Re: [AFMUG] -48 vDC Power Supply Recommendations?
Yep, I was going to suggest a regular brick. Here's one: http://www.alliedelec.com/search/productdetail.aspx?SKU=70069911 But the PacketFlux supply is obviously cheaper and a little more power. As far as termination, I would just mount a short piece of DIN rail and throw a couple terminal blocks on it. If you're worried about needing over-current protection (for a single device on a single supply that has built-in shutdown protection, I wouldn't), then make one of the terminal blocks fused, either automotive plug-in style for easier sparing or use a DDFL4U double-level block that you can put a 2 or 3A 5x20mm glass cylinder fuse into. On 12/31/2014 5:29 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af wrote: AC input? http://store.packetflux.com/48vdc-2a-power-supply-for-430-320-syncinjectors/ is isolated so should work just fine. -forrest On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Mike Hammett via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Looking for recommendations on a -48 vDC power supply. 1.5 amps. Not expected to have any other radios on site or would at least be independent. No batteries or anything. = During the final installation, protect the ODU by a magneto-thermal switch (not supplied with the equipment), whose characteristics must comply with the laws in force in one’s country. The typical magneto thermal switch has characteristics at least 48Vdc @1.5A with overcurrent relay class “C” or “K” tripping curve. = I'm finding things with long lead times, things at a much higher amperage capacity or things that will require wire nuts to complete. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
[AFMUG] OT need apple help
One of our office ladies bought an Apple laptop and it has a recovery or firmware password on it. That's all that was explained to me. Is there any way to make this thing work? I haven't touched an Apple since high school, and I think that was pre OSX.
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP insanity!
No, 13.3 beta so far.
On 12/29/2014 4:15 PM, Bill Prince via Af wrote:
13.2.1 on PMP450/430.
--
bp
part {dash} 15 {at} SkylineBroadbandService {dot} com
On 12/29/2014 2:09 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:
they have a downloadable config file?
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Kade Sullivan via Af af@afmug.com
mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:
It took 10+ years to get downloadable configuration file.
Everything they do (or dont do) is believable to me at this point.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Eric Kuhnke via Af af@afmug.com
mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:
I really want to know how you can possibly screw up the
http/https interface on a radio, to set basic parameters, in
such a way that it consumes massive amounts of CPU on the
client-side browser and only works with one browser...
If even a super low budget company like TP-Link can make $22
802.11n SOHO routers that have acceptably usable http GUIs,
why not Cambium?
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Jay Weekley via Af
af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:
I thought I was the only one. My field unit is old but I
would assume it would work with an updated browser since
every other radio does but ePMP was pretty much unusable.
I finally reloaded my laptops OS and updates. Only Chrome
will work with the ePMP interface. IE won't work at all
and Mozilla give constant script errors. We have another
tech that has the same issue with a newer laptop.
Kurt Fankhauser via Af wrote:
I can't take it anymore, I'm going back to UBNT for
non-FSK/450 stuff. I can no longer deal with the slow
and horrible EPMP interface. I thought it would get
better as the firmware matured but its not getting
any better, Just loaded the latest firmware 2.3.3 and
its still slower than a turtle going in the wrong
direction. For crying out loud the old Tranzeo
interface is faster than this! Chrome, and IE 11 it
doesn't matter it literally takes me 30 minutes to
config one of these radios. By the time you upgrade
the firmware and try to upload a template to one.
(never does want to take a backup config is always
erroring out) I can't afford to be sitting at the
bench all day fiddling with these radios. You can't
even type text in the fields that already have
characters in them without getting some weird
outcome. Everytime i go to deal with one of these
radios i always end up with obscenities coming out of
my mouth and I even have a hole punched in a wall in
the shop cause i got so frustrated with one a few
weeks back.
Maybe Bitlomat will come out with third party
firmware for these and save us all
Kurt Fankhauser
Wavelinc Communications
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
http://www.wavelinc.com http://www.wavelinc.com/
tel. 419-562-6405 tel:419-562-6405
fax. 419-617-0110 tel:419-617-0110
--
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] EPMP insanity!
I don't think we'll see anything new for FSK for a while. Hopefully that
changes. But I keep bugging them about that whole no radio left behind
thing. Or in this case, no platform left behind. FSK won't die.
On 12/29/2014 5:38 PM, Bill Prince via Af wrote:
so far no
:-(
--
bp
part {dash} 15 {at} SkylineBroadbandService {dot} com
On 12/29/2014 2:20 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:
:-( but no fsk?
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com
mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:
13.2.1 on PMP450/430.
--
bp
part {dash} 15 {at} SkylineBroadbandService {dot} com
On 12/29/2014 2:09 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:
they have a downloadable config file?
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Kade Sullivan via Af
af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:
It took 10+ years to get downloadable configuration file.
Everything they do (or dont do) is believable to me at this
point.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Eric Kuhnke via Af
af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:
I really want to know how you can possibly screw up the
http/https interface on a radio, to set basic
parameters, in such a way that it consumes massive
amounts of CPU on the client-side browser and only works
with one browser...
If even a super low budget company like TP-Link can make
$22 802.11n SOHO routers that have acceptably usable
http GUIs, why not Cambium?
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Jay Weekley via Af
af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:
I thought I was the only one. My field unit is old
but I would assume it would work with an updated
browser since every other radio does but ePMP was
pretty much unusable. I finally reloaded my laptops
OS and updates. Only Chrome will work with the ePMP
interface. IE won't work at all and Mozilla give
constant script errors. We have another tech that
has the same issue with a newer laptop.
Kurt Fankhauser via Af wrote:
I can't take it anymore, I'm going back to UBNT
for non-FSK/450 stuff. I can no longer deal with
the slow and horrible EPMP interface. I thought
it would get better as the firmware matured but
its not getting any better, Just loaded the
latest firmware 2.3.3 and its still slower than
a turtle going in the wrong direction. For
crying out loud the old Tranzeo interface is
faster than this! Chrome, and IE 11 it doesn't
matter it literally takes me 30 minutes to
config one of these radios. By the time you
upgrade the firmware and try to upload a
template to one. (never does want to take a
backup config is always erroring out) I can't
afford to be sitting at the bench all day
fiddling with these radios. You can't even type
text in the fields that already have characters
in them without getting some weird outcome.
Everytime i go to deal with one of these radios
i always end up with obscenities coming out of
my mouth and I even have a hole punched in a
wall in the shop cause i got so frustrated with
one a few weeks back.
Maybe Bitlomat will come out with third party
firmware for these and save us all
Kurt Fankhauser
Wavelinc Communications
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
http://www.wavelinc.com http://www.wavelinc.com/
tel. 419-562-6405 tel:419-562-6405
fax. 419-617-0110 tel:419-617-0110
--
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
--
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] hmmmm.....whats wrong with this ap eval?
You divided by color code zero and got a color code 57 somehow. On 12/29/2014 9:00 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller via Af wrote: anyone? anyone? :) AP Selection Method used: Optimize for Throughput Current entry index: 0 Session Status: REGISTERED (via Primary Color Code 0) * Index: 0 Frequency: 906.00 MHz ESN: 0a-00-3e-91-13-95 Region: United States Jitter: 5 Power Level: -67 dBm Beacon Count: 19 BRcvW: 1 FECEn: 0 Type: Multipoint Avail: 1 Age: 0 Lockout: 0 RegFail 3 Range: 54243 feet MaxRange: 25 miles TxBER: 1 EBcast: 0 Session Count: 17 NoLUIDS: 0 OutOfRange: 0 AuthFail: 0 EncryptFail: 0 Rescan Req: 0 SMLimitReached: 0 NoVC's: 0 VCRsvFail: 0 VCActFail: 0 FrameNumber: 529 SectorID: 0 Color Code: 0 BeaconVersion: 0 SectorUserCount: 9 NumULHalfSlots: 11 NumDLHalfSlots: 33 NumULContSlots: 3 WhiteSched: 0 ICC: 0 Authentication: Disabled SM PPPoE: Supported * Index: 1 Frequency: 913.00 MHz ESN: 0a-00-3e-91-b5-51 Region: United States Jitter: 4 Power Level: -82 dBm Beacon Count: 12 BRcvW: 1 FECEn: 0 Type: Multipoint Avail: 1 Age: 0 Lockout: 0 RegFail 0 Range: 0 feet MaxRange: 25 miles TxBER: 1 EBcast: 0 Session Count: 0 NoLUIDS: 0 OutOfRange: 0 AuthFail: 0 EncryptFail: 0 Rescan Req: 0 SMLimitReached: 0 NoVC's: 0 VCRsvFail: 0 VCActFail: 0 FrameNumber: 1139 SectorID: 0 Color Code: 57 BeaconVersion: 0 SectorUserCount: 7 NumULHalfSlots: 11 NumDLHalfSlots: 33 NumULContSlots: 3 WhiteSched: 0 ICC: 0 Authentication: Disabled SM PPPoE: Supported * Index: 2 Frequency: 924.00 MHz ESN: 0a-00-3e-91-27-05 Region: United States Jitter: 5 Power Level: -84 dBm Beacon Count: 3 BRcvW: 1 FECEn: 0 Type: Multipoint Avail: 1 Age: 0 Lockout: 0 RegFail 3 Range: 0 feet MaxRange: 25 miles TxBER: 1 EBcast: 0 Session Count: 0 NoLUIDS: 0 OutOfRange: 0 AuthFail: 0 EncryptFail: 0 Rescan Req: 0 SMLimitReached: 0 NoVC's: 0 VCRsvFail: 0 VCActFail: 0 FrameNumber: 662 SectorID: 0 Color Code: 0 BeaconVersion: 1 SectorUserCount: 0 NumULHalfSlots: 11 NumDLHalfSlots: 33 NumULContSlots: 3 SM PPPoE: Supported * Index: 3 Frequency: 915.00 MHz ESN: 0a-00-3e-90-23-93 Region: United States Jitter: 5 Power Level: -83 dBm Beacon Count: 11 BRcvW: 1 FECEn: 0 Type: Multipoint Avail: 1 Age: 0 Lockout: 0 RegFail 0 Range: 0 feet MaxRange: 25 miles TxBER: 1 EBcast: 0 Session Count: 0 NoLUIDS: 0 OutOfRange: 0 AuthFail: 0 EncryptFail: 0 Rescan Req: 0 SMLimitReached: 0 NoVC's: 0 VCRsvFail: 0 VCActFail: 0 FrameNumber: 1973 SectorID: 0 Color Code: 0 BeaconVersion: 0 SectorUserCount: 7 NumULHalfSlots: 11 NumDLHalfSlots: 33 NumULContSlots: 3 WhiteSched: 0 ICC: 0 Authentication: Disabled SM PPPoE: Supported
Re: [AFMUG] Customer - Detailed Usage Report
Netflow. On 12/26/2014 11:01 AM, Wireless Admin via Af wrote: Can anyone suggest a system that would allow an ISP to provide a customer a detailed report on Internet usage. I�m talking about the ability to show a customer, on usage based billing, what caused the consumption. My thought would be to route the customers IP through a specialized process for a limited period of time so details could be collected. A sort of debug mode. Steve B
Re: [AFMUG] Is this what a dDOS attack looks like?
Welcome to teh suck. And the target is almost always an Xbox kid.
On 12/24/2014 10:13 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote:
One of our routers showed a massive increase in traffic last night
around 19:15 Pacific time (see below). It didn't crash, but got super
busy during that time, and appeared to be locked up. Nothing shows
in the logs, but a segment of our network appeared to be unavailable
for a few minutes. By the time I figured out what was going on, the
traffic went away.
--
--
bp
part {dash} 15 {at} SkylineBroadbandService {dot} com
Re: [AFMUG] Balting Networks selling AF5 for $850
The only pair I have is running from the NOC to a nearby core site at 3.4 miles. FDD, 20MHz Rx, 30MHz Tx. DFS. Must use 2.2-beta3 or you will have radar issues. They are currently at -70 to -71dBm on all chains. Mostly 6x Tx, 8x Rx. Currently about 220x180Mbps. I do not get the sub-1ms latency out of them, more like sub-3ms average. I've had only about 125Mbps Tx sustained peak on them, normally 90-100Mbps nightly. But they seem to work fine. That said, we will probably make this link licensed next year. I really hope UBNT will be doing a 5.1-5.3GHz version. I could use more of those than 5.4/5.7 that does nothing more than eat up prime PtMP bands. Until the cable co's hose 5GHz like the SCADA guys killed 900. On 12/24/2014 3:24 PM, Joe Falaschi via Af wrote: How many come on a pallet? We just bought two AF5's from Baltic. The boxes were large enough for one of our guys to get into and pop out of when an unsuspecting co-worker walked past. We are going to try them on a six mile link and we'll see what happens. I'm planning on getting more bandwidth out of them then the Rocket we currently have deployed but I'm not holding my breath for full modulation. Why do you say you're looking for FW to make them useful? What do we need to be aware of? Joe Falaschi e-vergent broadband On 12/24/14, 3:08 PM, cjwstudios via Af wrote: I bought a pallet of AF5's...still waiting to see if a FW version comes out that makes them useful. I'm not too impressed. On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: The antennas are too small to be useful in most places. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL *From: *Carl Peterson via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent: *Monday, December 22, 2014 9:49:02 AM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Balting Networks selling AF5 for $850 I get the feeling that AF5s aren't selling too well and there is a bunch of old inventory they are trying to move. AF24s are still selling well. On Dec 22, 2014, at 8:44 AM, Keefe John via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: It'd be nice to see the AF24 @ $850 too. On 12/22/2014 8:38 AM, Eric Kuhnke via Af wrote: Well crap, that was not supposed to happen. Baltic is selling the AF5 for $850. Is this the new normal, not $995? 150 bucks off makes it somewhat more attractive versus some other options, if I can use it for short distance FDD-like links and keep it in 1024QAM mode. On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Eric Kuhnke via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:
Re: [AFMUG] 450 3.65 SM Antenna
Maybe we'll get an integrated panel SM with the PMP455. No, probably not. On 12/23/2014 6:37 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: Either of these appear to let you mount at 45 degrees: http://www.l-com.com/wireless-antenna-35-ghz-16-dbi-dual-polarized-panel-antenna http://www.mars-antennas.com/MA-WA36-DP21 What I really want is this, but it apparently doesn't exist yet: http://www.mars-antennas.com/MA-WA36-DP19 -Original Message- From: Matt via Af Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 6:17 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] 450 3.65 SM Antenna I have a few places I need more gain then a bare 450 3.65 SM but cannot fit a reflector. Is there a small panel antenna that works with the 450 3.65 SM?
Re: [AFMUG] icmp redirects
I have no idea. Probably need to ask Cambium support. On 12/23/2014 10:56 AM, Dennis Burgess via Af wrote: 10.0.0.2 255.255.255.255 10.0.0.2 et1 OTHER x.x.160.17 255.255.255.255 x.x.160.17 rf2 ICMP x.x.160.12 255.255.255.255 x.x.160.12 rf2 ICMP 10.20.167.1 255.255.255.255 10.20.167.1 rf2 OTHER Here is an example of this. Note two routes for /32s from ICMP.. Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc. den...@linktechs.net mailto:den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 – www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *LTI - Dennis Burgess via Af *Sent:* Tuesday, December 23, 2014 10:29 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] icmp redirects Maybe, is the fix simply to move them to their own subnet ? The customer states that prior to putting a MT router in he never had the issue with his Cisco. On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:55 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I think what you're running into is the annoying ARP cache on Canopy. If you're on the same L2 segment, but completely different IP subnet, it still caches your IP/MAC pair. There's no way, at least that I know, to clear it, you have to reboot the radio. Telnet in and run 'arp -a' and you'll see what I mean. On 12/18/2014 11:32 AM, Dennis Burgess via Af wrote: So, have had this issue before, with ICMP redirects and Canopy equipment.� Basically a MT by default will send a ICMP redirect, and the canopy device adds a route into its routing table, regardless if its correct or not, then can�t access that device from the specific IP that that redirect was for until I reboot the canopy device clearing that entry.� MT has added the ability NOT to send ICMP redirects, but once its done, I don�t think of anything but a reboot of the canopy will fix it..� � Any other alternatives to this?� Route delete does not work on the canopy.� � Thanks, � DennisBurgessSignature www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net � 314-735-0270 tel:314-735-0270 � dmburg...@linktechs.net mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net � -- *_Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer_**Author of Learn RouterOS- Second Edition http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm” Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net/ – *Skype*: linktechs *//**/-- Create Wireless Coverage’s with /*www.towercoverage.com http://www.towercoverage.com/*//*/–*900Mhz – LTE – 3G – 3.65 – TV Whitespace */
Re: [AFMUG] 450 3.65 SM Antenna
Connectorized SM + $150 panel (L-com) = not cheap either. On 12/23/2014 6:48 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: But maybe a Force style mini-dish. Plus the fins on the back, it would look cool. Hate to think about the price. -Original Message- From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 6:41 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450 3.65 SM Antenna Maybe we'll get an integrated panel SM with the PMP455. No, probably not. On 12/23/2014 6:37 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: Either of these appear to let you mount at 45 degrees: http://www.l-com.com/wireless-antenna-35-ghz-16-dbi-dual-polarized-panel-antenna http://www.mars-antennas.com/MA-WA36-DP21 What I really want is this, but it apparently doesn't exist yet: http://www.mars-antennas.com/MA-WA36-DP19 -Original Message- From: Matt via Af Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 6:17 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] 450 3.65 SM Antenna I have a few places I need more gain then a bare 450 3.65 SM but cannot fit a reflector. Is there a small panel antenna that works with the 450 3.65 SM?
