Re: [AFMUG] traps vs polling
Both. Traps for realtime alerting and polling for historicals. On Monday, December 29, 2014, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote: When attempting to collect system wide status and alarm data real-time, are traps reliable enough or should you just poll everything on a regular basis? -- Sent via mobile
Re: [AFMUG] Cambium CMM4
We don't experience any of those issues with our CTM2's. We power Canopy, ePMP, Trango, UBNT and AirFibers all the above with no issues. The only issues we've had is with our PMP320 AP's. The ports are very sensitive to those AP's and will trip frequently. On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 9:21 PM, David Milholen via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I have CTM2 at some sites.. I like the pricing I get with the CMM4 and I also like the gui better. I also dont have issues with management interface wanting to stop working. Also CTM is geared toward a universal crowd of devices I want the error free interfaces that the CMM4 has to offer with use of the 450 platform. Nothing against Lastmile whatsoever they make great stuff and I have purchased bunches of gear over the life of our wisp but since I have deployed the cmm4 units at sites where I had ctm1 series my problems of ethernet errors and weird interface issues disappeared. The CMM4 is a perfect match for cambium gear. It just outdated as far as the portfolio goes and needs some TLC. On 12/27/2014 5:43 PM, Josh Baird via Af wrote: It sounds like you are asking for a CTM2? :) On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 6:38 PM, David Milholen via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Dear Cambium, we love the current CMM4,but we need gigE interface support and power monitoring via snmp. Also, can we get a dual input for either or DC supply 48/24v and be able to dial down via software from 48 to 29. We need these basics with or without a switch. I know Im asking alot here but the 450's deserve better LOL thanks Dave -- --
Re: [AFMUG] PTP500 does 2mb/s
I had the exact same issue a few months back. One of the coax jumpers was kinked. Replaced and perfect ever since. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Ken- Thanks again. This link is not on our network and I don’t have access to SNMP it- here’s the diag plots- about what you expected? Would you concur pigtail replacement on slave side would be a good place to start? Thanks, Scott *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof via Af *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 15:09 *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PTP500 does 2mb/s Vector error is basically signal to noise ratio, so yes 28 is good and 1.5 is really bad. I would still use the diagnostic plotter to look at vector error over time. It won’t tell you WHY it gets bad, but seeing WHEN it gets bad might help track it down. Or use MRTG/Cacti/etc. to plot the following OIDs: vector error: 1.3.6.1.4.1.17713.5.12.2.0 modulation: 1.3.6.1.4.1.17713.5.12.8.0 Modulation will be a number from 1-15 if I remember right, where 15 is the highest like 64QAM3/4 or whatever and 1 is BPSK. (why do I want to pronounce that “bupkis”?) *From:* Scott Vander Dussen via Af af@afmug.com *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 4:59 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PTP500 does 2mb/s David/Ken- Thanks for the quick and helpful replies. From the manual: Vector Error The vector error measurement compares the received signal’s In phase / Quadrature (IQ) modulation characteristics to an ideal signal to determine the composite error vector magnitude. The results are stored in an histogram and expressed in dB and presented as: max, mean, min and latest. The max, min and latest are true instantaneous measurements; the mean is the mean of a set of one second means. The expected range for Vector Error would be approximately -1.5 dB (NLOS link operating at sensitivity limit on BPSK 0.50) to –28 dB (short LOS link running 64 QAM 0.83). See Section 7.3.1 “Histogram Data”. I interpret this paragraph that -28db is more desirable than -1.5db. Is that correct? If my min values are circa -28db and that’s bad, what would be an expected good value? I don’t think it’s a noise issue, I set the interference threshold to -63. Here’s each side’s