[AFMUG] FSK AP thinks default plug is in

[Craig Baird]

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


Craig

Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Craig Baird]

We haven't been able to determine this.  Where we're seeing it is on a  
pair of Exfo test sets.  We're trying to qualify a new 50 Mbps  
dedicated circuit using RFC 2544 testing using the Exfos.  Tests are  
failing, reporting lost frames.  The confusing thing is that our  
counters on both radios and switches are fairly clean.  The radios  
report zero "defective blocks".  The only errors I am seeing that I  
wonder about show up on both the radio and ethernet sides.  On one  
radio, I see 38 "TX length error frame count" errors since Saturday on  
the ethernet port.  I also have 38 "RX length error frame count"  
errors on the radio.  On the other side, I have 39 "RX length error  
frame count" errors on the ethernet.  None on the radio side.


However, I question whether these errors are related to what I'm  
seeing in any way.  I tested another leg of this circuit the other  
day.  Identical radios.  It tested clean, but was also showing some of  
these same errors.


Craig



Quoting David Milholen <dmilho...@wletc.com>:


Are these frame losses on the Radio side or the ethernet side?


On 4/16/2016 10:32 AM, Craig Baird wrote:
So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link.  We  
recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside  
from a little bit of frame loss that we are investigating.  While  
looking into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something  
that concerns me.  On Cambium's support forum there is a post that  
states that when dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the  
same sub-band.  There is no explanation of why this is the case.   
In our situation, the radios are in separate sub-bands.  When we  
did the frequency coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels  
available were in different sub-bands.  I passed those channels  
along to our vendor who worked with Cambium to get a BOM.  At no  
point did anyone say that this was a problem.  So now, fast forward  
a few months, and I stumble across this post, and now I'm wondering  
what the implications will be. Both links are up and running.   
Signal on both is right where it should be (-39 on one, -40 on the  
other).  Both are running at maximum modulation.  There are no  
defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces.  There is no  
indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside  
from possibly this frame loss thing.  However, if I mute the radios  
on one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related.


In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized.  On one  
side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios.  On  
the other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish.


So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't  
use radios from different sub-bands.  Are we in for trouble at some  
point?


Craig




--

Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Craig Baird]

Thanks Daniel.  This eases my mind a little since you are quite  
familiar with these radios.  Here is the Cambium Community post I'm  
referencing.  It's very clear that it means sub-bands:


http://tinyurl.com/j6lrsea

Thanks!

Craig


Quoting Daniel White <afmu...@gmail.com>:


Craig my guess would be they meant frequency band, not subband.

I can't think of any reason you couldn't use different sub-bands so  
long as the OMT covers the range (which in the case of 11GHz is most  
likely covers all subbands).


Daniel White
Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales
ConVergence Technologies
Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
dwh...@converge-tech.com



-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Baird
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 10:04 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

Thanks Faisal.  I hope that's the case.  If it were just some random person
who made the post, I wouldn't worry so much about it.  But the post was
made by one of the Cambium guys themselves.

Craig


Quoting Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net>:

> I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics..
> However I would make a general statement ..
>
> There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link,
> there may be some context to these old wives tails, most folks in the
> industry tend to take it for face value, very few end up examining it
> for merit of correctness. Comments made by folks in the public forums
> can be the best or the worst of such examples.
>
> From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have
> the link working, then anything else would be an old wives tale.
>
> BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look at
> what Mimosa B11's can do with them and yes these folks did
> challenge the accepted status quo  in licensed links..
>
> 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: "Craig Baird" <cr...@xpressweb.com>
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration
>
>> So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link.  We
>> recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from
>> a little bit of frame loss that we are investigating.  While looking
>> into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns
>> me.  On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when
>> dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band.
>> There is no explanation of why this is the case.  In our situation,
>> the radios are in separate sub-bands.  When we did the frequency
>> coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in
>> different sub-bands.  I passed those channels along to our vendor who
>> worked with Cambium to get a BOM.  At no point did anyone say that
>> this was a problem.  So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble
>> across this post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will
>> be.  Both links are up and running.  Signal on both is right where it
>> should be (-39 on one, -40 on the other).  Both are running at maximum
modulation.
>> There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces.  There
>> is no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues,
>> aside from possibly this frame loss thing.  However, if I mute the
>> radios on one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think  
it's related.

>>
>> In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized.  On one
>> side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios.  On
>> the other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish.
>>
>> So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use
>> radios from different sub-bands.  Are we in for trouble at some point?
>>
>> Craig
>
>





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Craig Baird]

Thanks Faisal.  I hope that's the case.  If it were just some random  
person who made the post, I wouldn't worry so much about it.  But the  
post was made by one of the Cambium guys themselves.


Craig


Quoting Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net>:

I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics..  
However I would make a general statement ..


There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link,  
there may be some context to these old wives tails, most folks in  
the industry tend to take it for face value, very few end up  
examining it for merit of correctness. Comments made by folks in the  
public forums can be the best or the worst of such examples.


From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have  
the link working, then anything else would be an old wives tale.


BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look  
at what Mimosa B11's can do with them and yes these folks did  
challenge the accepted status quo  in licensed links..


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: "Craig Baird" <cr...@xpressweb.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration



So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link.  We
recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a
little bit of frame loss that we are investigating.  While looking
into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns
me.  On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when
dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band.
There is no explanation of why this is the case.  In our situation,
the radios are in separate sub-bands.  When we did the frequency
coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in different
sub-bands.  I passed those channels along to our vendor who worked
with Cambium to get a BOM.  At no point did anyone say that this was a
problem.  So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble across this
post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will be.  Both links
are up and running.  Signal on both is right where it should be (-39
on one, -40 on the other).  Both are running at maximum modulation.
There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces.  There is
no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside
from possibly this frame loss thing.  However, if I mute the radios on
one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related.

In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized.  On one
side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios.  On the
other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish.

So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use
radios from different sub-bands.  Are we in for trouble at some point?