Re: [AFMUG] 450 3.65 SM Antenna
I think most of us are looking for a solution for the following things: 1) more gain than a bare SM but a reflector is overkill 2) good gain but wide enough for n/NLOS 3 and the least of my concerns) customer doesn't want another satellite dish (oh and BTW, why is it pointed at the ground? I fixed it by pointing it back up like the DirecTV and now my service doesn't work. FML) Connectorized + external antenna means weather sealing, which I hate. On 12/23/2014 7:15 PM, Jeremy via Af wrote: Can't you use the 3GHz KP Boomerang and a connectorized SM? Or are you just looking for a reflector for the non-connectorized SM? On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Yeah, I can get very creative about mounting a reflector dish anywhere. Wallmount, fascia mount, soffit mount, eave mount, upside-down J-pipe mount, tripod, non-pen, etc. -Original Message- From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 6:50 PM To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450 3.65 SM Antenna Connectorized SM + $150 panel (L-com) = not cheap either. On 12/23/2014 6:48 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: But maybe a Force style mini-dish. Plus the fins on the back, it would look cool. Hate to think about the price. -Original Message- From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 6:41 PM To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450 3.65 SM Antenna Maybe we'll get an integrated panel SM with the PMP455. No, probably not. On 12/23/2014 6:37 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: Either of these appear to let you mount at 45 degrees: http://www.l-com.com/wireless-antenna-35-ghz-16-dbi-dual-polarized-panel-antenna http://www.mars-antennas.com/MA-WA36-DP21 What I really want is this, but it apparently doesn't exist yet: http://www.mars-antennas.com/MA-WA36-DP19 -Original Message- From: Matt via Af Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 6:17 PM To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] 450 3.65 SM Antenna I have a few places I need more gain then a bare 450 3.65 SM but cannot fit a reflector. Is there a small panel antenna that works with the 450 3.65 SM?
Re: [AFMUG] 450 3.65 SM Antenna
I think you're remembering what Chuck said about Stingers for the slant SMs. IIRC, 4dB for the 2.4 450 wasn't enough for him to waste any more of his time. Maybe 5dB for the 3GHz, plus the odd new SM case makes it doubly not worth it. 6dB is OK, but I'd rather see more, and at that point you're getting into the size of a panel anyway. I'm still trying to figure out why the 2.4 450 SMs have two holes in the top of the mount part. Neither the 3GHz or 5GHz SMs have that. Some yet unannounced CLIP? Seems way late. Maybe speed holes? On 12/23/2014 10:36 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I'm trying to find the response from somebody at Cambium when I asked about the feasibility of a CLIP for 3.65 GHz. I think it was something about too big and not enough gain. Obviously with the new case design you couldn't just slip a 5 GHz Stinger or CLIP on a 3.65 GHz SM to see what happens. But I suspect something 50% bigger than the existing CLIP and with 6 dB gain over a bare SM might make some people happy. Certainly it would be cheaper than an SMC plus a panel, and smaller than a reflector dish. Here's a scary thought, remember the LENS that weighed a ton? Make that 50% bigger and put it on the 3.65 SM which also weighs a ton, now you have 2 tons. -Original Message- From: Jon Langeler via Af Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 10:19 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450 3.65 SM Antenna ITElite Sent from my iPhone On Dec 23, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I have a few places I need more gain then a bare 450 3.65 SM but cannot fit a reflector. Is there a small panel antenna that works with the 450 3.65 SM?
[AFMUG] ePMP WTF?
I've got a 1 mile Force110 PTP link (not the 110PTP radio, just regular ePMP conn. radios). I'm getting sporadic high latency and packet loss. It's currently set to flexible and carrier sense enabled. Both sides are on 2.3.3. eDetect shows no interferers on either side. It says -62/-62, 30/30 SNR, 15/15MCS, 100x100% quality. Pinging from/to devices on each side and/or between the radios themselves shows these latency spikes, anywhere from 200-500ms and sometimes packet loss. I've tried 75/25, 50/50 and now flexible (since the latency is lower). Flexible made it somewhat better. Then setting carrier sense on made it slightly better. The AP side is set to first MAC PTP mode. Max range is 2 miles. I don't know where else to go from here. For the first ePMP PTP I'm turning on, this is not looking good.
Re: [AFMUG] Disabling RF on FSK AP
Not 2.4 FSK on 13.1.3. :( On 12/19/2014 2:20 PM, Peter Kranz via Af wrote: On canopy, channel to ‘none’ *Peter Kranz *Founder/CEO - Unwired Ltd www.UnwiredLtd.com http://www.unwiredltd.com/ Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 Mobile: 510-207- pkr...@unwiredltd.com mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com
Re: [AFMUG] PMP 450 SW Release
And if anyone is interested, they gave us the option to permanently disable any sync source. So if you have a 450AP and the on-board GPS is flaky because of view or whatever, you can turn it off for good. I'm wondering if anyone else has seen SM sessions go idle when AutoSync switches sources? That's not supposed to happen and this seems to be new to 13.2. I have 450APs that will log a transition from on-board to timing port (immediate switch) and any SMs that are moving more than just a little bit of traffic will lose session. Also, I've mentioned this before, and to Aaron quite a bit (probably annoyingly often) that 450APs will boot up using the on-board GPS first if there's timing port pulse available. If you have the power port pulse available, it will use that, so it seems to be only on-board + timing port. And then the on-board GPS sucks, so refer to above when it drops out and switches to another source and sessions drop. What I think we ultimately need is for the on-board GPS to work like free-run mode. If the power port or timing port pulse is present, good, use one of those, and if they fail then switch to on-board if it's available, but switch back to power port or timing port when it comes back. That's my opinion. On 12/19/2014 6:31 PM, Ray Savich via Af wrote: PMP 450 Release R13.2.1 is now available. The release includes a resolution for a specific SNMP combination that caused SM problems and a fix for US EIRP limits for PTP 450 at 5 GHz.Details are at http://bit.ly/1v9DeCQ Ray
Re: [AFMUG] syncpipe parasitic with syncinjector
http://manuals.packetflux.com/index.php?page=using-a-syncpipe-parasitic-with-a-syncinjector On 12/17/2014 10:14 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote: with moving to the syncinjectors we will be pulling back a bunch of parasitics, is there a way to utilize these bad boys with the syncinjectors? -- 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
[AFMUG] ePMP proxy
OK Cambium ePMP dudes and chicks, I am disappointed. I thought you guys had Canopy-like SM click-thru access, aka LUID proxy. But this is not the case on 2.3.3. All you give me is a URL with the IP of the SM. Informational helpful, yes, operationally helpful, no. I'm guessing you need an RF private network like exists on Canopy to make this work. Please do it.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP proxy
No, rather just have it. On 12/17/2014 9:07 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: Rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Dec 17, 2014 9:55 PM, Mike Hammett via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I used it a couple times on my Canopy gear, but it was never a show-stopper to not have it. This brings me to a new post... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent: *Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:30:14 PM *Subject: *[AFMUG] ePMP proxy OK Cambium ePMP dudes and chicks, I am disappointed. I thought you guys had Canopy-like SM click-thru access, aka LUID proxy. But this is not the case on 2.3.3. All you give me is a URL with the IP of the SM. Informational helpful, yes, operationally helpful, no. I'm guessing you need an RF private network like exists on Canopy to make this work. Please do it.
Re: [AFMUG] DC plant DIN rail UPS
Pretty sure a Traco TSP+BCM is cheaper.
On 12/16/2014 10:22 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote:
We just had a bad experience with a battery charger/battery backup
that did not work as expected.
We're looking at this right now:
https://www.tessco.com/products/displayProductInfo.do?sku=516011
What we like about this is that it has separate connections for
battery load, and also does automatic battery tests with an alarm
output.
Is anyone using something similar that they like?
--
--
bp
part {dash} 15 {at} SkylineBroadbandService {dot} com
Re: [AFMUG] securing power supplies in enclosures
Uhh, DIN rail power supplies? On 12/15/2014 11:20 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote: anybody have a cheap universal solution for the different size power supplies and poe injectors? I finally have a mix of rack and DIN in our enclosures to handle most of the gear keeping it pretty, but the power supplies are the problem now. Velcro is good, but they tend to slide out. Zip ties are perfect, except in a pinch nobody has them or uses them and just throws power supplies in the box loose. -- 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] Is 13.2 ready for prime time?
If you're thinking of upgrading right now, wait. 13.2.1 will be along shortly that addresses some SNMP bugs and stuff. On 12/12/2014 12:58 PM, SmarterBroadband via Af wrote: What is the consensus on 13.2 for 5.7 450? Any outstanding issues I should be aware of? Understand I need to do SM�s first. Can I go direct from 12.1 Thanks Adam
Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Tools
I think that became the base of CNS. Once they support Canopy radios and make the GUI pretty like the ePMP's, then I'll mess with it. On 12/12/2014 2:33 PM, SmarterBroadband via Af wrote: I assume Wireless manager is still a pay for product? Anyone using Wireless Advisor? Is it worth installing? Thanks Adam
Re: [AFMUG] 90 Degree 3.6GHZ Sector
Nothing against KP, I like their stuff. But AP mount, null fill, very consistent pattern wins in my book. I agree, the KP 900 sector has good gain for its size. F/B is not so great, but it's better than the wind load you'd get from a cluster of 4' Til-Tek's, which we've done and took down, because.. no. And no more surfboards, LMG/Antel all the way. That's yet another antenna with null fill and has an excellent pattern. On 12/12/2014 4:12 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I see what you’re talking about. It’s not dramatic, but I would think the best thing would be for the two polarizations to have almost identical patterns. Not sure what to make of the gain vs freq graph which shows more like 15 dBi rather than 16.5 dBi. I think we all suspect that with most antennas, the specs are more “typical” than guaranteed, except for certain high end brands. That might be the deciding difference, unless someone has actual side-by-side field results, I believe the Cambium antennas are per spec. Not saying the KPP ones aren’t. But like people have said about the 900 sectors, you probably lose a dB or two compared to MTI or Til-tek. That said, the last 900 sector I bought was a KPP, it is half the size of the other monsters. But in this case, the Cambium sector with the bracket to hold the 450 AP probably wins out in the mechanical department. *From:* Kade Sullivan via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 3:58 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 90 Degree 3.6GHZ Sector The -3 vs -6 is exactly what I was refering to. When you look closely at the antenna pattern of the KP antenna, it just looks like they pushed each polarity farther away from each other in relation to the cambium antenna. This makes the lobes come out a bit farther and spec out as -3 instead of -6. If you look at each polarity individually, they are more like the -6 cambium sector. This is why I feel like in the real world, there is no advantage. I am no RF engineer though, so this is just what I could determine by looking at the patterns overlapped. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: You’re talking about the “Gen II”, right? That’s the 450 compatible one. I have only compared spec sheets. Looks like 90 degrees is at 3 dB points, while Cambium is more like 5-6 dB. No null fill. 2 degrees downtilt. No bracket to hold AP papoose style. Otherwise similar specwise. KPP also lists a 120 degree sector, the spec sheet is a disaster though. Numbers say 2.4 GHz, pattern is ugly, F/B ratio is bad, not sure if it’s bad editing or what. The numbers and patterns on the 90 look good though, except for no null fill, and make sure tower guy knows there is already 2 degrees downtilt, it’s a pretty narrow vertical beam so you don’t want to double up on downtilt. I have only used the Cambium sector, other than the N connectors are in a mildly annoying location, I like them. Neither antenna is cheap. *From:* Josh Luthman via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 3:06 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 90 Degree 3.6GHZ Sector I expect it's like Mike Tyson vs an infant. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Dec 12, 2014 4:04 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Has anyone compared the KP 90 degree 3.6GHZ sector with the Cambium for use with 450?
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Release 2.3.3 available now
Well, my bench radio didn't explode, so I guess I'll update the others. On 12/12/2014 10:09 AM, Sakid Ahmed via Af wrote: ePMP Release 2.3.3 is now posted on the Cambium support site @ https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/epmp/ This is a point release that addresses the AP accessibility issue from a different subnet. All other features introduced in R2.3.1 are still available. Thanks Sakid
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Release 2.3.3 available now
That's what she said? I don't like her if she said that
On 12/12/2014 8:56 PM, Bill Prince via Af wrote:
I just love it when they don't explode.
--
bp
part {dash} 15 {at} SkylineBroadbandService {dot} com
On 12/12/2014 3:22 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote:
Well, my bench radio didn't explode, so I guess I'll update the others.
On 12/12/2014 10:09 AM, Sakid Ahmed via Af wrote:
ePMP Release 2.3.3 is now posted on the Cambium support site @
�
https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/epmp/
�
This is a point release that addresses the AP accessibility issue
from a different subnet. All other features introduced in R2.3.1 are
still available.
�
Thanks
Sakid
�
Re: [AFMUG] aligning bigger antennas on short paths
-/+ 1-2dB is perfectly fine. I'm sure most coordinators use 11.2GHz and the mid-band gain of the antenna for both Tx and Rx. And you also have stuff like time of day and temperature playing a part. If you have an idea where to point the antennas and your mounts are level, fire them up and they'll probably be pretty close. I've done that a number of times. We left one side off by 4dB after powering up for a couple weeks because we were going back up the tower anyway so we finished alignment then. Took about one turn on the elevation and it was 2dB better than the coordination. On 12/12/2014 9:34 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: yeah, we are the PCN is -43 and we are -42/-41 Everything tests fine, speedtests are great, full capacity. I wouldnt be concerned if it had been hard to get the link up. we did full H/V sweeps on both sides, then fine aligned as normal. I just expected it to be hard to find the link and somewhat easy to use it. on the sweeps we didnt see notable side lobe peaks. just strange. Im really freaking happy with SAF on this though, great support from moonblink both pre and post sales, input from SAF sales and support directly, quick responses. I guess my only complaint is the product wasnt harder to use On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: If you got the signal the PCN states you're good to go. You can also do a speed test to verify your 300 some megs if you need to? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Dec 12, 2014 10:24 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: yes. you do understand my concern is that they linked up too easily? Im almost thinking we could have just laid the antennas on their sides and they still would have made a marginal link. If I werent so pessimistic I would be excited about this. Im concerned when the ground thaws or something everything will go batty We have cut the traffic over to it. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Jaime Solorza via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Did u make sure they linked up in lab first? Jaime Solorza On Dec 12, 2014 7:08 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: the ground is frozen, pretty much all tilled farmland. Is it possible im seeing some sort of multipath type madness that this thing just wouldnt not link up. Ive had a harder time pointing shorter 5ghz links On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jaime Solorza via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Slow and easy...slow and easy... Jaime Solorza On Dec 12, 2014 11:43 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: madness we are a little better than the target after fine alignment. at one point we had the 4' side pinting to the ground abot 100 yards out ant it still had about a -80 on the bnc readout On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Yeah, it was so considerate of ATT to leave that dish up there when they sold off the site, only needed to be re-aimed about 2 degrees to go where we wanted. And they built a platform to stand on while aiming it, that was awfully nice of them. And they left the flexible waveguide down to the shelter. I’d really hate to think about hanging a new 12 ft dish ourselves and running waveguide to it. And it’s an Andrew parabolic, not the old WE horns, so we don’t have to worry about water getting into the waveguide and freezing. It doesn’t even look like anyone has been using the lightning bolt logo for target practice. Life is good when someone abandons nice stuff you can use. *From:* Hardy, Tim via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 11:18 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] simulating interference
I remember something like that, but I have no idea. I know one thing though, just put a Canopy FSK AP next to whatever you want to test interference on. Doesn't even need an SM registered, just the beacon will be enough to cause trouble. Never, ever put an FSK radio next to an UBNT radio if you value your time and sanity. On 12/10/2014 8:07 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: The old Trango multipoint radios had a hidden CLI command to transmit constant RF, I can’t find it, something like “pn”. I’ll bet George remembers. *From:* Josh Luthman via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 7:00 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] simulating interference Lol ya ptp650 has ruin the spectrum mode to take things out. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Dec 10, 2014 7:49 PM, Jaime Solorza via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Try some Non UBNT 5GHz products like canopy or cambium ...a 5GHz video transmitter will be noticed in the normal US 5.7/5.8GHz channels be most geardo you have an old Tsunami FD 5GHz radio lying around? Jaime Solorza Wireless Systems Architect 915-861-1390 tel:915-861-1390 On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Ty Featherling via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: What is the easiest way to simulate noise in a lab environment. I would like to play with a couple Rocket AC Lites I have here and see what throughput looks like with some noise adjacent to their channel. Can I just turn up another AP on the necessary channel or does it need a client associated? If so, does their need to be traffic passing to the client? Does an AP get noisier when talking to more clients or with more throughput? -Ty
[AFMUG] Mikrotik brute force
Nice. WTF. http://mkbrutusproject.github.io/MKBRUTUS/
Re: [AFMUG] Canopy AP Spectrum Analysis with SNMP
No idea on the SNMP aspect, but keep in mind that FSK is 20MHz (900=8MHz), so your noise floor might look worse than it really is. On 12/9/2014 2:29 PM, Matt via Af wrote: Is there a way to do a 20 second Spectrum Analysis on a 2.4 Canopy FSK AP by sending a SNMP command? Thinking of doing this about midnight in a certain region then retrieving results next day. With SNMP and a script I could hopefully hit them all at exact same time and not see my own gear. I want a better idea of noise before upgrading to 450 or ePMP at the sites.