SA. Remote side on bottom. I’d favor the pigtail has water intrusion. Thanks again, Scott *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *David via Af *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 14:43 *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PTP500 does 2mb/s Scott, �Have a look at the slave side spectrum manager and see if there is some noise cropping up. If not then you may have some water in a pigtail or defective. Also, may want to do a site walk to see if the antennas may have moved due to weather or something in the path since it was installed. �More often then not the tale tale signature if a bad pig tail is the vector error is all over the place. These things usually dont have grey area when it comes to detailed informational tags like Limited by WIRELESS conditions Start with spectrum manager and see what it says then look at Diag plotter for unusual patterns in vector corrections. On 12/12/2014 03:54 PM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af wrote: I�m diagnosing a slow throughput PTP500 link remotely.� This link�s real-world capacity is only about 2mb/s.� Attached is screenshots of the status page.� Anything stick out as weird or wrong?� It was on 15mb/s channels, I tried 10mb/s � there�s plenty of clean spectrum.� It�s not making sense to me that this is only able to move 2mb/s. � Thanks, Scott � �
Re: [AFMUG] 13.3 Open Beta
- Read-Only Accounts for Admin, Install, and Tech ABOUT TIME! We needed this 10 years ago. Any chance of getting this implemented on the Canopy FSK platform? On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Jonathan Mandziara via Af af@afmug.com wrote: AF Community, Please visit the Cambium Networks webpage to down load the Open Beta version of 13.3 for PMP450 and PTP450 radios. https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/pmp450/beta https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/ptp450/beta - PMP320 Co-location (5ms Frame support) (This will work on all bands, but intended for 3.5 and 3.65 at this time.) - 7MHz Channel Bandwidth for 3.5 and 3.65 radios - Removal of the PTP450 Map for faster link speeds - SNMPv3 - HTTPS - Ability to turn off Telnet, FTP and TFTP - Read-Only Accounts for Admin, Install, and Tech - Sector SA - Export of Sessions Status Page - Config File export/Import for AP/BHM and SM/BHS *NOTE:* PMP320 co-location works best when both the PMP450 and PMP320 are on CMM synch sources. Cambium is writing a paper on how to adjust the radios to best deal with other synch sources, although the radios will still work together without adjustment with some impact to throughput. We look forward to you feedback on this release either in this forum or at: http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/PMP-Beta/bd-p/forums_pmp_beta Best, C*a*mbium Jonathan
Re: [AFMUG] epmp - multi site
That's on the 5ghz sector. Any ideas on the 2.4 sector? Can't find it listed anywhere. On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Paul McCall via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I thought I heard it was 2degree downtilt *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *CBB - Jay Fuller via Af *Sent:* Tuesday, December 02, 2014 11:22 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] epmp - multi site Gotcha. Notice they all came with gps receiversis there any built in downtilt on the antennas? i assume not - Original Message - *From:* Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com *To:* af@afmug.com *Sent:* Tuesday, December 02, 2014 9:46 AM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] epmp - multi site SyncInjector Gige. Don't forget a sync pipe basic if you want to sync =P All you need is one pair of leads and you can power 4 radios. Very clean and easy. If you don't want to sync, I think the POE injector would work (not certain). You can sync with the GPS antenna, but Forrest will always preach you want one sync source per site and I'm a fan of taking good free advice. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:41 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller via Af af@afmug.com wrote: so wanting to put 3 or 4 of these on a tower. We can use the included power supplies - but would forrest's power injector work? I know these are gigabit enabled radios which model injector from forrest?
