Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-27 Thread chuck 
Yeah but I had never seen a number put to it before.

Yes there is some list delay again... dang it.  

From: Christopher Gray 
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 11:52 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

I usually see:  

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






On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:28 PM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  Interesting, I didn’t now little “n” had a definition.  

  From: Steve Jones 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:45 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

  They claim nLOS not NLOS. To cambium,  1/16 fresnel impact is nLOS

  On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 5:52 PM Christopher Gray <cg...@graytechsoftware.com> 
wrote:

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

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

I'll look into the subcarries as Stanners suggested.







On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote:

  NLOS "magic" in 5ghz?  Don't hold your breath, man.

  On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Christopher Gray 
<cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:

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

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


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

Thank you - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-27 Thread Steve Jones 
calling for total and complete shutdown of n's entering the United States

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Doesn't much matter.  We don't like n's of any size.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: ch...@wbmfg.com
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 4/27/2018 1:28:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS
>
> Interesting, I didn’t now little “n” had a definition.
>
> *From:* Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:45 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS
>
> They claim nLOS not NLOS. To cambium,  1/16 fresnel impact is nLOS
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 5:52 PM Christopher Gray <cg...@graytechsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm definitely not expecting Cambium to go through a forest in 5 GHz...
>> but they specifically claim NLOS capability.
>>
>> I have several NLOS 5 GHz links going through leaves at very short ranges
>> that are relatively stable (all ePMP). I'm just curious about what makes
>> them claim their NLOS is better.
>>
>> I'll look into the subcarries as Stanners suggested.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> NLOS "magic" in 5ghz?  Don't hold your breath, man.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Christopher Gray <
>>> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been told the PTP650 (and 670) have some sort of magic that helps
>>>> with NLOS links. I've always assume this was a result of the custom
>>>> chipset. Do these radios actually perform better than others in similar
>>>> signal NLOS environments?
>>>>
>>>> The PTP550 is based on a WiFi chipset... does it have any of the NLOS
>>>> magic?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In NLOS situations, would the PTP650 / PTP550 be expected to
>>>> significantly outperform the airFiber-X hardware?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you - Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-27 Thread Adam Moffett 

Doesn't much matter.  We don't like n's of any size.


-- Original Message --
From: ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 4/27/2018 1:28:53 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS


Interesting, I didn’t now little “n” had a definition.

From:Steve Jones
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:45 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

They claim nLOS not NLOS. To cambium,  1/16 fresnel impact is nLOS

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 5:52 PM Christopher Gray 
<cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
I'm definitely not expecting Cambium to go through a forest in 5 
GHz... but they specifically claim NLOS capability.


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


I'll look into the subcarries as Stanners suggested.





On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

NLOS "magic" in 5ghz?  Don't hold your breath, man.

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Christopher Gray 
<cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
I've been told the PTP650 (and 670) have some sort of magic that 
helps with NLOS links. I've always assume this was a result of the 
custom chipset. Do these radios actually perform better than others 
in similar signal NLOS environments?


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



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


Thank you - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-27 Thread Christopher Gray 
I usually see:

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


--

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:28 PM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

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

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-27 Thread Steve Jones 
n=near N=Non

I believe it was cambium (motorola at the time) that pointed out this sexy
marketing trick

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 12:28 PM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

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

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-27 Thread chuck 
Interesting, I didn’t now little “n” had a definition.  

From: Steve Jones 
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 9:45 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

They claim nLOS not NLOS. To cambium,  1/16 fresnel impact is nLOS

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 5:52 PM Christopher Gray <cg...@graytechsoftware.com> 
wrote:

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

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

  I'll look into the subcarries as Stanners suggested.



  
--


  On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote:

NLOS "magic" in 5ghz?  Don't hold your breath, man.

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Christopher Gray 
<cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:

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

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


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

  Thank you - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-27 Thread Dave 
Good overview.. Ill still stick to my guns about reliability on price 
point. One and done or keep going back over the same dead horse.



On 04/25/2018 04:07 PM, Ryan Ray wrote:

http://www.advantec.it/wp-content/uploads/cambium/pdf/cambium_networks_PTP550_Advantec.pdf

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Joe Novak > wrote:


I've definitely done some stupid things with PTP 5ghz. With in a
few hundred foot I may or may not have a few micro-pops humming
along with NLOS shots. It's definitely not a predictable layout
though, you just have to test it.

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Steve Jones
> wrote:

No ptp650 magic sauce like you may be expecting. It performs
exactly as ptp3/500 did in regard to that. Like anything you
can get "nLOS" but you pay for it with capacity/reliability
turning dual payload off gets you "sauce" at the expense of
half your capacity,  and IIRC theres another setting regarding
throughput vs stability. 5ghz is 5ghz in this context. you can
barely penetrate a fart, tree leaves are out of the question

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:16 PM, C Stanners
> wrote:

Orthogon-based PTP650/670 have something like 256/512
subcarriers which helps NLOS. I think AF5X has 1 and
AF5XHD has 8 subcarriers?

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Christopher Gray
> wrote:

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

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


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

Thank you - Chris







--

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-27 Thread Eric Muehleisen 
In their webinars and trainings they usually talk about NLOS in metro
areas. Lots of shiny things to multipath from. Not so much in a forest.