Re: [AFMUG] Wrong surge suppressor on gig POE
Well, if it's not HV, then it would obviously clamp the PoE voltage. And if you're not over-current protecting, then yeah, it'll probably burn up the components on the card. I did that on one of the GigE-APC-POE's. Powered an airFiber on the bench and some static discharged. No fuse, no grounding. It just smoked until I unplugged it. There was a LOT of current available (6A of 56VDC). Stupid me. But I have had protected over-current situations. Fuse blew and the SS still works fine. Nearby lightning strikes inducing some surges. On 12/9/2014 7:28 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: When you say boom you mean the card would appear damaged? What if you put the card in another situation and just do typical ethernet, would it work? My problem is one AP doesn't turn on at all, two have ethernet problems (link up/down), one reboots when I hit refresh (seriously) I ordered 12 and from my pictures I can see the middle set says HV in black ink. Unfortunately that means I definitely can't see the ink on the outer two cases so I'll have to climb to see if they're HV for sure. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I think all pins or pairs on the non-PoE GigESS's are clamped under 10 volts. So.. boom? Are you sure you didn't get regular 10/100 APC PoE SS's? And that's why your GigE isn't working? I believe the GigESS-HV's are pretty clearly marked/stamped as HV. At least the ones I have in the PRM24 chassis in the NOC are. Yep, just looked, the back of the handle is stamped HV. On 12/9/2014 6:49 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: Has anyone plugged one in to see what would happen? Does the card just blow as soon as you power it up? As far as I know, every APC card I've gotten in the last several months have been GigEAPC-HV but I'm curious to know what would happen if maybe I was shipped the wrong units... Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373
Re: [AFMUG] Wrong surge suppressor on gig POE
Forgot.. yeah, you probably need to visually verify what you have at the site. On 12/9/2014 7:35 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Well, if it's not HV, then it would obviously clamp the PoE voltage. And if you're not over-current protecting, then yeah, it'll probably burn up the components on the card. I did that on one of the GigE-APC-POE's. Powered an airFiber on the bench and some static discharged. No fuse, no grounding. It just smoked until I unplugged it. There was a LOT of current available (6A of 56VDC). Stupid me. But I have had protected over-current situations. Fuse blew and the SS still works fine. Nearby lightning strikes inducing some surges. On 12/9/2014 7:28 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: When you say boom you mean the card would appear damaged? What if you put the card in another situation and just do typical ethernet, would it work? My problem is one AP doesn't turn on at all, two have ethernet problems (link up/down), one reboots when I hit refresh (seriously) I ordered 12 and from my pictures I can see the middle set says HV in black ink. Unfortunately that means I definitely can't see the ink on the outer two cases so I'll have to climb to see if they're HV for sure. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I think all pins or pairs on the non-PoE GigESS's are clamped under 10 volts. So.. boom? Are you sure you didn't get regular 10/100 APC PoE SS's? And that's why your GigE isn't working? I believe the GigESS-HV's are pretty clearly marked/stamped as HV. At least the ones I have in the PRM24 chassis in the NOC are. Yep, just looked, the back of the handle is stamped HV. On 12/9/2014 6:49 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: Has anyone plugged one in to see what would happen? Does the card just blow as soon as you power it up? As far as I know, every APC card I've gotten in the last several months have been GigEAPC-HV but I'm curious to know what would happen if maybe I was shipped the wrong units... Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110
I told them to make a snap-on radome with the sub-reflector integrated into it. That would provide less wind load and keep ice off of the feedhorn, plus speed up assembly. I'm not sure what the polarization is. I thought the Force100 was -/+45, so the 110 is probably the same, but there's no way to tell. On 12/8/2014 11:46 AM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: I just put together my first Force 110... definitely a huge improvement over the 100, it's still not quite as simple as throwing together a Nano/PowerBeam, but not bad at all, I think it's actually easier to put together than a NanoBridge... and the fact that I didn't look at the instructions until I was done is a good sign. I'm not sure how much I like the crazy wire thing on the front, but I can live with that, and otherwise, it seems like a pretty good design. The fact that they used carriage bolts for the pole mount instead of a u-bolt makes me very happy... I suspect we're going to be putting a lot of these things up on towers for PtP links. One question... are these dual slant or Horizontal/Vertical polarity? I know it doesn't really matter much for ePMP, but since they are connectorized, it's likely they'll get used with other radios at some point.
Re: [AFMUG] Force 110 assembly - anyone else having problems?
That's what I thought at first, I'ma gonna break somethin... I stuck the feedhorn in first. Put the back bracket and mount on. Put the four allen-head screw in hand tight. Put some pressure on the front of the feedhorn and push on the back of the bracket at each of the four locking tab points. They click in place. Tighten the four allen screws. Put the front reflector on, mount the radio, etc. Fairly easy after the first one. On 12/8/2014 10:35 PM, Alan West via Af wrote: Just got my four pack in. Opened the box, all nicely packed. Started my first assembly. Got the bracket put on the dish. No problems. Now I get to the feedhorn push in. Yah right. This thing will not just click in place like the video shows. There is no way this feed horn I have will push far enough for the tabs to go into the holes for themI would probably break something. Seriously, I put the Force 100 together faster, and you know how bad it is...I hope the other three are not like this or they will go back to the supplier.
Re: [AFMUG] BH distances
Exactly why I said Cambium needs to do a Force 2' dish that I can slap a Laird radome on. I mean I can use a Laird dish, but there's no radio mount like a Rocket dish. On 12/5/2014 4:36 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: If you go with 2' dishes, you should be able to get 8.5 miles out of 5.1ghz... that would definitely be pushing it with the Force PTP110 though... it still might be doable though, depending on what you need. *From:* Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Rex-List Account via Af [af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Friday, December 05, 2014 4:31 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] BH distances Darn it. Was hoping for more. I need to do a 8.5 mile link and 5.7 is pretty full at one end. Hey Cambium why not add ePMP PTP to Link Planner so I don�t have to learn Radio Mobile. Would 2.4 reach 8.5 miles? *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman via Af *Sent:* Friday, December 05, 2014 4:22 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] BH distances Assuming force110ptp? You're looking at 25 dbi antennas so my guesses 5.1@18dbm mailto:5.1@18dbm is probably 5 miles 5.5@13dbm mailto:5.5@13dbm is probably 3 miles 5.7@23dbm mailto:5.7@23dbm is probably 10 miles Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Rex-List Account via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I am looking to plan out some tower site expansions. Thinking of using ePMP for some low cost back hauls. They will cover the 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, and 5.7 bands all with the same radio. This is nice. I noticed they have different power output restrictions in the different bands. What kind of range can I expect to get in each band? Thanks in advance! Rex
Re: [AFMUG] BH distances
If I need 100Mbps PTP, nah, I'll just do licensed. Save the 5GHz for PtMP. On 12/5/2014 4:57 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: If you need to use 5.1ghz, ePMP seems like the best option to me at this point. I haven't seen anything else that can do as high of TX power yet, and who knows when any AC stuff will be out for that band. For 5.8ghz, yes, I agree AC is probably the way to go now. *From:* Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Rory Conaway via Af [af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Friday, December 05, 2014 4:53 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] BH distances I�d be looking at an 802.11ac at this time for PTP links. We are using a bunch of PowerBeam-400�s although I really need DFS and 5150 since I�m in the middle of two cities but they are working great. If the 110�s had been out 4 months ago we probably would have worked with them. However, once my inventory of PB-400�s run low, I�m doing everything after that in 802.11ac. Rory *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard via Af *Sent:* Friday, December 5, 2014 3:46 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] BH distances Yes... a 2' Force would be nice, but it's not exactly a huge problem to just use another brand and buy the radio mount. *From:*Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af [af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Friday, December 05, 2014 4:42 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] BH distances Exactly why I said Cambium needs to do a Force 2' dish that I can slap a Laird radome on. I mean I can use a Laird dish, but there's no radio mount like a Rocket dish. On 12/5/2014 4:36 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: If you go with 2' dishes, you should be able to get 8.5 miles out of 5.1ghz... that would definitely be pushing it with the Force PTP110 though... it still might be doable though, depending on what you need. *From:*Af [af-boun...@afmug.com mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Rex-List Account via Af [af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Friday, December 05, 2014 4:31 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] BH distances Darn it. Was hoping for more. I need to do a 8.5 mile link and 5.7 is pretty full at one end. Hey Cambium why not add ePMP PTP to Link Planner so I don�t have to learn Radio Mobile. Would 2.4 reach 8.5 miles? � *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman via Af *Sent:* Friday, December 05, 2014 4:22 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] BH distances � Assuming force110ptp?� You're looking at 25 dbi antennas so my guesses � 5.1@18dbm mailto:5.1@18dbm is probably 5 miles 5.5@13dbm mailto:5.5@13dbm is probably 3 miles 5.7@23dbm mailto:5.7@23dbm is probably 10 miles � Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 � On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Rex-List Account via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I am looking to plan out some tower site expansions. Thinking of using ePMP for some low cost back hauls. They will cover the 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, and 5.7 bands all with the same radio. This is nice. I noticed they have different power output restrictions in the different bands. What kind of range can I expect to get in each band? Thanks in advance! � Rex �
Re: [AFMUG] Dish Network MDU over GEPON
We just do L-band distribution since most buildings already have coax. We have had to replace drops to some tenants because the cableco mucked it up so bad. Then we put on MoCA-like modems to do internets. On 12/4/2014 2:23 PM, Keefe John via Af wrote: This solution is for a single 300-unit building. They still have the prohibition against crossing property lines and right of ways. Keefe On 12/4/2014 2:21 PM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: While discussing this, will Dish or Directv allow you to distribute over fiber? They used to have a prohibition against crossing property lines or some such thing. -Original Message- From: Keefe John via Af Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 12:11 PM To: Animal Farm Subject: [AFMUG] Dish Network MDU over GEPON Has anyone here ever done a Dish Network MDU solution using RF over GPON? I have a client who is doing DirecTV MDU over GPON and they'd like to switch to Dish. This is the GPON head-end unit they are using: http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/products/7342-isam-fttu-ansi Keefe
Re: [AFMUG] 13.3 Open Beta
I really hope you guys will consider testing and releasing this for FSK. We still use a lot of it. The config file will definitely be helpful. And there's still no resolution for 2.4 FSK None frequency issue. On 12/3/2014 10:44 AM, Jonathan Mandziara via Af 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] 13.3 Open Beta
That is freakin awesome! Now where's my AP background spectrum analyzer? :) On 12/3/2014 11:40 AM, Aaron Schneider via Af wrote: They are all told to run it simultaneously and while the SMs are doing it, the AP shuts itself up and runs a scan during that time. *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino Villarini via Af *Sent:* Wednesday, December 03, 2014 11:37 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 13.3 Open Beta Woaw! Nice�. Is the Sector SA runs on the SMS at the same time or 1 by 1? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com http://www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr *From: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Reply-To: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Date: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 at 1:24 PM *To: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] 13.3 Open Beta Gino, Great questions! Sector SA is a feature that runs a SA on the AP and all the SMs registered to it at the same time to get a true picture of the RF environment the AP and the SMs are seeing without the influence of the APs energy. The removal of the MAP in the PTP450 will give around an increase of 3.2 Mbps on each Channel Bandwidth. Best, Cambium Jonathan *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino Villarini via Af *Sent:* Wednesday, December 03, 2014 11:20 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 13.3 Open Beta What is Sector SA? And removal of PT450 MAP? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com http://www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr *From: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Reply-To: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Date: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 at 12:44 PM *To: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject: *[AFMUG] 13.3 Open Beta 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] 13.3 Open Beta
Ideally you'd run this on all same-band co-located sectors at the same time. But yeah, my thought was close to yours. We have some towers only a mile or two apart and the SMs will definitely pick them up. This is one reason why I mentioned AP mode background SA. Schedule an Rx slot for background SA and give me a 1 or 5 minute average of my current channel. This is pretty much what happens with LBT now anyway. On 12/3/2014 5:25 PM, Peter Kranz via Af wrote: Hi Jonathan, The way Sector SA is being implemented won’t give the best possible results in practice. Since it is not paying attention to the sync pulses, but just coordinating running an AP spectrum scan with the SMs you are still going to see a bunch of bogus energy from co-located access points. In order to do this in a way where you can really see what the spectrum looks like, the AP should only perform SA during its appointed receive windows and not during the TX windows of other co-located equipment. Another side effect for those of us running fancy beam forming antenna arrays is we can never use ‘Sector SA’ at all, since it is listening during the TX windows of other access points connected to the beam former and getting high RF levels shoved into its RX side. *Peter Kranz *Founder/CEO - Unwired Ltd www.UnwiredLtd.com http://www.unwiredltd.com/ Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 Mobile: 510-207- pkr...@unwiredltd.com mailto:pkr...@unwiredltd.com *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Mandziara via Af *Sent:* Wednesday, December 03, 2014 8:44 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] 13.3 Open Beta 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] N00b question
MCX On 12/3/2014 6:03 PM, Timothy D. McNabb via Af wrote: For the connectorized FSK AP�s, what is the bulkhead connection type mounted on the AP? The opposite end is an N connector (that connects to the antenna) but I don�t what the connector type is used for the board - pigtail? I think it is an SMP connector but wanted to ask to be sure. For reference it is the same connector that attaches to the GPS module of a CMM4 to the N-connector passthrough box or whatever that silver block is. Timothy McNabb Network Administrator Velociter Wireless, Inc (209)838-1221 x107
Re: [AFMUG] favorite/decent dielectric grease? / thread jack
Hey Forrest, I hate to hijack, but can you take a look at the ticket I have open (229631)? On 12/3/2014 9:15 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af wrote: After another round of going through a couple of months of customer returns, and the biggest issues are corrosion related to moisture getting in the connectors, I'm ready to either start shipping a little tube with dielectric grease with certain products, or make larger containers available for sale, or some combination thereof. Before I select a vendor I want to make sure that there isn't a known 'best' brand or even more important - some brand which causes problems. So, for those of you who do this, please let me know what your experiences are in relation to this. In relation, what is everyone's experience as far as the correct amount goes? Thanks. -forrest
Re: [AFMUG] favorite/decent dielectric grease? / thread jack
No emergency, I was able to make some progress on it today. When you get a chance and can digest my ramblings. I know you're a busy guy. Thanks, I appreciate it. On 12/3/2014 11:22 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af wrote: Looking at it now. As I'm about spent for tonight you'll probably get a reply fairly early tomorrow morning. -forrest On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:05 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Hey Forrest, I hate to hijack, but can you take a look at the ticket I have open (229631)? On 12/3/2014 9:15 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af wrote: After another round of going through a couple of months of customer returns, and the biggest issues are corrosion related to moisture getting in the connectors, I'm ready to either start shipping a little tube with dielectric grease with certain products, or make larger containers available for sale, or some combination thereof. Before I select a vendor I want to make sure that there isn't a known 'best' brand or even more important - some brand which causes problems. So, for those of you who do this, please let me know what your experiences are in relation to this. In relation, what is everyone's experience as far as the correct amount goes? Thanks. -forrest
Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 450
That's ePMP, specifically 2.4. 2.4 and 3GHz 450 is slant on both sides and must be that way, you cannot cross the streams! On 12/2/2014 9:11 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: As I recall, the SM is dual slant but they use a VH AP. There is a slick trick they use to separate the two with some overall increases in interference rejection or some such performance improvement. Cambium posted a white paper I believe. -Original Message- From: Craig House via Af Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 8:08 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 450 Had a discussion with one of my coworkers this morning regarding the 450 cambium 3.65 radios We have tried it in a couple of locations with little success he believes that the 3.65 is not a dual slant radio but rather just dual polarity. Can someone tell me who is right? Sent from my iPhone
Re: [AFMUG] Best strongest cold weather zip ties
TnB Ty-Raps. We use the 8 TY25MX. You can find them in 1k for about $65/bag. On 12/2/2014 5:45 PM, Craig Schmaderer via Af wrote: Does anyone have cold weather zip ties that they think are super strong and last like forever :). These are the best ones that I have found over the years. Just wonder if someone has a brand that they would say last very long and strong enough for tower runs. I think these are installable at zero degrees. They never break in the winter. I just wish they last more than 10 years. :). * * *Cold Weather Cable Ties-7* Part Number: N-7-50-CW - Package : 100 Per Package 50 $115.00 *Cold Weather Cable Ties-11* Part Number: N-11-50-CW - Package : 100/Pkg. 25
Re: [AFMUG] 450 3.65 Gear
If you're running the 3GHz 450 with no guard between channels, you need to enable adjacent channel support on all sectors. This instructs the SMs to never exceed 23dBm Tx power. As far as co-channel, aka back-to-back sectors, if you have a REALLY close SM, it's possible that the opposite sector will hear that SM and trigger LBT. If that's the case, I would think about doing a 5.4 AP for those close subs. I haven't ran into that yet and I'm doing -57dBm combined SM Tx power control on all 450 sectors. I agree, I think the 3550 rules are going to suck for us. We'll probably end up seeing carriers trying to do small-cell stuff with it. On 12/1/2014 1:56 PM, Matt via Af wrote: We are using 20mhz channels with ABAB. However with LBT you have to offset the A1 by a cpl MHz from A2 etc. Think they fixed that issue in one of the early betas, remember running into it shortly after hardware release. We are doing ABAB and not running into it now. Also don't worry about the band changes. Currently this equip would be grandfathered for 5 years. Does that mean 4 years from now you can still add SM's to an AP under old rules? My concern is the new band seems to only come in 10mhz chunks. Right now with perfect connection on 20mhz channel we get 80mbps down. Not so perfect connections 30 - 40mbps down and lets not even talk about a poor connection. Drop that down to 10mhz channel and that's not a lot of bandwidth for each sector. Works great! Are you using 10mhz or 20mhz channels? We currently use 20mhz channels in ABAB format. I worry about the future band changes and we wont be allowed to do that anymore. Customers keep wanting more and more bandwidth. What kind of luck is everybody having with the 3.65ghz 450 gear?
