. So, to know the full duration of the outage / the network
repair time, a successful ping would have to happen immediately before and
immediately after the outage. In order to get 1ms resolution, you would
need to be pinging 1000 times per second (if you sent a ping the moment
before an outage, the reply would be dropped... and if you sent it a moment
afterward, the request would be dropped).


It sounds like... the tool I'm asking about doesn't exist. Also, it sounds
like nobody actually tests / measures their recovery time.


--

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Faisal Imtiaz 
wrote:

> If you are looking for a 'visual' tool, then look at pingplotter ...
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Christopher Gray" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Monday, January 29, 2018 10:06:59 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?
>
> I want to use a tool that will time the "outage" automatically.
> For example, switches with ERPS capability usually claim things like "sub
> 50ms recovery". How can I time that recovery on my actual system?
>
> I picture running some continuous data stream between two points, and
> measuring any gaps in received data... but automatically instead of weeding
> through the stream in wireshark.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Faisal Imtiaz 
> wrote:
>
>> Not sure what exactly are you asking about ?
>>
>> How to break stuff ?
>> and or How to know when it is fixes ?
>>
>> On a serious note, it depends on what you are testing..
>> e.g. one can easily simulate OSPF failover by turning a link / ethernet /
>> radio port off.. and watching a traceroute (MTR or Pathping, Pingplotter
>> etc etc )
>> and or watching the Router Logs
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>>
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>>
>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
>> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>
>> --
>>
>> *From: *"Christopher Gray" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Monday, January 29, 2018 9:17:26 AM
>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?
>>
>> What tools do you suggest for testing failover time / recovery time?
>> I've got several different failover mechanisms in use, and I'd like to
>> start empirically testing them to have a better sense of their performance.
>>
>> Thank you - Chris
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?

[Christopher Gray]

Weeding wouldn't be that bad to do it a couple times, but I'm picturing a
much larger batch of tests.


--

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> Weeding through the stream in wireshark doesn't sound that bad.  You'd
> want to generate 1000pps to get 1ms accuracy though
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Chuck McCown" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 1/29/2018 10:20:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?
>
> Ping something that gives you <1mS pings then fail the circuit over and
> see what the ping time is on the next ping.
>
> *From:* Christopher Gray
> *Sent:* Monday, January 29, 2018 8:06 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?
>
> I want to use a tool that will time the "outage" automatically.
>
> For example, switches with ERPS capability usually claim things like "sub
> 50ms recovery". How can I time that recovery on my actual system?
>
> I picture running some continuous data stream between two points, and
> measuring any gaps in received data... but automatically instead of weeding
> through the stream in wireshark.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Faisal Imtiaz 
> wrote:
>
>> Not sure what exactly are you asking about ?
>>
>> How to break stuff ?
>> and or How to know when it is fixes ?
>>
>> On a serious note, it depends on what you are testing..
>> e.g. one can easily simulate OSPF failover by turning a link / ethernet /
>> radio port off.. and watching a traceroute (MTR or Pathping, Pingplotter
>> etc etc )
>> and or watching the Router Logs
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>>
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>>
>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
>> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>
>> --
>>
>> *From: *"Christopher Gray" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Monday, January 29, 2018 9:17:26 AM
>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?
>>
>> What tools do you suggest for testing failover time / recovery time?
>> I've got several different failover mechanisms in use, and I'd like to
>> start empirically testing them to have a better sense of their
>> performance.
>>
>> Thank you - Chris
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?

[Christopher Gray]

I want to use a tool that will time the "outage" automatically.

For example, switches with ERPS capability usually claim things like "sub
50ms recovery". How can I time that recovery on my actual system?

I picture running some continuous data stream between two points, and
measuring any gaps in received data... but automatically instead of weeding
through the stream in wireshark.







--

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Faisal Imtiaz 
wrote:

> Not sure what exactly are you asking about ?
>
> How to break stuff ?
> and or How to know when it is fixes ?
>
> On a serious note, it depends on what you are testing..
> e.g. one can easily simulate OSPF failover by turning a link / ethernet /
> radio port off.. and watching a traceroute (MTR or Pathping, Pingplotter
> etc etc )
> and or watching the Router Logs
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Christopher Gray" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Monday, January 29, 2018 9:17:26 AM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?
>
> What tools do you suggest for testing failover time / recovery time?
> I've got several different failover mechanisms in use, and I'd like to
> start empirically testing them to have a better sense of their performance.
>
> Thank you - Chris
>
>

[AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?

[Christopher Gray]

What tools do you suggest for testing failover time / recovery time?

I've got several different failover mechanisms in use, and I'd like to
start empirically testing them to have a better sense of their performance.

Thank you - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] Use Unpowered PoE Injector on Long Ethernet Runs?

[Christopher Gray]

Non-shielded in a conduit, but it appears to work just fine at 100 Mbps.
The two buildings are on the same meter, but far enough apart for possible
issues.

I had spare Cambium PoE injectors on hand, so I put one in line to see if
it resolves the problem. I'll follow up after waiting enough time for
problems not to resurface.


I didn't install the network itself, I'm just the Internet / Phone / Router
hookup here. But my router is doing weird things when connected, so I was
digging deeper. Although there are "better" ways, I'm just looking for
stability here, and will let the customer know they can improve things
otherwise for an additional cost.




On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:18 PM, George Skorup 
wrote:

> So this is a non-shielded cable. Is it direct burial? Or in conduit?
>
> Had several customers over the years with a similar scenario. Conduit full
> of water. Penetrated the cable. Very ungood. Can't even get it to run at
> 10/half without errors. Replace it with a PTP link.
>
>
> On 1/22/2018 11:15 AM, Bill Prince wrote:
>
>> Any time you separate transmitters & receivers by any distance, you have
>> the "potential" to have grounds at different potentials (I did not really
>> intend that pun, but it works).
>>
>> So, often, it is a wise choice to ground at one end, but not the other.
>> This retains most of the shielding without causing current on the ground
>> leg(s).
>>
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>> On 1/22/2018 9:11 AM, Jay Weekley wrote:
>>
>>> Different grounds can cause a problem. Are the house and barn on
>>> different meters?
>>>
>>> Christopher Gray wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a customer with bizarre issues. I've replaced almost everything
>>>> but odd issues keep coming back.
>>>>
>>>> The customer has a 100' run of Ethernet cable from the house to the
>>>> barn, and a switch in the barn. I'm wondering if there might be an issue
>>>> with different power sources, possibly different grounds between the router
>>>> and the switch. The issues are intermittent enough that I can't ask for
>>>> them to just disconnect their barn as it is used for work.
>>>>
>>>> If I install an unpowered gigabit PoE injector in-line with that 100'
>>>> run, will that eliminate any issues with different power or different
>>>> grounds between different buildings since the buildings would be on
>>>> separate sides of the magnetics, or do I need better separation?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_
>>>> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-sign
>>>> ature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-
>>>> email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>>
>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Use Unpowered PoE Injector on Long Ethernet Runs?

[Christopher Gray]

Of course :-).

If your primary goal was to prevent a ground loop, would you ground the
surge suppressor, or just use it to isolate the path?

If the lines were shielded, would you keep one of the shields disconnected
intentionally at the surge suppressor?

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Well, of course I prefer a different method:
> https://www.mccowntech.com/product/outdoor-gige-ethernet-poe-injector/
>
> *From:* Christopher Gray
> *Sent:* Monday, January 22, 2018 8:28 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Use Unpowered PoE Injector on Long Ethernet Runs?
>
> That cable is not shielded (so the shields would not be connected).
>
> The Gigabit PoE that comes with Cambium ePMP hardware has a full set of
> magnetics (all pairs).
>
> --
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> Is the cable shielded?
>>
>> *From:* Christopher Gray
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 22, 2018 8:17 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Use Unpowered PoE Injector on Long Ethernet Runs?
>>
>> I have a customer with bizarre issues. I've replaced almost everything
>> but odd issues keep coming back.
>>
>> The customer has a 100' run of Ethernet cable from the house to the barn,
>> and a switch in the barn. I'm wondering if there might be an issue with
>> different power sources, possibly different grounds between the router and
>> the switch. The issues are intermittent enough that I can't ask for them to
>> just disconnect their barn as it is used for work.
>>
>> If I install an unpowered gigabit PoE injector in-line with that 100'
>> run, will that eliminate any issues with different power or different
>> grounds between different buildings since the buildings would be on
>> separate sides of the magnetics, or do I need better separation?
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Use Unpowered PoE Injector on Long Ethernet Runs?

[Christopher Gray]

That cable is not shielded (so the shields would not be connected).

The Gigabit PoE that comes with Cambium ePMP hardware has a full set of
magnetics (all pairs).

--

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Is the cable shielded?
>
> *From:* Christopher Gray
> *Sent:* Monday, January 22, 2018 8:17 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Use Unpowered PoE Injector on Long Ethernet Runs?
>
> I have a customer with bizarre issues. I've replaced almost everything but
> odd issues keep coming back.
>
> The customer has a 100' run of Ethernet cable from the house to the barn,
> and a switch in the barn. I'm wondering if there might be an issue with
> different power sources, possibly different grounds between the router and
> the switch. The issues are intermittent enough that I can't ask for them to
> just disconnect their barn as it is used for work.
>
> If I install an unpowered gigabit PoE injector in-line with that 100' run,
> will that eliminate any issues with different power or different grounds
> between different buildings since the buildings would be on separate sides
> of the magnetics, or do I need better separation?
>
>

[AFMUG] Use Unpowered PoE Injector on Long Ethernet Runs?

[Christopher Gray]

I have a customer with bizarre issues. I've replaced almost everything but
odd issues keep coming back.

The customer has a 100' run of Ethernet cable from the house to the barn,
and a switch in the barn. I'm wondering if there might be an issue with
different power sources, possibly different grounds between the router and
the switch. The issues are intermittent enough that I can't ask for them to
just disconnect their barn as it is used for work.

If I install an unpowered gigabit PoE injector in-line with that 100' run,
will that eliminate any issues with different power or different grounds
between different buildings since the buildings would be on separate sides
of the magnetics, or do I need better separation?

Re: [AFMUG] FS: Easy pass thru RJ45s heavy gold plated

[Christopher Gray]

I believe the terms of the patents protecting the EZ-RJ45 connector design
have not yet expired.


--

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 5:29 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:

> Easy to install RJ45 connectors, plated in rare 50 micron GOLD, most
> connectors are only plated with 3 micron of gold.
>
> Rated for CAT5E but CAT6 seems to fit and work well. Thousands deployed in
> the field over the last 12 months prior to offering these for sale. Fits
> tough cable carrier.
>
> Pics;
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxHZtFLNWX_OWU9QTzY5bkNSNzg
>
> $40 / 100 sheilded
> $350 / 1000 shielded (Free Shipping)
>
> $30 / 100 unshielded
> $250 / 1000 unshielded (Free Shipping)
>
> contact offlist / paypal t...@pcguys.us
>

[AFMUG] PMP100 Option 82 on VLAN?

[Christopher Gray]

On the PMP100 hardware, Is there a trick to get Option 82 "Only Insert" to
work for devices beyond the SM? I can only seem to get it to work for the
SM itself or for devices beyond the SM when they are on the same VLAN as
management.

[I am using a VLAN for the customer traffic using "Default Port VID" to
pass it as untagged to the customer.]

Re: [AFMUG] PMP100 No Customer MAC in Bridging Table?

[Christopher Gray]

Resolved somehow. There are only 2 customers on this old AP. Customer #2
shuts off their router every night and it was off during troubleshooting...
when they turned their router on this morning, it's MAC address showed up
and the problem for Customer #1 went away right then and started showing a
MAC in the system.

[I went through various troubleshooting steps, had them connect a computer
directly, and still no MAC address, but DHCP requests were coming through.
Radio said 100 Mbps on Ethernet the whole time.]

Thank you for the help.



On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Jay Weekley 
wrote:

> I agree with Nate. I assume that if DHCP requests are getting through to
> your router there is an ethernet link on the radio.  For trouble shooting I
> have the customer move the cable from the radios power supply to another
> port on their router or directly to a computer to see if a MAC shows up in
> the bridging table.  You may try lowering the link speed to 10 megabit but
> I can't remember if that has helped or not.
>
> Nate Burke wrote:
>
>> Whenever I've seen similar situations, it's always Ethernet problems, bad
>> cable/connector.  Or a bad router.  Rarely it's a bad SM.  Are the Ethernet
>> stats incrementing errors?
>>
>> On 12/28/2017 7:11 AM, Christopher Gray wrote:
>>
>>> I have a customer who's PMP100 SM is not showing the customer MAC in the
>>> Bridging Table. SM and AP have both been rebooted. I usually see 3x
>>> addresses in the Bridging Table, 2x for the radio, and 1x for the customer,
>>> but I'm just seeing the 2x radio MACs even though customer DHCP requests
>>> are making it through to my router.
>>>
>>> This just showed up today, as the customer router stopped getting an IP
>>> address (the router sees the request for IP, offers it, but it never binds).
>>>
>>> Any ideas for kicking this back into functioning status?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com
>>
>>
>>
>

[AFMUG] PMP100 No Customer MAC in Bridging Table?

[Christopher Gray]

I have a customer who's PMP100 SM is not showing the customer MAC in the
Bridging Table. SM and AP have both been rebooted. I usually see 3x
addresses in the Bridging Table, 2x for the radio, and 1x for the customer,
but I'm just seeing the 2x radio MACs even though customer DHCP requests
are making it through to my router.

This just showed up today, as the customer router stopped getting an IP
address (the router sees the request for IP, offers it, but it never
binds).

Any ideas for kicking this back into functioning status?