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Christopher Gray <
cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:

> I'm definitely not expecting Cambium to go through a forest in 5 GHz...
> but they specifically claim NLOS capability.
>
> I have several NLOS 5 GHz links going through leaves at very short ranges
> that are relatively stable (all ePMP). I'm just curious about what makes
> them claim their NLOS is better.
>
> I'll look into the subcarries as Stanners suggested.
>
>
>
> --
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Josh Baird  wrote:
>
>> NLOS "magic" in 5ghz?  Don't hold your breath, man.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Christopher Gray <
>> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been told the PTP650 (and 670) have some sort of magic that helps
>>> with NLOS links. I've always assume this was a result of the custom
>>> chipset. Do these radios actually perform better than others in similar
>>> signal NLOS environments?
>>>
>>> The PTP550 is based on a WiFi chipset... does it have any of the NLOS
>>> magic?
>>>
>>>
>>> In NLOS situations, would the PTP650 / PTP550 be expected to
>>> significantly outperform the airFiber-X hardware?
>>>
>>> Thank you - Chris
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-27 Thread Dave 

There has been some significant improvement since the 500 and 600.
 I like the extra power on the 5.1 band and the 45Mhz wide channel 
selection down to 5Mhz
DSO and other smart RF tech has made this my goto for interlinks and a 
reliable dedicated ptp for an end user.



On 04/25/2018 03:52 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
No ptp650 magic sauce like you may be expecting. It performs exactly 
as ptp3/500 did in regard to that. Like anything you can get "nLOS" 
but you pay for it with capacity/reliability
turning dual payload off gets you "sauce" at the expense of half your 
capacity,  and IIRC theres another setting regarding throughput vs 
stability. 5ghz is 5ghz in this context. you can barely penetrate a 
fart, tree leaves are out of the question


On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:16 PM, C Stanners > wrote:


Orthogon-based PTP650/670 have something like 256/512 subcarriers
which helps NLOS. I think AF5X has 1 and AF5XHD has 8 subcarriers?

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Christopher Gray
>
wrote:

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

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


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

Thank you - Chris





--

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-25 Thread Steve Jones 
They claim nLOS not NLOS. To cambium,  1/16 fresnel impact is nLOS

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018, 5:52 PM Christopher Gray 
wrote:

> I'm definitely not expecting Cambium to go through a forest in 5 GHz...
> but they specifically claim NLOS capability.
>
> I have several NLOS 5 GHz links going through leaves at very short ranges
> that are relatively stable (all ePMP). I'm just curious about what makes
> them claim their NLOS is better.
>
> I'll look into the subcarries as Stanners suggested.
>
>
>
> --
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Josh Baird  wrote:
>
>> NLOS "magic" in 5ghz?  Don't hold your breath, man.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Christopher Gray <
>> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been told the PTP650 (and 670) have some sort of magic that helps
>>> with NLOS links. I've always assume this was a result of the custom
>>> chipset. Do these radios actually perform better than others in similar
>>> signal NLOS environments?
>>>
>>> The PTP550 is based on a WiFi chipset... does it have any of the NLOS
>>> magic?
>>>
>>>
>>> In NLOS situations, would the PTP650 / PTP550 be expected to
>>> significantly outperform the airFiber-X hardware?
>>>
>>> Thank you - Chris
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-25 Thread Christopher Gray 
I'm definitely not expecting Cambium to go through a forest in 5 GHz... but
they specifically claim NLOS capability.

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

I'll look into the subcarries as Stanners suggested.



--

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

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

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-25 Thread Ryan Ray 
http://www.advantec.it/wp-content/uploads/cambium/pdf/cambium_networks_PTP550_Advantec.pdf

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Joe Novak  wrote:

> I've definitely done some stupid things with PTP 5ghz. With in a few
> hundred foot I may or may not have a few micro-pops humming along with NLOS
> shots. It's definitely not a predictable layout though, you just have to
> test it.
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> No ptp650 magic sauce like you may be expecting. It performs exactly as
>> ptp3/500 did in regard to that. Like anything you can get "nLOS" but you
>> pay for it with capacity/reliability
>> turning dual payload off gets you "sauce" at the expense of half your
>> capacity,  and IIRC theres another setting regarding throughput vs
>> stability. 5ghz is 5ghz in this context. you can barely penetrate a fart,
>> tree leaves are out of the question
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:16 PM, C Stanners  wrote:
>>
>>> Orthogon-based PTP650/670 have something like 256/512 subcarriers which
>>> helps NLOS. I think AF5X has 1 and AF5XHD has 8 subcarriers?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Christopher Gray <
>>> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>
 I've been told the PTP650 (and 670) have some sort of magic that helps
 with NLOS links. I've always assume this was a result of the custom
 chipset. Do these radios actually perform better than others in similar
 signal NLOS environments?

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


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

 Thank you - Chris


>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-25 Thread Joe Novak 
I've definitely done some stupid things with PTP 5ghz. With in a few
hundred foot I may or may not have a few micro-pops humming along with NLOS
shots. It's definitely not a predictable layout though, you just have to
test it.

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Steve Jones 
wrote:

> No ptp650 magic sauce like you may be expecting. It performs exactly as
> ptp3/500 did in regard to that. Like anything you can get "nLOS" but you
> pay for it with capacity/reliability
> turning dual payload off gets you "sauce" at the expense of half your
> capacity,  and IIRC theres another setting regarding throughput vs
> stability. 5ghz is 5ghz in this context. you can barely penetrate a fart,
> tree leaves are out of the question
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:16 PM, C Stanners  wrote:
>
>> Orthogon-based PTP650/670 have something like 256/512 subcarriers which
>> helps NLOS. I think AF5X has 1 and AF5XHD has 8 subcarriers?
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Christopher Gray <
>> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been told the PTP650 (and 670) have some sort of magic that helps
>>> with NLOS links. I've always assume this was a result of the custom
>>> chipset. Do these radios actually perform better than others in similar
>>> signal NLOS environments?
>>>
>>> The PTP550 is based on a WiFi chipset... does it have any of the NLOS
>>> magic?
>>>
>>>
>>> In NLOS situations, would the PTP650 / PTP550 be expected to
>>> significantly outperform the airFiber-X hardware?
>>>
>>> Thank you - Chris
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-25 Thread Steve Jones 
No ptp650 magic sauce like you may be expecting. It performs exactly as
ptp3/500 did in regard to that. Like anything you can get "nLOS" but you
pay for it with capacity/reliability
turning dual payload off gets you "sauce" at the expense of half your
capacity,  and IIRC theres another setting regarding throughput vs
stability. 5ghz is 5ghz in this context. you can barely penetrate a fart,
tree leaves are out of the question