Craig

[AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Craig Baird]

So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link.  We  
recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a  
little bit of frame loss that we are investigating.  While looking  
into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns  
me.  On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when  
dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band.   
There is no explanation of why this is the case.  In our situation,  
the radios are in separate sub-bands.  When we did the frequency  
coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in different  
sub-bands.  I passed those channels along to our vendor who worked  
with Cambium to get a BOM.  At no point did anyone say that this was a  
problem.  So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble across this  
post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will be.  Both links  
are up and running.  Signal on both is right where it should be (-39  
on one, -40 on the other).  Both are running at maximum modulation.   
There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces.  There is  
no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside  
from possibly this frame loss thing.  However, if I mute the radios on  
one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related.


In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized.  On one  
side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios.  On the  
other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish.


So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use  
radios from different sub-bands.  Are we in for trouble at some point?


Craig

Re: [AFMUG] Outdiscards on Cisco switch with PTP820S

[Craig Baird]

I'll give it a try.  Thanks Cassidy.

Craig


Quoting "Cassidy B. Larson" <c...@infowest.com>:


You might want to increase the queue limit on your 1G interfaces.

We do this on our ASR920’s:

class-map match-any cos_all
 match cos  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7
!
policy-map MC_1G_1M
 class cos_all
  bandwidth percent 100
  queue-limit 1024000 bytes
!
int g0/0/0
 service-policy output MC_1G_1M

Haven’t used M3600X’s before, but it depends on what the buffer size  
of the total ports are, and probably how many ports are in use as  
well..


-c



On Apr 14, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Craig Baird <cr...@xpressweb.com> wrote:

I've got a Cisco ME3600X switch connected up to a pair of Cambium  
PTP820S radios via gigabit fiber SFPs.  I'm seeing significant  
outdiscards, resulting in lost frames on the switch on both ports  
going to the 820S radios.  The links are not congested--generally  
pushing less than 100 Mbps (80 MHz channels, capable of 650 Mbps).   
I've got other 820S radios connected to the same model switch in  
other places, and am not seeing this.  The only difference is that  
this switch is fed with 10 gig fiber.  I'm wondering if it's a  
queueing problem of some sort.  Anybody have any ideas?


Craig

Re: [AFMUG] Outdiscards on Cisco switch with PTP820S

[Craig Baird]

Yes.  We've tried it both ways.  Same problem.

Craig


Quoting George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com>:


Flow control enabled?

On 4/14/2016 3:28 PM, Craig Baird wrote:
I've got a Cisco ME3600X switch connected up to a pair of Cambium  
PTP820S radios via gigabit fiber SFPs.  I'm seeing significant  
outdiscards, resulting in lost frames on the switch on both ports  
going to the 820S radios.  The links are not congested--generally  
pushing less than 100 Mbps (80 MHz channels, capable of 650 Mbps).   
I've got other 820S radios connected to the same model switch in  
other places, and am not seeing this.  The only difference is that  
this switch is fed with 10 gig fiber.  I'm wondering if it's a  
queueing problem of some sort.  Anybody have any ideas?


Craig

Re: [AFMUG] Outdiscards on Cisco switch with PTP820S

[Craig Baird]

The Outdiscards are on the 1G interface, but of course all the traffic  
is coming from the 10G interface:


PortAlign-Err FCS-ErrXmit-Err Rcv-Err  UnderSize   
OutDiscards
Gi0/1   0   0   0   0  0
 0
Gi0/2   0   0   0   0  0
 41356
Gi0/3   0   1   0   1  0
  7168
Gi0/4   0   0   0   0  0
 0
Gi0/5   0   0   0   0  0
 0
Gi0/6   0   0   0   0  0
 0
Gi0/7   0   0   0   0  0
 0
Gi0/8   0   0   0   0  0
 0
Gi0/9   0   0   0   0  0
 0
Gi0/10  0   0   0   0  0
 0


Here's about 30 seconds later:

PortAlign-Err FCS-ErrXmit-Err Rcv-Err  UnderSize   
OutDiscards
Gi0/1   0   0   0   0  0
 0
Gi0/2   0   0   0   0  0
 41361
Gi0/3   0   1   0   1  0
  7168
Gi0/4   0   0   0   0  0
 0
Gi0/5   0   0   0   0  0
 0
Gi0/6   0   0   0   0  0
 0
Gi0/7   0   0   0   0  0
 0
Gi0/8   0   0   0   0  0
 0
Gi0/9   0   0   0   0  0
 0
Gi0/10  0   0   0   0  0
 0


G0/2 and G0/3 are both Cambium PTP820S links.  They are going to be a  
2+0 in a portchannel, but we are running them separately for now while  
we test this issue.  G0/3 is currently shut down.  As you can see,  
both are racking up OutDiscards.  G0/1 is a 1G link to another  
company's switch in the same building.  Obviously no problems there.


Thanks!

Craig



Quoting Sterling Jacobson <sterl...@avative.net>:


Outdiscards ingress from the 10G to the 1Gig?

It might discard if it's overflowing the buffer on the 1Gbps  
interface from the 10Gbps side.


That's not totally uncommon.

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Baird
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 2:28 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Outdiscards on Cisco switch with PTP820S

I've got a Cisco ME3600X switch connected up to a pair of Cambium  
PTP820S radios via gigabit fiber SFPs.  I'm seeing significant  
outdiscards, resulting in lost frames on the switch on both ports  
going to the 820S radios.  The links are not congested--generally

pushing less than 100 Mbps (80 MHz channels, capable of 650 Mbps).
I've got other 820S radios connected to the same model switch in  
other places, and am not seeing this.  The only difference is that  
this switch is fed with 10 gig fiber.  I'm wondering if it's a  
queueing problem of some sort.  Anybody have any ideas?


Craig

Re: [AFMUG] Outdiscards on Cisco switch with PTP820S

[Craig Baird]

Here are the port configs for both the 10G and 1G interfaces:



interface GigabitEthernet0/2
 description Radio Link #1
 switchport trunk allowed vlan 496,498,499,807,1998
 switchport mode trunk
 mtu 9216
 flowcontrol receive on


interface TenGigabitEthernet0/1
 description 10G Fiber backhaul
 switchport trunk allowed vlan 414,471,496,497,499,806
 switchport mode trunk
 mtu 9216

Thanks!