Re: [AFMUG] Rodeo networks IPTV

[Christopher Gray]

I've been in a similar boat as Chris. Working to make it work, but waiting
on further progress from the Rodeo side. I've entertained RealChoiceTV as
the next choice, but the costs are simply too high. Rodeo Networks appears
to have a good product based on good technology... they just don't have all
the components in place yet. They are making a large fundamental change on
their network over the next 2 weeks with improved capacity, and hopefully
improved transcoding after that.

It seems to me way to secure TV customers is in providing local channels.
Almost all of the non-local channels have other means of delivery that will
easily win in a cost comparison.

As far as multicast over a WISP, Cambium has some good examples of
functioning multicast IPTV systems in Europe(?) using the same base
middleware as Rodeo over ePMP.



On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Chris Fabien  wrote:

> I would wait a few months and check back, I think (hope) they are getting
> close but have zero trust in anything they are telling me that I can't
> see/verify. If there was something with similar capabilities in terms of
> pricing/channels we would have bailed long ago, but I couldn't find another
> option that I thought would work for my customers.
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> thanks for your feedback.  I've heard similar experiences from others
>> which is now making me gun shy.  I like their pricing and channel lineup
>> but if they can't deliver then it really doesn't matter much.
>>
>> -sean
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Chris Fabien 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> They are NOT ready to launch yet. They have been signing resellers up
>>> for close to a year and they are still building a proper headend with
>>> adequate bandwidth to provide the service. We signed with them in March,
>>> still don't have anything we can sell.  The product has promise and they
>>> give you the flexibility to create your own channel lineup so you can
>>> really offer a good value to your customers, but the months and months of
>>> excuses and poor communication have us about ready to throw in the towel on
>>> it. I can discuss more offlist if you like.
>>>
>>> Chris Fabien
>>> LakeNet LLC
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>>
 Hello AF gang,

 We are looking at potentially going with Rodeo Networks IPTV solution
 on our network but I wanted to first ask the group if anyone has any
 experience with them.  If so would you be willing to discuss (either
 on-list or off-list) your experience.

 Thanks!

 -Sean


>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] WTB M900 Nanostation

[Christopher Gray]

I've got 2x M900 and 1x RF Armor kit. They are basically unused, although
one was mounted for a while. Email me if you're interested in only 2.


--

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Craig House 
wrote:

> I know I know everyones thoughts on this WHY WHY WHY.  Just looking for a
> few of them.  Anyone have some to get rid of Maybe 6-10 depending on price?
>
> Craig
>

Re: [AFMUG] Change ePMP1000 to ePMP1000 Hotspot?

[Christopher Gray]

Good call, they were pretty quick to provide the answer.

You have to downgrade to v3.1 before switching to the hotspot firmware.
After that it goes smoothly.

--

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> Call Cambium support, pretty sure they know the answer to this quick.
> Someone told me they were having an issue doing just that and Cambium
> figured it out real quick via remote desktop.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
> 1100 Wayne St
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Suite 1337
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Troy, OH 45373
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1100+Wayne+St+Suite+1337+Troy,+OH+45373&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Christopher Gray <
> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> I know this can be done, but I can't seem to get it to work. I'm trying
>> to change from ePMP non-sync v3.5 firmware to hotspot 3.3 firmware.
>>
>> Is there a trick or specific process necessary? It keeps rejecting the
>> hotspot firmware.
>>
>>
>

[AFMUG] Change ePMP1000 to ePMP1000 Hotspot?

[Christopher Gray]

I know this can be done, but I can't seem to get it to work. I'm trying to
change from ePMP non-sync v3.5 firmware to hotspot 3.3 firmware.

Is there a trick or specific process necessary? It keeps rejecting the
hotspot firmware.

Re: [AFMUG] MTC Reflector Dish / Feed Horn For Mimosa?

[Christopher Gray]

I did not mean MTI (but if you have a source for the MTI panel that is
supposed to fit the C5c directly, I would be interested).

These are the MTC antennas:
https://www.streakwave.com/Itemdesc.asp?ic=5%2E8DP-26&o1=0
https://www.streakwave.com/Itemdesc.asp?ic=5%2E8DP-31&o1=0





--

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Rory Conaway 
wrote:

> Chris, did you mean MTI?
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Gray
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 9:39 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] MTC Reflector Dish / Feed Horn For Mimosa?
>
>
>
> I was not thinking of KP Performance, although they make a product as
> well.
>
>
>
> I ended up finding them at Streakwave; there is a 26 dBi version and a 31
> dBi version. They are not on the MTC website, so I'm not sure about whether
> they are still in production or if they are new.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
>
> You might be thinking of the KP Performance reflectors.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Gray
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 7:54 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] MTC Reflector Dish / Feed Horn For Mimosa?
>
>
>
> I recently saw a post where someone said they were using a MTC Reflector
> Dish / Feed Horn combo for a Mimosa C5c. I can't seem to find the post or
> the product.
>
>
>
> Is this something MTC makes or sells? If so, where can I find them?
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] MTC Reflector Dish / Feed Horn For Mimosa?

[Christopher Gray]

I was not thinking of KP Performance, although they make a product as well.

I ended up finding them at Streakwave; there is a 26 dBi version and a 31
dBi version. They are not on the MTC website, so I'm not sure about whether
they are still in production or if they are new.



On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Rory Conaway 
wrote:

> You might be thinking of the KP Performance reflectors.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Gray
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 7:54 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] MTC Reflector Dish / Feed Horn For Mimosa?
>
>
>
> I recently saw a post where someone said they were using a MTC Reflector
> Dish / Feed Horn combo for a Mimosa C5c. I can't seem to find the post or
> the product.
>
>
>
> Is this something MTC makes or sells? If so, where can I find them?
>
>
>

[AFMUG] MTC Reflector Dish / Feed Horn For Mimosa?

[Christopher Gray]

I recently saw a post where someone said they were using a MTC Reflector
Dish / Feed Horn combo for a Mimosa C5c. I can't seem to find the post or
the product.

Is this something MTC makes or sells? If so, where can I find them?

Re: [AFMUG] OT: New Oreo icon

[Christopher Gray]

I'm more of a numbers guy, but I'm pretty sure they are alphabetical.

On Sep 15, 2017 9:33 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

No. 4.x, 5.x, 6.x. 7.x, etc. are easy to remember. What comes after 6? 7.
What comes after Jelly Bean? Was it KitKat, Lollipop or Froyo?




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 




Midwest Internet Exchange 



The Brothers WISP 




--
*From: *"Josh Luthman" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, September 15, 2017 8:30:45 AM

*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] OT: New Oreo icon

It's easy to remember that way, though.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
1100 Wayne St

Suite 1337

Troy, OH 45373


On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> I wish they'd stop with the stupid names.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Bill Prince" 
> *To: *"Motorola III" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, September 14, 2017 5:00:32 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] OT: New Oreo icon
>
> Ahhh. Thanks. In Nougat, data saver was a "recommendation". Apparently
> it's now required in Oreo.
>
> -bp
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:
>
>> It's data saver.
>>
>> setting> connections> data usage> data saver
>>
>>
>> https://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s7/help/nougat-
>> beta-symbol-status-bar-half-t3505820
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
>> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> 
>> Suite 1337
>> 
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> 
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Jaime Solorza > > wrote:
>>
>>> Don't push it!! It's a teleportation command... seriously, only Oreo i
>>> know is cookies i eat with milk
>>>
>>> On Sep 14, 2017 1:51 PM, "Bill Prince"  wrote:
>>>
 Updated my Android phone to Oreo the other day, and there is a new icon
 on the status bar that I can't find what it means.

 Anyone know what this icon is?

 [image: Inline image 1]

 --
 --
 bp
 part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com

>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> bp
> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Link to Large Boat

[Christopher Gray]

I saw a nice automatic aiming mount made by Winegard:
http://www.winegard.com/wireless?q=enterprise

Never checked on the price, but it sure looks expensive.


On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Rory Conaway 
wrote:

> Mesh vendors aside,
>
> Peplink used to make a device specifically for this application you run on
> a mobile device.  It has dual radios, one to connect, one to look ahead and
> connect to the next AP, no drop off off connection.  Unfortunately, they
> are discontinued.
>
> What you can do though, is use a Peplink router with 2-3 WAN connections,
> put up 3 wireless omni antennas on the boat, each one assigned to a
> different SSID on shore.  Use a Peplink on shore and create a VPN tunnel
> across all 3 links.  The Peplink will automatically load-balance each of
> the 3 connections as they drop on/off.
>
> Not a cheap solution but it works.  If 30Mbps is sufficient, the routers
> start at around $400, you would need 2.
>
> Rory
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 9, 2017 7:53 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Link to Large Boat
>
>
>
> I don't think any of the WISP priced Wimax or LTE stuff has decent roaming
> capability.  At least not the ones I have worked with.
>
>
>
> Technically a mobile device on an NN license is supposed to be limited to
> +2db Tx power.  I doubt any enforcement happens with NN, but I'm just
> throwing it out there.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Lewis Bergman" 
>
> To: af@afmug.com
>
> Sent: 9/7/2017 11:50:45 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Link to Large Boat
>
>
>
> Putting aside the sub question and RF for the moment, I would suggest
> creating a separate subnet shared across all three routers joined by EOIP
> for just this specific case. If the 3 routers share an upstream this might
> be the best place for the gateway for the subnet. This *should* let you
> roam across them at least without completely losing the stream. There is
> still rereg time. Of course, mobile protocols have this sort of thing built
> in so WiMAX, as much as I dislike it, and LTE both make allowances for this
> to different degrees. You will have to hope the rereg time doesn't exceed
> the buffer.
>
>
>
> The SM's flipping back and forth would be a big killer I would think. Boat
> hits waves, starts to rock, SM's start to flip back an forth between AP's.
> Sounds like something I want my competition to support instead of me. That
> is of course, unless there is just to much money at stake to resist.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:08 AM Craig House 
> wrote:
>
> Stupid voice to text it should've said turn the Omni upside down. ??
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:08, Craig House  wrote:
> >
> > Turning on the upside down. ??
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Sep 7, 2017, at 09:58, Dave  wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, either I am getting to old for these crazy challenges or I am
> subjecting my self to motivation I have not figured this one out yet LOL
> > >
> > > We have a large site seeing Boat that sits on one of our lakes which
> navigates north and south of the lake and some to the east.
> > > We have 3 towers that can easily see a majority of the lake. One tower
> can see most of the north end and the other 2 can see south and east.
> > >
> > > So the challenge is to provide a content streaming connection to this
> boat which moves slowly across the lake.
> > > My answer first was use an omni on 3Ghz but the omni has downtilt
> built in so thats a no go.
> > > The plan B was to use a 4 cluster of integrated subscribers to talk to
> the towers.
> > > The next question would be if these subs are able to move from one ap
> to the next.
> > > How would you connect them to a router IE:RB493G to provide a single
> seemless connection in the boat?
> > >
> > > Im open to anything at this point. Oh yeah there is a Mobile hotspot
> for failover.
> > >
> > > I think I know the answer but wanted to see what others would do.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > --
> > > 
>
>

[AFMUG] Netonix / MTC Overcurrent and Short Circuit Production

[Christopher Gray]

There was previously a long discussion about the problems presented by a
PoE switch that does not have any form of overcurrent / short circuit
protection.

Was there ever a separate product worked out to resolve these specific
deficiencies of the current Netonix switches?

Chuck,

Whether or not that did happen, would you consider offering your services
directly to Netonix to help them design overcurrent / short circuit
protection directly into their switches?

Re: [AFMUG] Tower Options: Big Enough to Lease Space?

[Christopher Gray]

So definitely don't consider building to fit a cell carrier (since it would
be unlikely to get one on there)... but is there any reason to ask a
carrier to build their own tower there (and include space on the tower as
part of the lease agreement?


On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Lewis Bergman 
wrote:

> Requiring multiple carriers definitely isn't a national thing. Whether or
> not you should build one big enough is a whole separate question.
>
> I like the tower business. I am finishing a 300 foot next week. Building a
> tower a carrier will get on is a big PITA though. You really need an ASR
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017, 12:29 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> There was a law firm selling some language like that to municipalities.
>> The intent was to have one tower on the skyline instead of 3 or 4.  The
>> real effect is you get 3 or 4 bigger towers on the skyline.
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Christopher Gray" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: 8/3/2017 12:24:48 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tower Options: Big Enough to Lease Space?
>>
>> I think that depends on the local bylaws (I have not seen it on a larger
>> scale, but I may be wrong). In my town they have a maximum height limit of
>> 80ft but they want you to accommodate 5 carriers :-).
>>
>> This is in a nearby town that does not have the same requirements.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Josh Reynolds 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's been awhile since I've looked at this. Isn't there a requirement
>>> now to make the tower large enough to accommodate several other tenants?
>>>
>>> On Aug 3, 2017 8:03 AM, "Christopher Gray" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm preparing to purchase a piece of property that is in a group of
>>>> towers. It currently has an old ~100' guyed Rohn 45G. I would be looking to
>>>> replace that..
>>>>
>>>> I'm considering a couple possible options for replacement:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Replace with improved tower big enough for my needs.
>>>> 2. Replace with an oversized tower that could allow for cell carrier
>>>> leasing.
>>>> 3. Approach a cell carrier to have them build a new tower that I could
>>>> use.
>>>>
>>>> Is it worth building large enough to lease space? Is it worth asking a
>>>> cell carrier to lease the space and build a tower there if I can get the
>>>> space I need on the tower as part of the agreement?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you - Chris
>>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] Tower Options: Big Enough to Lease Space?

[Christopher Gray]

I think that depends on the local bylaws (I have not seen it on a larger
scale, but I may be wrong). In my town they have a maximum height limit of
80ft but they want you to accommodate 5 carriers :-).