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:16 PM, C Stanners  wrote:

> Orthogon-based PTP650/670 have something like 256/512 subcarriers which
> helps NLOS. I think AF5X has 1 and AF5XHD has 8 subcarriers?
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Christopher Gray <
> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> I've been told the PTP650 (and 670) have some sort of magic that helps
>> with NLOS links. I've always assume this was a result of the custom
>> chipset. Do these radios actually perform better than others in similar
>> signal NLOS environments?
>>
>> The PTP550 is based on a WiFi chipset... does it have any of the NLOS
>> magic?
>>
>>
>> In NLOS situations, would the PTP650 / PTP550 be expected to
>> significantly outperform the airFiber-X hardware?
>>
>> Thank you - Chris
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-25 Thread C Stanners 
Orthogon-based PTP650/670 have something like 256/512 subcarriers which
helps NLOS. I think AF5X has 1 and AF5XHD has 8 subcarriers?

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Christopher Gray <
cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:

> I've been told the PTP650 (and 670) have some sort of magic that helps
> with NLOS links. I've always assume this was a result of the custom
> chipset. Do these radios actually perform better than others in similar
> signal NLOS environments?
>
> The PTP550 is based on a WiFi chipset... does it have any of the NLOS
> magic?
>
>
> In NLOS situations, would the PTP650 / PTP550 be expected to significantly
> outperform the airFiber-X hardware?
>
> Thank you - Chris
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-25 Thread Josh Baird 
NLOS "magic" in 5ghz?  Don't hold your breath, man.

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Christopher Gray <
cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:

> I've been told the PTP650 (and 670) have some sort of magic that helps
> with NLOS links. I've always assume this was a result of the custom
> chipset. Do these radios actually perform better than others in similar
> signal NLOS environments?
>
> The PTP550 is based on a WiFi chipset... does it have any of the NLOS
> magic?
>
>
> In NLOS situations, would the PTP650 / PTP550 be expected to significantly
> outperform the airFiber-X hardware?
>
> Thank you - Chris
>
>

[AFMUG] PTP650, PTP550, NLOS

2018-04-25 Thread Christopher Gray 
I've been told the PTP650 (and 670) have some sort of magic that helps with
NLOS links. I've always assume this was a result of the custom chipset. Do
these radios actually perform better than others in similar signal NLOS
environments?

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


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

Thank you - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] Ptp650/500 compatibility?

2017-05-26 Thread Colin Stanners 
Unfortunately the Orthogon line sucks for RF backwards compatibility -
that's one of the only real downsides about them - so I doubt it.

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Steve Jones 
wrote:

> Is there a way to get a 500 to link with a 650 for a migration?
>

[AFMUG] Ptp650/500 compatibility?

2017-05-26 Thread Steve Jones 
Is there a way to get a 500 to link with a 650 for a migration?

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 Issue

2015-09-09 Thread David 
Ive been to all of the cambium ptp and when it was still orthagon series 
training except the new ptp810/820 series.


This link looks ok to me.
 What does link planner say the expected results should be. I would be 
concerned if the vector errors or link loss was way off on one end but

they are not



On 09/09/2015 11:05 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
if its the same as the ptp500 there is a way to calculate which 
antenna is off but i cant find the documentation one of the guys that 
worked here went to a cambium training where they taught him that, I 
assume it still applies


On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Josh Luthman 
<j...@imaginenetworksllc.com <mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:


I was thinking signal vs noise.  Like SNR.

Seems impressive to know there's a cable issue when the signals
are the same.

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

On Sep 9, 2015 11:55 AM, "SmarterBroadband"
<li...@smarterbroadband.com <mailto:li...@smarterbroadband.com>>
wrote:

Just a noise issue?  The manual says;

Signal Strength Ratio is an aid to debugging a link. If it has
a large positive or negative value then investigate the
following potential problems:

• An antenna coaxial lead may be disconnected.

• When spatial diversity is employed, the antenna with the
lower value may be pointing in the wrong direction.

• When a dual polar antenna is deployed, the antenna may be
directed using a side lobe rather than the main lobe.

I was thinking bad cable?  Maybe antenna or radio.

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 09, 2015 8:40 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 Issue

Noise at the one end.  The other has 20 with the same signal.

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

On Sep 9, 2015 11:36 AM, "SmarterBroadband"
<li...@smarterbroadband.com
<mailto:li...@smarterbroadband.com>> wrote:

We have an issue with one of our PTP650 links.  Bad Signal
Strength Ratio.

One end is 6.4 the other 19.5

Issue is probably at one end.

Question is which end to check first.

I have attached the System Stats of each end.

Anyone able to see which end may have the problem from these?