Re: [AFMUG] Update on Canopy PtMP Issue
will screw up everyone�s upstream and could cause the symptoms you are seeing. If it�s another Canopy operator, you might be able to sync with them. Otherwise, it�s look for a clearer channel. We used to avoid 2435 like the plague, but these days it can actually be the clearest channel, although some customer routers might need reprogramming if like us you have them manually set them to channel 6. *From:*George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:*Friday, November 28, 2014 2:09 PM *To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Suggestions on Canopy PtMP Issue Ethernet/CRC errors? What do linktests to the SMs return? Is it possible you have SM to SM traffic on the same AP overloading it? Enable the throughput monitoring tool on your APs. Besides all that, what about interference, have you ran the spectrum analyzer? This is a two-way street. You can have noise at an SM which will get it very crappy link efficiency. Like their router wifi channel is the same frequency (or close to it) that the SM is trying to listen on. On 11/28/2014 1:50 PM, Heith Petersen via Af wrote: Earlier I posted that I was having some through put issues. I have a 2.4 AP with 40 subs. I started having issues where customers were having horrific ping times on the AP, the majority anyways. I would still have customers that were stellar most of the time. Firmwares were all over the place, all on the same level as well as AP with the same issue. I had segregated the subs to multiple Color Codes, as times I had as few as 1 to 4 subs registered at a time. If I swapped color codes to a different code and allowed 4 different users on, at times the issue would follow them as well. � I had a tech swap out the AP 2 evenings ago, and to my dismay I noticed the issue right away. Today I re-routed a back up back haul to that site and the AP is the only device pulling service from that BH. I have 2 more sites that feed off of this tower and they are not experiencing the issue. This issue crept up on us last Friday night. I have only heard from a handful of users so I don�t know if everyone is experiencing the issue, or at least noticed. For the most part its really bad at time during prime time, however today and during the day Monday it was real noticeable. From what I can tell on my MikroTik is that its really only handing out about 3 meg right now. This network is bridged, I have some Tiks in place to start routing and also for management purposes. I had the same results from just using a standard switch. I am not experiencing any other issues on that network. All radios, except for 4, are NAT enabled. The other 4 at times I would have totally disabled or not associated with the same results � We were suspecting a bad Canopy radio mucking up the AP, which we have seen but its rare. But like I said we have seen it with only a few users associated. I cant imagine that I had several bad radios at once. The AP is swapped out. Could it be a network issue? In all my years of using Canopy I have never seen this issue. I fear that my BS skills may be wearing thin on my customers, but I am unsure of where to look � Thanks Heith �
[AFMUG] support call logging
I'm wondering if anyone has ever tried this, or has it working, before I waste my time. I'm talking about automatically opening a ticket for all inbound calls. Say something like osTicket and a SIP client registered to the PBX listening for incoming calls.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP and/or Gig SyncInjector problems
Well if you plugged an UBNT radio into the SyncInjector, that will do it. Wrong polarity. What size fuse did you have on it? I'm putting 3A fuses on mine. Probably should just use 5A because 3A might be too small if I have four 3GHz 450APs on one injector. I think the SyncInjector solid-state overcurrent protection is 2A per port? On 11/29/2014 4:27 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: Not that I'm aware of. It was one of the fuses I have between my 24vdc supply and SyncInjectors, POE injectors, MTs, SiteMonitor. All 8 other fuses were fine, not sure what made this one pop. Running all day at this point... Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I’ve popped a couple SyncInjectors due to water in one of the jacks (mounted with jacks facing up, I’ll never do that again). I take it there’s a replaceable fuse inside? I’ll have to open them up and see if I can fix them. *From:* Josh Luthman via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Saturday, November 29, 2014 3:55 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP and/or Gig SyncInjector problems So I just got back...fuse popped on that SyncInjector. Not sure why. There was a Ubnt Beam on it - the cable was moved to the POE injector and fuse replaced. SyncInjector is working as expected right now. Sure hoping Forrest can do next day shipping on Monday =) Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: See http://tickets.packetflux.com/kb/faq.php?id=2 6 blinks = power missing/too low. And yes, you need a syncpipe. -forrest On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Here's a video, not sure what the blinking means? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dME8A-H_590 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: *rb2011 with ports 2/3/4/5 set to hardware switch (ether2 master, 3/4/5 slave). Ports 6/7/8/9 are hardware switch (ether6 master, 7/8/9 slave). *From the rb2011 it goes to the Ethernet half of the SyncInjector. *From the POE half of the SyncInjector it goes to WB gigeapc HV surge suppressors and then to the ePMP radios. Two of the ePMP radios are powered up and running gige. Neither are receiving CMM sync (top of the ePMP says Not receiving GPS sync). The remaining 6 APs aren't even powering up/linking up. Any ideas before I start swapping parts? Is it OK to have the surge between SyncInjectors and ePMP? On top of all of this the SiteMonitor isn't talking to the POE injector or the two Gig SyncInjectors. I have them all daisy chained and verified they're snapped in place. The POE injector is powering Ubnt radios just fine. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373
Re: [AFMUG] IP Management
Yeah, IPPlan is old, but it works. On 11/29/2014 7:06 PM, Josh Baird via Af wrote: 6Connect is good. Men Mice is also good (but doesn't SWIP or do ARIN). Solarwinds also has an IPAM offering. There really isn't a good -free- solution that I know of (especially one that hasn't turned to vaporware). Many people will suggest IPPlan, but I hated it (although it can be easily customized and/or modified if you have any PHP clue). Josh On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Mike Hammett via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address_management What are you guys doing for IP management? Ideally, the system I used would be free, support ARIN's RESTful API, IPv4 and IPv6, building of DNS zones. The only one I've seen that does the ARIN stuff doesn't meet the free qualification. There's no price listed anywhere, only scheduling a demo. (6Connect) Trying to forge ahead with IPPlan, but there's been no updates in 4.5 years and the documentation available doesn't seem to be for the beta version that supports IPv6. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Re: [AFMUG] IP Management
Simple hierarchical IP management is what IPPlan does. It might be old and ugly, but it's better than a spreadsheet. And it also has an audit log so I can see who changed/added/deleted what. I have no reason to move away from it, at least right now. If I'm going to do something different, it will be custom integrated with RADIUS to act as provisioning and DHCP backend. Too much shit to do right now to tackle that. On 11/29/2014 11:04 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: racktables is relaly cool, though i question long term support. We have one of our contract customers that hired a full time IT guy, we sent him a racktables VM, this is a multis site customer, with multiple racks mixing POE VLAN multiple providers. One huge problem was we never go to the out of state sites, documentation on ports was always lacking and site disasters always ended up with stuff where it belonged, this should help to resolve that But for simple subnet management and documentation there is zero easy product out there, everything is full IPAM or Excel. Ive been looking for something other than a spreadsheet to keep tract of the subnets, and where I put them, whats available next. PITA to say the least. Other than a spreadsheed, theres not much that scales down to just the subnets divisions, if you dont care about the hosts. and every one of them results an a sales call within 5 minites of submission if you put your real info. Its like, seriously motherfu%%er, I just downloaded it, do you think I have it installed and tested yet enough to tell the boss to cut you a 10k check? On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:44 PM, David Milholen via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Ken, We used to do that up until a few years ago and we have moved on LOL I have had so many spread sheets that have since moved into automation of today and now the cloud(still a mystery) LOL Easy to do get a LAMP stack server and roll with it. On 11/29/2014 9:26 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I use IP management software called “Excel”. It is not free, but I hear of alternatives called “Open Office” and “Google Docs”. *From:* Mike Hammett via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Saturday, November 29, 2014 9:02 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IP Management All of the above. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent: *Saturday, November 29, 2014 8:59:15 PM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] IP Management How much public IP space do you guys have? Seems kind of like a first world problem, if you know what I mean. Or are you talking about managing private IP space in a large enterprise network? That can be a mess, but you mentioned ARIN, so I assumed you meant public addresses. Or maybe you are worried about IPv6 space where lightbulbs get their own addresses? Oh crap, do we have to SWIP all the addresses we assign to the Internet of Things? -Original Message- From: Butch Evans via Af Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 8:44 PM To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Management On 11/29/2014 07:06 PM, Josh Baird via Af wrote: 6Connect is good. Men Mice is also good (but doesn't SWIP or do ARIN). Solarwinds also has an IPAM offering. There really isn't a good -free- solution that I know of (especially one that hasn't turned to vaporware). Many people will suggest IPPlan, but I hated it (although it can be easily customized and/or modified if you have any PHP clue). I wasn't impressed with IPPlan, either. HaCi is another free option that may do what you want. I haven't looked at it recently, so I can't even recall all the features of it at the moment. -- Butch Evans 702-537-0979 tel:702-537-0979 Network Support and Engineering http://store.wispgear.net/ http://www.butchevans.com/ -- -- 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] Cambium 450 13.2 issues
Yup, +1. I've seen 13.2 give us between 10 to 30% increase in
throughput. And the SMs that needed MIMO-A got nearly 50% more
throughput because their power levels were so imbalanced (under the tower).
On 11/28/2014 11:06 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote:
We do not use the DNS proxy. Never have; we've seen the proxy built
into many SOHO routers as being a problem too often, and did not want
to go there with any/all of our SMs. Guess it's a case of once
burned, twice shy.
We're also not seeing the drop in modulation. We are getting reliable
8X/6X operation out to about 8 miles.
--
bp
part {dash} 15 {at} SkylineBroadbandService {dot} com
On 11/28/2014 8:14 AM, Timothy D. McNabb via Af wrote:
Fair enough. We don’t manually input the DNS into the radios to give
us the flexibility of control over the SM’s DNS without having to
mass edit in the future. Albeit we haven’t changed DNS server IP in
several years, but in the off chance something needs to be put up
temporarily, we’d like to be prepared.
I did notice changing a couple of SM’s to DNS Proxy enabled worked
out well for the customers affected. It didn’t seem to be everyone
but we had several. Disabled appears to be the default method when
upgrading the firmware but I hadn’t been through enough SM’s prior to
the rollback (where in I checked this particular setting) to confirm.
It was still pretty unsettling to see the decrease in modulation.
Considering that the total throughput available on the AP is based on
the modulation rate of the SM’s (we aspire to at least maintain a
minimum of 8x/4x per SM), it’s disappointing to see the behavior of
the radios as they were after the upgrade. We had a few SM’s that
went from 8x/4x to 8x/2x, even a couple of 8x/6x that dropped lower.
-Tim
PS – OT, I hope everyone had a happy turkey-day and has hopefully
avoided a good chunk of the BF shenanigans
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince via Af
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 26, 2014 6:35 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450 13.2 issues
We do similar and are not seeing any issues on 13.2.
When our SMs are in NAT mode, they get the DNS servers from their
DHCP server, and propagate the DNS server addresses to their
clients. I have not seen one instance of this not working; and we
have quite a few on 13.2 now.
Likewise, we also upgraded the SMs first, then the APs. Works as
advertised.
--
bp
part {dash} 15 {at} SkylineBroadbandService {dot} com
On 11/26/2014 4:57 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote:
It’s a choice you make, do you want the SM to hand its own
address out via DHCP and act as the DNS server, or do you want
the SM to hand out your DNS server IP addresses via DHCP? We do
the latter, and manually enter those DNS server addresses into
the SM. Most of our residential customers have their own WiFi
router behind the SM, this way it gets handed our DNS server
addresses and probably acts as a DNS proxy itself.
But that is just our preferred way of setting it up. I don’t
believe any of this has changed since many FW versions ago on PMP100.
The reason I asked was, if you are disabling DNS proxy on the SM,
then you are using the same configuration we are and I am
surprised that 13.2 broke it for you. If you are enabling DNS
proxy, I don’t think we do that anywhere, so I would be unaware
if 13.2 broke it.
*From:*Timothy D. McNabb via Af mailto:af@afmug.com
*Sent:*Wednesday, November 26, 2014 6:27 PM
*To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450 13.2 issues
It’s set to the default upon flashing, which appears to be disabled.
TBH if it is something that should be enabled, then it should
have been by default with the release IMHO.
-Tim
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
via Af
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 26, 2014 4:18 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450 13.2 issues
You have DNS Server Proxy enabled or disabled on the SM?