This is in a nearby town that does not have the same requirements.


On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:

> It's been awhile since I've looked at this. Isn't there a requirement now
> to make the tower large enough to accommodate several other tenants?
>
> On Aug 3, 2017 8:03 AM, "Christopher Gray" 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm preparing to purchase a piece of property that is in a group of
>> towers. It currently has an old ~100' guyed Rohn 45G. I would be looking to
>> replace that..
>>
>> I'm considering a couple possible options for replacement:
>>
>> 1. Replace with improved tower big enough for my needs.
>> 2. Replace with an oversized tower that could allow for cell carrier
>> leasing.
>> 3. Approach a cell carrier to have them build a new tower that I could
>> use.
>>
>> Is it worth building large enough to lease space? Is it worth asking a
>> cell carrier to lease the space and build a tower there if I can get the
>> space I need on the tower as part of the agreement?
>>
>> Thank you - Chris
>>
>

[AFMUG] Tower Options: Big Enough to Lease Space?

[Christopher Gray]

I'm preparing to purchase a piece of property that is in a group of towers.
It currently has an old ~100' guyed Rohn 45G. I would be looking to replace
that..

I'm considering a couple possible options for replacement:

1. Replace with improved tower big enough for my needs.
2. Replace with an oversized tower that could allow for cell carrier
leasing.
3. Approach a cell carrier to have them build a new tower that I could use.

Is it worth building large enough to lease space? Is it worth asking a cell
carrier to lease the space and build a tower there if I can get the space I
need on the tower as part of the agreement?

Thank you - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] Managed WiFi question

[Christopher Gray]

Our management service (I assumed others did this as well) includes
configuring a personal SSID and passcode and changing it if necessary.


On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Harold Bledsoe 
wrote:

> > I'm surprised at how few people want access to change anything.
>
> Is that because they don't want a personal SSID/passcode, guest network,
> etc.?  Or is it because they are terrified of a typical enterprise
> management config interface?
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 1:20 PM Christopher Gray <
> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> To reply to the original question:
>>
>> We use a few options:
>>
>> *Cambium R200 provisioned by cnMaestro (leased for $9-$12 per device
>> depending on area)
>> *UniFi USG / UAP provisioned by off-site UniFi Controller (purchased
>> outright then managed for $5 + $5 per device)
>> *Mimosa G2 no remote provisioning, requires external network access
>> (leased for $9-$12 per device depending on area)
>>
>> I'm surprised at how few people want access to change anything. I do have
>> one company on UniFi that I have provided with a controller login. With the
>> R200, I allow customer control from the Basic login, but I've only had one
>> person ask about it. It is easy enough to re-provision the R200 that I'm
>> not that concerned about people making their own changes on the limited
>> accounts.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Gino A. Villarini 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We do it using Cloud based mngmt platforms:
>>>
>>> We offer Cambium Pilot 201 Router and Xclaim X2’s for $9.95
>>> Meraki MR 33 and up starting from $19.95 up to $39.95
>>>
>>> We charge a setup and install fee that goes from $49.95 to $99.95
>>> depending on the contract term.
>>>
>>> We include: Cable drop, config, FW updates, lifetime management and
>>> replacement.  Meraki is the best Cloud mngmt.  of the 3
>>>
>>> There is really a need for a Amplifi/Eero type of product for MSP's
>>>
>>> From: Af  on behalf of Harold Bledsoe <
>>> hbledso...@gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>>> Date: Monday, July 24, 2017 at 5:25 PM
>>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] Managed WiFi question
>>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> For those of you offering managed WiFi to your subscribers, how do you
>>> provision the devices?  And day 2, do you let the subscriber make changes?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> -Hal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>> President
>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>
>>> [image: aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] Managed WiFi question

[Christopher Gray]

To reply to the original question:

We use a few options:

*Cambium R200 provisioned by cnMaestro (leased for $9-$12 per device
depending on area)
*UniFi USG / UAP provisioned by off-site UniFi Controller (purchased
outright then managed for $5 + $5 per device)
*Mimosa G2 no remote provisioning, requires external network access (leased
for $9-$12 per device depending on area)

I'm surprised at how few people want access to change anything. I do have
one company on UniFi that I have provided with a controller login. With the
R200, I allow customer control from the Basic login, but I've only had one
person ask about it. It is easy enough to re-provision the R200 that I'm
not that concerned about people making their own changes on the limited
accounts.


--

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Gino A. Villarini 
wrote:

> We do it using Cloud based mngmt platforms:
>
> We offer Cambium Pilot 201 Router and Xclaim X2’s for $9.95
> Meraki MR 33 and up starting from $19.95 up to $39.95
>
> We charge a setup and install fee that goes from $49.95 to $99.95
> depending on the contract term.
>
> We include: Cable drop, config, FW updates, lifetime management and
> replacement.  Meraki is the best Cloud mngmt.  of the 3
>
> There is really a need for a Amplifi/Eero type of product for MSP's
>
> From: Af  on behalf of Harold Bledsoe <
> hbledso...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Date: Monday, July 24, 2017 at 5:25 PM
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: [AFMUG] Managed WiFi question
>
> Hi folks,
>
> For those of you offering managed WiFi to your subscribers, how do you
> provision the devices?  And day 2, do you let the subscriber make changes?
>
> Thanks!
> -Hal
>
>
>
> *Gino A. Villarini*
> President
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Managed WiFi question

[Christopher Gray]

Josh and Jim,

What are you charging for UniFi management?



On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Jim Bouse [Brazos WiFi]  wrote:

> We do managed WiFi via UniFi.  We create a UniFi site and give them access
> to change their settings.  We retain admin permissions.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim Bouse
>
> Owner
>
> Mobile IT Pro - Brazos WiFi
>
> 979-985-5912 <(979)%20985-5912>
>
> j...@brazoswifi.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Harold Bledsoe
> *Sent:* Monday, July 24, 2017 4:25 PM
> *To:* af 
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Managed WiFi question
>
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
>
>
> For those of you offering managed WiFi to your subscribers, how do you
> provision the devices?  And day 2, do you let the subscriber make changes?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Hal
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone got any rocket M900 and yagi's they want to unload?

[Christopher Gray]

AF2X will go down to 3.5 MHz.

On Jul 14, 2017 2:03 AM, "Eric Kuhnke"  wrote:

What's the narrowest channel an AF2 will do, 10 MHz?



On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Rory Conaway 
wrote:

> I’m good, thank you.  I got a couple offers.  The test will be 1 mile of
> trees, 900MHz versus 2.4GHz.  Right now I’m going to use Ubiquiti 900
> versus Ubiquiti AF2 versus Rocket 2M.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jaime Solorza
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 13, 2017 4:36 PM
> *To:* Animal Farm
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone got any rocket M900 and yagi's they want to
> unload?
>
>
>
> Let me check...I think we might have one of each
>
> Jaime Solorza
>
>
>
> On Jul 13, 2017 4:07 PM, "Rory Conaway"  wrote:
>
> I just need 1 of each for testing.
>
>
>
> *Rory Conaway **• Triad Wireless •** CEO*
>
> *4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>
> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>
> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>
> *www.triadwireless.net *
>
>
>
> “"Engineers believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
> features yet."— Scott Adams
>
>
>

[AFMUG] Anyone Have Netonix Working With Multicast?

[Christopher Gray]

Does anyone here have Netonix switches working with Multicast / snooping?
If so, can you share how you did so?

Re: [AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?

[Christopher Gray]

Low RF, but NLOS so this is all 2.4 GHz (no horns available).



On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Rory Conaway 
wrote:

> Is it a high noise environment?  You might find more benefit with an RF
> Element 30 degree on the s/n ratio improvement.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Gray
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:23 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?
>
>
>
> When a panel antenna is rated, is it rated for total gain when it is dual
> polarity? Specifically, if a panel is listed for 19 dBi dual polarity, do
> they really meany 2x 16 dBi?
>
>
>
> I found some 15.5" 19 dBi single polarity antennas... if I use two of
> those (one horizontal and one vertical), is that the equivalent of a 19 dBi
> dual polarity antenna or 22 dBi dual polarity antenna?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
> He is limited in area he can use: 16” x 64”
>
>
>
> *From:* Jaime Solorza
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:04 AM
>
> *To:* Animal Farm
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?
>
>
>
> Well there are 8 ft grid dishes with 26 to 28dB of gainwhat about one
> of those new horns?  Not sure if they exist at 2.4
>
> Jaime Solorza
>
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2017 11:01 AM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>
> Most yagis top out at about those gains.  And that is close to the gain
> where panels start to have diminishing gains.
>
> So two of the largest dishes  you can get away with is probably your best
> choice.
>
>
>
> *From:* Christopher Gray
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2017 10:57 AM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?
>
>
>
> I take it back, it is actually a 17" dish (L-Com HG2418DPD) that they rate
> at 18 dBi. On strict numbers, the best sectors I've found are in the
> 17-17.5 dBi range, so I just stopped looking. I'll check again.
>
>
>
> This is a steeple with minimal visibility allowed, but I may be able to
> put a yagi inside facing outward. I'll take some measurements and see what
> might fit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> Can you go outward with a yagi, or stack of them like Jaime always posts?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
> Real world result will be lower due to transmission line and combiner
> losses.
>
> 16” dish at 2.4 G sucks.
>
>
>
> I’ll bet you can get a sector that will fit that space that will have more
> gain.
>
>
>
> *From:* Christopher Gray
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:20 AM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?
>
>
>
> I have a location with a tall space available for an antenna (About 16"
> wide x 64" tall).
>
>
>
> I'm currently running ePMP 2.4 GHz PTP there with a ~16" dish, but I would
> like more gain.
>
>
>
> What is the best way to get more gain if I can only go taller? Can I get a
> second dish and mount it above the first and really gain 3 dB, or will the
> real world results be lower?
>
>
>
> Thank you - Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?

[Christopher Gray]

*Christopher R. Gray*
Direct: 856-472-9733
cg...@graytechsoftware.com
--
  *GrayTech Software, Inc*   |  630-682-4030  |  www.graytechsoftware.com
--

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Rory Conaway 
wrote:

> Is it a high noise environment?  You might find more benefit with an RF
> Element 30 degree on the s/n ratio improvement.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Gray
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:23 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?
>
>
>
> When a panel antenna is rated, is it rated for total gain when it is dual
> polarity? Specifically, if a panel is listed for 19 dBi dual polarity, do
> they really meany 2x 16 dBi?
>
>
>
> I found some 15.5" 19 dBi single polarity antennas... if I use two of
> those (one horizontal and one vertical), is that the equivalent of a 19 dBi
> dual polarity antenna or 22 dBi dual polarity antenna?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
> He is limited in area he can use: 16” x 64”
>
>
>
> *From:* Jaime Solorza
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:04 AM
>
> *To:* Animal Farm
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?
>
>
>
> Well there are 8 ft grid dishes with 26 to 28dB of gainwhat about one
> of those new horns?  Not sure if they exist at 2.4
>
> Jaime Solorza
>
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2017 11:01 AM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>
> Most yagis top out at about those gains.  And that is close to the gain
> where panels start to have diminishing gains.
>
> So two of the largest dishes  you can get away with is probably your best
> choice.
>
>
>
> *From:* Christopher Gray
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2017 10:57 AM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?
>
>
>
> I take it back, it is actually a 17" dish (L-Com HG2418DPD) that they rate
> at 18 dBi. On strict numbers, the best sectors I've found are in the
> 17-17.5 dBi range, so I just stopped looking. I'll check again.
>
>
>
> This is a steeple with minimal visibility allowed, but I may be able to
> put a yagi inside facing outward. I'll take some measurements and see what
> might fit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> Can you go outward with a yagi, or stack of them like Jaime always posts?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
> Real world result will be lower due to transmission line and combiner
> losses.
>
> 16” dish at 2.4 G sucks.
>
>
>
> I’ll bet you can get a sector that will fit that space that will have more
> gain.
>
>
>
> *From:* Christopher Gray
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:20 AM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?
>
>
>
> I have a location with a tall space available for an antenna (About 16"
> wide x 64" tall).
>
>
>
> I'm currently running ePMP 2.4 GHz PTP there with a ~16" dish, but I would
> like more gain.
>
>
>
> What is the best way to get more gain if I can only go taller? Can I get a
> second dish and mount it above the first and really gain 3 dB, or will the
> real world results be lower?
>
>
>
> Thank you - Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?

[Christopher Gray]

When a panel antenna is rated, is it rated for total gain when it is dual
polarity? Specifically, if a panel is listed for 19 dBi dual polarity, do
they really meany 2x 16 dBi?

I found some 15.5" 19 dBi single polarity antennas... if I use two of those
(one horizontal and one vertical), is that the equivalent of a 19 dBi dual
polarity antenna or 22 dBi dual polarity antenna?