Craig



Quoting Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>:


Can you copy and paste the port configuration from a 'show run' on the
ME3600X?

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Craig Baird <cr...@xpressweb.com> wrote:


I've got a Cisco ME3600X switch connected up to a pair of Cambium PTP820S
radios via gigabit fiber SFPs.  I'm seeing significant outdiscards,
resulting in lost frames on the switch on both ports going to the 820S
radios.  The links are not congested--generally pushing less than 100 Mbps
(80 MHz channels, capable of 650 Mbps).  I've got other 820S radios
connected to the same model switch in other places, and am not seeing
this.  The only difference is that this switch is fed with 10 gig fiber.
I'm wondering if it's a queueing problem of some sort.  Anybody have any
ideas?

Craig

[AFMUG] Outdiscards on Cisco switch with PTP820S

[Craig Baird]

I've got a Cisco ME3600X switch connected up to a pair of Cambium  
PTP820S radios via gigabit fiber SFPs.  I'm seeing significant  
outdiscards, resulting in lost frames on the switch on both ports  
going to the 820S radios.  The links are not congested--generally  
pushing less than 100 Mbps (80 MHz channels, capable of 650 Mbps).   
I've got other 820S radios connected to the same model switch in other  
places, and am not seeing this.  The only difference is that this  
switch is fed with 10 gig fiber.  I'm wondering if it's a queueing  
problem of some sort.  Anybody have any ideas?


Craig

[AFMUG] Swapping POE injectors between licensed gear

[Craig Baird]

I have a 23 GHz SAF Integra link that has been in storage for a while.  
 We're about to re-deploy it, but we are missing a POE injector box  
for one side.  Does anyone know if it's possible to swap POE injectors  
between different makes of licensed gear?  I have some extra Cambium  
PTP820 injectors I'd like to use if I could.  I also have some  
Dragonwave PONE injectors.  I suspect they all use the same POE  
scheme, and I know they pretty much all use 48vdc, but I don't want to  
smoke a radio.  Anyone know?


Craig

Re: [AFMUG] 13 ghz ODU IP20C Ceragon

[Craig Baird]

I ordered two 13 GHz Cambium PTP820S (rebranded Ceragon) links back in  
mid November.  I finally received the High TX radios a couple weeks  
ago.  Still waiting on the Low TX units.  Cambium told me that the  
radios were going to have to come out of Israel.  My impression is  
that these are difficult to come by...


Craig


Quoting Daniel Gerlach :


who has in Stock?

Thx and best regards

Daniel

Re: [AFMUG] Planet MGSW-28240F

[Craig Baird]

We have this exact switch in service right now with Fiberstore BiDis.   
It's never given us any trouble.


Craig


Quoting George Skorup :

I'm working on a fiber project and was wondering if anyone else has  
used this Planet switch?  
http://www.planet.com.tw/en/product/product.php?id=48441


Is Planet picky about SFP modules? I was planing on ordering some  
cheap single mode modules from Fiber Store to use with this and get  
the project rolling. Such as:  
http://www.fs.com/1-25-gbps-gige-1000base-lx-lh-1310nm-20km-dom-industrial-temp-lc-smf-sfp-transceiver-p-37258.html


Already ordered the switch, so we'll see what happens.

Re: [AFMUG] Planet MGSW-28240F

[Craig Baird]

Mikrotik RB2011s.

Craig


Quoting George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com>:

Derp, I forgot. What do you have on the other end of the ports?  
Routerboards with bidi SFPs? We're not sure what we're going to do  
on the CPE end yet. It's a multi party venture and those guys  
haven't made up their minds yet, other than each premise will have a  
pair and they want active ethernet. I mentioned GPON and was told  
no. So then I said why not do bidi and basically heard crickets. So  
whatever, I'm just in charge of designing the core network inside  
their box of requirements.


On 1/15/2016 8:12 PM, George Skorup wrote:

Excellent. Thanks.

On 1/15/2016 8:05 PM, Craig Baird wrote:
We have this exact switch in service right now with Fiberstore  
BiDis.  It's never given us any trouble.


Craig


Quoting George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com>:

I'm working on a fiber project and was wondering if anyone else  
has used this Planet switch?  
http://www.planet.com.tw/en/product/product.php?id=48441


Is Planet picky about SFP modules? I was planing on ordering some  
cheap single mode modules from Fiber Store to use with this and  
get the project rolling. Such as:  
http://www.fs.com/1-25-gbps-gige-1000base-lx-lh-1310nm-20km-dom-industrial-temp-lc-smf-sfp-transceiver-p-37258.html


Already ordered the switch, so we'll see what happens.

[AFMUG] Sitemonitor question

[Craig Baird]

Anyone know how long the cable can be between a Sitemonitor base unit  
and an expansion module?


Craig

[AFMUG] -48v radio on same tower with +48v radio

[Craig Baird]

I have a terrible time wrapping my head around -48vdc.  I'm hoping you  
guys can help.  I've got a Cambium PTP820S that I'm going to be  
putting on the same tower with several Mimosa B5s.  The 820S is  
apparently -48vdc, while it appears the Mimosa is +48vdc.  I'd like to  
power both with a Meanwell AD-155C with a 48v battery string.  So...  
what are my implications here?  Will having both -48 and +48 radios on  
the same tower, coming from the same power supply end up shorting  
through the tower?  What's the best way to do this short of using two  
separate power supplies and battery strings?


Thanks!

Craig

Re: [AFMUG] -48v radio on same tower with +48v radio

[Craig Baird]

Great!  Thanks!  So let me make sure I'm clear on this.  I'll connect  
my +48v gear directly to the AD-155C.  Then, put the RSD-200C in-line  
between the AD-155C and the -48v gear.  Is this right?