Thanks

Adam




--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your 
team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 Issue

2015-09-09 Thread Josh Luthman 
Noise at the one end.  The other has 20 with the same signal.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Sep 9, 2015 11:36 AM, "SmarterBroadband" 
wrote:

> We have an issue with one of our PTP650 links.  Bad Signal Strength Ratio.
>
> One end is 6.4 the other 19.5
>
> Issue is probably at one end.
>
> Question is which end to check first.
>
> I have attached the System Stats of each end.
>
> Anyone able to see which end may have the problem from these?
>
> Thanks
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 Issue

2015-09-09 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm 
if its the same as the ptp500 there is a way to calculate which antenna is
off but i cant find the documentation one of the guys that worked here went
to a cambium training where they taught him that, I assume it still applies

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>
wrote:

> I was thinking signal vs noise.  Like SNR.
>
> Seems impressive to know there's a cable issue when the signals are the
> same.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> On Sep 9, 2015 11:55 AM, "SmarterBroadband" <li...@smarterbroadband.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Just a noise issue?  The manual says;
>>
>>
>>
>> Signal Strength Ratio is an aid to debugging a link. If it has a large
>> positive or negative value then investigate the following potential
>> problems:
>>
>> • An antenna coaxial lead may be disconnected.
>>
>> • When spatial diversity is employed, the antenna with the lower value
>> may be pointing in the wrong direction.
>>
>> • When a dual polar antenna is deployed, the antenna may be directed
>> using a side lobe rather than the main lobe.
>>
>>
>>
>> I was thinking bad cable?  Maybe antenna or radio.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 09, 2015 8:40 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 Issue
>>
>>
>>
>> Noise at the one end.  The other has 20 with the same signal.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2015 11:36 AM, "SmarterBroadband" <li...@smarterbroadband.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> We have an issue with one of our PTP650 links.  Bad Signal Strength Ratio.
>>
>> One end is 6.4 the other 19.5
>>
>> Issue is probably at one end.
>>
>> Question is which end to check first.
>>
>> I have attached the System Stats of each end.
>>
>> Anyone able to see which end may have the problem from these?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

[AFMUG] PTP650 Issue

2015-09-09 Thread SmarterBroadband 
We have an issue with one of our PTP650 links.  Bad Signal Strength Ratio.

One end is 6.4 the other 19.5

Issue is probably at one end.

Question is which end to check first.

I have attached the System Stats of each end.

Anyone able to see which end may have the problem from these?

Thanks

Adam

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 Issue

2015-09-09 Thread SmarterBroadband 
Just a noise issue?  The manual says;

 

Signal Strength Ratio is an aid to debugging a link. If it has a large positive 
or negative value then investigate the following potential problems:

• An antenna coaxial lead may be disconnected. 

• When spatial diversity is employed, the antenna with the lower value may be 
pointing in the wrong direction. 

• When a dual polar antenna is deployed, the antenna may be directed using a 
side lobe rather than the main lobe.

 

I was thinking bad cable?  Maybe antenna or radio.

 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 8:40 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 Issue

 

Noise at the one end.  The other has 20 with the same signal.

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

On Sep 9, 2015 11:36 AM, "SmarterBroadband" <li...@smarterbroadband.com> wrote:

We have an issue with one of our PTP650 links.  Bad Signal Strength Ratio.

One end is 6.4 the other 19.5

Issue is probably at one end.

Question is which end to check first.

I have attached the System Stats of each end.

Anyone able to see which end may have the problem from these?

Thanks

Adam

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 Issue

2015-09-09 Thread Ken Hohhof 
Does the path have clear LOS?  If not, that can cause signal strength ratio 
issues.

Also, is the path loss near what you calculate?  Alignment on a sidelobe can 
give you bad signal strength ratio.


From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 11:05 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 Issue

if its the same as the ptp500 there is a way to calculate which antenna is off 
but i cant find the documentation one of the guys that worked here went to a 
cambium training where they taught him that, I assume it still applies

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> 
wrote:

  I was thinking signal vs noise.  Like SNR.

  Seems impressive to know there's a cable issue when the signals are the same.

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

  On Sep 9, 2015 11:55 AM, "SmarterBroadband" <li...@smarterbroadband.com> 
wrote:

Just a noise issue?  The manual says;



Signal Strength Ratio is an aid to debugging a link. If it has a large 
positive or negative value then investigate the following potential problems:


• An antenna coaxial lead may be disconnected. 

• When spatial diversity is employed, the antenna with the lower value may 
be pointing in the wrong direction. 

• When a dual polar antenna is deployed, the antenna may be directed using 
a side lobe rather than the main lobe.



I was thinking bad cable?  Maybe antenna or radio.







From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 8:40 AM
To: af@afmug.com
    Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 Issue



Noise at the one end.  The other has 20 with the same signal.

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

On Sep 9, 2015 11:36 AM, "SmarterBroadband" <li...@smarterbroadband.com> 
wrote:

We have an issue with one of our PTP650 links.  Bad Signal Strength Ratio.

One end is 6.4 the other 19.5

Issue is probably at one end.

Question is which end to check first.

I have attached the System Stats of each end.

Anyone able to see which end may have the problem from these?

Thanks

Adam









-- 

If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 Issue

2015-09-09 Thread SmarterBroadband 
Good Point.  Manual says;

 

The Signal Strength Ratio (calculated over a one hour period) is: Power 
received by the vertical antenna input (dB) ÷ Power received by the horizontal 
antenna input (dB) This ratio is presented as: max, mean, min, and latest. The 
max, min and latest are true instantaneous measurements; the mean is the mean 
of a set of one second means.

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 11:56 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 Issue

 

That's very confusing. If all of the power levels are nearly the same, how can 
the ratio be that far off? That makes no sense. Unless it doesn't mean the same 
thing as with SSR on the PMP450 (V-H or B-A Rx power ratio).

On 9/9/2015 11:01 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:

I was thinking signal vs noise.  Like SNR.

Seems impressive to know there's a cable issue when the signals are the same.

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

On Sep 9, 2015 11:55 AM, "SmarterBroadband" <li...@smarterbroadband.com> wrote:

Just a noise issue?  The manual says;

 

Signal Strength Ratio is an aid to debugging a link. If it has a large positive 
or negative value then investigate the following potential problems:

• An antenna coaxial lead may be disconnected. 

• When spatial diversity is employed, the antenna with the lower value may be 
pointing in the wrong direction. 

• When a dual polar antenna is deployed, the antenna may be directed using a 
side lobe rather than the main lobe.