*From:*Timothy D. McNabb via Af mailto:af@afmug.com
*Sent:*Wednesday, November 26, 2014 6:09 PM
*To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:*[AFMUG] Cambium 450 13.2 issues
We’ve seen a few issues with the new 13.2 firmware for the
5.4/5.7 450 equipment. Here is the bucket list –
·If an AP is on 13.2, but an SM is on 13.1.3, there is the
possibility that the SM cannot update because it is stuck in
8x/1x mode and throughput is significantly decreased. Manually
going to the customer site and updating can bring the radio back up
·In some cases, SM’s after the update come back online with a
better signal but a decreased throughput and modulation rate than
what was previously viewed on 13.1.3
·Behind a NAT’d SM, it does not appear that DNS is being properly
passed by the SM to a
Re: [AFMUG] Suggestions on Canopy PtMP Issue
Ethernet/CRC errors? What do linktests to the SMs return? Is it possible you have SM to SM traffic on the same AP overloading it? Enable the throughput monitoring tool on your APs. Besides all that, what about interference, have you ran the spectrum analyzer? This is a two-way street. You can have noise at an SM which will get it very crappy link efficiency. Like their router wifi channel is the same frequency (or close to it) that the SM is trying to listen on. On 11/28/2014 1:50 PM, Heith Petersen via Af wrote: Earlier I posted that I was having some through put issues. I have a 2.4 AP with 40 subs. I started having issues where customers were having horrific ping times on the AP, the majority anyways. I would still have customers that were stellar most of the time. Firmwares were all over the place, all on the same level as well as AP with the same issue. I had segregated the subs to multiple Color Codes, as times I had as few as 1 to 4 subs registered at a time. If I swapped color codes to a different code and allowed 4 different users on, at times the issue would follow them as well. I had a tech swap out the AP 2 evenings ago, and to my dismay I noticed the issue right away. Today I re-routed a back up back haul to that site and the AP is the only device pulling service from that BH. I have 2 more sites that feed off of this tower and they are not experiencing the issue. This issue crept up on us last Friday night. I have only heard from a handful of users so I don�t know if everyone is experiencing the issue, or at least noticed. For the most part its really bad at time during prime time, however today and during the day Monday it was real noticeable. From what I can tell on my MikroTik is that its really only handing out about 3 meg right now. This network is bridged, I have some Tiks in place to start routing and also for management purposes. I had the same results from just using a standard switch. I am not experiencing any other issues on that network. All radios, except for 4, are NAT enabled. The other 4 at times I would have totally disabled or not associated with the same results We were suspecting a bad Canopy radio mucking up the AP, which we have seen but its rare. But like I said we have seen it with only a few users associated. I cant imagine that I had several bad radios at once. The AP is swapped out. Could it be a network issue? In all my years of using Canopy I have never seen this issue. I fear that my BS skills may be wearing thin on my customers, but I am unsure of where to look Thanks Heith
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP and/or Gig SyncInjector problems
Six flashes, I'm trying to remember. I thought that means no power on the input block. Could mean no sync. But I'm thinking power, which would explain why your APs on that second injector won't come up at all. Yes, you definitely need a SyncPipe connected to one of the SyncInjectors. The sync daisy chain just means you can propagate the sync pulse from a master SyncInjector to a number of other ones. On 11/28/2014 8:07 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: Oh forgot to mention power - everything is 24vdc from the same circuit (fuses are tested good from multimeter, 24v at every terminal). Note two of the APs are working on one gig sync injector where the other sync injector has 0 working APs. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: SiteMonitor isn't showing any of the three expansion parts (poe injector and 2x gig syncinjectors). Is a SyncPipe Basic required for the syncinjectors to work? Or do they have an GPS radio? I'm not seeing any documentation saying it's necessary, but it's mentioning it a lot... Will the gig syncinjectors still utilize 10 or 100 mbit? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Nate Burke via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Does your site monitor show anything out of the ordinary? What are you using to provide sync to the sync injector? The green lights on both should blink once per second when they have sync. On 11/28/2014 7:46 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: Here's a video, not sure what the blinking means? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dME8A-H_590 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: *rb2011 with ports 2/3/4/5 set to hardware switch (ether2 master, 3/4/5 slave). Ports 6/7/8/9 are hardware switch (ether6 master, 7/8/9 slave). *From the rb2011 it goes to the Ethernet half of the SyncInjector. *From the POE half of the SyncInjector it goes to WB gigeapc HV surge suppressors and then to the ePMP radios. Two of the ePMP radios are powered up and running gige. Neither are receiving CMM sync (top of the ePMP says Not receiving GPS sync). The remaining 6 APs aren't even powering up/linking up. Any ideas before I start swapping parts? Is it OK to have the surge between SyncInjectors and ePMP? On top of all of this the SiteMonitor isn't talking to the POE injector or the two Gig SyncInjectors. I have them all daisy chained and verified they're snapped in place. The POE injector is powering Ubnt radios just fine. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP and/or Gig SyncInjector problems
From the Base unit's expansion bus. The SyncInjectors will provide their own power to their exp. bus if the input block has (usable) voltage, otherwise it will pull power from the Base. Expansion bus only, NOT power for the radios, that's completely separate. On 11/28/2014 8:22 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: Well how would the light turn on if it didn't have power? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 9:17 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Six flashes, I'm trying to remember. I thought that means no power on the input block. Could mean no sync. But I'm thinking power, which would explain why your APs on that second injector won't come up at all. Yes, you definitely need a SyncPipe connected to one of the SyncInjectors. The sync daisy chain just means you can propagate the sync pulse from a master SyncInjector to a number of other ones. On 11/28/2014 8:07 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: Oh forgot to mention power - everything is 24vdc from the same circuit (fuses are tested good from multimeter, 24v at every terminal). Note two of the APs are working on one gig sync injector where the other sync injector has 0 working APs. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: SiteMonitor isn't showing any of the three expansion parts (poe injector and 2x gig syncinjectors). Is a SyncPipe Basic required for the syncinjectors to work? Or do they have an GPS radio? I'm not seeing any documentation saying it's necessary, but it's mentioning it a lot... Will the gig syncinjectors still utilize 10 or 100 mbit? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Nate Burke via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Does your site monitor show anything out of the ordinary? What are you using to provide sync to the sync injector? The green lights on both should blink once per second when they have sync. On 11/28/2014 7:46 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: Here's a video, not sure what the blinking means? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dME8A-H_590 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: *rb2011 with ports 2/3/4/5 set to hardware switch (ether2 master, 3/4/5 slave). Ports 6/7/8/9 are hardware switch (ether6 master, 7/8/9 slave). *From the rb2011 it goes to the Ethernet half of the SyncInjector. *From the POE half of the SyncInjector it goes to WB gigeapc HV surge suppressors and then to the ePMP radios. Two of the ePMP radios are powered up and running gige. Neither are receiving CMM sync (top of the ePMP says Not receiving GPS sync). The remaining 6 APs aren't even powering up/linking up. Any ideas before I start swapping parts? Is it OK to have the surge between SyncInjectors and ePMP? On top of all of this the SiteMonitor isn't talking to the POE injector or the two Gig SyncInjectors. I have them all daisy chained and verified they're snapped in place. The POE injector is powering Ubnt radios just fine. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP SA
But true hard work doesn't exist in Mericuh anymore and I can prove it... I had no idea the connectorized ePMP couldn't be mounted to a pipe by itself. You have to buy the $10 pole/wall adapter for it. You're supposed to put a big label on it that says CANNOT BE MOUNTED, Cambium p/n x needed. It probably says that but I'm stupid, and lazy. But seriously, I'm kinda confused why at least pole attachment isn't part of the radio case itself. I don't want to be all like Canopy modules can do that but Canopy modules can do that. Maybe not 450APs, but still. Now where's my Force200 2' parabolic!? I can't use the force without the Force! It would probably be easier to work with Laird and make an ePMP mount that integrates with their dual-pol HD dishes. Maybe I'm being harsh because I just want some turkey already. There's a 29 pounder in the oven On 11/27/2014 11:48 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: I am vacillating between apologizing for making a lame joke and reminding everyone that true geek, devoted to the project, works on Thanksgiving in the U.S. Not sure if that is a sign of Asperger's or what. The very fact I am posting this is indeed Q.E.D. -Original Message- From: Sriram Chaturvedi via Af Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 10:02 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP SA In the US, many are enjoying time with their family for Thanksgiving. However a number of engineers are putting in hours this weekend including today and tomorrow. In the non US locations, it's business as usual so work on the release continues. On Nov 27, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote: So what are they doing today... If mean, if you are really serious... -Original Message- From: Sriram Chaturvedi via Af Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 12:53 AM To: Ken Hohhof via Af Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP SA Congrats on your first ePMPs, George! SA in the GUI is in our plan but there's a lot going on already in terms of adding functionality into the releases. So hopefully it will be soon. We've already implemented ACS (under Tools-ACS) so the SA will simply be an extension of it. Just need the software guys to free up to get it done, so don't bother the Tonys just yet. Enjoy the ePMPs and Happy Thanksgiving! Sriram From: Af af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:35 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] ePMP SA I just gots me my first ePiMPs in today and upgraded one to 2.3, so I must rant. Dear Cambium ePMP crew, this cannot be impossible, put the ePMP spectrum analyzer in the web GUI. I use my Android phone with the Canopy GUI, like a lot, and it has the SA in the GUI. I had no idea the ePMP SA ran in a Java window like UBNT. This is horrible. The new Canopy SA is great, so do that. If the Canopy guys won't give you the code for their SA, let me know and I'll bring a couple guys named Tony up to Rolling Meadows. Oh, and it must run at 5MHz channel bandwidth like 450, not sure if it does that now, just sayin. And while we're at it, putting it into spectrum analyzer device mode sucks. Maybe I'm just too used to Canopy and expecting too much, I don't know. BTW, the new ePMP GUI is excellent. And a dedicated multicast VLAN is pretty cool, I like that. I'm sure I'll have much more to complain about and probably just as much to compliment.
[AFMUG] ePMP SA
I just gots me my first ePiMPs in today and upgraded one to 2.3, so I must rant. Dear Cambium ePMP crew, this cannot be impossible, put the ePMP spectrum analyzer in the web GUI. I use my Android phone with the Canopy GUI, like a lot, and it has the SA in the GUI. I had no idea the ePMP SA ran in a Java window like UBNT. This is horrible. The new Canopy SA is great, so do that. If the Canopy guys won't give you the code for their SA, let me know and I'll bring a couple guys named Tony up to Rolling Meadows. Oh, and it must run at 5MHz channel bandwidth like 450, not sure if it does that now, just sayin. And while we're at it, putting it into spectrum analyzer device mode sucks. Maybe I'm just too used to Canopy and expecting too much, I don't know. BTW, the new ePMP GUI is excellent. And a dedicated multicast VLAN is pretty cool, I like that. I'm sure I'll have much more to complain about and probably just as much to compliment.
Re: [AFMUG] wind speed cut off for climbing
Sounds like your day was as bad as mine. Genset at a commercial site wouldn't start. Guy shows up, puts it in manual mode, fires right up. Utility power comes back 5 minutes later. Argh! Run to another site to check on a downed radio. Get there, everything looks to be working. Damn UBNT radio defaulted itself. Then get an alarm that an AF5 went down at the NOC. WB SS door flew away. That's what happens when nobody listens to me about tightening down the damn screw, the latch isn't enough. Climber just got down. Luckily it's only about 65 feet up, but he still threw a fit. Typical Monday. On 11/24/2014 2:24 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: well the more experienced climber went up, I came over to be his ground man. The radio was toasted. Im glad he pulled through, I did not want to climb On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Vince West via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I don't climb when winds are expected to exceed 25mph (assuming higher gusts). I agree, it does depend on the work to be done. Wintery snow, sleet and snow means temps are likely at or below 32°F. If that is the case, crank up some wind and it is colder. Add rain, sleet, snow, and you have a green climber. The first heart check might get him stuck up there if he is no used to climbing when the sun isn't shining. I won't climb unless it is absolutely necessary, because even as careful as I am, and some of the things I am willing to do, it isn't worth getting injured. If I am injured I can't climb. If it can wait, then I would say wait. It sucks to have customers offline, but it sucks worse to lose your climber for an undetermined amount of time. Vince West Tower Hand Technical Support Shelby Broadband 148 Citizens Blvd Simpsonville, KY 40067 Phone: 1-888-364-4232 tel:1-888-364-4232 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: The radio is pulling too much current. Probably it is an overload/short. It will fade out and then come on full brightness. This was the green LED and may not exist with the LED anymore, especially since it's a different type of LED. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I’ve never seen a flashing UBNT power supply, what does that mean? Overload/short? *From:* That One Guy via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 10:55 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] wind speed cut off for climbing its only 100 feet, but its a shitty tower to climb, all angled, one of those tripod ones that suck when theyre wet. Ive slipped on this tower new as in this would be his first unattended climb since training im assuming its just a bad radio (flashing ubnt power supply, but could be a failed cable) on an omni On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I would worry more about gusts than steady wind, especially for rope work or complex positioning. Might need additional ground crew and taglines, maybe a second climber. When you say new climber, how new? What kind of training/certification? Ultimately you are depending on the climber to call it off if it’s not safe, and a newbie might not have the experience to know when it’s not safe. If you’re talking about today, at least it’s been way above freezing the past 2 days, so the likelihood of rain freezing to the tower should be minimized. Also, how high are you sending him? Big difference between 100 and 300 feet. *From:* That One Guy via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 10:36 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] wind speed cut off for climbing fun wintery rain sleet snow mix, new climber 38mph wind gusts, ap outage On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Brian Sullivan via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Depends what i'm climbing for. Repair or upgrade? Is there rain/sleet/snow mixed with the wind? On 11/24/2014 10:31 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote: whats everybodys rule of thumb for
Re: [AFMUG] Sync Pipe and UGPS Power
I have no idea. On 11/24/2014 2:06 PM, Matt via Af wrote: So when you enable UGPS Power in options what does it do? Is 5 volt suddenly output on certain pins of the timing port? What pins? Nope. But you can use Forrest's SyncConverter to take the sync pulse from a CMM/CTM/SyncInjector and convert it to timing port at the radio. Or just put a Parasitic 'pipe on it. I asked Forrest about doing a SyncPipe that takes UGPS power. He said no. Maybe the cost of the serial power circuit, I don't know. On 11/24/2014 10:16 AM, Matt via Af wrote: I see the PTP230 and likely PTP450 have UGPS Power option. Is there a way to use this to power up a sync pipe? Still very very very disappointed the PTP450 does not support Sync over Power.
Re: [AFMUG] Sync Pipe and UGPS Power
I don't think it would be a bad idea to have a SyncPipe type device powered by UGPS capable radios. Less cabling is a benefit. If sync-over-power takes a shit on an AP, it would be easy to toss a UGPS-like receiver on it. Etc. I think if it was the cost of a Basic pipe, that would be fine. And the PTP450 being SM hardware based, there's no GigE to worry about. It really sounds like Cambium needs to do a separate hardware spin for the PTP450 like they did for the 230 and add sync-over-power. On 11/24/2014 6:58 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af wrote: It's been a while since I looked at the uGPS and how it was powered, but yes, that's the general gist. I can't confirm the exact voltage or how the power appeared on the pins since it has been so long since I looked. I also can't remember the exact reason why I chose not to go down the path of building a syncpipe which could be powered off of a uGPS port, other than I have a vague recollection of the power supply circuitry being the reason - probably because the 5v is significantly lower than the 8-9V that a syncpipe will power on at. Due to the PTP450 issue I am looking at some additional sync over timing port options. Gigabit throws a wrench into a lot of the parasitically powered options, though. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: So when you enable UGPS Power in options what does it do? Is 5 volt suddenly output on certain pins of the timing port? What pins? Nope. But you can use Forrest's SyncConverter to take the sync pulse from a CMM/CTM/SyncInjector and convert it to timing port at the radio. Or just put a Parasitic 'pipe on it. I asked Forrest about doing a SyncPipe that takes UGPS power. He said no. Maybe the cost of the serial power circuit, I don't know. On 11/24/2014 10:16 AM, Matt via Af wrote: I see the PTP230 and likely PTP450 have UGPS Power option. Is there a way to use this to power up a sync pipe? Still very very very disappointed the PTP450 does not support Sync over Power.
Re: [AFMUG] ot: may be some interesting listening here in an hour
Destroy your own city, brilliant! On 11/24/2014 10:23 PM, Tyler Treat via Af wrote: Toggling between Fox and CNN.People just torching random shit and thieving everything. Sad. ___ Mangled by my iPhone. ___ Tyler Treat Corn Belt Technologies, Inc. tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.com ___ On Nov 24, 2014, at 10:18 PM, Jay Weekley via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Anything interesting on the scanner? Tyler Treat via Af wrote: I'm completely speechless. ___ Mangled by my iPhone. ___ Tyler Treat Corn Belt Technologies, Inc. tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.com mailto:tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.com ___ On Nov 24, 2014, at 8:44 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: woot On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Mathew Howard via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: 8pm central is what I heard on the radio on the way home. I didn't think about listening to the police scanner... this should be interesting. *From:* Af [af-boun...@afmug.com mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Mike Hammett via Af [af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 7:23 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ot: may be some interesting listening here in an hour I think it's due at 8 PM Central. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL *From: *Rory Conaway via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent: *Monday, November 24, 2014 7:22:34 PM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] ot: may be some interesting listening here in an hour That�s awesome. Did they release the verdict? Rory *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy via Af *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 6:01 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] ot: may be some interesting listening here in an hour http://www.ustream.tv/channel/st-louis-county-police-scanner -- 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 -- 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] Cambium Outlet - Who doesn't like a bargain?