Craig


Quoting George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com>:


Yup. Just use a RSD200C-48 and not worry about it.

On 1/5/2016 12:51 PM, Josh Baird wrote:
You need an isolated DC-DC converter between your +48V and -48V.   
Look into the Meanwell RSD series (not the SD).


Specifically, take a look at the RSD-200C.

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Craig Baird <cr...@xpressweb.com  
<mailto:cr...@xpressweb.com>> wrote:


   I have a terrible time wrapping my head around -48vdc.  I'm hoping
   you guys can help.  I've got a Cambium PTP820S that I'm going to
   be putting on the same tower with several Mimosa B5s.  The 820S is
   apparently -48vdc, while it appears the Mimosa is +48vdc.  I'd
   like to power both with a Meanwell AD-155C with a 48v battery
   string.  So... what are my implications here?  Will having both
   -48 and +48 radios on the same tower, coming from the same power
   supply end up shorting through the tower?  What's the best way to
   do this short of using two separate power supplies and battery
   strings?

   Thanks!

   Craig

Re: [AFMUG] Blocking Tech Savvy person from Porn

[Craig Baird]

It depends on just how tech savvy the person is.  We had a similar  
situation a while back.  Customer's kid was using VPNs to bypass  
whatever controls the customer had in place.  We sold the customer a  
Mikrotik, and set it up to block the standard VPN ports.  Problem  
solved--at least so far.  The kid wasn't tech savvy enough to  
circumvent that.  Obviously, that could change.


Craig


Quoting Nate Burke :

That was my thought, there's always a way around. Where there's a  
will, there's a way.


On 1/4/2016 9:50 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote:


He can probably shift quite a few ports/methods around, or create  
vpns he controls to amazon., etc. Or Tor. Etc etc for every  
solution you come up with, there's a way around it.


Also, this is a social/hr "issue". Treat it as such.

On Jan 4, 2016 9:45 AM, "Josh Luthman" > wrote:


   VPN hides the traffic, so anything in it is getting through.  
Could you do 1kbps for all VPN traffic?


   Block porn with opendns and drop DNS to anything else?

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

   On Jan 4, 2016 10:42 AM, "Nate Burke" > wrote:

   We're dealing with a customer who is trying to block porn from
   their house.  The person who has the 'problem' is tech savvy,
   and is using VPN Services.  Is there any way to block someone
   like this?  I'm guessing any content filtering wouldn't work
   because the VPN is terminating on the computer behind the
   router.  Any sort of IP or DNS Block they would be able to
   bypass.  Is there any way to stop a tech person from getting
   what they want?  Right now our only thought is to put in like
   a 10k/s queue on their connection during the overnight  
hours. Other options?

Re: [AFMUG] RF exposure concerns

[Craig Baird]

Thanks Josh.  I'm looking at their checklist in appendix A.  It  
requires you to choose what type of service will be in use, and  
provides a table of services to choose from.  However, it doesn't show  
either part 15 or part 101.  The closest thing that it shows is  
"subpart L of part 101", which is LMDS.  I gather that this is  
primarily intended for PtMP installations.  At this site, almost  
everything in both licensed and unlicensed will be PtP.  Is there a  
document like this that addresses PtP installations?


Craig


Quoting Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com>:


A Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF
Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance
http://wireless.fcc.gov/siting/FCC_LSGAC_RF_Guide.pdf

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Craig Baird <cr...@xpressweb.com> wrote:

We have been working with a nearby city to bring Internet service into their
area.  The city government has been very cooperative because the existing
service in the area is exceptionally poor.  Our plan is to feed the city
with a 6 GHz licensed link to the rooftop of the city library.  From there
we plan to redistribute via unlicensed.  We are on the agenda to present our
plan for use of the library roof to the city council this week.  I just got
an e-mail from the City saying that a "concerned citizen" has contacted them
saying he felt there were FCC issues and regulations with placing equipment
on the library due to potential RF Exposure to "children and customers of
the library".  Anyway, this guy is preparing an informational packet to give
to the City Council at the meeting.  Obviously, I'm not sure what this
informational packet will contain, but I'm pretty certain it will largely
amount to fear-mongering, and will likely imply that we will give cancer to
anyone to enters the library.

I'd like to be prepared with some solid data on RF exposure from 6 GHz
licensed microwave.  Can anyone point me to something that would be helpful?

Thanks!

Craig

[AFMUG] RF exposure concerns

[Craig Baird]

We have been working with a nearby city to bring Internet service into  
their area.  The city government has been very cooperative because the  
existing service in the area is exceptionally poor.  Our plan is to  
feed the city with a 6 GHz licensed link to the rooftop of the city  
library.  From there we plan to redistribute via unlicensed.  We are  
on the agenda to present our plan for use of the library roof to the  
city council this week.  I just got an e-mail from the City saying  
that a "concerned citizen" has contacted them saying he felt there  
were FCC issues and regulations with placing equipment on the library  
due to potential RF Exposure to "children and customers of the  
library".  Anyway, this guy is preparing an informational packet to  
give to the City Council at the meeting.  Obviously, I'm not sure what  
this informational packet will contain, but I'm pretty certain it will  
largely amount to fear-mongering, and will likely imply that we will  
give cancer to anyone to enters the library.


I'd like to be prepared with some solid data on RF exposure from 6 GHz  
licensed microwave.  Can anyone point me to something that would be  
helpful?


Thanks!

Craig

[AFMUG] POE vs DC and surge supression

[Craig Baird]

We've got some Cambium PTP820S radios going up shortly.  We will be  
running fiber to the radios, so we're debating on POE vs. DC up the  
tower for powering them.  We have been told by the tower owner that we  
need to adhere to R56 for lightning protection.


Our initial thought was that we would just run POE since we already  
have the cable, and it would give us an out-of-band management port.   
But, according to the Cambium installation manual (and I think R56  
specifies this too), it says that if we're running POE, we're supposed  
to bond the cable shield to the tower every 50 meters.  I assume that  
means at the top and bottom since our cable runs are all less than 50  
meters. In addition, the manual says that we should use Ethernet surge  
suppressors.  We're thinking "what a pain in the butt".  On the other  
hand, the Cambium manual does not address grounding for DC cable in  
any way other than saying that the radio has DC (and Ethernet) surge  
protection built in.