--

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> He is limited in area he can use: 16” x 64”
>
> *From:* Jaime Solorza
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:04 AM
> *To:* Animal Farm
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?
>
> Well there are 8 ft grid dishes with 26 to 28dB of gainwhat about one
> of those new horns?  Not sure if they exist at 2.4
>
> Jaime Solorza
>
> On Jul 11, 2017 11:01 AM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>
>> Most yagis top out at about those gains.  And that is close to the gain
>> where panels start to have diminishing gains.
>> So two of the largest dishes  you can get away with is probably your best
>> choice.
>>
>> *From:* Christopher Gray
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2017 10:57 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?
>>
>> I take it back, it is actually a 17" dish (L-Com HG2418DPD) that they
>> rate at 18 dBi. On strict numbers, the best sectors I've found are in the
>> 17-17.5 dBi range, so I just stopped looking. I'll check again.
>>
>> This is a steeple with minimal visibility allowed, but I may be able to
>> put a yagi inside facing outward. I'll take some measurements and see what
>> might fit.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Can you go outward with a yagi, or stack of them like Jaime always
>>> posts?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Real world result will be lower due to transmission line and combiner
>>>> losses.
>>>> 16” dish at 2.4 G sucks.
>>>>
>>>> I’ll bet you can get a sector that will fit that space that will have
>>>> more gain.
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Christopher Gray
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:20 AM
>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?
>>>>
>>>> I have a location with a tall space available for an antenna (About 16"
>>>> wide x 64" tall).
>>>>
>>>> I'm currently running ePMP 2.4 GHz PTP there with a ~16" dish, but I
>>>> would like more gain.
>>>>
>>>> What is the best way to get more gain if I can only go taller? Can I
>>>> get a second dish and mount it above the first and really gain 3 dB, or
>>>> will the real world results be lower?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you - Chris
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?

[Christopher Gray]

I take it back, it is actually a 17" dish (L-Com HG2418DPD) that they rate
at 18 dBi. On strict numbers, the best sectors I've found are in the
17-17.5 dBi range, so I just stopped looking. I'll check again.

This is a steeple with minimal visibility allowed, but I may be able to put
a yagi inside facing outward. I'll take some measurements and see what
might fit.




--

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Steve Jones 
wrote:

> Can you go outward with a yagi, or stack of them like Jaime always posts?
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> Real world result will be lower due to transmission line and combiner
>> losses.
>> 16” dish at 2.4 G sucks.
>>
>> I’ll bet you can get a sector that will fit that space that will have
>> more gain.
>>
>> *From:* Christopher Gray
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:20 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?
>>
>> I have a location with a tall space available for an antenna (About 16"
>> wide x 64" tall).
>>
>> I'm currently running ePMP 2.4 GHz PTP there with a ~16" dish, but I
>> would like more gain.
>>
>> What is the best way to get more gain if I can only go taller? Can I get
>> a second dish and mount it above the first and really gain 3 dB, or will
>> the real world results be lower?
>>
>> Thank you - Chris
>>
>
>

[AFMUG] Connecting Antennas For Higher Gain?

[Christopher Gray]

I have a location with a tall space available for an antenna (About 16"
wide x 64" tall).

I'm currently running ePMP 2.4 GHz PTP there with a ~16" dish, but I would
like more gain.

What is the best way to get more gain if I can only go taller? Can I get a
second dish and mount it above the first and really gain 3 dB, or will the
real world results be lower?

Thank you - Chris

[AFMUG] ePMP Frame Utilization Working?

[Christopher Gray]

The MIB notes for ePMP firmware 3.4 show:

dlWLanTotalAvailableFrameTimePercentage
ulWLanTotalAvailableFrameTimePercentage

Has anyone tested these / is frame utilization working now?

Thank you - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] Shielded Cat6 connectors

[Christopher Gray]

This is not a direct answer, but Platinum Tools is expected to release a
new version of their shielded EZ-RJ to fit their new EXO dies. I'm
expecting this is the way I'll be heading for Cat6 connections.

The Shireen connectors you suggested will crimp with standard crimpers,
BUT, the shield will be crushed where a normal crimper would set the strain
relief (Shireen tells me this is fine, but it doesn't look great).


>
> :)
>
> They are easy to get hold of in New Jersey.
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Jerry Head" 
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 3:25:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Shielded Cat6 connectors
>
> > Regular crimpers worked for us on these heads.
> >
> > On 6/12/2017 2:13 PM, Jay Weekley wrote:
> >> We bought some ARC wireless Cat 6 connectors to go onto Shireen Cat 6
> >> cable but they were a major pain to use.  The wires had to be forced
> >> in instead of sliding in with minimal effort.  My idea now is to buy
> >> Shireen Cat 6 connectors which hopefully will work better. Does anyone
> >> know if these connectors require a special crimper or can we use what
> >> we already have?
> >>
> >> https://www.streakwave.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=CON-RJ45-C6-100&eq=&Tp=&o1=0
> >>
> >> Jay Weekley wrote:
> >>> Cat 5 should be sufficient but one radio shares a tower with 2 FM
> >>> stations so we're having to do everything we can to mitigate
> >>> interference.  The other problem is a mystery since it's on a
> >>> decommission water tank with no other radios than ours.
> >>>
> >>> David Coudron wrote:
> >>>> We are just starting to install a number of towers where we are
> >>>> using Mimosa equipment and have run Cat6a for those where the
> >>>> cabinets won't be on top of the tower.  For the ones that are on top
> >>>> of the tower we ordered pre-terminated cables.  Just too much hassle
> >>>> for the cost. For those where we had to run cable to the top we
> >>>> ordered new quiktex ends since they use the regular old crimpers. We
> >>>> couldn't find any ends to work with our Ez rj45 crimper. We will be
> >>>> terminating those cables the next few days.
> >>>>
> >>>> We do have Mimosa equipment installed with Cat5e cable and it works
> >>>> fine now.  We initially had issues with the Ethernet ports dropping
> >>>> and replaced POEs and were considering recabling. However fixing the
> >>>> RF link interference issues and some firmware upgrades have really
> >>>> stabilized those Ethernet ports now.  We haven't had an Ethernet
> >>>> port go down in 10 months since we did that work. (I am currently
> >>>> knocking on wood. 🙂)
> >>>>
> >>>> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> >>>> 
> 
> >>>>
> >>>> *From:* Af  on behalf of Christopher Gray
> >>>> 
> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 8, 2017 7:20:38 AM
> >>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Shielded Cat6 recommendation
> >>>> I bought some Shireen Cat6 to try. The OD of the insulation on the
> >>>> Shireen Cat6 (and other Cat6 cables I've found so far) make it
> >>>> unusable with the EZ-RJ45 plugs. So, I ended up purchasing new
> >>>> plugs, and should have purchased a new crimper.
> >>>>
> >>>> I later asked here about using Cat6 with Mimosa and got a fairly
> >>>> resounding "Cat5e is enough" at the time. In the end, it seemed like
> >>>> a giant pain for any spot other than having great interference.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Jay Weekley
> >>>> mailto:par...@cyberbroadband.net>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> We recently received a recommendation from Mimosa to replace our
> >>>> shielded Cat 5 with Cat6.  We've been using Shireen lately and
> >>>> they have a Cat 6 product. What would you use?  Has anyone had
> >>>> problems with using Cat 5 with Mimosa?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&;
> utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> >>>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
> >>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&;
> utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> >>> http://www.avg.com
> >>>
> >>>
>

[AFMUG] Mistake: Crimping With PoE Connected?

[Christopher Gray]

So, I made a mistake and crimped a cable end while the PoE was still
connected to the other end (Cambium ePMP gigabit PoE). I saw a small spark
while the crimper hit the contacts.

I expected to have to re-do the end and possibly replace the PoE, but
everything was fine.

Are some injectors just less sensitive than others? I hear a Netonix will
lose a port if you do that. Are there any crimpers with non-conductive dies?

-Chris

Re: [AFMUG] Unifi USG VPN

[Christopher Gray]

Yes, I'll see I'd I can put the info together later this week (unless
someone gets to it first).

On Jun 20, 2017 11:05 AM, "Timothy Steele"  wrote:

Anyone get remote user VPN working with full unifi setups and care to
share? I need to login as a local user and it looks like it finally
supports it in the GUI..

Re: [AFMUG] PTP450 900MHz Necessary Hardware?

[Christopher Gray]

The particular link I'm looking to replace is relatively short (0.46 miles)
through tons of trees. It is running right now with ePMP 2.4 GHz radios
with a Force 200 on one end and a 24 dBi Rocket Dish on the other. Channel
size is 5 MHz and signal floats around -80 dBm. I am entertaining the 900
MHz as a possible quick fix... but I've only got 6 customers there.

I can't increase the size of the Force 200 end of the link with the current
configuration.


On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:

> I've tried it a couple times and it never really works quite right (even
> with 1 AP and 1 PTP link)
>
> Personally I'd try another band but it sounds like a possible NLOS for
> both PTP and PMP in the original post.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:23 PM Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> Well, that's probably not too terrible if you're only dealing with one AP
>> and one PTP link... unless the distance of the PTP link is too shorter than
>> some of the PMP links.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>
>>> There is no way to set "max miles" on the PTP system.  So hopefully you
>>> can set the AP to the mileage of the PTP link.  Otherwise your only left
>>> with downlink % and control slots to make the timing match.
>>>
>>> It can be done but it's hard and you make a lot of concessions (mostly
>>> on the PMP system) to get them to sync.
>>>
>>> Also durring boot up of the PTP when it's ranging timing will go screwy
>>> for a cpl min.
>>>
>>> -Sean
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:48 AM Josh Luthman <
>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>
>> You just put them on the same timing system and then do 75/25 split for
>>>> everything.  Wouldn't be that crazy.
>>>>
>>>> IMO sync for ptp is kind of dumb, though - I'd prefer flexible ratios
>>>> and lower latency.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Josh Luthman
>>>> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
>>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>>> Suite 1337
>>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Also it's usually pretty hard to sync a PTP with PMP in the same
>>>>> band.  It can be done but you have to make a lot of concessions to both
>>>>> systems and if one reboots everything is outa sync for a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 cents
>>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:34 AM George Skorup <
>>>>> george.sko...@cbcast.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> The PTP450 is just SM hardware (900 included). Sync over power is not
>>>>>> on the board. Timing port only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/15/2017 10:48 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, that's all you need.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they don't have any built in GPS, but you don't really need it if
>>>>>> you're just doing one link and it doesn't need to sync with anything 
>>>>>> else.
>>>>>> If you do need sync, then you'd need to get some type of GPS for the
>>>>>> Master radio... they support both sync over power and timing port, so 
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> about any of the Canopy sync products should work I'd use something
>>>>>> from PacketFlux, personally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists <
>>>>>> jeffl...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For a PTP link?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeff Broadwick
>>>>>>> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
>>>>>>> 312-205-2519 <%28312%29%20205-2519> Office
>>>>>>> 574-220-7826 <%28574%29%20220-7826> Cell
>>>>>>> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 15, 2017, at 11:07 AM, Christopher Gray <
>>>>>>> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To setup a PTP450 900 MHz link, is there anything I need other than
>>>>>>> 2x radios, 2x antennas and power to run a link?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do they come with GPS receivers like ePMP does, or do they need a
>>>>>>> separate device?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you - Chris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Re: [AFMUG] PTP450 900MHz Necessary Hardware?

[Christopher Gray]

Yes, it is for a PTP link.

Can they sync with PMP100 hardware? I have an old AP relatively nearby that
will eventually be upgraded... so it is not really a necessity, but it
could be useful.

Do you know if it works with the PacketFlux syncpipe? I already have a
couple of those.



On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Mathew Howard 
wrote:

> Nope, that's all you need.
>
> No, they don't have any built in GPS, but you don't really need it if
> you're just doing one link and it doesn't need to sync with anything else.
> If you do need sync, then you'd need to get some type of GPS for the
> Master radio... they support both sync over power and timing port, so just
> about any of the Canopy sync products should work I'd use something
> from PacketFlux, personally.
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists  > wrote:
>
>> For a PTP link?
>>
>> Jeff Broadwick
>> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
>> 312-205-2519 <(312)%20205-2519> Office
>> 574-220-7826 <(574)%20220-7826> Cell
>> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
>>
>> On Jun 15, 2017, at 11:07 AM, Christopher Gray <
>> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>> To setup a PTP450 900 MHz link, is there anything I need other than 2x
>> radios, 2x antennas and power to run a link?
>>
>> Do they come with GPS receivers like ePMP does, or do they need a
>> separate device?
>>
>> Thank you - Chris
>>
>>
>

[AFMUG] PTP450 900MHz Necessary Hardware?

[Christopher Gray]

To setup a PTP450 900 MHz link, is there anything I need other than 2x
radios, 2x antennas and power to run a link?

Do they come with GPS receivers like ePMP does, or do they need a separate
device?

Thank you - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] Cheap Outdoor Dual-Band WiFi Client?

[Christopher Gray]

MikroTik wAP ac should do it:
https://routerboard.com/RBwAPG-5HacT2HnD


--

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:01 PM, can...@believewireless.net <
p...@believewireless.net> wrote:

> Anyone know of a cheap, dual-band wifi client that can be mounted outdoors?
>

Re: [AFMUG] Shielded Cat6 recommendation

[Christopher Gray]

I bought some Shireen Cat6 to try. The OD of the insulation on the Shireen
Cat6 (and other Cat6 cables I've found so far) make it unusable with the
EZ-RJ45 plugs. So, I ended up purchasing new plugs, and should have
purchased a new crimper.

I later asked here about using Cat6 with Mimosa and got a fairly resounding
"Cat5e is enough" at the time. In the end, it seemed like a giant pain for
any spot other than having great interference.



On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Jay Weekley 
wrote:

> We recently received a recommendation from Mimosa to replace our shielded
> Cat 5 with Cat6.  We've been using Shireen lately and they have a Cat 6
> product.  What would you use?  Has anyone had problems with using Cat 5
> with Mimosa?
>

Re: [AFMUG] Need a better mikrotik tunnel than EOIP

[Christopher Gray]

I also use EoIP tunnels and L2TP IPsec tunnels successfully, but I'm
looking at more efficient L2 options as well.

Juniper suggests public Internet L2 connections using "VPLS over GRE over
IPsec" in this document:
http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-independent/solutions/information-products/pathway-pages/dci-vpls-o-gre-o-ipsec.pdf

It seems unnecessarily complex, but MikroTik does support each. I haven't
had a chance to test efficiency yet.