I hate the licenses, we even stopped ordering 4Mb SMs because we're constantly upgrading them. I would be fine with a standard SM being capped at 20Mbps. We've used very few unlimited SMs so far. Make the standard SM like $239 (where the 10Mb is now) and unlimited $100 more. What about limiting the max burst rate on the standard SM (20) to say 40Mbps aggregate? And then unlimited gets no MBR cap like we have now.. just an idea. On 11/21/2014 2:31 PM, Sean Heskett via Af wrote: thanks for the response scott. i'll forward you email to my business partner who does all the purchasing. as for the keys just make all the SMs $5 more and make them all unlimited. I'd think that'd be a revenue neutral decision for y'all but i'm not your bean counter. the kets just plain suck! thanks, sean On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Scott Imhoff via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Sean, Thanks for the constructive feedback. We are working on a couple of ideas that align to your comments that you will hear more about in 2015. Fundamentally I agree that keys should be portable but not an easy nut to crack; however, we are working with that in mind. My email address is scott.imh...@cambiumnetworks.com mailto:scott.imh...@cambiumnetworks.com and if you don’t mind I would like to hear more specifics on your experience with variable pricing on the SMs ranging $20-$40 with each transaction – that statement surprised me a bit. Scott *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Sean Heskett via Af *Sent:* Friday, November 21, 2014 12:42 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Outlet - Who doesn't like a bargain? dear cambium, please just offer us one low price year round and stop with the speed keys for SMs. I live in NW CO where we can install APs and backhauls from May to Oct. The rest of the year it's too snowy, icy and cold out to even try to get to our towers, all of which are above 7,000 feet MSL and several are above 10,000 MSL. a special price on APs or backhauls from Oct to May does me no good and I will simply ignore your advertising attempts. We install SMs year round. every time we go to purchase SMs (and we buy a lot) the price changes $20-40 per SM. Please make this stop...I'd like to know my costs are stable and not blowing in the wind so that i can get busy installing more clients and therefore buying more SMs from you. Also with regards to the license keys for the SMs, this is a huge extra cost burden and the key is stuck to the device for eternity so i there for have to constantly track which SM has which key and what plan the client is subscribed to. When they cancel i have to set aside as special inventory all the keyed SMs. So now we have to stock 900, 2.4 and 5.7 FSK, 5.4 430, and 5Ghz 450 20Mbps and unlimited...That's 6 different SMs to track and stock and a lot of times the unlimited 450s that come back into inventory get mixed up and redeployed to a client that only needs a 20Mbps key :-/ also we have to stock and track the keys in the licensing portal so that we don't run out. YOU ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING LIGHTBULBS (SMs)...SELL ME MORE SMs AND YOU WILL MAKE MORE MONEY. 2 cents -Sean On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Scott Imhoff via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: All, You may or may not have noticed but Cambium is trying a new concept on our web site called “Cambium Outlet” to make available at substantial discount material that we have in excess. The page can be viewed at: http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/cambium-outlet The list will be updated on a periodic basis, approximately every two to three months, based on changes in part number inventory. We welcome any suggestions to improve the page and process. Happy hunting! Scott
Re: [AFMUG] CNUT for Macintosh
CNUT is packed with its own JRE. I don't see why it wouldn't work with the Mac's own Java, maybe symlink trickery or something. On 11/21/2014 2:29 PM, Sean Heskett via Af wrote: yes that's what i'm doing but i'd like for more of our office staff to be able to access CNUT and installing parallels and keeping windows working properly is an arduous task. much easier to just run a native Mac app (well Java actually) than to fire up winblows etc etc. there's a linux version so i don't see why it'd be difficult to make a mac version. On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Eric Muehleisen via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: +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 mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Or fire up Parallels … *Von:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *Joe via Af *Gesendet:* Freitag, 21. November 2014 20:26 *An:* af@afmug.com mailto: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] *On Behalf Of *Sean Heskett via Af *Sent:* Friday, November 21, 2014 1:09 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com; memb...@wispa.org mailto: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] Packetflux Syncinjector - safe to run without SiteMonitor
Um, yeah, put a base unit in. The DIN rail adapter for the SyncInjector is a separate item. On 11/21/2014 3:00 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: I have a site where I'm providing DC up the tower and want to minimize products up there. Has anyone actually needed to use the SiteMonitor to...monitor...the sync status and find that information useful? I'm expecting it just simply stays synced and that's the end of it. On a side note I ordered two of them and didn't get this supposed din rail mounting kit. Is that expected? http://store.packetflux.com/gigabit-syncinjector-for-24-volt-cambium-radios/ Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373
Re: [AFMUG] Cambium and WBMFG GO Green!
You have a foliage problem, try 900. On 11/20/2014 9:33 AM, Gino Villarini via Af wrote: Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr On 11/20/14, 11:25 AM, Rafael Reinoso rafaelreinos...@gmail.com wrote:
Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter
as the first rule and deny Protocol TCP+UDP with Port 162 on the LAN as the second rule. 3.Block SMB: See Josh Luthman filter 3. 4.A. Block Multicast: On the AP enable Layer 2 Firewall and deny Dest MAC 01:00:5E:00:00:00 with Dest Mask FF:FF:FF:80:00:00 on the LAN as the first rule –OR-- on the AP enable Layer 3 Firewall and deny Dest IP 224.0.0.0 with Dest Mask 224.0.0.0 on the LAN as the first rule. *** Please note that I have not specifically tried this out myself to verify it. *** Dan *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:15 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter Downside, none. Unless you're doing something with multicast over an SM link, like maybe OSPF. A few years ago, we had a bunch of customer routers (might have been Linksys or Netgear) that were spewing out multicast. And a large L2 segment of the network (which is now broken up) slowed to a crawl. I think it was IGMP. And SM isolation wouldn't have solved the problem for the entire network. Multicast filter on all of the Canopy SMs reduced the violence. But I think this was around the same time we had some Trango 5580's go stupid. They appeared to be looping traffic, but not all types, just broadcast and multicast. It was really weird. But now all that Trango stuff is gone, every last one. On 11/19/2014 10:09 AM, Ty Featherling via Af wrote: Is there any downside to dropping all multicast from the customers? My brain says no but my other end says don't try it without confirming. -Ty On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:36 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: We do only bridge mode and DHCP to the customer's equipment. But I do check the PPPoE filter because it lets me easily see when a customer's router is configured for PPPoE (Stats Filter). I also use the filters for BootP server, SNMP, SMB and multicast. This is some of the best stuff about Canopy. So I would prefer the ePMP to work like Canopy, for the most part anyway. On 11/18/2014 3:13 PM, Matt via Af wrote: 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. I think the desired affect is the same as: On Canopy 450 SM Config / Protocol Filtering Packet Filter Configuration Packet Direction: Filter Direction Upstream Checked Packet Filter Types: Check Everything BUT PPPoE This way the customer router/PC they plug into the ethernet port on the SM can only successfully send PPPoE traffic onto our network.
Re: [AFMUG] How common are crc errors on pmp100
I get CRC errors on radios on really long runs (near the 100m limit). I bounce the ethernet link and they clear up, but I think that has more to do with MikroTik ethernet being dumb sometimes. When I see that, it's usually only a few every couple minutes, not constantly incrementing every second. Constant means a physical problem that you really need to fix. On 11/20/2014 12:11 PM, Craig Schmaderer via Af wrote: Sync is over power and no surge on the line except for the LTM1 built in surge. Remember, I am seeing this on all 4 radios, but like josh said, .0001%, so I was really wanting to see if other see this, and those that don't, do you use shielded cable and ground the drain at the bottom and never see this? Or do you use sync over timing port and never see errors, it seems weird that already about 50% think it is an issue and 50% think that it is normal? Craig R. Schmaderer CEO | Skywave Wireless, Inc. Ph: 402-372-1975 | Fax: 402-372-1058 Direct: 402-372-1052 -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 12:04 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] How common are crc errors on pmp100 That's not normal, unless it was some one time event. Is sync on the timing port or power port? If on power, do you have a Cat5 surge protector and what type? If it's a 300SS, get that out of there and put in something newer and better, or at least bypass it temporarily to see if that's causing the CRC errors. If the counters are not incrementing and it only occurs let's say when there's a nearby lightning strike, then nothing to worry about. -Original Message- From: Roland Houin via Af Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:37 AM To: John Seaman Subject: Re: [AFMUG] How common are crc errors on pmp100 I'd clear the counters and watch.. if the errors climb quickly, you have a problem.. it could have been a single event weeks ago that caused the problem. it would be nice if we had a mib to monitor the crc errors so we can tell when they happen. roland This is a radio that has been up for 93 days, it is very heavy on traffic, would you say there is an issue with this radio? It is on a clean tower that only I am on. There are 4 other canopy radios on this tower receiving sync from a CTM1. All radios are just CAT5e cable non shielded, length is about 180� tops. Also there is a PTP800 with lmr 400 ran along with it, I never noticed this before, all other radios are showing about the same number of CRC errors, is this expectable? Ethernet Link Detected :1 Ethernet Link Lost :0 Undersized Toss Count :0 inoctets Count :4054728244 inucastpkts Count :1954469296 Innucastpkts Count :56834740 indiscards Count :0 inerrors Count :231695 inunknownprotos Count :0 outoctets Count :3150773755 outucastpktsCount :1289988260 outnucastpkts Count :1597027 outdiscards Count :0 outerrors Count :0 RxBabErr :0 TxHbErr :0 EthBusErr :0 CRCError :231601 RcvFifoNoBuf :94 RxOverrun :0 LateCollision :0 RetransLimitExp :0 TxUnderrun :0 CarSenseLost :0 No Carrier :0 Craig R. Schmaderer CEO | Skywave Wireless, Inc. Ph: 402-372-1975 | Fax: 402-372-1058 Direct: 402-372-1052
Re: [AFMUG] How common are crc errors on pmp100
CRC errors are aggregated into the standard IF-MIB tx/rx error counters. Same with most switches. Monitor that. On 11/20/2014 11:37 AM, Roland Houin via Af wrote: I'd clear the counters and watch.. if the errors climb quickly, you have a problem.. it could have been a single event weeks ago that caused the problem. it would be nice if we had a mib to monitor the crc errors so we can tell when they happen. roland This is a radio that has been up for 93 days, it is very heavy on traffic, would you say there is an issue with this radio? It is on a clean tower that only I am on. There are 4 other canopy radios on this tower receiving sync from a CTM1. All radios are just CAT5e cable non shielded, length is about 180� tops. Also there is a PTP800 with lmr 400 ran along with it, I never noticed this before, all other radios are showing about the same number of CRC errors, is this expectable? Ethernet Link Detected :1 Ethernet Link Lost :0 Undersized Toss Count :0 inoctets Count :4054728244 inucastpkts Count :1954469296 Innucastpkts Count :56834740 indiscards Count :0 inerrors Count :231695 inunknownprotos Count :0 outoctets Count :3150773755 outucastpktsCount :1289988260 outnucastpkts Count :1597027 outdiscards Count :0 outerrors Count :0 RxBabErr :0 TxHbErr :0 EthBusErr :0 CRCError :231601 RcvFifoNoBuf :94 RxOverrun :0 LateCollision :0 RetransLimitExp :0 TxUnderrun :0 CarSenseLost :0 No Carrier :0 Craig R. Schmaderer CEO | Skywave Wireless, Inc. Ph: 402-372-1975 | Fax: 402-372-1058 Direct: 402-372-1052
Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter
Just do some default rules like (or the same as) Canopy filters that can be enabled, disabled by default. Or I guess with config template upload/download this is moot, so nevermind. On 11/20/2014 4:54 PM, Gino Villarini via Af wrote: Why not use the checkboxes as in PMP ? Gino A. Villarini @gvillarini On Nov 20, 2014, at 6:37 PM, Dan Sullivan via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I received some additional SMB port information from Aaron Schneider of the Canopy team. SMB: Protocol TCP with ports 137, 138, 139, 445, 2869, 5357, 5358. Protocol UDP with ports 137, 138, 139, 445, 3702, 1900. George, Yes, filtering at the SM is a good idea. My examples were assuming DL traffic to protect the RF bandwidth. You can do the same thing at the SM as I showed at the AP as long as the SM is running in bridge mode. For DL traffic remember to specify WLAN instead of LAN (i.e. AP LAN is for DL and WLAN is for UL, SM WLAN is for DL and LAN is for UL). I agree with you on the AP performance observation. Reducing the load on the AP as opposed to the SM makes sense. If your multicast is DL, then you may want to filter at the AP so that it does not consume your RF. But, if your multicast is UL like you indicate, this makes much more sense. Good news. We have Broadcast rate limiting both in the UL and the DL. It was added in release 2.2. Go to Configuration - Network - Broadcast/Multicast Shaping. Set Broadcast Traffic Limit to �Enabled�. Then you set Broadcast Packet Rate which is in PPS (Packets Per Second). The valid range is 100 � 16000. Dan *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af *Sent:* Thursday, November 20, 2014 10:04 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter I filter everything at the SM, not the AP. The less work the AP has to do the better. And the other reason is, like I mentioned with multicast, if I need to run OSPF over an SM link (which is rare), just disable the multicast filter at the SM. Stop everything I don't want at the SM so it doesn't even have to go over the RF link just to be dropped by the AP. Just a thought, but if you filtered traffic from exiting the AP's ethernet, then I would assume that inter-SM traffic could still happen. Yet another reason to stop it upon ingress at the SM's ethernet port. Could you drop it upon Rx at the AP's RF interface, sure, but why have the SM send unwanted traffic and waste air time. Also, the broadcast/multicast uplink rate limiting on the Canopy SM is a godsend. I don't know if that exists on ePMP since I haven't used any yet. On 11/19/2014 6:09 PM, Dan Sullivan via Af wrote: Hi, Thanks to everyone on the forum for their input. It was good feedback with regard to the Canopy filter rules, how much you like them, could these rules be added to ePMP, could specifics be obtained on the rules, and the use cases around filtering. First, people were interested in the following Canopy filters and what their contents were. I have a first pass that may not be exactly right as this is being researched by the Canopy team. When this is ready it will be posted somewhere on the Cambium forum. For the purposes of the issue, let�s assume what I have for the moment is correct to answer people�s questions: PPPoE: EtherType 8863 and EtherType 8864. Bootp Server: Protocol UDP with Port 67 and Protocol UDP with Port 68. SMB: Protocol TCP with Port 445, Protocol TCP+UDP with Port 137, Protocol UDP with Port 138, and Protocol TCP with Port 139. SNMP: Protocol UDP with Port 161 and Protocol TCP+UDP with Port 162. Multicast: Dest MAC 01:00:5E:00:00:00 with Dest Mask FF:FF:FF:80:00:00 � OR -- Dest IP 224.0.0.0 with Dest Mask 224.0.0.0. But, people also wanted to block all traffic except for one intended type. So I will provide the other two filters to enable this: Bootp Client: Protocol UDP with Port 68. ARP: EtherType 0806. Many people asked about having pre-existing rules like Canopy has be implemented on ePMP. Glad to hear that people like this Canopy feature. We can add in pre-existing rules, too. I have added this to our future features database. Right now, I do not have a date for anyone, but we are aware of your desire for this. George Skorup also asked for filtering statistics similar to what exists on Canopy. I have added this to our future features database. Right now, I do not have a date for anyone, but we are aware of your desire for this. You can use the information on the Canopy filters above to set up equivalent functionality on ePMP as for example I describe in the next paragraph. Daniel Gerlach asked about limiting traffic to only PPPoE. Later on Steve indicated that this should pertain to the WAN. My
Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter
Downside, none. Unless you're doing something with multicast over an SM link, like maybe OSPF. A few years ago, we had a bunch of customer routers (might have been Linksys or Netgear) that were spewing out multicast. And a large L2 segment of the network (which is now broken up) slowed to a crawl. I think it was IGMP. And SM isolation wouldn't have solved the problem for the entire network. Multicast filter on all of the Canopy SMs reduced the violence. But I think this was around the same time we had some Trango 5580's go stupid. They appeared to be looping traffic, but not all types, just broadcast and multicast. It was really weird. But now all that Trango stuff is gone, every last one. On 11/19/2014 10:09 AM, Ty Featherling via Af wrote: Is there any downside to dropping all multicast from the customers? My brain says no but my other end says don't try it without confirming. -Ty On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:36 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: We do only bridge mode and DHCP to the customer's equipment. But I do check the PPPoE filter because it lets me easily see when a customer's router is configured for PPPoE (Stats Filter). I also use the filters for BootP server, SNMP, SMB and multicast. This is some of the best stuff about Canopy. So I would prefer the ePMP to work like Canopy, for the most part anyway. On 11/18/2014 3:13 PM, Matt via Af wrote: 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. I think the desired affect is the same as: On Canopy 450 SM Config / Protocol Filtering Packet Filter Configuration Packet Direction: Filter Direction Upstream Checked Packet Filter Types: Check Everything BUT PPPoE This way the customer router/PC they plug into the ethernet port on the SM can only successfully send PPPoE traffic onto our network.
[AFMUG] Battery story
I forgot I had a pair of Deka 37AH AGM batts sitting at a site. Not connected to a charger. For a year and a half. In a not so temperature controlled environment. Brought them back to the office yesterday. Still had 12.3 volts on both. AGMs sure are reliable.
Re: [AFMUG] GigE-APC for ePMP?