So the DC option is looking pretty attractive compared to the hoops  
we'll need jump through for ethernet.  I'm wondering if there's  
something we're missing that the Cambium manual doesn't address.  I  
figured just to be safe, we would go ahead and put DC surge  
suppressors at the top and bottom of the DC cable.  Is there anything  
else needed for R56 adherence in this situation?


Craig

Re: [AFMUG] POE vs DC and surge supression

[Craig Baird]

Something I could hang on a tower next to a radio would be ideal.   
Seems like your case has tabs on top and bottom for band clamps,  
doesn't it?


Craig


Quoting Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com>:


Not yet...
What form factor would be preferred?
I could fit it in my regular surge suppressor case if that is not too small.


-Original Message- From: Craig Baird
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 3:07 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] POE vs DC and surge supression

You don't have an outdoor version, do you?

Craig


Quoting Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com>:


I am kinda partial to this one:
http://www.mccowntech.com/dc-power-line-apc-rack-surge-suppressor-protector/

From: Josh Baird
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 2:33 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] POE vs DC and surge supression

Not to go too far off track here, but what DC surge protectors have  
 you used?  I priced ones from Calix and they were sort of pricey   
(>100 each).


Josh

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:

 I can't speak to R56, but the only experience I have with 48V   
direct DC power is with a WiMAX basestation that the manufacturer   
claimed the field failures were reduced to almost zero when they   
started recommending a DC surge protector at the basestation.  My   
personal view is the one by the BS or AP (and it should be right   
next to it) is more important than one on the ground.  In our case,  
 if a surge tried to blow out our rectifiers and battery, it would   
probably just pop a fuse.  Even so, replacing some 48V DC equipment  
 on the ground is no big deal compared to replacing an expensive   
basestation up on a tower.



 -Original Message----- From: Craig Baird
 Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 3:11 PM
 To: af@afmug.com
 Subject: [AFMUG] POE vs DC and surge supression


 We've got some Cambium PTP820S radios going up shortly.  We will be
 running fiber to the radios, so we're debating on POE vs. DC up the
 tower for powering them.  We have been told by the tower owner that we
 need to adhere to R56 for lightning protection.

 Our initial thought was that we would just run POE since we already
 have the cable, and it would give us an out-of-band management port.
 But, according to the Cambium installation manual (and I think R56
 specifies this too), it says that if we're running POE, we're supposed
 to bond the cable shield to the tower every 50 meters.  I assume that
 means at the top and bottom since our cable runs are all less than 50
 meters. In addition, the manual says that we should use Ethernet surge
 suppressors.  We're thinking "what a pain in the butt".  On the other
 hand, the Cambium manual does not address grounding for DC cable in
 any way other than saying that the radio has DC (and Ethernet) surge
 protection built in.

 So the DC option is looking pretty attractive compared to the hoops
 we'll need jump through for ethernet.  I'm wondering if there's
 something we're missing that the Cambium manual doesn't address.  I
 figured just to be safe, we would go ahead and put DC surge
 suppressors at the top and bottom of the DC cable.  Is there anything
 else needed for R56 adherence in this situation?

 Craig

Re: [AFMUG] POE vs DC and surge supression

[Craig Baird]

You don't have an outdoor version, do you?

Craig


Quoting Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com>:


I am kinda partial to this one:
http://www.mccowntech.com/dc-power-line-apc-rack-surge-suppressor-protector/

From: Josh Baird
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 2:33 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] POE vs DC and surge supression

Not to go too far off track here, but what DC surge protectors have  
you used?  I priced ones from Calix and they were sort of pricey  
(>100 each).


Josh

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:

  I can't speak to R56, but the only experience I have with 48V  
direct DC power is with a WiMAX basestation that the manufacturer  
claimed the field failures were reduced to almost zero when they  
started recommending a DC surge protector at the basestation.  My  
personal view is the one by the BS or AP (and it should be right  
next to it) is more important than one on the ground.  In our case,  
if a surge tried to blow out our rectifiers and battery, it would  
probably just pop a fuse.  Even so, replacing some 48V DC equipment  
on the ground is no big deal compared to replacing an expensive  
basestation up on a tower.



  -Original Message----- From: Craig Baird
  Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 3:11 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: [AFMUG] POE vs DC and surge supression


  We've got some Cambium PTP820S radios going up shortly.  We will be
  running fiber to the radios, so we're debating on POE vs. DC up the
  tower for powering them.  We have been told by the tower owner that we
  need to adhere to R56 for lightning protection.

  Our initial thought was that we would just run POE since we already
  have the cable, and it would give us an out-of-band management port.
  But, according to the Cambium installation manual (and I think R56
  specifies this too), it says that if we're running POE, we're supposed
  to bond the cable shield to the tower every 50 meters.  I assume that
  means at the top and bottom since our cable runs are all less than 50
  meters. In addition, the manual says that we should use Ethernet surge
  suppressors.  We're thinking "what a pain in the butt".  On the other
  hand, the Cambium manual does not address grounding for DC cable in
  any way other than saying that the radio has DC (and Ethernet) surge
  protection built in.

  So the DC option is looking pretty attractive compared to the hoops
  we'll need jump through for ethernet.  I'm wondering if there's
  something we're missing that the Cambium manual doesn't address.  I
  figured just to be safe, we would go ahead and put DC surge
  suppressors at the top and bottom of the DC cable.  Is there anything
  else needed for R56 adherence in this situation?

  Craig

Re: [AFMUG] POE vs DC and surge supression

[Craig Baird]

No, I don't have the fiber yet.  That's a great suggestion.  Thanks!