--

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Faisal Imtiaz 
wrote:

> You might find this article of interest.
>
> http://www.stubarea51.net/2015/10/16/10-gbps-of-layer-2-
> throughput-is-possible-using-mikrotiks-eoip-tunnel/
>
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Steve Jones" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, June 6, 2017 10:27:03 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Need a better mikrotik tunnel than EOIP
>
> I'm going to CCR1072s  Hopefully the issue resolves
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Chris Wright  wrote:
>
>> I get a hair over 200mbps over encrypted EOIP on a pair of CCR1036’s with
>> no optimizing (can they be optimized, anyone?).
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Wright
>>
>> Network Administrator
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 06, 2017 3:30 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Need a better mikrotik tunnel than EOIP
>>
>>
>>
>> For whatever reason, my tunnel has collapsed. throughput went from a
>> consistent 80 percent of our limiting upstream (100mbps) now over 10 and it
>> goes latency shit
>>
>> I don't know if its the tunnel as a singularity or if its saturation of
>> the upstream causing some issues
>>
>> Fuckall when you have super asymmetric bandwidth and saturate the little
>> one
>>
>>
>>
>> EOIP had too much overhead to run encryption on the rb1100ahx2, we are
>> switching to the CCRs now so it my be better, but I'm finding for external
>> transit, EOIP doesn't seem to be the right hammer
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] what is the typical wind load of an 80' telephone pole?

[Christopher Gray]

What is the height of an installed 80' pole?



On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:10 PM,  wrote:

> I'm impressed you can 80' wooden pole in for $5500.  Here it was closer to
> $10,000.  Just the pole itself was a few $k.  Transport from the yard to a
> worksite was $2500.  It's over the length limit for NYS roads, so we have
> to have escort vehicles and file a plan with the DOT. Some pole contractors
> didn't even want to do it.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 6:35 PM, Eric Muehleisen  wrote:
>
> Funny you mention this. I just got off the phone with the power company
> about the exact same thing. Around here anything higher than 65 ft is
> considered transmission line pole and gets expensive.
>
> $5,500 for 80 ft.
> $2,500 for 65 ft.
> $1,000 for 40 ft.
> that cost includes the pole and labor to plant it.
>
> Also, you can't set a meter on the pole unless they retain ownership or
> you lease the pole as part of the service. The cost to run lines and/or
> transformers is on you as well. So plant your pole close to the existing
> grid.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Rory Conaway **• Triad Wireless •** CEO*
>>
>> *4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>>
>> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>>
>> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>>
>> *www.triadwireless.net *
>>
>>
>>
>> “"Engineers believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
>> features yet."— Scott Adams
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Does anyone have a 28-34dBi 2.4GHz 2x2 MIMO antenna

[Christopher Gray]

Gain is not quite as high as you are asking for, but L-Com goes up to a
900mm dish. I can't quite tell if UBNT over states their gain, L-Com
understates their gain, or if there is another fundamental difference, but
the L-Com 900mm dish is only rated at 25 dBi.

I have not used it, but I've been happy with their 400mm unit.

http://www.l-com.com/wireless-antenna-24-ghz-dual-polarized-dpd-series-parabolic-dish-antennas

-Chris


On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

> I have not seen one that is anywhere near reasonably priced and can be
> equipped with a (first party or third party) side shield/radome kit. The
> Radiowaves stuff exists but is a design from 15 years ago. Willing to bet
> the Radiowaves 3' and 4' size 2.4 GHz dishes are great at gathering
> unwanted 2.4 noise from the sides...
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
>
>> Looking for something bigger than the Ubiquiti RD-24 dish.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] does anyone make a system that lets you do internet over existing rg-6 cable

[Christopher Gray]

Rory,

What did you end up using for this project? I have a similar but smaller
scale project I'm considering.

Also, did you find any potential cable regulatory issues when providing the
last 300 ft with coax?

-Chris

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Rory Conaway 
wrote:

> Thanks Chuck.  The building has 300 units so I was looking for something
> like this to consolidate on one side.
>
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/LRP-1622CS-16-port-2-port-Coaxial-
> Managed/dp/B01FYJ214Y/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=
> 1487779542&sr=1-7&keywords=ethernet+over+coax+switch
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:09 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] does anyone make a system that lets you do
> internet over existing rg-6 cable
>
>
>
> MOCA adapters and then any switch you want.
>
>
>
> *From:* Rory Conaway
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:05 AM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] does anyone make a system that lets you do internet
> over existing rg-6 cable
>
>
>
> I’m looking for similar like a centralized coax switch to do an apartment
> instead of recabling.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Rory Conaway **• Triad Wireless •** CEO*
>
> *4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>
> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>
> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>
> *www.triadwireless.net *
>
>
>
> “The successful man is the one who finds out what is the matter with his
> business before his competitors do.” - Roy L. Smith
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Clip On RJ45 Jacks for Punchdown Blocks?

[Christopher Gray]

Thank you for the feedback. It is all Cat5e so I'll just add a patch panel
there and re-wire them all.



On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:37 AM,  wrote:

> Punchdowns are probably 50%-75% the cause of all troubles in these types
> of installations.  I very much dislike them.
> Even for dial tone they are problematic.  Wirewrap never seemed to fail.
>
> If they were brand new when installed , punched correctly and nobody ever
> ever ever touched one single wire on the block ever again, they are fine.
>
> But that never happens, techs get the wrong wires when troubleshooting,
> they tug and pull on stuff to figure out where they are and they re-punch
> wires during troubles and installs.
>
> The piggy-back jacks are nice and quick but you still have a fricking
> punchdown behind them.  I have used them for dial tone on PBX s but not for
> data.
>
>
> *From:* Christopher Gray
> *Sent:* Friday, April 28, 2017 7:58 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Clip On RJ45 Jacks for Punchdown Blocks?
>
> I've seen RJ45 jacks that plug right onto punchdown blocks. I'm about to
> convert this wiring to Ethernet for VoIP. Can I take the easy way out,
> remove the jumpers, and install the piggy-back jacks, or should I really
> pull it all and punch it back down on a proper patch panel?
>
> Don't want to cut corners, but if re-punching the whole lot can be
> avoided, it would help cut the customer cost.
>

[AFMUG] Does the MTI 4x4 MIMO for Mimosa come with a bracket?

[Christopher Gray]

Does anyone know if the new MTI MT-463042 90 degree 4x4 sector comes with
the mounting bracket? I cannot seem to find the information in any of
vendor listings or on the MTI data sheet.

Re: [AFMUG] Equivalent Loss When Moving NLOS from 3 to 5 GHz?

[Christopher Gray]

I'll give LinkPlanner a shot.



On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> Honestly LinkPlanner is remarkable at calculating this.  Add in the trees
> and set the right dBi for the antennas and you'll get a damn good guess.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> It will be worse at 5GHz, and that's all you need to know. These days  I
>> would consider -71 dBm marginal, and anything worse is not something that I
>> would want to start with.
>>
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>>
>> On 4/17/2017 1:51 PM, Christopher Gray wrote:
>>
>>> I'm looking doing some calculations for a link that is currently 4.7
>>> miles effectively with M365 NanoBridges.
>>>
>>> The signal calculates out to -59 dBm, but in reality it is -71 dBm (12
>>> db loss through foliage).
>>>
>>> Is there a decent way to estimate what the equivalent foliage loss would
>>> be at 5 GHz?
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Equivalent Loss When Moving NLOS from 3 to 5 GHz?

[Christopher Gray]

In these parts, "they" claim there is a lot of iron in the soil, so our
leaves are worse than elsewhere... but I've never been anywhere but here.



On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> The boys down in the Southern Yellow Pine parts of the world say that pine
> is worse than other types of trees.
>
> *From:* Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Monday, April 17, 2017 3:56 PM
> *To:* af
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Equivalent Loss When Moving NLOS from 3 to 5 GHz?
>
> I don't think there really is such a thing as typical loss through
> trees... there are way too many variables to be able reliably calculate
> anything, in my experience. But it's a pretty good bet that 5ghz will be
> worse although if it's a PTP link, you do have the benefit of being
> able to use a lot more TX power with 5ghz, so you might be able to make up
> for the additional loss.
>
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Jeremy  wrote:
>
>> 5GHz through trees?  100% loss at that range.  Seriously, I don't know,
>> but I'd be willing to bet that is not going to work well at all.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Adam Moffett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> for 3.65ghz I've been told 125db / km is typical loss through trees.  So
>>> I guess if that's true in your case then you've got 100m or so of trees to
>>> get through.
>>>
>>> I do not know the equivalent number for 5.8ghz.  Maybe somebody else can
>>> fill in the blank.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "Christopher Gray" 
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: 4/17/2017 4:51:23 PM
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] Equivalent Loss When Moving NLOS from 3 to 5 GHz?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm looking doing some calculations for a link that is currently 4.7
>>> miles effectively with M365 NanoBridges.
>>>
>>> The signal calculates out to -59 dBm, but in reality it is -71 dBm (12
>>> db loss through foliage).
>>>
>>> Is there a decent way to estimate what the equivalent foliage loss would
>>> be at 5 GHz?
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[AFMUG] Equivalent Loss When Moving NLOS from 3 to 5 GHz?

[Christopher Gray]

I'm looking doing some calculations for a link that is currently 4.7 miles
effectively with M365 NanoBridges.

The signal calculates out to -59 dBm, but in reality it is -71 dBm (12 db
loss through foliage).

Is there a decent way to estimate what the equivalent foliage loss would be
at 5 GHz?

Re: [AFMUG] N-Male Pigtails for 5 GHz / A5c?

[Christopher Gray]

Thank you for the suggestions. I ended up getting cables from MPD Digital
as Rory suggested. You can get them through Amazon (Good price, no website
risk like their custom cable page had). They are not low PIM connectors,
but I'm planning for this to be a set-and-forget setup... we'll see.

Thank you.


On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:12 PM, SmarterBroadband  wrote:

> +1 for Shireen.  They will make anything you want.
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jaime Solorza
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:14 AM
> *To:* Animal Farm 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] N-Male Pigtails for 5 GHz / A5c?
>
>
>
> Shireen Inc makes some
>
>
>
> On Mar 28, 2017 9:50 AM, "Christopher Gray" 
> wrote:
>
> Any recommendations for pre-made high quality pigtails for use on 5 GHz
> with the A5c?
>
>
>
> Thank you - Chris
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] N-Male Pigtails for 5 GHz / A5c?

[Christopher Gray]

USA Coax doesn't like me:


[image: Inline image 1]

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Rory Conaway 
wrote:

> https://usacoax.com/
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Gray
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:51 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] N-Male Pigtails for 5 GHz / A5c?
>
>
>
> Any recommendations for pre-made high quality pigtails for use on 5 GHz
> with the A5c?
>
>
>
> Thank you - Chris
>

[AFMUG] N-Male Pigtails for 5 GHz / A5c?

[Christopher Gray]

Any recommendations for pre-made high quality pigtails for use on 5 GHz
with the A5c?

Thank you - Chris

[AFMUG] Mimosa With MikroTik hEX PoE?

[Christopher Gray]

Is anyone using an A5 and/or B5-Lite with the MikroTik RB960PGS hEX PoE?

I'm debating whether to mix a WS-6-Mini with a RB750Gr3 to do a small
routed Mimosa site, or just use the RB960PGS.

Thank you - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in Different Markets

[Christopher Gray]

An exported form is only as good as the data entered. I export from Sonar
with no problem, but I go through a decent amount of effort to define a
long list of services to match each speed available, and it is getting a
little out of hand.

When selling capacity, not speed, how do you rate your speed for your 477?
The max it could be? The lowest you'd ever expect? How do you define a
speed in your billing system for the 477 if the speed is variable?

I see now that my biggest problem seems to be having 2 variables with each
product (price and speed... my "standard" product has speeds ranging from
1.5 to 10 and prices ranging from $50 to $73). I think I just need to
simplify the product offering by fixing one of the variables, and possibly
have a zip code entry to view the available products. Half of my network is
50% more expensive to operate than the other half, so there are significant
price differences between some areas.


--

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:36 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> EXPORT-FORM 477
> LITERALLY THAT SIMPLE
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Christopher Gray <
> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> How do you keep track of speeds for your 477?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We just have the same set of plans (with names, rather than speeds) with
>>> the same prices everywhere, and the speeds set differently depending on the
>>> area - so if you're in an area where we can cover you with ePMP 5ghz half a
>>> mile from our office, you'll get a vastly different speed than if you're
>>> out in the middle of nowhere where we can only cover you with 900mhz FSK
>>> from a tower with a grand total of 5 customers on it, but for billing
>>> purposes the plan is the same. The only way to find out what the actual
>>> speed is going to be in any given area is to ask us.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Adam Moffett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The other way is to define different service options and say that not
>>>> all options are available in all areas.
>>>>
>>>> If there's an option that's more money for less speed nobody will
>>>> intentionally choose it, but you can tell them that's the option available
>>>> in their area.  This way happens to also work seamlessly with billing
>>>> systems since you have to differentiate the rate options in the system that
>>>> way anyhow.
>>>>
>>>> One problem you will not avoid no matter how you spell it out is that
>>>> some people will draw their own conclusions about why you're charging them
>>>> more than people in another area.  I.E.: They'll say you're a greedy, evil
>>>> person with selfish and petty reasons for discriminating against them.  I
>>>> don't have any faith in my fellow humans, so take that with a grain of 
>>>> salt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Original Message --
>>>> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
>>>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>>>> Sent: 2/1/2017 1:37:38 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in
>>>> Different Markets
>>>>
>>>> Ugh, that is difficult.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it were me, at the very least I would just make a pricing page
>>>> online and spell it all out for each ‘area’.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you want to be more discreet you could just advertise the lowest
>>>> priced rate/plan and say there are higher speed options to contact you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fancy way would be for them to fill out a form and get an immediate
>>>> response via email or online as to their rate plans per the area.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Christopher
>>>> Gray
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:28 AM
>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in Different
>>>> Markets
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How do others handle providing service in different markets at
>>>> different rates?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I've expanded into different areas, I've found I need to charge
>>>> significantly different rates and have to provide different speeds. I
>>>> adjusted my website to say things like: "...up to" and "...starting at
>>>> $...".  It feels a bit misleading. I want to be clear without publishing
>>>> every single service option.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd like some suggestions for more appropriately treating the different
>>>> areas. Perhaps entering a zipcode or town to see price options?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you - Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in Different Markets

[Christopher Gray]

I meant, Mathew mentioned only a handful of plans for billing purposes, and
each individual plan could vary significantly in speed, how does one keep
track of the speeds, or is it just reported at the slowed speed?