All I've ordered/used is the GigEAPC-HV, GigE-POE-APC and GigESS-HV. Some of the coolest products ever. On 11/18/2014 1:00 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: Definitely. Anything not HV should be thrown away IMO. I don't see any reason not to use it (same price, better compatibility). Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Seth Mattinen via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: On 11/18/14, 10:54, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: Sounds good. Fingers crossed that it goes off without a hitch =) Just make sure it's the HV version. The non-HV clamps way below POE voltages. The main reason I only use the GigEAPC-HV is because I want to stock a single part. ~Seth
Re: [AFMUG] Rohn 45G parts
We get most new Rohn stuff from Hill Radio out of Bloomington, IL. And used stuff from Tower Works in Maple Park, IL. I'm guessing probably not close to you though, but if you need it, Hill Radio usually has it. On 11/18/2014 1:01 PM, Randy Cosby via Af wrote: I'm looking for a base and three 10-foot pieces of Rohn 45G tower. My normal vendor (tessco) has them back-ordered, and has pushed the date back on me twice since I placed the order last month. Who are you using for Rohn tower gear that may have these in stock? -- 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.
Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter
We do only bridge mode and DHCP to the customer's equipment. But I do check the PPPoE filter because it lets me easily see when a customer's router is configured for PPPoE (Stats Filter). I also use the filters for BootP server, SNMP, SMB and multicast. This is some of the best stuff about Canopy. So I would prefer the ePMP to work like Canopy, for the most part anyway. On 11/18/2014 3:13 PM, Matt via Af wrote: 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. I think the desired affect is the same as: On Canopy 450 SM Config / Protocol Filtering Packet Filter Configuration Packet Direction: Filter Direction Upstream Checked Packet Filter Types: Check Everything BUT PPPoE This way the customer router/PC they plug into the ethernet port on the SM can only successfully send PPPoE traffic onto our network.
Re: [AFMUG] Sip Behind NAT
In my experience, you must have the SIP NAT helper enabled in the MikroTik for things to work. When we had it off, it would do exactly as you say, random one-way audio. If you're doing unregistered SIP with the carrier, do a 5060 dst-nat and leave the NAT helper enabled. The dst-nat will ensure any inbound SIP packets reach the PBX even if there are no connection table entries. And be absolutely sure there are no other SIP devices getting in the way. We have some UCMs on VoIP Innovations configured exactly like this and that all works fine. Except the UCMs are lacking features that a lot of businesses want so we're moving to something else. On 11/17/2014 9:02 AM, Nate Burke via Af wrote: I've tried everything I could find on the forums, and it was still having issues. Luckily there are 2 interfaces on the Grandstream box, and it's smart enough that you can setup one on the WAN and one on the LAN, but not have it function as a router. I've configured it with a public IP address on the WAN interface and that of course fixed it. On 11/14/2014 4:02 PM, Butch Evans via Af wrote: On 11/14/2014 02:53 PM, Nate Burke via Af wrote: I know the short answer is 'Don't' but let's pretend for a minute I don't have an option. (Mikrotik router, Grandstream 6102 PBX) I have a trunk setup to the carrier, and I am doing a DST-NAT rule for all traffic from the carrier's IP Address to the Internal IP of the Grandstream. I am also dst-nat all UDP ports 8766-35000 traffic to the grandstream. After a few minutes an incoming call will have 1 way audio, but then the next call right after that will be fine. I do have the NAT settings set in the grandstream. It seems like I'm just missing something simple to keep it working all the time. Any pointers? Ensure that the ALG helper is turned of. IP-Firewall-Service Ports (turn off the SIP app)
Re: [AFMUG] AF24 Ghz - Good Download / No Upload
Are you seeing any pause frames or Rx overflows on either end? I had this problem recently with a new AF5 link. Tx pause and Rx overflows were through the roof. The MikroTik ports were set to auto/auto flow control and the radios had flow control disabled, but the MT ports were still sending Tx pause frames (which might be normal behavior). I had to set flow control off/off on both interfaces to get it to stop. Now there are no pause frames and very little Rx overflows. I'm not even sure why the interfaces had auto flow control enabled since the default is off/off. Probably me screwing with stuff and not remembering. Either that or lingering v5 config, I don't know. On 11/15/2014 10:21 AM, Tyson Burris @ Internet Communications Inc via Af wrote: Hey guys, Before I send the support files, I wanted to see if any of you have seen this� A rock solid Air Fiber link (2years now) started acting up this past Thursday. No changes have been made and it was working fine the day before. Everything in the interface looks great. Despite this, we went ahead and replaced the PoE and terminated to be safe. The SNR on the cables are 29 on each side. This device started having upload issues. At best, it might do 2-5Mbs on the upload side. It began limiting the number of PPPoE traffic connections it could handle. (assuming the small upload is causing this) Download seems stable but does vary. If you log in to either side, the numbers are great. I am thinking bad hardware, but JUST in case someone has seen this please let me know. Running v2.2 beta 3. Tried downgrading to 2.0 and got the same result. Back to Beta. Same result. *Tyson Burris, President** **Internet Communications Inc.** **739 Commerce Dr.** **Franklin, IN 46131** *** *317-738-0320 Daytime #* *317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #* *Online: **www.surfici.net* ICI *What can ICI do for you?* *Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.* ** *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the* *addressee shown. It contains information that is* *confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,* *dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by* *unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly* *prohibited.*
Re: [AFMUG] [OT] Weird MT situation
No DNS. I suspected it was SSH causing it. I would see an error in the log after several brute force attempts, something like expected 50 got 5. The only thing I can find on that is something to do with keys. I do have keys installed for SCP'ing backup files. Anyway, it would take a couple hours after that error showed up for things to get really bad. If I let it go for 10-12 hours, it would eventually say all locally generated ICMP was 80% packet loss. This is one of the few routers I have with 5.26. It was deployed shortly after it was available last year and v6 wasn't all that stable yet. I have since set the SSH service to allow only my NOC management subnet and it has been running fine for days now. So whatever/whoever was attacking the SSH server is now completely blocked. I have no doubt whatever malformed request they were sending was causing it. I really think the SSH fix in 5.26 has a memory leak. Like I said, I could ping it remotely just fine with no loss or out of order packets so I don't think it got as far as the kernel, like it was only local user-space processes. Again, memory leak. Good job, MikroTik! I'm guessing they have no more interest in v5 either. On 11/15/2014 8:19 AM, Nicholas Eastman via Af wrote: We use 5.25 and 5.26 on most of our routers. The main issues we've seen are SSH brute force and DNS relay. We have a central DNS server that we send everyone to located in our NOC, so we disabled Allow remote requests. This could easily be done with a firewall rule if you do use the routers for DNS at the site, so they are not being hit from outside. As far as the rest. We use an address list and firewall to block access to the router's configuration interfaces except from our office or local management IPs. As far as the ICMP packets being mis-ordered, you might try something like Greg Sowell's implementation of a ping brute force block. We don't employ it on site routers right now, but I have seen it catch some IPs on some customer set ups we have done. They are part of his Border Router Firewall Script example that can be found here: http://gregsowell.com/?p=4013 On Nov 10, 2014 7:05 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I've got a RB1100AH running 5.26. Something has been happening every day for about the past week and it gets all screwy. I've confirmed there are no site temperature or power issues. Here's what happens in the screwy state. I can ping it and it responds fine. I can log into Winbox or the CLI and try to ping anything, even local same-subnet stuff and I get a bunch of packet loss. SNMP responses are hit or miss as well. I did a packet capture and it shows the ICMP packets all out of order. Reboot it and everything works fine again, until next time. The only thing I haven't tried yet is pinging 127.0.0.1 and see if the same packet loss happens. I see a bunch of SSH brute force attempts, but I'm using the brute force protection firewall scripts to add sequential attempts to an address list to stop them. And that works fine. But I'm wondering, since 5.26 is the ssh - fixed denial of service; version, did this fix break something else. I don't see this on any other routers running 5.25, RB1100's and 493's. This is a remote router so I do not want to try downgrading to 5.25 or upgrading to v6 without someone there. And if I'm going to send someone there, probably better off replacing it, but then I'll never know WTF is causing this.
Re: [AFMUG] System Release 13.2 is Official
I'm trying to remember.. did the 2.4 450 have 2.5 centers from day one? I think the last time I got some new SMs in, they had either 12.0.x or 12.1.x on them and none of the 2.5 centers were checked after updating to 13.x. So maybe the safest approach from now on is to enable everything in the scan list automatically during/after update? Then tell everyone in the release notes about it. You'd be surprised at how many of us fully read the release notes now. OK, at least I do. On 11/14/2014 11:28 AM, Rajesh Vijayakumar via Af wrote: Its good to get confirmation of multiple successful upgrades with 2.4 GHz. We have not been able to recreate the problem yet. The test team is trying a number of combinations of upgrade/downgrade. --Rajesh Vijayakumar Cambium Networks On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Eric Muehleisen via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Any changes/improvements in the Rate Adapt? On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com mailto: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
Well, then the scenario I just gave (brand-new SMs upgraded out of the box) did not get the 2.5 centers selected upon upgrade. I have some more 2.4's coming next week and I'll see what they do when upgraded to 13.2. My guess is they are coming with 12.2.2 from the factory at this point though. On 11/14/2014 3:46 PM, Aaron Schneider via Af wrote: There was a decision made when we added 2.5 center channels that on upgrade we wouldn’t automatically check the 2.5 centers unless the scan list was in a default (all checked) state. We didn’t want to add a ton of new scan options on an upgrade which increased the scanning time. When setting a unit that is on a load that supports 2.5M centers to default, then all (including 2.5 centers) should be selected. We are still investigating, but likely this has something to do with what Ryan was seeing when others weren’t seeing the same behavior. -Aaron *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af *Sent:* Friday, November 14, 2014 12:58 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] System Release 13.2 is Official I'm trying to remember.. did the 2.4 450 have 2.5 centers from day one? I think the last time I got some new SMs in, they had either 12.0.x or 12.1.x on them and none of the 2.5 centers were checked after updating to 13.x. So maybe the safest approach from now on is to enable everything in the scan list automatically during/after update? Then tell everyone in the release notes about it. You'd be surprised at how many of us fully read the release notes now. OK, at least I do. On 11/14/2014 11:28 AM, Rajesh Vijayakumar via Af wrote: Its good to get confirmation of multiple successful upgrades with 2.4 GHz. We have not been able to recreate the problem yet. The test team is trying a number of combinations of upgrade/downgrade. --Rajesh Vijayakumar Cambium Networks On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Eric Muehleisen via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Any changes/improvements in the Rate Adapt? On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com mailto: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] Pre announce PMP500?
I think the PMP500 is PMP400 based for the Euro 3.5 market. So Motorola did have a 3GHz solution all the way back then, but they didn't give two shits for US/CA 3650 even though we were begging for something for years. On 11/13/2014 10:31 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: Noticed this in the CNUT 4.6 supported device types list: PMP 400/430/500 Access Point (AP) PMP 400/430/500 Subscriber Module (SM) Did I miss the memo? -- bp part-15@SkylineBroadbandService
Re: [AFMUG] System Release 13.2 is Official
I guess I get to talk about this now. Some of the new A/B (minus FSK, connector anyway) 5GHz APs were built with the internal jumpers reversed. We put up some new sectors and noticed the beacon power was very weak.. because it was on horizontal, not vertical! This is bad for 430 interop, and obviously just as bad for 450 pre-13.2.. weak beacon, interference.. no worky. So yeah, now the beacon is on both polarities. And if you have an AP with reversed jumpers + 430 SMs, you'll have to use MIMO-A 430 interop mode (which I believe is now the default) instead of SISO. Obviously with MIMO you get 3dB less beacon power, and for 450 it doesn't matter, for 430 it might depending on noise levels, etc. Shit happens. On 11/13/2014 10:12 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: Noticed this in the corrected list. Does this mean that the PMP450 is polarity agnostic now in all frequencies (specifically 5 GHz)? PMP 450 AP 22943 CPY-9983, CPY-9631 Fixed problem when AP/SM has crossed RF cables and would not register This problem has been resolved in System Release 13.2. 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
Mexico On 11/13/2014 12:40 PM, Kurt Fankhauser via Af wrote: HA! I got one of those reversed jumper AP's and it cost me 2-3 extra tower climbs! I thought the jumpers on the KPP omni were reversed at first. Who do i send the bill to for the extra tower climbs this cost me? Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com http://www.wavelinc.com/ tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:41 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I guess I get to talk about this now. Some of the new A/B (minus FSK, connector anyway) 5GHz APs were built with the internal jumpers reversed. We put up some new sectors and noticed the beacon power was very weak.. because it was on horizontal, not vertical! This is bad for 430 interop, and obviously just as bad for 450 pre-13.2.. weak beacon, interference.. no worky. So yeah, now the beacon is on both polarities. And if you have an AP with reversed jumpers + 430 SMs, you'll have to use MIMO-A 430 interop mode (which I believe is now the default) instead of SISO. Obviously with MIMO you get 3dB less beacon power, and for 450 it doesn't matter, for 430 it might depending on noise levels, etc. Shit happens. On 11/13/2014 10:12 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: Noticed this in the corrected list. Does this mean that the PMP450 is polarity agnostic now in all frequencies (specifically 5 GHz)? PMP 450 AP 22943 CPY-9983, CPY-9631 Fixed problem when AP/SM has crossed RF cables and would not registerThis problem has been resolved in System Release 13.2. 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] For love of all that is evil (mikrotik/routerboard)
Do an /interface ethernet print detail. You'll see if the MAC matches the orig (hardware) MAC. You can then reset to that original MAC. On 11/13/2014 1:13 PM, Ty Featherling via Af wrote: I know on Mikrotik if you copy a config from one device to another and you do not sanitize any MAC addresses in it you can rewrite the MACs on the new device. Any chance you did something like that? If so a reset to default config should restore the original MACs. -Ty On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I recommend you use different MACs on Ethernet devices that are connected to other Ethernet devices. Especially if they are all on the same collision domain. Improper operation may result in having both devices use the same MAC. Of course this will continue to be a problem until MAC-V6 is widely implemented, but try to find different MACs. I know they are hard to come by, but it is sure to make you life easier... (I used to have a block of MACs assigned to my company. Not sure if I had to pay Xerox for them or what. Been a long time ago.) *From:* That One Guy via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2014 11:48 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] For love of all that is evil (mikrotik/routerboard) I always wondered how manufactures reuse their MACs, apparently all in the same batch On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Sterling Jacobson via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Freaking hell, I just spent 30 minutes trying to unravel a router mystery. Ended up that both of my CCR Mikrotik routers had THE SAME MAC ADDRESSES between them! They are identical. Every port had a consecutive MAC number, but they were the same numbers for both the SFP and GigE ports across the two routers. I'm guessing they flashed them both at the manufacturer the exact same, then didn't make it through a MAC renumbering. Or is this common with Mikrotik now days? I'm sure I've encountered it before, but like once every five years. Just a FYI for all y'all who use Mikrotiks. Watch your backs (I mean MACs)! -- 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] System Release 13.2 is Official
I say do a quick spin of 13.1.3 (13.1.3.1?) for FSK to fix the 2.4 None issue. Seems like the simplest solution. On 11/13/2014 4:56 PM, Matt via Af wrote: For the questions about 13.2 being for PMP100, the answer is no. And I can’t comment quite yet on any possible upcoming releases for the PMP100. The main thing that comes to mind regarding 13.1.3 on PMP100 is the lack of being able to set carrier frequency to none on a disabled AP. Otherwise what would 13.2 really bring PMP100? As recently as 6 months ago I believe we purchased new FSK 2.4 SM's though. We have MANY MANY in the field yet.
Re: [AFMUG] How do you power an ePMP on a tower?