 

I was thinking bad cable?  Maybe antenna or radio.

 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 8:40 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 Issue

 

Noise at the one end.  The other has 20 with the same signal.

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

On Sep 9, 2015 11:36 AM, "SmarterBroadband" <li...@smarterbroadband.com> wrote:

We have an issue with one of our PTP650 links.  Bad Signal Strength Ratio.

One end is 6.4 the other 19.5

Issue is probably at one end.

Question is which end to check first.

I have attached the System Stats of each end.

Anyone able to see which end may have the problem from these?

Thanks

Adam

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 Issue

2015-09-09 Thread SmarterBroadband 
Ah, but the power levels on the status and statistics page show combined.  
Therefore the SSR could be showing one channel way off.

 

Is there anywhere in a PTP650 to see V and H power levels separate?

 

Adam

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 11:56 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 Issue

 

That's very confusing. If all of the power levels are nearly the same, how can 
the ratio be that far off? That makes no sense. Unless it doesn't mean the same 
thing as with SSR on the PMP450 (V-H or B-A Rx power ratio).

On 9/9/2015 11:01 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:

I was thinking signal vs noise.  Like SNR.

Seems impressive to know there's a cable issue when the signals are the same.

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

On Sep 9, 2015 11:55 AM, "SmarterBroadband" <li...@smarterbroadband.com> wrote:

Just a noise issue?  The manual says;

 

Signal Strength Ratio is an aid to debugging a link. If it has a large positive 
or negative value then investigate the following potential problems:

• An antenna coaxial lead may be disconnected. 

• When spatial diversity is employed, the antenna with the lower value may be 
pointing in the wrong direction. 

• When a dual polar antenna is deployed, the antenna may be directed using a 
side lobe rather than the main lobe.

 

I was thinking bad cable?  Maybe antenna or radio.

 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 8:40 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 Issue

 

Noise at the one end.  The other has 20 with the same signal.

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

On Sep 9, 2015 11:36 AM, "SmarterBroadband" <li...@smarterbroadband.com> wrote:

We have an issue with one of our PTP650 links.  Bad Signal Strength Ratio.

One end is 6.4 the other 19.5

Issue is probably at one end.

Question is which end to check first.

I have attached the System Stats of each end.

Anyone able to see which end may have the problem from these?

Thanks

Adam

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 and the 5.1 band

2015-05-07 Thread David Milholen 

Yes,
 There is more power with connectorized on 5.1 for PTP OOB restrictions.



On 5/6/2015 9:58 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
iirc new firmware is 2 on 5.1 and 5.4 and 7 on 5.2 BUT this is the 
integrated firmware with 40 selected, not the connectorized firmware, 
connectorized may be less restrictive


On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com 
mailto:part15...@gmail.com wrote:


We have a PTP650 operating in 5.1 GHz and it's on FW 01-21. It
appears to be capping itself at 30 dBm EIRP.

bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com

On 5/6/2015 3:34 PM, SmarterBroadband wrote:


If I install 01-40 firmware can I select and use the 5.1 band in
a PTP650?

�

If yes, what is the max radio power approved for the PTP650 in 5.1?

�

thanks






--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your 
team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.


--

[AFMUG] PTP650 and the 5.1 band

2015-05-06 Thread SmarterBroadband 
If I install 01-40 firmware can I select and use the 5.1 band in a PTP650?

 

If yes, what is the max radio power approved for the PTP650 in 5.1?

 

thanks

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 and the 5.1 band

2015-05-06 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm 
iirc new firmware is 2 on 5.1 and 5.4 and 7 on 5.2 BUT this is the
integrated firmware with 40 selected, not the connectorized firmware,
connectorized may be less restrictive

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:

  We have a PTP650 operating in 5.1 GHz and it's on FW 01-21. It appears to
 be capping itself at 30 dBm EIRP.

 bp
 part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com


 On 5/6/2015 3:34 PM, SmarterBroadband wrote:

  If I install 01-40 firmware can I select and use the 5.1 band in a
 PTP650?

 �

 If yes, what is the max radio power approved for the PTP650 in 5.1?

 �

 thanks





-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 and the 5.1 band

2015-05-06 Thread Bill Prince 
We have a PTP650 operating in 5.1 GHz and it's on FW 01-21. It appears 
to be capping itself at 30 dBm EIRP.


bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com

On 5/6/2015 3:34 PM, SmarterBroadband wrote:


If I install 01-40 firmware can I select and use the 5.1 band in a PTP650?

If yes, what is the max radio power approved for the PTP650 in 5.1?

thanks

[AFMUG] ptp650 parabolic only licenses

2015-04-16 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm 
what is this, when we did our last key generation i dont recall this being
one of the selections

-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 parabolic only licenses

2015-04-16 Thread Josh Luthman 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jjiWS__Mp0 ?


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

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:01 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com wrote:

 hahaha, when you have installation tones turned on, these play that hello
 mutha helo fatha greetings from camp song... brilliant

 On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:42 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 thatoneguyst...@gmail.com wrote:

 what is this, when we did our last key generation i dont recall this
 being one of the selections

 --
 If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
 as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.




 --
 If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
 as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 parabolic only licenses

2015-04-16 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm 
hahaha, when you have installation tones turned on, these play that hello
mutha helo fatha greetings from camp song... brilliant

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:42 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com wrote:

 what is this, when we did our last key generation i dont recall this being
 one of the selections

 --
 If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
 as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.




-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 parabolic only licenses

2015-04-16 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm 
That cracks me up, I guess there is at least one engineer at cambium who is
not a total douchebag

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
wrote:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jjiWS__Mp0 ?