Re: [AFMUG] CNUT for Macintosh
+1. I run CNUT in parallels with coherent mode. Looks just like a MAC window. I do the same with Winbox. The MAC ports for Winbox are awful. Very slow and buggy. On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Stefan Englhardt via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Or fire up Parallels … *Von:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *Joe via Af *Gesendet:* Freitag, 21. November 2014 20:26 *An:* af@afmug.com *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] CNUT for Macintosh It would be cheaper if they bought you a netbook with windows and overnight shipped it to you. $200 vs $20,000 And throw in a couple free $20 dollar license keys too! ((ducking)) *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Sean Heskett via Af *Sent:* Friday, November 21, 2014 1:09 PM *To:* af@afmug.com; memb...@wispa.org *Subject:* [AFMUG] CNUT for Macintosh Dear Cambium, Since CNUT is a Java program and you support the Macintosh with a lot of your other software (i.e. link planner) can you make a version of CNUT that runs on the Mac??? I know a few years ago someone hacked a version together and it worked so it should be possible since it's Java. Thanks, sean
Re: [AFMUG] Network Monitoring in the 2010's
iOS devices have a mechanism in place that picks the best network between 2.4 or 5ghz. I don't know specifically how it does it. All my iDevices including my MBP will choose 5ghz first. On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com wrote: iPads are smart enough to do 5 GHz first, that's great! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Mike Hammett via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Currently there's three iPads on 5 Ghz. Stuck on 2.4 now are a printer an airrouter and an iPad. Of course most people are at work now, so tonight it'll be a different mix. - 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 -- *From: *Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Friday, November 21, 2014 2:28:25 PM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Network Monitoring in the 2010's What devices started using 5 GHz? Every device I've ever used just went to 2.4 first and stayed there. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Mike Hammett via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Get better devices? In my GF's house, it's about 50/50 2.4 and 5. Same SSID. - 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 -- *From: *Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Friday, November 21, 2014 1:48:42 PM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Network Monitoring in the 2010's I have a Unifi 802.11ac dual band AP in my house. I had the same SSID (Toobs) for both 2.4 and 5 GHz. Not a single device used 5 GHz. I've seen changed the SSID of 5 GHz (Toobs 5ghz) and I now know that my Xbox one and cell phone will connect to it. It also works better than 2.4 (noise thing I'm sure). It seems to be there's a lack of a solution to push things off 2.4 onto 5. I've heard that Ruckus has some trickery to this that may help. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Rory Conaway via Af af@afmug.com wrote: That’s our policy also. Then we get to manage them. Need a dual band AirGateway next that’s less than $100. We are seeing about 40Mbps through the AirGateways which is more than most people need but I’m ready for a 5GHz version. *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy via Af *Sent:* Friday, November 21, 2014 10:16 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Network Monitoring in the 2010's yeah, air routers are so cheap to give the customer its not worth not doing On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Travis Johnson via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Hi, This is why we just included a free WiFi router with all of our installations. It wasn't a separate item on their bill, it was just part of our service. Then we had control of the router, and could actually test clear to the router from our NOC. The customers liked it because they didn't have to worry about the router, and when it failed we just replaced it, no charge. Again... customer service is what wins the day. :) Travis On 11/21/2014 9:00 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I really question if customers want a device to help them troubleshoot. More like if we (a bunch of network admins) were the customer, that’s what we’d want. It’s like the guys on Big Bang Theory trying to imagine what a regular person would want. The hurdle seems to be getting them to pay someone to fix problems in their internal network. If you can monetize this by selling an onsite support plan, or by dispatching from a separate side of your business that charges for service calls, that is good, as long as you can say this is not an Internet service problem, it is a customer network problem. Otherwise, refer them to a local computer shop that does house calls. What amazes me is the reluctance to pay us $5/mo for a managed Mikrotik router that comes with free replacement, phone support and onsite support. All of a sudden it’s not so interesting to have us solve the problem for them. Yet they will go to Best Buy and let the kid talk them into a $200 Linksys AC router as the solution to all their problems. I guess that points back to me being a poor salesman compared to the kid at Best Buy. Probably because I know the managed router is a good deal for the customer, so if they don’t want it, I’m only going to push it so hard. While Best
Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter
Dan, a PPPoE only filter would eliminate Bootp server from spewing across your L2 broadcast domain when a customer plugs their router in backwards. On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Dan Sullivan via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Daniel, I am Dan Sullivan and I am the software manager for ePMP at Cambium. Why do you want to filter PPPoE? Can you explain the use case more for me. When our SM is set up as a PPPoE client and is talking to a PPPoE server, it will only accept traffic from the PPPoE server over the wireless interface. With this in mind, why do you need a PPPoE filter for the wireless interface? One other item, when NAT mode is enabled we can set up a L2 filter for a source MAC and EtherType as indicated below, but only the source MAC filter will work. There is a warning message that indicates this when in NAT mode. Dan *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Gerlach via Af *Sent:* Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:04 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter +1 2014-11-17 17:45 GMT+01:00 Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com: Or how about an easy button to auto fill things like block bootp, all but pppoe, block SMB, etc. I like having a powerful customizable l2 and l3 firewall. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 17, 2014 11:38 AM, Daniel Gerlach via Af af@afmug.com wrote: thx Steve @ Cambium why you not make it simple like in Canopy? 2014-11-17 17:22 GMT+01:00 Wireless Admin via Af af@afmug.com: Daniel, I posted here asking the same question but didn't get a response. Here's what we came up with: Substitute your radio WAN MAC. The second line needs the Wan MAC in Destination field. My screen is not wide enough to include it in this screenshot. Steve B. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Gerlach via Af Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 3:35 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter Has somebody got it working that only PPPOE is going over the epmp 1000? thx
Re: [AFMUG] 13.2 Issue (Removing frequency checkboxes)
You guys are brave doing mass-upgrades on a Thurs night. My techs would kill me. On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Aaron Schneider via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Please see my previous note on two specific 5.7 SM scan frequencies that were fixed on the SM. That could cause those two to come back unchecked, but they were never possible to use as they were always wrong. We'll look at that as to having the values fixed and keep them checked if they previously were, but the change should not have caused any sm outage. I think that was the only 5.x frequency issue and was reported at the same time as the 2.4 issue. They are not related. Regards, Aaron Original message From: timothy steele via Af Date:11/14/2014 6:29 AM (GMT-06:00) To: af@afmug.com Cc: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 13.2 Issue (Removing frequency checkboxes) Ok so sounds like that was just a fluke but why do the 5ghz 450 SM have a bunch of frequencys unchecked after upgrading to 13.2 final? I did not notice that in beta — Sent from Mailbox https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Kurt Fankhauser via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I updated some 2.4Ghz 450 stuff overnight (previously on build 22) and did not loose any of the 2.5mhz channelson SM's Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Rajesh Vijayakumar via Af af@afmug.com wrote: George, Glad to see it upgraded successfully. And thanks for bravely trying it. Ryan, We are continuing our investigation. I will post an update to the list tomorrow morning. Please contact me ( rajesh.vijayaku...@cambiumnetworks.com) or Cambium support off list. We will get to the root of this as soon as possible. Rajesh Vijayakumar Cambium Networks On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:14 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I just got done with that sector and everything went fine. Checked all of the SM scan lists before (all running 13.1.3) and after they updated to 13.2. They all look like this still: 2.4_scan.png On 11/14/2014 12:30 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: I know I said I was done for the night, but I'm going to update a 2.4 450 sector here shortly. It's on 2460/20MHz, so hopefully nothing bad happens. On 11/14/2014 12:25 AM, Rajesh Vijayakumar via Af wrote: We looked at all the recent changes than went in to 13.2 but did not find anything that would explain this behavior. Also tried to recreate it in the lab on a 2.4 GHz setup, but the SM kept all the checked frequencies