Craig


Quoting Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com>:


Do you already have the fiber?  If not, you should consider a hybrid cable
that has a few strands of fiber and 2-conductor 12/14AWG for powering the
radios?  Best-Tronics is a good vendor for this cable.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Craig Baird <cr...@xpressweb.com> wrote:


We've got some Cambium PTP820S radios going up shortly.  We will be
running fiber to the radios, so we're debating on POE vs. DC up the tower
for powering them.  We have been told by the tower owner that we need to
adhere to R56 for lightning protection.

Our initial thought was that we would just run POE since we already have
the cable, and it would give us an out-of-band management port.  But,
according to the Cambium installation manual (and I think R56 specifies
this too), it says that if we're running POE, we're supposed to bond the
cable shield to the tower every 50 meters.  I assume that means at the top
and bottom since our cable runs are all less than 50 meters. In addition,
the manual says that we should use Ethernet surge suppressors.  We're
thinking "what a pain in the butt".  On the other hand, the Cambium manual
does not address grounding for DC cable in any way other than saying that
the radio has DC (and Ethernet) surge protection built in.

So the DC option is looking pretty attractive compared to the hoops we'll
need jump through for ethernet.  I'm wondering if there's something we're
missing that the Cambium manual doesn't address.  I figured just to be
safe, we would go ahead and put DC surge suppressors at the top and bottom
of the DC cable.  Is there anything else needed for R56 adherence in this
situation?

Craig

Re: [AFMUG] Dish polarity question

[Craig Baird]

Uh Oh... I have opposite opinions from two guys (Chuck and Daniel)  
whose opinions both carry a lot of weight.  Now I'm back in the  
undecided camp...  Anyone else care to chime in?  Can an OMT turn a  
single-pol dish into a dual-pol?


Craig


Quoting ch...@wbmfg.com:


A circular waveguide will conduct all polarizations at the same time.
If the radio and antenna both have circular waveguide interfaces,  
the radio can put both polarizations out at the same time.


You cannot use a single pol antenna.

-Original Message- From: Craig Baird
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:06 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Dish polarity question

We are getting ready to put up a licensed 11 GHz 2+0 link using
Cambium PTP820S radios.  We have two 11 GHz frequencies that are
oppositely polarized for use on this path.  I had assumed that we
would need to use dual polarity dishes in order to make this work, but
Cambium and our vendor are saying that we need to use single-pol
dishes.  This completely baffles me.  How can a single-pol antenna
transmit in two polarities?  Cambium's answer is that it's because
we're using an OMT, and that device essentially makes the single-pol
antenna circularly polarized, so it will transmit both polarities.  My
first thought is "what kind of voodoo is this?"  Will this really
work???  I'd sure hate to start transmitting, only to find out from an
existing license holder that we're interfering with them because one
of our frequencies is coming out the antenna in the wrong polarity.
Can someone confirm for me that this will really fly?

Thanks!

Craig

[AFMUG] Dish polarity question

[Craig Baird]

We are getting ready to put up a licensed 11 GHz 2+0 link using  
Cambium PTP820S radios.  We have two 11 GHz frequencies that are  
oppositely polarized for use on this path.  I had assumed that we  
would need to use dual polarity dishes in order to make this work, but  
Cambium and our vendor are saying that we need to use single-pol  
dishes.  This completely baffles me.  How can a single-pol antenna  
transmit in two polarities?  Cambium's answer is that it's because  
we're using an OMT, and that device essentially makes the single-pol  
antenna circularly polarized, so it will transmit both polarities.  My  
first thought is "what kind of voodoo is this?"  Will this really  
work???  I'd sure hate to start transmitting, only to find out from an  
existing license holder that we're interfering with them because one  
of our frequencies is coming out the antenna in the wrong polarity.   
Can someone confirm for me that this will really fly?


Thanks!

Craig

Re: [AFMUG] Dish polarity question

[Craig Baird]

Interesting... this is exactly what I'm wondering...  see my last post...

Craig


Quoting Gino Villarini <ginovi...@gmail.com>:


But he should worry if he plans to reuse existing antennas.  If the antenna
coupling is rectangular, theses no way to inject both polarities into it.

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Daniel White <afmu...@gmail.com> wrote:


I agree... we are saying the same things... just in different ways :-)

Many vendors now are utilizing integrated OMT's... the Ceragon IP-20S uses
it for instance.

Long story short - don't worry if the BOM says Single Pol if it includes an
OMT.

Thank you,

Daniel White
afmu...@gmail.com
Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
Skype: danieldwhite
Social: LinkedIn: Twitter


> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:41 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Dish polarity question
>
> I think Daniel and I are saying the same things.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel White
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:13 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Dish polarity question
>
> This comes up all the time with many manufacturers.
>
> Almost all licensed microwave antennas a WISP is going to come in contact
> with have circular feedhorns, meaning their polarity is determined by the
> interface on the feedhorn.  Typically, they are rectangular and single
polarity.
>
> Then an OMT is added... depending on the radio it may be an external or
> internal device.  This combines the transmitters into a circular feed.
>
> No voodoo required.  The OMT makes a single polarity dish dual polarity.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Daniel White
> afmu...@gmail.com
> Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
> Skype: danieldwhite
> Social: LinkedIn: Twitter
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Baird
> > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:07 AM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: [AFMUG] Dish polarity question
> >
> > We are getting ready to put up a licensed 11 GHz 2+0 link using
> > Cambium PTP820S radios.  We have two 11 GHz frequencies that are
> > oppositely polarized for use on this path.  I had assumed that we
> > would need to use dual polarity dishes in order to make this work, but
> > Cambium and our
> vendor
> > are saying that we need to use single-pol dishes.  This completely
> > baffles
> me.
> > How can a single-pol antenna transmit in two polarities?  Cambium's
> > answer is that it's because we're using an OMT, and that device
> > essentially makes
> the
> > single-pol antenna circularly polarized, so it will transmit both
> polarities.  My
> > first thought is "what kind of voodoo is this?"  Will this really
work???
> I'd sure
> > hate to start transmitting, only to find out from an existing license
> holder that
> > we're interfering with them because one of our frequencies is coming
> > out the antenna in the wrong polarity.
> > Can someone confirm for me that this will really fly?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Craig
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [AFMUG] Dish polarity question

[Craig Baird]

Okay.  So, let me throw another wrinkle in the mix.  I'm wanting to  
use an 8-foot Radiowaves dish that we've had in storage for this shot.  
 Looking at the back of the feedhorn, there is a plate where the  
flexible waveguide attaches.  That plate has a rectangular hole in it.  
 However, I can see that underneath that rectangular hole the  
waveguide is actually circular.  So, could I use an OMT with such a  
configuration?  Would have have to replace that plate with one that  
has a circular hole instead of a rectangular one?