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

 On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:01 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 thatoneguyst...@gmail.com wrote:

 hahaha, when you have installation tones turned on, these play that hello
 mutha helo fatha greetings from camp song... brilliant

 On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:42 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 thatoneguyst...@gmail.com wrote:

 what is this, when we did our last key generation i dont recall this
 being one of the selections

 --
 If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
 as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.




 --
 If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
 as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.





-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 AES Key serial numbers?

2015-04-07 Thread David Milholen 

I have done this already.
 The 5Ghz key will not disturb current settings nor will it affect the 
AES already installed.
Just take your entitlement to the site and enter and paste and copy the 
generated key into the window on the 650 gui and

install the key.
 A reboot is required

dont need serials just Mac to get entitlement



On 4/6/2015 9:41 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:

Yes entitlements are not tied to specific hardware

I can't answer the part about adding multiple keys.  I imagine they 
must have thought of that though.



We were contracted to do some radio upgrades
They wanted the radio serial numbers/mac addresses for some AES keys 
for ptp650
The entitlement certificate fromt he vendors dont have matching 
serial numbers to the radios. Im suspecting the serial numbers on the 
certs are the certificate serial and not the radio serial number.


Itf I recall we take the access key to the support site and put in 
the key and the mac and it generates the actual license key. Up until 
that point the entitlement is tied to any piece of hardware. Is this 
correct, or do I need to go climb and look at stickers for serial 
numbers?


On that same note, the free key to open all of 5ghz up, do I need to 
apply that before the AES key and the throughput upgrade keys? what 
happens if I put in the AES and throughput keys, then generate a full 
5ghz key, will it reset the radios?


--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your 
team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.




--

[AFMUG] PTP650 AES Key serial numbers?

2015-04-06 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm 
We were contracted to do some radio upgrades
They wanted the radio serial numbers/mac addresses for some AES keys for
ptp650
The entitlement certificate fromt he vendors dont have matching serial
numbers to the radios. Im suspecting the serial numbers on the certs are
the certificate serial and not the radio serial number.

Itf I recall we take the access key to the support site and put in the key
and the mac and it generates the actual license key. Up until that point
the entitlement is tied to any piece of hardware. Is this correct, or do I
need to go climb and look at stickers for serial numbers?

On that same note, the free key to open all of 5ghz up, do I need to apply
that before the AES key and the throughput upgrade keys? what happens if I
put in the AES and throughput keys, then generate a full 5ghz key, will it
reset the radios?

-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 AES Key serial numbers?

2015-04-06 Thread Adam Moffett 

Yes entitlements are not tied to specific hardware

I can't answer the part about adding multiple keys.  I imagine they must 
have thought of that though.



We were contracted to do some radio upgrades
They wanted the radio serial numbers/mac addresses for some AES keys 
for ptp650
The entitlement certificate fromt he vendors dont have matching serial 
numbers to the radios. Im suspecting the serial numbers on the certs 
are the certificate serial and not the radio serial number.


Itf I recall we take the access key to the support site and put in the 
key and the mac and it generates the actual license key. Up until that 
point the entitlement is tied to any piece of hardware. Is this 
correct, or do I need to go climb and look at stickers for serial numbers?


On that same note, the free key to open all of 5ghz up, do I need to 
apply that before the AES key and the throughput upgrade keys? what 
happens if I put in the AES and throughput keys, then generate a full 
5ghz key, will it reset the radios?


--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your 
team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 CCQ?

2015-02-18 Thread Roland Houin 



I don't see packets dropping unless you reach the capacity limit.
in noisy environments the capacity will fluctuate quickly..
that's why we monitor so we can tell when we reach the capacity.

roland

 How do you know if your dropping packets or is that part of the PTP650 magithat they just don't?Kurt FankhauserWavelinc CommunicationsP.O. Box 126Bucyrus, OH 44820http://www.wavelinc.comtel. 419-562-6405fax. 419-617-0110On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Roland Houin rho...@fourway.net wrote:my experience is that you get the throughput that is shown in link capacity..real/tcp/udp however you measure it..I monitor throughput up/down as well as rssi to determine link status.never had to look at the other statistics, except ethernet for crc errors..Roland Put up my first PTP650 link yesterday, what should I be looking for in thestatistics under the wireless port counter to determine if I am having problems
with this link? I'm used to the Atheros radios and CCQ value but this is awhole different breed here.I attached a couple screenshots. Link capacity is listed as 417mbps. Does thatnumber mean I will actually see 417mbps of aggregate traffic on this link? Idid some testing last night and actually seen 325mbps TCP throughput in thedownlink direction.Kurt FankhauserWavelinc CommunicationsP.O. Box 126Bucyrus, OH 44820http://www.wavelinc.comtel. 419-562-6405fax. 419-617-0110

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 CCQ?

2015-02-18 Thread Roland Houin 
my experience is that you get the throughput that is shown in link capacity..
real/tcp/udp however you measure it..
I monitor throughput up/down as well as rssi to determine link status.
never had to look at the other statistics, except ethernet for crc errors..

Roland

 Put up my first PTP650 link yesterday, what should I be looking for in the
statistics under the wireless port counter to determine if I am having problems
with this link? I'm used to the Atheros radios and CCQ value but this is a
whole different breed here.

I attached a couple screenshots. Link capacity is listed as 417mbps. Does that
number mean I will actually see 417mbps of aggregate traffic on this link? I
did some testing last night and actually seen 325mbps TCP throughput in the
downlink direction.

Kurt Fankhauser
Wavelinc Communications
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
http://www.wavelinc.com
tel. 419-562-6405
fax. 419-617-0110

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 CCQ?

2015-02-18 Thread Kurt Fankhauser 
How do you know if your dropping packets or is that part of the PTP650 magi
that they just don't?