If it was me, which I'm about to do, I would use a SyncInjector AND GigE-APC(HV?)'s. I agree, the GigE-POE-APC's are awesome. On 11/13/2014 5:33 PM, Nate Burke via Af wrote: I use the GIGE-POE-APC for powering all my Airfiber radios. They're also good if you want to get DC power to a remote location that already has cat5 run, you can run them back to back to put the power on and take it off of the Cat5. Don't forget with the packetflux, you still need some surge protection, Chucks does it all in 1 unit (but no Sync). On 11/13/2014 5:20 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: Well that kinda settles it, 4 port sync injector... What kind of applications have you seen for those APC cards with DC power? I feel it's way more convenient to do a Packetflux POE injector. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: http://www.wbmfg.com/products.cfm?PID=77 -Original Message- From: Seth Mattinen via Af Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 4:07 PM To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] How do you power an ePMP on a tower? On 11/13/14, 15:05, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: What are my options besides stacking a bunch of the included POEs? http://store.packetflux.com/sitemonitor-4-channel-gigabit-poe-injector-controller/ Also in 8-port or gigabit syncinjector. ~Seth
Re: [AFMUG] SiteMonitor Question
I have a SyncInjector H1 on an old Base-1 and I get the same thing for the exp. description. It happened when I renamed some of the SyncInjector related binary or analog items. It works, so I just left it alone. Mine is running 24-Apr-14. That's a firmware load Forrest sent me to debug some detection issues. Also, when I refresh the String I/O, the base unit crashes and the HW watchdog recovers it. I haven't had any time to mess with it or email Forrest about it. On 11/13/2014 6:16 PM, Plexicomm Admin via Af wrote: So I have two SyncInjectors connected to this SiteMonitor. The second one will not communicate properly (see screen shot below). I tried rebooting the base, different jumpers, defaulting, no luck. All three items are brand new. Dan English Plexicomm - Internet Solutions d...@plexicomm.net | 1.866.759.4678 x103 Fax: 1.866.852.4688 | Emergency Support: 1.866.759.9713
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 mailto: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 probably thinking he was helping but lots are going to complain — Sent from Mailbox https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Ryan Ray via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Just did a 200 group of SM's and the upgrade has removed frequencies that were previously checked. I followed the guide and did the SM's first and AP's last. Luckily the majority of these can see another AP but what the fuck... About half of these SM's were on 13.2(34) and the other half were on 13.1.3... This is what it looks like after an update image.png Pre update they were all image.png URG
Re: [AFMUG] 13.2 Issue (Removing frequency checkboxes)
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: 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 mailto: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 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 mailto: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 mailto: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 probably thinking he was helping but lots are going to complain — Sent from Mailbox https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Ryan Ray via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Just did a 200 group of SM's and the upgrade has removed frequencies that were previously checked. I followed the guide and did the SM's first and AP's last. Luckily the majority of these can see another AP but what the fuck... About half of these SM's were on 13.2(34) and the other half were on 13.1.3... This is what it looks like after an update image.png Pre update they were all image.png URG
[AFMUG] ePMP 2' dish
Is there a 2' dish that has an integrated radio mount like the Rocket dish for ePMP radios? And that possibly uses the same radome that fits on Laird/UBNT style parabolics? I thought I remember seeing this somewhere but I'm having no luck finding it. Maybe I'm imagining the Force100 dish or something? I guess I can always use a Pac/Laird HD dish, but integrated radio mount would be nice.
Re: [AFMUG] Cacti 32-bit versus 64-bit counters
If you're set to in/out bits, then you're on 32bit counters. in/out bits (64bit) is what you want. There's completely different OIDs for in/out 64bit octets, called ifInHCOctets or something like that. You can convert a 32bit graph/RRD to 64 using the Fix64Bit plugin. All the data stays intact. I believe you need to be polling the host as SNMP v2 to get the 64-bit counters as well. On 11/12/2014 12:02 PM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: I noticed that we're using 32-bit counters on some of our Mikrotik interfaces, and they are over-running the counter between 5-minute intervals. I added new counters that identify themselves as 64-bit counters when I add them, but for all intents and purposes the RRD files look the same. I tried running rrdtool info on them, but nothing shouts out 64-bit!. Is there a way to confirm that an RRD file is actually 64-bit?
Re: [AFMUG] Cacti 32-bit versus 64-bit counters
No, 64-bit counters are part of the standard IF-MIB, not MT specific. This is what I'm talking about. This is out of Cacti's interface.xml data query template. All standard stuff. ifHCInOctets nameBytes In - 64-bit Counters/name methodwalk/method sourcevalue/source directionoutput/direction oid.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.6/oid /ifHCInOctets ifHCOutOctets nameBytes Out - 64-bit Counters/name methodwalk/method sourcevalue/source directionoutput/direction oid.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.10/oid /ifHCOutOctets I've used the Fix64 plugin many many times and never had a problem with it. Just converts the data source to use 64bit counters on the next poller cycle. On 11/12/2014 1:37 PM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: Thanks George, Yah. Had it V2c, and was trying to see what (if any) changes it made to the RRD files. They were the same, so I suspected something was amiss. I think you also need to poll the Mikrotik-specific OIDs (.1.3.6.1.4.1.14988 + ). The stock interface Data Queries built into cacti don't go there (.1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1 +). I will look at the Fix64Bit plugin too. bp part-15@SkylineBroadbandService On 11/12/2014 11:01 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: If you're set to in/out bits, then you're on 32bit counters. in/out bits (64bit) is what you want. There's completely different OIDs for in/out 64bit octets, called ifInHCOctets or something like that. You can convert a 32bit graph/RRD to 64 using the Fix64Bit plugin. All the data stays intact. I believe you need to be polling the host as SNMP v2 to get the 64-bit counters as well. On 11/12/2014 12:02 PM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: I noticed that we're using 32-bit counters on some of our Mikrotik interfaces, and they are over-running the counter between 5-minute intervals. I added new counters that identify themselves as 64-bit counters when I add them, but for all intents and purposes the RRD files look the same. I tried running rrdtool info on them, but nothing shouts out 64-bit!. Is there a way to confirm that an RRD file is actually 64-bit?
Re: [AFMUG] 5.1 PMP rules
36dBm PtMP. 53dBm PtP. I assume the SM qualifies as PTP like 5.7. And no DFS. On 11/12/2014 3:53 PM, Dan Petermann via Af wrote: Can someone give me a quick list of eirp rules in the 5.1 band for multipoint?
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 2' dish
So I guess this doesn't exist. Or nobody cares. On 11/12/2014 10:15 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is there a 2' dish that has an integrated radio mount like the Rocket dish for ePMP radios? And that possibly uses the same radome that fits on Laird/UBNT style parabolics? I thought I remember seeing this somewhere but I'm having no luck finding it. Maybe I'm imagining the Force100 dish or something? I guess I can always use a Pac/Laird HD dish, but integrated radio mount would be nice.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 2' dish
Because it's moar better. All one piece, send it up the tower, tower guys mount it. And that's exactly why I (mostly) use the Cambium antennas for the 450, so the guys don't have to fiddle with/break shit on the tower. No matter how many times I tell them not to let 900 radios dangle by the pigtail, they do it anyway. Sometimes (OK, all the time) I just want to shoot at them. On 11/12/2014 4:05 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: Force110 for 5ghz. 2.4 I think it's ITElite or 27rd. For a dish why do you need a mount? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 12, 2014 5:01 PM, Alan West via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Not out there, as far as I know. The Force 110 units from Cambium should hit vendors late this month. An improvement, but still not a Nanobeam as far as assembly. On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 3:59 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: So I guess this doesn't exist. Or nobody cares. On 11/12/2014 10:15 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is there a 2' dish that has an integrated radio mount like the Rocket dish for ePMP radios? And that possibly uses the same radome that fits on Laird/UBNT style parabolics? I thought I remember seeing this somewhere but I'm having no luck finding it. Maybe I'm imagining the Force100 dish or something? I guess I can always use a Pac/Laird HD dish, but integrated radio mount would be nice.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 2' dish
Isn't there like a $10 add-on piece that lets it be pipe strapped? Yeah, why isn't that just standard like a Rocket, WTF Cambium. On 11/12/2014 4:34 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: There's not really a good way to attach an ePMP without a bracket though... it would be nice if they had some sort of slot for a zip tie, like the Rockets. *From:* Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Luthman via Af [af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 4:23 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 2' dish Just zip tie the radio to the pipe of the 2' dish? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:22 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Because it's moar better. All one piece, send it up the tower, tower guys mount it. And that's exactly why I (mostly) use the Cambium antennas for the 450, so the guys don't have to fiddle with/break shit on the tower. No matter how many times I tell them not to let 900 radios dangle by the pigtail, they do it anyway. Sometimes (OK, all the time) I just want to shoot at them. On 11/12/2014 4:05 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: Force110 for 5ghz. 2.4 I think it's ITElite or 27rd. For a dish why do you need a mount? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 12, 2014 5:01 PM, Alan West via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Not out there, as far as I know. The Force 110 units from Cambium should hit vendors late this month. An improvement, but still not a Nanobeam as far as assembly. On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 3:59 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: So I guess this doesn't exist. Or nobody cares. On 11/12/2014 10:15 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is there a 2' dish that has an integrated radio mount like the Rocket dish for ePMP radios? And that possibly uses the same radome that fits on Laird/UBNT style parabolics? I thought I remember seeing this somewhere but I'm having no luck finding it. Maybe I'm imagining the Force100 dish or something? I guess I can always use a Pac/Laird HD dish, but integrated radio mount would be nice.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 2' dish
Meh, I'll just use Laird dishes and get the stupid pipe strap adapter things. These links will be replaced with licensed later anyway. Then I can reuse the Laird dishes for connectorized 450 SMs too. On 11/12/2014 4:55 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: oh, neat... it looks like RF Elements and KPP both make adapters to attach an ePMP to a Ubiquiti style mount. *From:* Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af [af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 4:36 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 2' dish Isn't there like a $10 add-on piece that lets it be pipe strapped? Yeah, why isn't that just standard like a Rocket, WTF Cambium. On 11/12/2014 4:34 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: There's not really a good way to attach an ePMP without a bracket though... it would be nice if they had some sort of slot for a zip tie, like the Rockets. *From:* Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Luthman via Af [af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 4:23 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 2' dish Just zip tie the radio to the pipe of the 2' dish? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:22 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Because it's moar better. All one piece, send it up the tower, tower guys mount it. And that's exactly why I (mostly) use the Cambium antennas for the 450, so the guys don't have to fiddle with/break shit on the tower. No matter how many times I tell them not to let 900 radios dangle by the pigtail, they do it anyway. Sometimes (OK, all the time) I just want to shoot at them. On 11/12/2014 4:05 PM, Josh Luthman via Af wrote: Force110 for 5ghz. 2.4 I think it's ITElite or 27rd.� For a dish why do you need a mount? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 12, 2014 5:01 PM, Alan West via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Not out there, as far as I know. The Force 110 units from Cambium should hit vendors late this month. An improvement, but still not a Nanobeam as far as assembly. On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 3:59 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: So I guess this doesn't exist. Or nobody cares. On 11/12/2014 10:15 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is there a 2' dish that has an integrated radio mount like the Rocket dish for ePMP radios? And that possibly uses the same radome that fits on Laird/UBNT style parabolics? I thought I remember seeing this somewhere but I'm having no luck finding it. Maybe I'm imagining the Force100 dish or something? I guess I can always use a Pac/Laird HD dish, but integrated radio mount would be nice.
Re: [AFMUG] 5.1 PMP rules
15' dish!? 68dBm!, 6300W EIRP!? Holy bat, crapman! Keep your balls clear of that. On 11/12/2014 8:55 PM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: Maximum it lets me go to in 5.8 GHz is 68 dBm. This is using a connectorized PTP650, and a 15' parabolic dish. bp part-15@SkylineBroadbandService On 11/12/2014 2:34 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: cambium linkplanner is locking it at 36 on ptp I havent looked on the ptp650 to see if its locked Man i hope somebody can provide some evidence that it can go up to 53, that would get a pretty big load of my back right now On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Mathew Howard via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: That's definitely not right... maybe you have numbers from the old 5150-5250 rules? PtMP is 36dBm EIRP, and PtP is 53dBm EIRP - however, because of the OOBE stuff, I'm not aware of anything that can actually do 53dBm. Ubiquiti stuff is all limited to 36dBm, ePMP lets me set the Tx power up to 20dBm with the antenna size set to 30dBi (in PtP mode). *From:* Af [af-boun...@afmug.com mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of That One Guy via Af [af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 4:24 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 5.1 PMP rules Really? My cheetsheet shows much lower EIRPs - 22 on PtP and 16 on PmP!! On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Dan Petermann via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: awesome, Thank you On Nov 12, 2014, at 2:58 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: 36dBm PtMP. 53dBm PtP. I assume the SM qualifies as PTP like 5.7. And no DFS. On 11/12/2014 3:53 PM, Dan Petermann via Af wrote: Can someone give me a quick list of eirp rules in the 5.1 band for multipoint? -- 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 -- 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
[AFMUG] [OT] Weird MT situation
I've got a RB1100AH running 5.26. Something has been happening every day for about the past week and it gets all screwy. I've confirmed there are no site temperature or power issues. Here's what happens in the screwy state. I can ping it and it responds fine. I can log into Winbox or the CLI and try to ping anything, even local same-subnet stuff and I get a bunch of packet loss. SNMP responses are hit or miss as well. I did a packet capture and it shows the ICMP packets all out of order. Reboot it and everything works fine again, until next time. The only thing I haven't tried yet is pinging 127.0.0.1 and see if the same packet loss happens. I see a bunch of SSH brute force attempts, but I'm using the brute force protection firewall scripts to add sequential attempts to an address list to stop them. And that works fine. But I'm wondering, since 5.26 is the ssh - fixed denial of service; version, did this fix break something else. I don't see this on any other routers running 5.25, RB1100's and 493's. This is a remote router so I do not want to try downgrading to 5.25 or upgrading to v6 without someone there. And if I'm going to send someone there, probably better off replacing it, but then I'll never know WTF is causing this.
Re: [AFMUG] Fiber to top of tower
We use TY25MX Ty-Raps. UV and stainless lock. They do not break in the cold. We've had the equivalent Panduit's on towers for 10 years and they have not failed. I agree with no zip ties on towers but these are not zip ties. On 11/9/2014 12:29 AM, Darin Steffl via Af wrote: What are the good zip ties you use? It's very hard finding some that don't snap below 55 degrees. On Sunday, November 9, 2014, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Bout to say, our company has been doing installs with super88 and good quality zip ties in Alaska for about 10 years now. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 11/08/2014 07:59 PM, Jason McKemie via Af wrote: If you use quality zip ties they are just fine. On Saturday, November 8, 2014, David Milholen via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: I need to find my old pics of a company that used Zip ties on towers instead of hangers or cable tray. A 400' run of lmr400 came loose during a winter storm and the Electric company thought it was a guy wire flappin in the wind from a distance and had everyone pacing the floor and trying to get to the site to look to see what needs to be done. Needless to say as a standard policy we do not allow for any zip ties anywhere on any of our towers including metal ones unless they are rated for outdoor use and only for short distances. As for type of hybrid cable we use. We use Bestronics to customize the ends for good terminations. On 11/8/2014 4:26 PM, Craig House via Af wrote: We have purchased outdoor rated unarmored fiber to run up many towers over the last 2 to 3 years I have not yet had a problem with any of it wearing through and we do not put it in conduit As long as you zip tie it frequently so that it is not rubbing around on anything it shouldn't be a problem We have been buying our fiber preterminated from discount low-voltage.com http://low-voltage.com I have never had anything sent to me that was not as we ordered it or that didn't work when we installed everything is been top-quality from them It even comes with a Kevlar Pullhook and plastic shroud over the pull in so you don't hang it on anything as you pull it up Craig Sent from my iPhone On Nov 8, 2014, at 16:19, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I don’t know much if anything about fiber, but I see lots of options here: http://ce.superioressex.com/products/communications/osp-cable/fiber/ I would think armor would provide gopher protection in direct burial applications and cut resistance in tower and grain leg applications, but I also see several rugged non-armored types listed there including: double jacket non-armor (series 1G) ADSS 100/200/400 heavy duty LT (series 1H) *From:* Darin Steffl via Af *Sent:* Saturday, November 08, 2014 3:57 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Fiber to top of tower So you're saying don't go armored fiber at all but just outdoor rated fiber and make sure nothing can rub through the jacket? We're looking for something tougher that can withstand the pull up the tower and then the elements since we don't want to run conduit. On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I cannot imagine a benefit to having armored/shielded on a fiber up the tower other than mechanical protection. It would not offer any electrical benefits and could actually pick up and transfer RF and induced impulses from lightening. *From:* Darin Steffl via Af *Sent:* Saturday, November 08, 2014 1:47 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] Fiber to top of tower Hey guys, For fiber runs to a switch or radio on top of the tower, do you recommend non-armored fiber or armored with the metal shield? If there a way to have armored fiber without metal inside? I'm wondering how some of you run fiber up to the top now and if having metal in the fiber is alright or if it's a bad idea because of lightning or grounding issues. Looking for best practices here. Thanks -- Darin Steffl Minnesota WiFi www.mnwifi.com http://www.mnwifi.com/ 507-634-WiFi http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi -- Darin
Re: [AFMUG] Non-advantage AP
I'm not sure about the license key upgrade, but it's probably cheaper to buy a used Advantage AP from PDM, SWG, etc. On 11/7/2014 10:20 AM, Dan Petermann via Af wrote: Can a non-advantage AP be converted to an advantage AP via license key? Hardware version is P9