On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> WISPMon
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Christopher Gray" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Wednesday, February 1, 2017 5:33:24 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in
> DifferentMarkets
>
> How do you keep track of speeds for your 477?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> We just have the same set of plans (with names, rather than speeds) with
>> the same prices everywhere, and the speeds set differently depending on the
>> area - so if you're in an area where we can cover you with ePMP 5ghz half a
>> mile from our office, you'll get a vastly different speed than if you're
>> out in the middle of nowhere where we can only cover you with 900mhz FSK
>> from a tower with a grand total of 5 customers on it, but for billing
>> purposes the plan is the same. The only way to find out what the actual
>> speed is going to be in any given area is to ask us.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Adam Moffett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The other way is to define different service options and say that not
>>> all options are available in all areas.
>>>
>>> If there's an option that's more money for less speed nobody will
>>> intentionally choose it, but you can tell them that's the option available
>>> in their area.  This way happens to also work seamlessly with billing
>>> systems since you have to differentiate the rate options in the system that
>>> way anyhow.
>>>
>>> One problem you will not avoid no matter how you spell it out is that
>>> some people will draw their own conclusions about why you're charging them
>>> more than people in another area.  I.E.: They'll say you're a greedy, evil
>>> person with selfish and petty reasons for discriminating against them.  I
>>> don't have any faith in my fellow humans, so take that with a grain of salt.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
>>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>>> Sent: 2/1/2017 1:37:38 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in Different
>>> Markets
>>>
>>> Ugh, that is difficult.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If it were me, at the very least I would just make a pricing page online
>>> and spell it all out for each ‘area’.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want to be more discreet you could just advertise the lowest
>>> priced rate/plan and say there are higher speed options to contact you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The fancy way would be for them to fill out a form and get an immediate
>>> response via email or online as to their rate plans per the area.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Gray
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:28 AM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in Different
>>> Markets
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How do others handle providing service in different markets at different
>>> rates?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As I've expanded into different areas, I've found I need to charge
>>> significantly different rates and have to provide different speeds. I
>>> adjusted my website to say things like: "...up to" and "...starting at
>>> $...".  It feels a bit misleading. I want to be clear without publishing
>>> every single service option.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like some suggestions for more appropriately treating the different
>>> areas. Perhaps entering a zipcode or town to see price options?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you - Chris
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in Different Markets

[Christopher Gray]

How do you keep track of speeds for your 477?



On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:

> We just have the same set of plans (with names, rather than speeds) with
> the same prices everywhere, and the speeds set differently depending on the
> area - so if you're in an area where we can cover you with ePMP 5ghz half a
> mile from our office, you'll get a vastly different speed than if you're
> out in the middle of nowhere where we can only cover you with 900mhz FSK
> from a tower with a grand total of 5 customers on it, but for billing
> purposes the plan is the same. The only way to find out what the actual
> speed is going to be in any given area is to ask us.
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> The other way is to define different service options and say that not all
>> options are available in all areas.
>>
>> If there's an option that's more money for less speed nobody will
>> intentionally choose it, but you can tell them that's the option available
>> in their area.  This way happens to also work seamlessly with billing
>> systems since you have to differentiate the rate options in the system that
>> way anyhow.
>>
>> One problem you will not avoid no matter how you spell it out is that
>> some people will draw their own conclusions about why you're charging them
>> more than people in another area.  I.E.: They'll say you're a greedy, evil
>> person with selfish and petty reasons for discriminating against them.  I
>> don't have any faith in my fellow humans, so take that with a grain of salt.
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Sent: 2/1/2017 1:37:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in Different
>> Markets
>>
>> Ugh, that is difficult.
>>
>>
>>
>> If it were me, at the very least I would just make a pricing page online
>> and spell it all out for each ‘area’.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you want to be more discreet you could just advertise the lowest
>> priced rate/plan and say there are higher speed options to contact you.
>>
>>
>>
>> The fancy way would be for them to fill out a form and get an immediate
>> response via email or online as to their rate plans per the area.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Gray
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:28 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in Different
>> Markets
>>
>>
>>
>> How do others handle providing service in different markets at different
>> rates?
>>
>>
>>
>> As I've expanded into different areas, I've found I need to charge
>> significantly different rates and have to provide different speeds. I
>> adjusted my website to say things like: "...up to" and "...starting at
>> $...".  It feels a bit misleading. I want to be clear without publishing
>> every single service option.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd like some suggestions for more appropriately treating the different
>> areas. Perhaps entering a zipcode or town to see price options?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you - Chris
>>
>>
>

[AFMUG] Providing Service at Different Rates / in Different Markets

[Christopher Gray]

How do others handle providing service in different markets at different
rates?

As I've expanded into different areas, I've found I need to charge
significantly different rates and have to provide different speeds. I
adjusted my website to say things like: "...up to" and "...starting at
$...".  It feels a bit misleading. I want to be clear without publishing
every single service option.

I'd like some suggestions for more appropriately treating the different
areas. Perhaps entering a zipcode or town to see price options?

Thank you - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] OT: NBT not working wireless only...

[Christopher Gray]

I suspect the WiFi connection is set to "Public" and the LAN is set to
"Private".

Change WiFi to Private and you should be good to go..



On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

>
> I've never seen this before, so I thought mining the resident mind trust
> might shake something loose.
>
> My partner's Windows 10 laptop has both an ethernet LAN adapter and a WiFi
> adapter. Both adapters work just fine going to the wild woolly internet. No
> problem.
>
> However, when doing any NBT-type interactions, only the ethernet LAN
> adapter allows her to browse local shares. The WiFi adapter can't see any
> NetBIOS objects.
>
> If you open the Windows Explorer, it's like a light switch. If the
> ethernet LAN adapter has the cable installed, all the local  NetBIOS shares
> (PCs, printers, NAS devices) are visible. If you unplug the ethernet cable,
> everything disappears. However, if you want to access the interwebs, both
> adapters work as advertised.
>
> I have no clue what would cause this.
>
> --
>
> bp
> 
>
>
>

[AFMUG] Low Power Inverter / Charger?

[Christopher Gray]

I've read about others using the Tripp Lite APS750 750W Inverter / Charger.
Are there other reliable products that perform the same task but with a
much smaller inverter capacity? Inverters tend to have poor efficiency when
running at low capacity, so I'd like to find something more appropriately
sized for good efficiency at 20-50W loads.

Re: [AFMUG] Where to Locate Monitoring / Shallow Depth Servers?

[Christopher Gray]

 They do make a DC version of the short 2U chassis Justin suggested, but it
runs on -48V:
https://www.supermicro.com/products/chassis/2U/523/SC523L-410.cfm

I'll look into the Supermicro units. I've also been looking at the Dell
R210 II, which is only 15.5" deep and seems to be pretty inexpensive these
days.

-Chris



On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:06 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> That thing would be so much better with a DC power supply.
>
>
> On 1/23/2017 2:35 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
>>
>> This would fit in 1U with 12" of depth:
>>
>> https://www.supermicro.com/products/system/1u/5018/sys-5018a-ftn4.cfm
>>
>
>

[AFMUG] Where to Locate Monitoring / Shallow Depth Servers?

[Christopher Gray]

When working with a smaller remotely located network, is your preference to
install a server on that network for monitoring and such, or to just tunnel
back to your main location for monitoring?

I've got two remotely located networks with space-restricted sites where I
could install a shallow rack-mount server for some simple VMs.
Specifically, One site is restricted to about 20" deep and 4U, and another
restricted to about 12" deep and 1U. I wouldn't need much processing power,
so some older servers could be sufficient.

I'm debating whether to go through the effort of finding and setting up
small servers to do monitoring, RADIUS, etc directly on the network, or to
just continue using my main location with tunnels.

Any suggestions are welcome.

Re: [AFMUG] How Hot is Too Hot for ePMP?

[Christopher Gray]

This is in 2.4 GHz, so I don't have Force 180 as an option. The signal is
so high because this is a close SM for a PtMP system... the integrated unit
was picking up too much local interference, so I needed to get higher gain
on the downlink side. Uplink auto gain is set to -60 dBm.

I aimed it down a bit to hit -40 dBm. I usually don't deal with much noise:
I can hold MCS15 in 2.4 GHz at -60 on most links around here...


On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> -60 is far from MCS15 for me.  ;-)
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Josh Luthman" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Monday, January 16, 2017 11:28:35 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] How Hot is Too Hot for ePMP?
>
> Please reduce the power for everyone's benefit.  Go down to, ideally,
> -60.  After changing power look at the performance and make sure it's still
> all MCS15.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> Cambium posted something about this recently.
>>
>> I think you are still OK at that level.  I think they said something like
>> signal problems starting at –35 and physical damage to the RX components at
>> –25 or some such figure.  Be good to see that post again.
>>
>> *From:* Christopher Gray
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 16, 2017 10:05 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] How Hot is Too Hot for ePMP?
>>
>> I have a Force 200 receiving at -37 dBm. Is this ok, or do I need to
>> mis-align to reduce signal strength?
>>
>>
>
>
>

[AFMUG] How Hot is Too Hot for ePMP?

[Christopher Gray]

I have a Force 200 receiving at -37 dBm. Is this ok, or do I need to
mis-align to reduce signal strength?

Re: [AFMUG] Force UDP Stream w/ MikroTik?

[Christopher Gray]

Tht's what I'm looking for.

Thank you.



On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:59 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> Traffic generator?
>
> On 1/12/2017 6:54 PM, Christopher Gray wrote:
>
> I'm trying to test some QoS settings, and I want to send a UDP stream that
> is larger than the pipe (I've got 750 Kbps upload, I'd like to push a 1.5
> Mbps stream to see how the QoS handles the situation).
>
> I thought I could do this with a MikroTik bandwidth test setting the
> speed, but it seems the bandwidth test speeds are maximums, so when I tell
> it to go 1.5, it adjusts and stays somewhere in the 650-700 range. Any good
> ways to send a fixed stream of data with a MikroTik?
>
>
>

[AFMUG] Force UDP Stream w/ MikroTik?

[Christopher Gray]

I'm trying to test some QoS settings, and I want to send a UDP stream that
is larger than the pipe (I've got 750 Kbps upload, I'd like to push a 1.5
Mbps stream to see how the QoS handles the situation).

I thought I could do this with a MikroTik bandwidth test setting the speed,
but it seems the bandwidth test speeds are maximums, so when I tell it to
go 1.5, it adjusts and stays somewhere in the 650-700 range. Any good ways
to send a fixed stream of data with a MikroTik?

Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa Ptmp Rate Limiting

[Christopher Gray]

It doesn't work correctly. Please submit a support ticket so they can hear
of others with problems.

Don't remotely set anything to 2 Mbps or lower. Last I checked, no traffic
will pass at all. [I had a legacy customer on a 2x1 Cambium setup that
wanted to keep the same plan instead of upgrading. Setting to 2x1 would not
pass any traffic. For about 30 minutes or so, they started getting about
40x50, then went back to nothing.]

I imagine GPS is higher on their priority list, since I have not seen any
improvement in quite some time.


On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> I'm having some issues getting rate limiting to work correctly.  The
> speeds I'm getting are much lower than what they should be, but if I login
> via PPPoE they are wide open.  Anyone using the built-in rate limiting?
>
> -Jason
>

[AFMUG] OT: Hikvision NVR Choices?

[Christopher Gray]

Any good reason to avoid ordering a Hikvision NVR that is not listed on the
US Hikvision site?

Hikvision seems to have a bunch of options on their main site that are not
listed on the US site. Several "International" versions are listed on
newegg.

[AFMUG] MikroTik DHCP Out One Bridge Port?

[Christopher Gray]

I'm configuring a routerboard as an in-line DHCP server that only provides
addresses on one port:

Larger Network <--> eth1 -- RouterBoard -- eth 2 <--> Customer

I've got the DHCP server on the bridge with eth1 and eth2 as ports. Use
Firewall is turned on. I planned to use a firewall to block incoming DHCP
requests on eth1... but I'd like to know if there is a better way to lock a
DHCP server to a specific port when bridged.

Thank you - Chris

[AFMUG] Multiple Routers At Small POPs?

[Christopher Gray]

Early in my network design, I decided to have multiple routers at each POP
(normally 3 MikroTiks in a triangle configuration, using RB750UP where
power was needed). The goal was to improve reliability by having critical
links come into different routers, allowing site access if any router
actually failed. The system is setup with OSPF and MPLS routing between
them. I only ever installed 3 routers at one location, though (other site
have only 1 or 2 MikroTik routers).