Kurt Fankhauser

Wavelinc Communications

P.O. Box 126

Bucyrus, OH 44820

http://www.wavelinc.com

tel. 419-562-6405

fax. 419-617-0110

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Roland Houin rho...@fourway.net wrote:

 my experience is that you get the throughput that is shown in link
 capacity..
 real/tcp/udp however you measure it..
 I monitor throughput up/down as well as rssi to determine link status.
 never had to look at the other statistics, except ethernet for crc errors..

 Roland

  Put up my first PTP650 link yesterday, what should I be looking for in
 the
 statistics under the wireless port counter to determine if I am having
 problems
 with this link? I'm used to the Atheros radios and CCQ value but this is a
 whole different breed here.

 I attached a couple screenshots. Link capacity is listed as 417mbps. Does
 that
 number mean I will actually see 417mbps of aggregate traffic on this link?
 I
 did some testing last night and actually seen 325mbps TCP throughput in the
 downlink direction.

 Kurt Fankhauser
 Wavelinc Communications
 P.O. Box 126
 Bucyrus, OH 44820
 http://www.wavelinc.com
 tel. 419-562-6405
 fax. 419-617-0110

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 CCQ?

2015-02-18 Thread Ken Hohhof 

Signal, Vector Error (SNR), Modulation Level, V/H Ratio, Throughput.

Why would you ever want to go back to CCQ, once you have access to real 
numbers that mean something?



-Original Message- 
From: Roland Houin

Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:35 AM
To: John Seaman
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 CCQ?

my experience is that you get the throughput that is shown in link 
capacity..

real/tcp/udp however you measure it..
I monitor throughput up/down as well as rssi to determine link status.
never had to look at the other statistics, except ethernet for crc errors..

Roland


Put up my first PTP650 link yesterday, what should I be looking for in the
statistics under the wireless port counter to determine if I am having 
problems

with this link? I'm used to the Atheros radios and CCQ value but this is a
whole different breed here.

I attached a couple screenshots. Link capacity is listed as 417mbps. Does 
that

number mean I will actually see 417mbps of aggregate traffic on this link? I
did some testing last night and actually seen 325mbps TCP throughput in the
downlink direction.

Kurt Fankhauser
Wavelinc Communications
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
http://www.wavelinc.com
tel. 419-562-6405
fax. 419-617-0110

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 CCQ?

2015-02-18 Thread Adam Moffett 

+1 CCQ is a bullshit number

Signal, Vector Error (SNR), Modulation Level, V/H Ratio, Throughput.

Why would you ever want to go back to CCQ, once you have access to 
real numbers that mean something?



-Original Message- From: Roland Houin
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:35 AM
To: John Seaman
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 CCQ?

my experience is that you get the throughput that is shown in link 
capacity..

real/tcp/udp however you measure it..
I monitor throughput up/down as well as rssi to determine link status.
never had to look at the other statistics, except ethernet for crc 
errors..


Roland

Put up my first PTP650 link yesterday, what should I be looking for 
in the
statistics under the wireless port counter to determine if I am having 
problems
with this link? I'm used to the Atheros radios and CCQ value but this 
is a

whole different breed here.

I attached a couple screenshots. Link capacity is listed as 417mbps. 
Does that
number mean I will actually see 417mbps of aggregate traffic on this 
link? I
did some testing last night and actually seen 325mbps TCP throughput 
in the

downlink direction.

Kurt Fankhauser
Wavelinc Communications
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
http://www.wavelinc.com
tel. 419-562-6405
fax. 419-617-0110

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

2014-11-04 Thread Mike Hammett via Af 
Might want to look into allowing different size channels. As I mentioned, the 
AF5 does it. 




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

- Original Message -

From: Bruce Collins via Af af@afmug.com 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2014 10:04:34 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 



Hi Mike, 

You are correct. The PTP 650 supports what we call ‘split frequency operation’ 
which assigns a Tx frequency separate from the Rx frequency. Both Tx and Rx 
frequencies must be the same channel bandwidth. 

This is useful in cases where there is localized noise at one end of a link OR 
in cases where FDD spectrum is allocated and the goal is to mimic FDD support 
(clearly not a N. America requirement). 

Regards, 

Bruce 


Bruce Collins 
Product Manager 
Cambium Networks 





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett via Af 
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 5:34 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 


The AF5 supports different Tx and Rx, so it can be done. 

Didn't see any acknowledgment from Cambium on this one. 



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

- Original Message -


From: Matt Jenkins via Af  af@afmug.com  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:00:02 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 

I know its probably not feasible, but I would really like them to 
support 45mhz Tx and 10mhz Rx channel sizes as well. 

Matthew Jenkins 
SmarterBroadband 
m...@sbbinc.net 
530.272.4000 

On 09/18/2014 02:43 PM, Roland Houin via Af wrote: 
 yes. 
 
 roland 
 
 
 Can the PTP650 do split TX and RX freqs? (example:Tx on 5740, RX on 5800)

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

2014-11-04 Thread That One Guy via Af 
I was told it only works in the full license on the 650 though unlike the
3/500

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

   Be nice if it could be configured so both ends would be high tx and low
 rx or vice versa.

 I have wanted to build a linear amp repeater for years for one of these
 radios, but it requires that the radios both transmit on the same end of
 the band.  The repeater frogs the frequencies.  The repeater could then be
 low(er) cost and most importantly  very low power consumption.  Perfect for
 solar sites.

  *From:* Mike Hammett via Af af@afmug.com
 *Sent:* Tuesday, November 04, 2014 2:14 AM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

  Might want to look into allowing different size channels. As I
 mentioned, the AF5 does it.



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

 --
 *From: *Bruce Collins via Af af@afmug.com
 *To: *af@afmug.com
 *Sent: *Monday, November 3, 2014 10:04:34 PM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

  Hi Mike,



 You are correct.  The PTP 650 supports what we call ‘split frequency
 operation’ which assigns a Tx frequency separate from the Rx frequency.
 Both Tx and Rx frequencies must be the same channel bandwidth.