Craig


Quoting Daniel White <afmu...@gmail.com>:


I agree... we are saying the same things... just in different ways :-)

Many vendors now are utilizing integrated OMT's... the Ceragon IP-20S uses
it for instance.

Long story short - don't worry if the BOM says Single Pol if it includes an
OMT.

Thank you,

Daniel White
afmu...@gmail.com
Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
Skype: danieldwhite
Social: LinkedIn: Twitter



-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:41 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Dish polarity question

I think Daniel and I are saying the same things.

-Original Message-
From: Daniel White
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:13 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Dish polarity question

This comes up all the time with many manufacturers.

Almost all licensed microwave antennas a WISP is going to come in contact
with have circular feedhorns, meaning their polarity is determined by the
interface on the feedhorn.  Typically, they are rectangular and single

polarity.


Then an OMT is added... depending on the radio it may be an external or
internal device.  This combines the transmitters into a circular feed.

No voodoo required.  The OMT makes a single polarity dish dual polarity.

Thank you,

Daniel White
afmu...@gmail.com
Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
Skype: danieldwhite
Social: LinkedIn: Twitter

> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Baird
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:07 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] Dish polarity question
>
> We are getting ready to put up a licensed 11 GHz 2+0 link using
> Cambium PTP820S radios.  We have two 11 GHz frequencies that are
> oppositely polarized for use on this path.  I had assumed that we
> would need to use dual polarity dishes in order to make this work, but
> Cambium and our
vendor
> are saying that we need to use single-pol dishes.  This completely
> baffles
me.
> How can a single-pol antenna transmit in two polarities?  Cambium's
> answer is that it's because we're using an OMT, and that device
> essentially makes
the
> single-pol antenna circularly polarized, so it will transmit both
polarities.  My
> first thought is "what kind of voodoo is this?"  Will this really

work???

I'd sure
> hate to start transmitting, only to find out from an existing license
holder that
> we're interfering with them because one of our frequencies is coming
> out the antenna in the wrong polarity.
> Can someone confirm for me that this will really fly?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Craig



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[AFMUG] SAF POE/Fiber question

[Craig Baird]

I've got a few SAF Integra links that we'll be doing shortly.  We're  
planning to run fiber to the radios.  I'm wondering what's the best  
method for powering the radios?


From what I gather, SAF has some sort of new kit where you can send  
power up to the radio on 2-wire DC cable.  At the top, near the radio,  
there is a pigtail that takes power off the 2-wire cable, and puts it  
on another cable with an RJ-45 for plugging into the ethernet port on  
the radio.


I have a couple of issues with this method.  First of all, it appears  
they use a Bulgin outdoor coupler to make the transition from 2-wire  
cable to CAT5 cable.  I've found those Bulgin couplers to be less than  
reliable over the long term with regard to water ingress.  So that  
makes me nervous.  My second issue is lightning protection over the DC  
cable.  I'm sure there are products that are designed to protect DC  
circuits.  What would you guys recommend for protecting a DC circuit  
running up the tower?


Overall, I'm wondering what would be wrong with just running shielded  
CAT5e up to the radio for power purposes only?  If we did that, we  
could just use the WB surge protectors.  Is there some advantage to  
running 2-wire vs. CAT5 that I'm not seeing?


Craig

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Waveguide polarization

[Craig Baird]

Your first drawing is correct.  It's opposite of what you'd expect.

Craig


Quoting Dan Petermann d...@wyoming.com:

If you have a waveguide connection to an antenna, what direction  
(up/down or left/right) does the wider portion of the waveguide go?



___
| |
| | = H Pol?
| |


or
___
| | = H Pol?

[AFMUG] RF Armor shield with ARC wireless 3 foot dish

[Craig Baird]

Does anyone know if the RF Armor 3 foot RocketDish shield will work  
with the ARC Wireless 3 foot dish?  Just looking at pictures, the ARC  
dish looks virtually identical to the RocketDish.  Just wondering if  
the shield kit will fit it.  Streakwave is all out of 3 foot  
RocketDishes, so I'm looking at alternatives, but I've got to have the  
shield.


Craig

Re: [AFMUG] WD Auction

[Craig Baird via Af]

I remember seeing pictures of a WD factory or warehouse or something  
in Thailand, I think, that was flooded by a Tsunami a few years ago.   
Any chance they're trying to sell off stuff involved in that event?


Craig


Quoting Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af af@afmug.com:


Western digital is still going strong.  They even bought Hitachi a while
back.

Makes me wonder what the deal is with this auction.
On Dec 29, 2014 2:09 PM, Jason McKemie via Af af@afmug.com wrote:


Where did you see that?  I can't find anything on it, other than some
April Fool's joke.

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com wrote:


Seagate, years ago

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Dec 29, 2014 3:34 PM, Mike Hammett via Af af@afmug.com wrote:


They were bought out a while back.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

--
*From: *Jason McKemie via Af af@afmug.com
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Monday, December 29, 2014 2:33:54 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] WD Auction

Maybe they just relocated a manufacturing facility?

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:31 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com
wrote:


WD went under?

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Jason McKemie via Af af@afmug.com
wrote:


There is probably a bunch of good stuff here:


http://www.hgpauction.com/auctions/71349/former-assets-western-digital/?utm_source=Official+Auction+Former+Assets+of+Western+Digitalutm_campaign=DigitalWesternutm_medium=email





--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that
the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.  
Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all  
means, do not

use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925

Re: [AFMUG] UBNT airview won't run

[Craig Baird via Af]

Nope.  No wildcards.  Just https://x.x.x.x

Craig


Quoting Randy Cosby via Af af@afmug.com:


Not using wildcards are you?  They don't work.