It has been 2 years now, and everything has worked great at the 1, 2, and 3
router sites. The use of the RB750UP routers has allowed for remote
rebooting when necessary, and I have not had a single router failure. I'm
working on a revision to the design, and I'd like to know if anyone else
intentionally runs multiple routers like this. Any practical benefits to
running multiple PoE routers vs running a single router and a single PoE
switch?

Re: [AFMUG] OT Design Collaboration Software

[Christopher Gray]

Is this specific to radio networks, or would it work for general
engineering design projects?



On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 7:44 PM, Lewis Bergman 
wrote:

> We use something called Teldio D3M.
> http://www.teldio.com/products/d3m
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016, 5:42 PM Christopher Gray 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm working on a design project that would benefit from some decent
>> design collaboration software [since it will be done remotely]. I'm
>> picturing something open source that I can run on my own server, but I'm
>> open to any good options.
>>
>> I'm specifically looking for some collaboration tool allowing for ongoing
>> conversation about design decisions and revision, and the capability for
>> document storage and revision management. Office document collaboration
>> would be a plus, but not a necessity.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>

[AFMUG] OT Design Collaboration Software

[Christopher Gray]

I'm working on a design project that would benefit from some decent design
collaboration software [since it will be done remotely]. I'm picturing
something open source that I can run on my own server, but I'm open to any
good options.

I'm specifically looking for some collaboration tool allowing for ongoing
conversation about design decisions and revision, and the capability for
document storage and revision management. Office document collaboration
would be a plus, but not a necessity.

Any thoughts?

[AFMUG] Anyone Running MultApplied on the East Coast?

[Christopher Gray]

Is anyone running MultApplied on the east coast?

[Any recommendations for other bonded Internet solutions at a reasonable
cost?]

Re: [AFMUG] Trouble Identifying Throughput Issue

[Christopher Gray]

The R1 and R2 interfaces are not facing each other, they are both connected
separately to the Internet. R1 has a 1 Gig connection, R2 has a 30 Meg
connection delivered over 100 Mbps copper.


On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Steve  wrote:

> I agree.. make sure you have R1 and R2's connecting interfaces both set to
> manual 100FD because it can't go any higher anyway.  That is a mismatch.
> Not sure if that is THE problem but it is definitely A problem.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "George Skorup" 
> To: "af" 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 5:24:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Trouble Identifying Throughput Issue
>
> The manual 100FD interface... what is that talking to? The Auto 1G on
> R1? If that's the case, I'd bet that's your problem. Keep in mind that
> you cannot run auto on one side and fixed FDX on the other side. This
> results in a duplex mismatch. The interface in auto will fall back to
> HDX. If you did auto one side and HDX on the other side, they'd both be
> HDX, so it would work fine. But obviously half duplex sux.
>
> On 10/26/2016 1:54 PM, Christopher Gray wrote:
> > R1 is the only router with 1 Gbps ports. Everything is auto except 1
> > connection that requires manual settings.
> >
> > *R1* -- (Auto 1 G FD) ...Internet... (Manual 100 FD) -- *R2 *-- (Auto
> > 100 FD)  -- *R3* -- (Auto 100 FD) ...M5... (Auto 100 FD) -- *R4*
> >
> > MTU is set to 1500 on every port (and the UBNT link).
> >
> > Flow control is off, and none of the interfaces show any pause frames
> > received.
> >
> >
> > This is a live link, but it is only running ~ 1 Mbps otherwise.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Steve  > <mailto:li...@wavedirect.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Few questions come to mind.
> >
> > Are all set to auto negotiate or are they fixed at 100Mbit?
> > What are the MTU's of each connection?
> > Flow control turned on?
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Christopher Gray"  > <mailto:cg...@graytechsoftware.com>>
> > To: "af" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:57:56 PM
> > Subject: [AFMUG] Trouble Identifying Throughput Issue
> >
> > I have a section of my network that is lacking something, and I can't
> > figure out where the problem is. I'm looking for any thoughts /
> > suggestions.
> >
> > 4x MikroTik routers
> >
> > Link speeds:
> > R1 -- (30 Mbps IP / Transport) -- R2 -- (100 Mbps Eth) -- R3 --
> > (75 Mbps
> > UBNT M5) -- R4
> >
> > The limiting factor for traffic should be the Transport, and I
> > expect to be
> > able to get 30 Mbps across the system (one-way).
> >
> > Testing from R1 to R3 runs 30 Mbps.
> >
> > Testing from R2 to R4 runs 75 Mbps.
> >
> > Testing from R1 to R4 only runs 10 Mbps (instead of 30).
> >
> > Tests were one-way btest with 20 TCP streams.
> >
> > Any ideas for something that would cause this?
> >
> >
>

Re: [AFMUG] Trouble Identifying Throughput Issue

[Christopher Gray]

I'm not sure this is leading to anything, but I tried turning off
aggregation.

R3 -> R4 UBNT link throughput test dropped to about 30 Mbps (less than
half) but my R1 -> R4 test almost doubled to about 20 Mbps. [I'm using
firmware v5.6.9, but I think this issue has been present for a while.] I
experimented with various frame / size settings, but did not see any
further improved results.

I tried enabling flow control on the MikroTik ports used for the UBNT link,
but that did not help (and no pause frames were recorded).


It is probably time to take a break and mess with it tomorrow. Thank you
for the help today as usual.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Christopher Gray  wrote:

> R1 is connected to the Internet via an MRV auto negotiated to 1G FD (This
> is a 1 G Internet connection)
>
> R2 is connected to the Internet through a copper connection to a Juniper
> switch on a 30 Mbps layer 2 fiber transport to a switch where the Internet
> service is connected. This R2 -- Juniper connection is set manually because
> they would not play nice if set to auto.
>
> I have a similar setup on the same fiber system in 3 other locations. None
> of which have this behavior (but also, none of which have UBNT M5 hardware,
> so that could be a potential issue).
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 5:31 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> define your transport, are you talking a layer 2 circuit, vpn tunnel,
>> fiber, etc?
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:24 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>>
>>> The manual 100FD interface... what is that talking to? The Auto 1G on
>>> R1? If that's the case, I'd bet that's your problem. Keep in mind that you
>>> cannot run auto on one side and fixed FDX on the other side. This results
>>> in a duplex mismatch. The interface in auto will fall back to HDX. If you
>>> did auto one side and HDX on the other side, they'd both be HDX, so it
>>> would work fine. But obviously half duplex sux.
>>>
>>> On 10/26/2016 1:54 PM, Christopher Gray wrote:
>>>
>>> R1 is the only router with 1 Gbps ports. Everything is auto except 1
>>> connection that requires manual settings.
>>>
>>> *R1* -- (Auto 1 G FD) ...Internet... (Manual 100 FD) -- *R2 *-- (Auto
>>> 100 FD)  -- *R3* -- (Auto 100 FD) ...M5... (Auto 100 FD) -- *R4*
>>>
>>> MTU is set to 1500 on every port (and the UBNT link).
>>>
>>> Flow control is off, and none of the interfaces show any pause frames
>>> received.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a live link, but it is only running ~ 1 Mbps otherwise.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Steve  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Few questions come to mind.
>>>>
>>>> Are all set to auto negotiate or are they fixed at 100Mbit?
>>>> What are the MTU's of each connection?
>>>> Flow control turned on?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message -
>>>> From: "Christopher Gray" 
>>>> To: "af" 
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:57:56 PM
>>>> Subject: [AFMUG] Trouble Identifying Throughput Issue
>>>>
>>>> I have a section of my network that is lacking something, and I can't
>>>> figure out where the problem is. I'm looking for any thoughts /
>>>> suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> 4x MikroTik routers
>>>>
>>>> Link speeds:
>>>> R1 -- (30 Mbps IP / Transport) -- R2 -- (100 Mbps Eth) -- R3 -- (75 Mbps
>>>> UBNT M5) -- R4
>>>>
>>>> The limiting factor for traffic should be the Transport, and I expect
>>>> to be
>>>> able to get 30 Mbps across the system (one-way).
>>>>
>>>> Testing from R1 to R3 runs 30 Mbps.
>>>>
>>>> Testing from R2 to R4 runs 75 Mbps.
>>>>
>>>> Testing from R1 to R4 only runs 10 Mbps (instead of 30).
>>>>
>>>> Tests were one-way btest with 20 TCP streams.
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas for something that would cause this?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Trouble Identifying Throughput Issue

[Christopher Gray]

No ToughSwitches in my system, just the RouterBoards.


On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Sam Morris  wrote:

> You don't have any ToughSwitches in there anyplace do you?
>
> On 10/26/2016 2:30 PM, Christopher Gray wrote:
>
>> While running from R1 to R4 (maxing at only 10 Mbps), I can also run
>> from R1 to R3 an additional 15+.
>>
>> Also, while running from R1 to R4 (again, maxing at 10 Mbps), I can also
>> run from R3 to R4 an additional 60+.
>>
>>
>> Aggregation on the M5 link is defaulted to 32 frames / 50,000 bytes.
>> Could this be causing such issues on a good link?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Christopher Gray
>> mailto:cg...@graytechsoftware.com>> wrote:
>>
>> R1 is the only router with 1 Gbps ports. Everything is auto except 1
>> connection that requires manual settings.
>>
>> *R1* -- (Auto 1 G FD) ...Internet... (Manual 100 FD) -- *R2 *--
>> (Auto 100 FD)  -- *R3* -- (Auto 100 FD) ...M5... (Auto 100 FD) -- *R4*
>>
>> MTU is set to 1500 on every port (and the UBNT link).
>>
>> Flow control is off, and none of the interfaces show any pause
>> frames received.
>>
>>
>> This is a live link, but it is only running ~ 1 Mbps otherwise.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Steve > <mailto:li...@wavedirect.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Few questions come to mind.
>>
>> Are all set to auto negotiate or are they fixed at 100Mbit?
>> What are the MTU's of each connection?
>> Flow control turned on?
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Christopher Gray" > <mailto:cg...@graytechsoftware.com>>
>> To: "af" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:57:56 PM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] Trouble Identifying Throughput Issue
>>
>> I have a section of my network that is lacking something, and I
>> can't
>> figure out where the problem is. I'm looking for any thoughts /
>> suggestions.
>>
>> 4x MikroTik routers
>>
>> Link speeds:
>> R1 -- (30 Mbps IP / Transport) -- R2 -- (100 Mbps Eth) -- R3 --
>> (75 Mbps
>> UBNT M5) -- R4
>>
>> The limiting factor for traffic should be the Transport, and I
>> expect to be
>> able to get 30 Mbps across the system (one-way).
>>
>> Testing from R1 to R3 runs 30 Mbps.
>>
>> Testing from R2 to R4 runs 75 Mbps.
>>
>> Testing from R1 to R4 only runs 10 Mbps (instead of 30).
>>
>> Tests were one-way btest with 20 TCP streams.
>>
>> Any ideas for something that would cause this?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Trouble Identifying Throughput Issue

[Christopher Gray]

Neither was... but I rebooted them anyhow.


On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:29 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> log into the ubnt gear and verify neither are sitting at the unexpected
> reboot screen
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Christopher Gray <
> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> R1 is the only router with 1 Gbps ports. Everything is auto except 1
>> connection that requires manual settings.
>>
>> *R1* -- (Auto 1 G FD) ...Internet... (Manual 100 FD) -- *R2 *-- (Auto
>> 100 FD)  -- *R3* -- (Auto 100 FD) ...M5... (Auto 100 FD) -- *R4*
>>
>> MTU is set to 1500 on every port (and the UBNT link).
>>
>> Flow control is off, and none of the interfaces show any pause frames
>> received.
>>
>>
>> This is a live link, but it is only running ~ 1 Mbps otherwise.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Steve  wrote:
>>
>>> Few questions come to mind.
>>>
>>> Are all set to auto negotiate or are they fixed at 100Mbit?
>>> What are the MTU's of each connection?
>>> Flow control turned on?
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Christopher Gray" 
>>> To: "af" 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:57:56 PM
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] Trouble Identifying Throughput Issue
>>>
>>> I have a section of my network that is lacking something, and I can't
>>> figure out where the problem is. I'm looking for any thoughts /
>>> suggestions.
>>>
>>> 4x MikroTik routers
>>>
>>> Link speeds:
>>> R1 -- (30 Mbps IP / Transport) -- R2 -- (100 Mbps Eth) -- R3 -- (75 Mbps
>>> UBNT M5) -- R4
>>>
>>> The limiting factor for traffic should be the Transport, and I expect to
>>> be
>>> able to get 30 Mbps across the system (one-way).
>>>
>>> Testing from R1 to R3 runs 30 Mbps.
>>>
>>> Testing from R2 to R4 runs 75 Mbps.
>>>
>>> Testing from R1 to R4 only runs 10 Mbps (instead of 30).
>>>
>>> Tests were one-way btest with 20 TCP streams.
>>>
>>> Any ideas for something that would cause this?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Trouble Identifying Throughput Issue

[Christopher Gray]

While running from R1 to R4 (maxing at only 10 Mbps), I can also run from
R1 to R3 an additional 15+.

Also, while running from R1 to R4 (again, maxing at 10 Mbps), I can also
run from R3 to R4 an additional 60+.


Aggregation on the M5 link is defaulted to 32 frames / 50,000 bytes. Could
this be causing such issues on a good link?