after upgrade from 13.1.3 to 13.2. Has anyone else upgraded a 2.4 GHz sector and run into this issue (or did not run into this issue)? Rajesh Vijayakumar Cambium Networks On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Aaron Schneider via Af af@afmug.com wrote: We are investigating the other issues, but with respect to 5767.5 and 5807.5, those two were affected by a bug fix, in that pre-13.2, 5767.5 was actually enabling 5767.20, due to an obvious typo in the scan list code, and 5807.5 was actually enabling 5807.00, due to another typo bug in the code. So correcting these two items may have left them unchecked on an upgrade to 13.2, but they weren’t valid scan frequencies anyways. These two updates didn’t make the release notes due to an oversight. These two frequency updates are in no way related to what is being reported for the 2.5MHz center channels coming back unchecked for 2.4. we are investigating. -Aaron *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2014 9:25 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 13.2 Issue (Removing frequency checkboxes) 13.2 on the SM definitely does not jive with build 32 on the AP. So.. don't do that. I forgot I still had that AP on build 32 until it was too late. SMs would pop in session for about 2 seconds and go down again. Luckily updating the AP to 13.2 official fixed it. I'm also seeing 5GHz SMs losing freqs. But it's funny, like 99% of them only lose 5767.5 and 5807.5. I try to avoid the 2.5 centers whenever I can since I've noticed exactly what you guys are seeing here in the past, ALL of the 2.5 centers disappear. I don't use 5MHz bandwidth, and I usually lock the scan list on the SM down to the band the AP is operating in. So maybe that's why I was losing only a couple freqs. On 11/13/2014 9:12 PM, Ryan Ray via Af wrote: It's crazy. No warning, no release notes about it. How does this come out of all the betas and you lose your SM's because a frequency isn't checked... On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:09 PM, timothy steele via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Yeah I noticed that same with 5Ghz looks like they unchecked the rarely used channels in SM with 13.2 programmer was
Re: [AFMUG] 13.2 Issue (Removing frequency checkboxes)
LOL. Easier said than done. Also, I could never get management approval to perform maint. windows so late in the week. That's what I get working in a corporate environment I guess. On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Instill fear into the techs so that changes. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Eric Muehleisen via Af af@afmug.com wrote: You guys are brave doing mass-upgrades on a Thurs night. My techs would kill me. On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Aaron Schneider via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Please see my previous note on two specific 5.7 SM scan frequencies that were fixed on the SM. That could cause those two to come back unchecked, but they were never possible to use as they were always wrong. We'll look at that as to having the values fixed and keep them checked if they previously were, but the change should not have caused any sm outage. I think that was the only 5.x frequency issue and was reported at the same time as the 2.4 issue. They are not related. Regards, Aaron Original message From: timothy steele via Af Date:11/14/2014 6:29 AM (GMT-06:00) To: af@afmug.com Cc: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 13.2 Issue (Removing frequency checkboxes) Ok so sounds like that was just a fluke but why do the 5ghz 450 SM have a bunch of frequencys unchecked after upgrading to 13.2 final? I did not notice that in beta — Sent from Mailbox https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Kurt Fankhauser via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I updated some 2.4Ghz 450 stuff overnight (previously on build 22) and did not loose any of the 2.5mhz channelson SM's Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Rajesh Vijayakumar via Af af@afmug.com wrote: George, Glad to see it upgraded successfully. And thanks for bravely trying it. Ryan, We are continuing our investigation. I will post an update to the list tomorrow morning. Please contact me ( rajesh.vijayaku...@cambiumnetworks.com) or Cambium support off list. We will get to the root of this as soon as possible. Rajesh Vijayakumar Cambium Networks On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:14 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I just got done with that sector and everything went fine. Checked all of the SM scan lists before (all running 13.1.3) and after they updated to 13.2. They all look like this still: 2.4_scan.png On 11/14/2014 12:30 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: I know I said I was done for the night, but I'm going to update a 2.4 450 sector here shortly. It's on 2460/20MHz, so hopefully nothing bad happens. On 11/14/2014 12:25 AM, Rajesh Vijayakumar via Af wrote: We looked at all the recent changes than went in to 13.2 but did not find anything that would explain this behavior. Also tried to recreate it in the lab