On 10/21/2014 3:49 PM, Craig Baird via Af wrote:
I tried entering exceptions (as http://x.x.x.x as well as  
https://x.x.x.x).  No go.  Still gives the same error.


Craig


Quoting Jason Pond via Af af@afmug.com:


This is with the latest Java update just happened to me about 10 minutes
ago.  You have to add the IP to the exception list as http://x.x.x.x  then
click OK go to Configure Java in search under start menu.  Then click the
security tab and add exception.

It is a real pain.

Sincerely,

Jason Pond
Grizzly Internet, Inc

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 3:38 PM, timothy steele via Af  
af@afmug.com wrote:



I have not seen that issue but I use Firefox for UBNT stuff.. There where
bug  fixes for that in 5.6 beta5 I think you might try that

—
Sent from Mailbox https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox


On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Craig Baird via Af af@afmug.com wrote:


Is Airview giving anyone else Java related grief? I've got 5.5.10 on
the radio, and when trying to run Airview, it pops an Unable to
launch error. I've googled for solutions, and so far nothing pans
out. Using the latest Java 8. In the past, it appears that the
solution to this problem was to drop Java security to medium. Oracle
appears to have removed that option in recent versions. Now you can
only select High or Very High. However, you're supposed to be
able to accomplish the same thing by putting the URL into the
exception list. I've done that, but to no avail. I've also tried it
on a PC running Java 7 with the same results.

Does anyone have a solution to this?

Craig













--
signature
http://www.infowest.com/Randy Cosby
InfoWest, Inc
435-674-0165 x 2010
infowest.com http://www.infowest.com/


This e-mail message contains information from InfoWest, Inc
and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain privileged, proprietary or confidential information.

Unauthorized use, distribution, review or disclosure is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contactrco...@infowest.com  by reply email and destroy
the original message, all attachments and copies.

[AFMUG] UBNT airview won't run

[Craig Baird via Af]

Is Airview giving anyone else Java related grief?  I've got 5.5.10 on  
the radio, and when trying to run Airview, it pops an Unable to  
launch error.  I've googled for solutions, and so far nothing pans  
out.  Using the latest Java 8.  In the past, it appears that the  
solution to this problem was to drop Java security to medium.  Oracle  
appears to have removed that option in recent versions.  Now you can  
only select High or Very High.  However, you're supposed to be  
able to accomplish the same thing by putting the URL into the  
exception list.  I've done that, but to no avail.  I've also tried it  
on a PC running Java 7 with the same results.


Does anyone have a solution to this?

Craig

Re: [AFMUG] UBNT airview won't run

[Craig Baird via Af]

Win 7  MacOSX
Chrome  Firefox

All combinations of the above seem to choke.

Craig


Quoting Eric Kuhnke via Af af@afmug.com:


What browser and operating system?

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Craig Baird via Af af@afmug.com wrote:


Is Airview giving anyone else Java related grief?  I've got 5.5.10 on the
radio, and when trying to run Airview, it pops an Unable to launch
error.  I've googled for solutions, and so far nothing pans out.  Using the
latest Java 8.  In the past, it appears that the solution to this problem
was to drop Java security to medium.  Oracle appears to have removed that
option in recent versions.  Now you can only select High or Very High.
However, you're supposed to be able to accomplish the same thing by putting
the URL into the exception list.  I've done that, but to no avail.  I've
also tried it on a PC running Java 7 with the same results.

Does anyone have a solution to this?

Craig

Re: [AFMUG] UBNT airview won't run

[Craig Baird via Af]

I tried entering exceptions (as http://x.x.x.x as well as  
https://x.x.x.x).  No go.  Still gives the same error.


Craig


Quoting Jason Pond via Af af@afmug.com:


This is with the latest Java update just happened to me about 10 minutes
ago.  You have to add the IP to the exception list as http://x.x.x.x  then
click OK go to Configure Java in search under start menu.  Then click the
security tab and add exception.

It is a real pain.

Sincerely,

Jason Pond
Grizzly Internet, Inc

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 3:38 PM, timothy steele via Af af@afmug.com wrote:


I have not seen that issue but I use Firefox for UBNT stuff.. There where
bug  fixes for that in 5.6 beta5 I think you might try that

—
Sent from Mailbox https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox


On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Craig Baird via Af af@afmug.com wrote:


Is Airview giving anyone else Java related grief? I've got 5.5.10 on
the radio, and when trying to run Airview, it pops an Unable to
launch error. I've googled for solutions, and so far nothing pans
out. Using the latest Java 8. In the past, it appears that the
solution to this problem was to drop Java security to medium. Oracle
appears to have removed that option in recent versions. Now you can
only select High or Very High. However, you're supposed to be
able to accomplish the same thing by putting the URL into the
exception list. I've done that, but to no avail. I've also tried it
on a PC running Java 7 with the same results.

Does anyone have a solution to this?

Craig

Re: [AFMUG] UBNT airview won't run

[Craig Baird via Af]

How far did you have to do on your downgrade?

Craig


Quoting Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com:


I had to downgrade java to make it partially functional.

-Original Message- From: Craig Baird via Af Sent: Tuesday,  
October 21, 2014 3:36 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] UBNT  
airview won't run Is Airview giving anyone else Java related grief?   
I've got 5.5.10 on  the radio, and when trying to run Airview, it  
pops an Unable to  launch error.  I've googled for solutions, and  
so far nothing pans  out.  Using the latest Java 8.  In the past, it  
appears that the  solution to this problem was to drop Java security  
to medium.  Oracle  appears to have removed that option in recent  
versions.  Now you can  only select High or Very High.  However,  
you're supposed to be  able to accomplish the same thing by putting  
the URL into the  exception list.  I've done that, but to no avail.   
I've also tried it  on a PC running Java 7 with the same results.


Does anyone have a solution to this?

Craig