On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Christopher Gray <
cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:

> R1 is the only router with 1 Gbps ports. Everything is auto except 1
> connection that requires manual settings.
>
> *R1* -- (Auto 1 G FD) ...Internet... (Manual 100 FD) -- *R2 *-- (Auto 100
> FD)  -- *R3* -- (Auto 100 FD) ...M5... (Auto 100 FD) -- *R4*
>
> MTU is set to 1500 on every port (and the UBNT link).
>
> Flow control is off, and none of the interfaces show any pause frames
> received.
>
>
> This is a live link, but it is only running ~ 1 Mbps otherwise.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Steve  wrote:
>
>> Few questions come to mind.
>>
>> Are all set to auto negotiate or are they fixed at 100Mbit?
>> What are the MTU's of each connection?
>> Flow control turned on?
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Christopher Gray" 
>> To: "af" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:57:56 PM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] Trouble Identifying Throughput Issue
>>
>> I have a section of my network that is lacking something, and I can't
>> figure out where the problem is. I'm looking for any thoughts /
>> suggestions.
>>
>> 4x MikroTik routers
>>
>> Link speeds:
>> R1 -- (30 Mbps IP / Transport) -- R2 -- (100 Mbps Eth) -- R3 -- (75 Mbps
>> UBNT M5) -- R4
>>
>> The limiting factor for traffic should be the Transport, and I expect to
>> be
>> able to get 30 Mbps across the system (one-way).
>>
>> Testing from R1 to R3 runs 30 Mbps.
>>
>> Testing from R2 to R4 runs 75 Mbps.
>>
>> Testing from R1 to R4 only runs 10 Mbps (instead of 30).
>>
>> Tests were one-way btest with 20 TCP streams.
>>
>> Any ideas for something that would cause this?
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Trouble Identifying Throughput Issue

[Christopher Gray]

R1 is the only router with 1 Gbps ports. Everything is auto except 1
connection that requires manual settings.

*R1* -- (Auto 1 G FD) ...Internet... (Manual 100 FD) -- *R2 *-- (Auto 100
FD)  -- *R3* -- (Auto 100 FD) ...M5... (Auto 100 FD) -- *R4*

MTU is set to 1500 on every port (and the UBNT link).

Flow control is off, and none of the interfaces show any pause frames
received.


This is a live link, but it is only running ~ 1 Mbps otherwise.



On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Steve  wrote:

> Few questions come to mind.
>
> Are all set to auto negotiate or are they fixed at 100Mbit?
> What are the MTU's of each connection?
> Flow control turned on?
>
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Gray" 
> To: "af" 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:57:56 PM
> Subject: [AFMUG] Trouble Identifying Throughput Issue
>
> I have a section of my network that is lacking something, and I can't
> figure out where the problem is. I'm looking for any thoughts /
> suggestions.
>
> 4x MikroTik routers
>
> Link speeds:
> R1 -- (30 Mbps IP / Transport) -- R2 -- (100 Mbps Eth) -- R3 -- (75 Mbps
> UBNT M5) -- R4
>
> The limiting factor for traffic should be the Transport, and I expect to be
> able to get 30 Mbps across the system (one-way).
>
> Testing from R1 to R3 runs 30 Mbps.
>
> Testing from R2 to R4 runs 75 Mbps.
>
> Testing from R1 to R4 only runs 10 Mbps (instead of 30).
>
> Tests were one-way btest with 20 TCP streams.
>
> Any ideas for something that would cause this?
>

[AFMUG] Trouble Identifying Throughput Issue

[Christopher Gray]

I have a section of my network that is lacking something, and I can't
figure out where the problem is. I'm looking for any thoughts / suggestions.

4x MikroTik routers

Link speeds:
R1 -- (30 Mbps IP / Transport) -- R2 -- (100 Mbps Eth) -- R3 -- (75 Mbps
UBNT M5) -- R4

The limiting factor for traffic should be the Transport, and I expect to be
able to get 30 Mbps across the system (one-way).

Testing from R1 to R3 runs 30 Mbps.

Testing from R2 to R4 runs 75 Mbps.

Testing from R1 to R4 only runs 10 Mbps (instead of 30).

Tests were one-way btest with 20 TCP streams.

Any ideas for something that would cause this?

[AFMUG] OpenSRS Email?

[Christopher Gray]

I'm looking for feedback on the OpenSRS email product. Does anyone here use
it / have any thoughts? Offlist is ok if necessary.

Thank you - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] Iptv

[Christopher Gray]

It always seemed to me that a combination of cloud and on-site DVR would be
ideal for a WISP. Data would be stored in the cloud DVR at the initial
request, and then it would sync with the on-site DVR during off-peak hours
or as low priority traffic.


On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Paul Stewart  wrote:

> That’s pretty small for cloud DVR depending on what you are offering
> (storage per sub) and other features…
>
> Typical systems I have seen are in PB levels …. 1-2 to start, 4-5PB of
> storage to grow
>
> On Oct 22, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
>
> Yes. I think the one we were about to put in when I left NDF was around
> 120TB
>
> On Oct 22, 2016 4:15 PM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> cloud dvr stored somewhere in the central office here or something?  i
>> guess?
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Josh Reynolds 
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 4:06 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Iptv
>>
>> Multicast bulk channels, unicast for on-demand or cloud DVR.
>>
>> On Oct 22, 2016 3:44 PM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On a quick vacation to the beach.condo has centurylink
>>> prismwhich I assume is pretty similar to att uversewhich is iptv
>>> all over again.
>>>
>>> I like how quick the channel changespretty good picture (in hd if
>>> you select hd from the sd channel number)
>>>
>>> Box is wifi...with an hdmi output
>>>
>>> Is this the type iptv product us wisps should be selling?  Especially if
>>> we move into fiber?
>>>
>>> Without googling itis this multicast or unicast?
>>>
>>> I may go Google it next Alabama football commercial breaklol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
>>>
>>>
>

[AFMUG] Cambium Beta Contract

[Christopher Gray]

They created ePMP man, but their contract specifically states:

"...Product is not designed, intended, or authorized for use as components
in systems intended for surgical implant into the body;..."

[AFMUG] Power Readings on 2.4 GHz airMAX / ePMP

[Christopher Gray]

I finally had a chance to figure out the discrepancy between radio power
readings in the 2.4 GHz band. I've often heard about people getting
significantly reduced signal when switching from airMAX to ePMP on 2.4
GHz.. but other people see no difference. In my case, I found a drop of
about 7 dB going from airMAX to ePMP on a particular PTP link with matched
settings running 5 MHz channels, but an increase in throughput (which
really made me want to figure out what was going on).

Following some early morning testing, it turns out: ePMP is reporting
received power while airMAX is actually reporting receive spectral density
with units dBm/20MHz.

As a result, if you swap radios from airMAX to ePMP when running 20 MHz
channels, you should little to no change at all. If you are running 10 MHz
channels, however, you should expect about 3 dB reduction in reported
signal, and if running 5 MHz channels, you should see about 6 dB reduction
in reported signal. [If you are running 40 MHz channels, you should see an
increase of about 3 dB, but please don't run 40 MHz channels in 2.4 GHz.]
These reductions are not the result of weaker performance, but simply
different units in the signal bar.

On a side note relative to poor ePMP performance... ePMP has had a firmware
issue with calculating output power in FCC areas resulting in lower than
allowed power output. I've been questioning them about this, and they tell
me the correct output power calculations should be in the "next firmware".
Once this is fixed, weaker customers should have a better chance of linking
up.

[Also, I should note the AF-2X radios also report received power like the
ePMP.]

-Chris

Re: [AFMUG] M2 WiFi Mode to ePMP AP WiFi Mode 10 MHz

[Christopher Gray]

I decided to click the little (?) button.

To operate in WiFi mode, "...The AP must have WDS enabled."

Bingo, everything works fine.


On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Christopher Gray <
cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:

> I'm having a hard time getting this to work. I'm working a very simple
> setup:
>
> AP: UBNT NSM2, airMax off, WDS off, bridge mode, WPA2, v5.6.3
>
> SM: ePMP 2.4 GHz integrated, WiFi SM mode, bridge mode, WPA2, v3.0
>
> I can't even get the ePMP to connect to a test WiFi network, so I expect
> I'm missing something very basic on the ePMP. ePMP will see the network,
> but will not register. Any suggestions?
>
> -Chris
>
>
> --
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Jerry Head 
> wrote:
>
>> Yep.
>>
>>
>> On 8/23/2016 8:55 PM, Christopher Gray wrote:
>>
>>> I'm about to swap out some UBNT M2 hardware for ePMP hardware. I plan to
>>> be changing the AP to ePMP first, then all the SMs.
>>>
>>> Will 2.4 GHz M2 hardware connect in WiFi mode to an ePMP AP in a 10 MHz
>>> wide channel?
>>>
>>> Thank you - Chris
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] M2 WiFi Mode to ePMP AP WiFi Mode 10 MHz

[Christopher Gray]

I'm having a hard time getting this to work. I'm working a very simple
setup:

AP: UBNT NSM2, airMax off, WDS off, bridge mode, WPA2, v5.6.3

SM: ePMP 2.4 GHz integrated, WiFi SM mode, bridge mode, WPA2, v3.0

I can't even get the ePMP to connect to a test WiFi network, so I expect
I'm missing something very basic on the ePMP. ePMP will see the network,
but will not register. Any suggestions?

-Chris


--

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Jerry Head 
wrote:

> Yep.
>
>
> On 8/23/2016 8:55 PM, Christopher Gray wrote:
>
>> I'm about to swap out some UBNT M2 hardware for ePMP hardware. I plan to
>> be changing the AP to ePMP first, then all the SMs.
>>
>> Will 2.4 GHz M2 hardware connect in WiFi mode to an ePMP AP in a 10 MHz
>> wide channel?
>>
>> Thank you - Chris
>>
>
>

[AFMUG] M2 WiFi Mode to ePMP AP WiFi Mode 10 MHz

[Christopher Gray]

I'm about to swap out some UBNT M2 hardware for ePMP hardware. I plan to be
changing the AP to ePMP first, then all the SMs.

Will 2.4 GHz M2 hardware connect in WiFi mode to an ePMP AP in a 10 MHz
wide channel?

Thank you - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] UBNT PoE for Mimosa C5 / B5-Lite?

[Christopher Gray]

I'll follow up with Mimosa since the chart describes power combinations
specifically for the B5/B5c, but the critical note for me is this:

"Mimosa radios require 48 volts, but they accept an input range of 44 to 57
volts on a wide variety of pin combinations."

Thank you Faisal.

-Chris


--

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
wrote:

> I believe you will find your answer here ...
>
> http://client.help.mimosa.co/client-faq-voltage-input-specifications
>
>
> Very detailed info on what would work... :)
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Christopher Gray" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, August 16, 2016 10:58:20 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] UBNT PoE for Mimosa C5 / B5-Lite?
>
> What UBNT PoE works for Mimosa C5 and B5-Lite? [Possibly POE-48-24W or
> POE-48-24W-G?]
> Spec says: 48-56 V Power over Ethernet supply, but it doesn't mention the
> requirement at the radio.
>
> I'd like to use a power supply with built in grounding and surge
> suppression for a few installations, and it seems the UBNT power supplies
> are the most cost effective ways to achieve this.
>
> -Chris
>
>

[AFMUG] UBNT PoE for Mimosa C5 / B5-Lite?

[Christopher Gray]

What UBNT PoE works for Mimosa C5 and B5-Lite? [Possibly POE-48-24W or
POE-48-24W-G?]

Spec says: 48-56 V Power over Ethernet supply, but it doesn't mention the
requirement at the radio.

I'd like to use a power supply with built in grounding and surge
suppression for a few installations, and it seems the UBNT power supplies
are the most cost effective ways to achieve this.

-Chris

[AFMUG] Access Both Sides of Downed Link Using OSPF?

[Christopher Gray]

How do you setup radio addresses so both ends of a link can be accessed
(via loop) when the link is down?

*What I've been doing... and how it doesn't work:*
I've been setting up OSPF links using a /29.

Router A -- Radio A ~~ Radio B -- Router B

Devices get addresses:

   - .1 - Router A
   - .2 - Router B
   - .3 - Radio A (Gateway set to .1)
   - .4 - Radio B (Gateway set to .2)
   - .5 - Spare (used when swapping links)
   - .6 - Spare (used when swapping links)

This feels very clean, and works nicely when the link is up or when there
is no network loop. However, when the link goes down, if I am connected
near Router A, all traffic for that /29 is routed through Router A, and I
have no access to the B side. Then, I can only access the B side if I
connect closer to Router B.

Suggestions?

Thanks - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] Increase PMP100 900 MHz Stability in High Noise?

[Christopher Gray]

I was really hoping to buy some time on these customers with high
re-registrations. It looks like I just need to find a new band. I can't cut
down my frequency list since it is a remote site and I sometimes need to
swap channels just to get a radio to register at all.

Time try some 2.4 at this spot.



On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> Like primary channel and backup channels?
>
> Seems like they could store in RAM what the most recently connected
> channel was, and scan that channel a few times before going through the
> whole scan list.  Seems like it would reduce the service impact of a
> re-reg.  Just sayin
> Is Aaron Schneider listening today?
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Matt" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Sent: 8/10/2016 6:06:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Increase PMP100 900 MHz Stability in High Noise?
>
>  If you go into the affected SM and disable all channels except for the one
>>>  the AP is on then it will register faster.  This doesn't stop the
>>> re-reging
>>>  but makes it less noticeable.
>>>
>>>  I'm generally against that because then you can't change channels, but
>>>  sometimes you do what you have to do.
>>>
>>
>> I really wish Canopy had a feature to only scan certain channels for X
>> minutes, if unable to register in that time frame switch to another
>> bigger channel group to scan.  That way if you are forced too switch
>> to a different channel and width due to interference etc. you can at
>> least get your SM's back on the AP.
>>
>
>

[AFMUG] Increase PMP100 900 MHz Stability in High Noise?

[Christopher Gray]

Is there a setting or combination of settings for the PMP100 900 MHz
hardware that would help it remain connected in higher intermittent noise
environments? [Perhaps something that increases retries at the expense of
latency?]

Thank you - Chris