on a 2.4 GHz setup, but the SM kept all the checked frequencies after upgrade from 13.1.3 to 13.2. Has anyone else upgraded a 2.4 GHz sector and run into this issue (or did not run into this issue)? Rajesh Vijayakumar Cambium Networks On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Aaron Schneider via Af af@afmug.com wrote: We are investigating the other issues, but with respect to 5767.5 and 5807.5, those two were affected by a bug fix, in that pre-13.2, 5767.5 was actually enabling 5767.20, due to an obvious typo in the scan list code, and 5807.5 was actually enabling 5807.00, due to another typo bug in the code. So correcting these two items may have left them unchecked on an upgrade to 13.2, but they weren’t valid scan frequencies anyways. These two updates didn’t make the release notes due to an oversight. These two frequency updates are in no way related to what is being reported for the 2.5MHz center channels coming back unchecked for 2.4. we are investigating. -Aaron *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2014 9:25 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 13.2 Issue (Removing frequency checkboxes) 13.2 on the SM definitely does not jive with build 32 on the AP. So.. don't do that. I forgot I still had that AP on build 32 until it was too late. SMs would pop in session for about 2 seconds and go down again. Luckily updating the AP to 13.2 official fixed it. I'm also seeing 5GHz SMs losing freqs. But it's funny, like 99% of them only lose 5767.5 and 5807.5. I try to avoid the 2.5 centers whenever I can since I've noticed exactly what you guys are seeing here in the past, ALL of the 2.5 centers disappear. I don't use 5MHz bandwidth, and I usually lock the scan list
Re: [AFMUG] System Release 13.2 is Official
Any changes/improvements in the Rate Adapt? On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com wrote: As mentioned in another thread, we upgraded a bunch of PMP430 installations last night. Something that I wasn't expecting was an immediate improvement in the SNR (typical example below). This was pretty much across the board excepting installations that already had really good SNR. Thanks Cambium! bp part-15@SkylineBroadbandService On 11/13/2014 5:12 AM, Matt Mangriotis via Af wrote: It is here! We released 13.2 this morning officially. Come to our forum to discuss anything about it. http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/PMP-450/System-Release-13-2-Now-Avaialable/m-p/36254/thread-id/278 Download the software from the usual place on our support site: https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/pmp450/ *Thanks* to all of you that Beta tested this software with us, and helped to make it stronger and better than ever. Now that this is here, we’re hard at work on delivering the next round of enhancements (code name 13.3 (pretty original, huh?)) which are right around the corner. The momentum is building on the PMP 450 platform. Thanks again, Matt
Re: [AFMUG] System Release 13.2 is Official
That sounds great. I just wanted to make sure the improved stats that Bill was seeing were in fact improvements to the link budget and not simply reporting. On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Aaron Schneider via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Hi Eric – Yes, there were great improvements to the hysteresis of the rate adapt and improving the backoff algorithms. You will no longer see a penalty when not being able to get to the next higher tier rate as you did with previous releases. Also, MIMO-A is just another Rate Adapt level that will be moved to seamlessly as conditions require. We demoed that at Wispapalooza, and I think people were surprised at the quick response both going to MIMO-A (we fully attenuated each path alternately) and recovering back into MIMO-B. Perhaps we’ll look at doing a short web clip of that demo (over at the forum J) if anyone who didn’t see it is interested. Regards, -Aaron *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric Muehleisen via Af *Sent:* Friday, November 14, 2014 11:01 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] System Release 13.2 is Official Any changes/improvements in the Rate Adapt? On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com wrote: As mentioned in another thread, we upgraded a bunch of PMP430 installations last night. Something that I wasn't expecting was an immediate improvement in the SNR (typical example below). This was pretty much across the board excepting installations that already had really good SNR. Thanks Cambium! bp part-15@SkylineBroadbandService On 11/13/2014 5:12 AM, Matt Mangriotis via Af wrote: It is here! We released 13.2 this morning officially. Come to our forum to discuss anything about it. http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/PMP-450/System-Release-13-2-Now-Avaialable/m-p/36254/thread-id/278 Download the software from the usual place on our support site: https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/pmp450/ *Thanks* to all of you that Beta tested this software with us, and helped to make it stronger and better than ever. Now that this is here, we’re hard at work on delivering the next round of enhancements (code name 13.3 (pretty original, huh?)) which are right around the corner. The momentum is building on the PMP 450 platform. Thanks again, Matt
Re: [AFMUG] Finding 3650 interference
I'm currently dealing with this exact scenario. Analyzing the FCC database was a waste of time for me. I simply called all other wireless operators in the area and confirmed their frequencies. That also lead to a dead end. I ended up swapping frequencies and calling it a day. On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:03 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: you are assuming that the offender is even registered, and thats a pretty big leap of faith. Youre better off going out with a cheap ubnt in SA mode and drive sourcing it, but what good will it do, even if its an unregistered base station, you have no fcc recourse. On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Adam Moffett via Af af@afmug.com wrote: So registering everyone's locations sounds great in theory because in theory you could then determine who's interfering with you and get a hold of them. My 320 AP sees a -79 on the exact channel I've been using for a few years. Not sure exactly when it showed up. If it was a base station antenna pointed at my base station antenna, then it could be up to 40km away. So I do a geo search in ULS for NN licenses with a location within 40km. It shows me 5 license holders who each have many locations.it doesn't actually tell me which locations triggered the search hit. So I'm thinking I could spend hours putting every location in Google Earth to see where they land.and I could pre-filter locations where the lat/long looks way too far off. That's still going to take hours, and if they didn't register their location anyway then it might end up being a waste of time. Is there a way to see which *locations *matched the 40km search RADIUS rather than seeing only the license holder and having to look through a zillion locations for each one? If so, I'm not seeing itplease tell me I'm missing it. -- 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] SNMP auto discovery
Cacti with discovery plugin works great. You set it to scan IP's or subnets and based on their template profile it will automatically place the device on the tree. Works very well. It's all automatic. No need to input manually. On Sunday, November 2, 2014, TJ Trout via Af af@afmug.com wrote: For the guys who you linux based monitoring (Cacti, Zabbix, etc) do you have something setup where it can auto discover all new equipment on the network and know all of the correct OID's for each type of radio? Or is every single customer added manually?? -- Sent via mobile
Re: [AFMUG] SNMP auto discovery
Yes. Google cacti discovery plugin On Monday, November 3, 2014, TJ Trout via Af af@afmug.com wrote: So basically you build a set of templates and somehow cacti can determine which template is for which device during the auto discovery process ? On Nov 3, 2014 5:17 AM, Eric Muehleisen via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: Cacti with discovery plugin works great. You set it to scan IP's or subnets and based on their template profile it will automatically place the device on the tree. Works very well. It's all automatic. No need to input manually. On Sunday, November 2, 2014, TJ Trout via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: For the guys who you linux based monitoring (Cacti, Zabbix, etc) do you have something setup where it can auto discover all new equipment on the network and know all of the correct OID's for each type of radio? Or is every single customer added manually?? -- Sent via mobile -- Sent via mobile
[AFMUG] CTM + Slave setup
I believe a ping -l 333 will send a magic packet to the CTM causing a reboot. Can anyone tell me if this is just a management reset or will it reset power ports? I'm hooking up a slave CTM to a production unit this morning. I believe a reboot is required. Obviously, trying to get this going without the need to create an outage. Thanks, Eric
Re: [AFMUG] CTM + Slave setup
I have not heard from anyone. Unfortunately, I'm unable to test this in a lab environment. Was going to try and wing it in production setup. Luckily I'm turning up a 450 AP and internal GPS worked just fine for now with a stand-alone power supply. On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Adam Moffett via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Did you ever find out about this magical ping? I believe a ping -l 333 will send a magic packet to the CTM causing a reboot. Can anyone tell me if this is just a management reset or will it reset power ports? I'm hooking up a slave CTM to a production unit this morning. I believe a reboot is required. Obviously, trying to get this going without the need to create an outage. Thanks, Eric
[AFMUG] Inconsistant 450 linktest
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1578608/Public/450_linktest.jpg Two different SM's on the same AP with very similar signal qualities, QoS, etc. However, the linktests are vey different. Has anyone see this before? Software 3.1.3.
Re: [AFMUG] Cacti templates for PTP650?
RX Channel: .1.3.6.1.4.1.17713.7.12.5.0 TX Channel: .1.3.6.1.4.1.17713.7.12.6.0 Link Availability: .1.3.6.1.4.1.17713.7.20.4.0 RSSI: .1.3.6.1.4.1.17713.7.12.2.0 RX Data Rate: .1.3.6.1.4.1.17713.7.20.1.0 TX Data Rate: .1.3.6.1.4.1.17713.7.20.2.0 Signal Strength Ratio: .1.3.6.1.4.1.17713.7.12.9.0 TX Power: .1.3.6.1.4.1.17713.7.12.4.0 Vector Error: .1.3.6.1.4.1.17713.7.12.3.0 Interface Traffic: Standard SNMP Interface Stats On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com wrote: How about a list of the OIDs you're using? bp On 10/1/2014 11:42 AM, Eric Muehleisen via Af wrote: Bill, Negative. I exported the host template including dependancies. Also, none of the data sources contain calls to external data sources or data queries. Just good ole Get SNMP Data input method with their respective OID's. On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Eric, Got an XML parsing error on that template (not a hash error). Did you include subordinate templates in the export? It's possible yours is referencing something I don't have in my installation (like a special CDEF or something). bp On 9/30/2014 11:05 AM, Eric Muehleisen via Af wrote: I took a PTP500 and changed it slightly. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1578608/Public/cacti_host_template_cambium_ptp_650_bh.xml On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Once again, I am on a quest for a Cacti template. This time for the PTP650. Any one constructed one? I'll wait a couple of days, then probably construct one of my own. Tnx. -- bp
Re: [AFMUG] OT - Mac based botnet
Who said Macs were immune? 17k is hardly cause for panic. What is that, less than 1% affected? On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: So much for the belief that Macs are immune to malware. http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/10/reddit-powered-botnet-infected- thousands-of-macs-worldwide/
Re: [AFMUG] 320SM drop dhcp with firewall
Have you tried adding the src=0.0.0.0, dst=255.255.255.255 ? On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Ty Featherling via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Any reason this wouldn't catch DHCP server traffic from the customer? I just tried it and the packets are still hitting the firewall on the tower router. -Ty
Re: [AFMUG] Cacti templates for PTP650?
I took a PTP500 and changed it slightly. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1578608/Public/cacti_host_template_cambium_ptp_650_bh.xml On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Once again, I am on a quest for a Cacti template. This time for the PTP650. Any one constructed one? I'll wait a couple of days, then probably construct one of my own. Tnx. -- bp
Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Newbie Question
I believe the CMMmicro (CMM3) was the only CMM that contained hub/switches. Everything else was passthrough. On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote: If I am not mistaken, the original CMM had a hub. *From:* Mike Hammett via Af af@afmug.com *Sent:* Friday, September 26, 2014 10:16 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Newbie Question My issue with the CMM-type products is they're all switched, correct? I want no layer two devices between my radio and my router. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- *From: *Adam Moffett via Af af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:54:45 PM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Newbie Question .also the PMP100 SyncInjector from Packetflux ought to work with ePMP. You might want the gigE version, but in the real world with a mix of subscribers at different MCS levels I'm not sure how likely you are to exceed 100x100. The CMM4 is a much more rugged beast. It is expensive, but you are not likely to go back and wish you'd bought the cheap one. My plan is to hook up the internal GPS and have it available, but also to provide sync over power. Once you are using GPS sync to re-use channels it becomes critical that it's always working, so better to have two timing sources available IMO. They have built in GPS if youre on a budget, not sure why alot of people are so die hard against using it On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Jeremy Grip via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I’m looking at ePMP w/channel reuse from a cost-comparison standpoint. Trying to figure out how much I need to spend on GPS synch for a 4 AP/ 2 channel cluster. Does it need to be a CMM4? I will want to be synching multiple POPs… Jeremy Grip North Branch Networks,LLC -- 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