 This is useful in cases where there is localized noise at one end of a
 link OR in cases where FDD spectrum is allocated and the goal is to mimic
 FDD support (clearly not a N. America requirement).



 Regards,



 Bruce





 Bruce Collins

 Product Manager

 Cambium Networks







 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett via
 Af
 *Sent:* Monday, November 03, 2014 5:34 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PTP650



 The AF5 supports different Tx and Rx, so it can be done.

 Didn't see any acknowledgment from Cambium on this one.



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


  --

 *From: *Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com
 *To: *af@afmug.com
 *Sent: *Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:00:02 PM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

 I know its probably not feasible, but I would really like them to
 support 45mhz Tx and 10mhz Rx channel sizes as well.

 Matthew Jenkins
 SmarterBroadband
 m...@sbbinc.net
 530.272.4000

 On 09/18/2014 02:43 PM, Roland Houin via Af wrote:
  yes.
 
  roland
 
 
  Can the PTP650 do split TX and RX freqs? (example:Tx on 5740, RX on
 5800) 
 
 







-- 
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] PTP650

2014-11-04 Thread Jaime Solorza via Af 
Frogs the frequencies?  No entiendo ...

Jaime Solorza
On Nov 4, 2014 7:33 AM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

   Be nice if it could be configured so both ends would be high tx and low
 rx or vice versa.

 I have wanted to build a linear amp repeater for years for one of these
 radios, but it requires that the radios both transmit on the same end of
 the band.  The repeater frogs the frequencies.  The repeater could then be
 low(er) cost and most importantly  very low power consumption.  Perfect for
 solar sites.

  *From:* Mike Hammett via Af af@afmug.com
 *Sent:* Tuesday, November 04, 2014 2:14 AM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

  Might want to look into allowing different size channels. As I
 mentioned, the AF5 does it.



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

 --
 *From: *Bruce Collins via Af af@afmug.com
 *To: *af@afmug.com
 *Sent: *Monday, November 3, 2014 10:04:34 PM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

  Hi Mike,



 You are correct.  The PTP 650 supports what we call ‘split frequency
 operation’ which assigns a Tx frequency separate from the Rx frequency.
 Both Tx and Rx frequencies must be the same channel bandwidth.



 This is useful in cases where there is localized noise at one end of a
 link OR in cases where FDD spectrum is allocated and the goal is to mimic
 FDD support (clearly not a N. America requirement).



 Regards,



 Bruce





 Bruce Collins

 Product Manager

 Cambium Networks







 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett via
 Af
 *Sent:* Monday, November 03, 2014 5:34 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PTP650



 The AF5 supports different Tx and Rx, so it can be done.

 Didn't see any acknowledgment from Cambium on this one.



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


  --

 *From: *Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com
 *To: *af@afmug.com
 *Sent: *Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:00:02 PM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

 I know its probably not feasible, but I would really like them to
 support 45mhz Tx and 10mhz Rx channel sizes as well.

 Matthew Jenkins
 SmarterBroadband
 m...@sbbinc.net
 530.272.4000

 On 09/18/2014 02:43 PM, Roland Houin via Af wrote:
  yes.
 
  roland
 
 
  Can the PTP650 do split TX and RX freqs? (example:Tx on 5740, RX on
 5800)

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

2014-11-04 Thread Chuck McCown via Af 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_frogging

From: Jaime Solorza via Af 
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 8:27 AM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

Frogs the frequencies?  No entiendo ...

Jaime Solorza

On Nov 4, 2014 7:33 AM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

  Be nice if it could be configured so both ends would be high tx and low rx or 
vice versa.  

  I have wanted to build a linear amp repeater for years for one of these 
radios, but it requires that the radios both transmit on the same end of the 
band.  The repeater frogs the frequencies.  The repeater could then be low(er) 
cost and most importantly  very low power consumption.  Perfect for solar 
sites.  

  From: Mike Hammett via Af 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 2:14 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

  Might want to look into allowing different size channels. As I mentioned, the 
AF5 does it.




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



--

  From: Bruce Collins via Af af@afmug.com
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Monday, November 3, 2014 10:04:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650


  Hi Mike,



  You are correct.  The PTP 650 supports what we call ‘split frequency 
operation’ which assigns a Tx frequency separate from the Rx frequency.  Both 
Tx and Rx frequencies must be the same channel bandwidth.



  This is useful in cases where there is localized noise at one end of a link 
OR in cases where FDD spectrum is allocated and the goal is to mimic FDD 
support (clearly not a N. America requirement).



  Regards,



  Bruce





  Bruce Collins

  Product Manager

  Cambium Networks







  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett via Af
  Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 5:34 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650



  The AF5 supports different Tx and Rx, so it can be done.

  Didn't see any acknowledgment from Cambium on this one.



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




--

  From: Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:00:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

  I know its probably not feasible, but I would really like them to 
  support 45mhz Tx and 10mhz Rx channel sizes as well.

  Matthew Jenkins
  SmarterBroadband
  m...@sbbinc.net
  530.272.4000

  On 09/18/2014 02:43 PM, Roland Houin via Af wrote:
   yes.
  
   roland
  
  
   Can the PTP650 do split TX and RX freqs? (example:Tx on 5740, RX on 5800)

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

2014-11-04 Thread Mathew Howard via Af 
But AF5 is full duplex, so perhaps it's not feasible.


From: Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Mike Hammett via Af [af@afmug.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 3:14 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

Might want to look into allowing different size channels. As I mentioned, the 
AF5 does it.



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


From: Bruce Collins via Af af@afmug.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2014 10:04:34 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

Hi Mike,

You are correct.  The PTP 650 supports what we call ‘split frequency operation’ 
which assigns a Tx frequency separate from the Rx frequency.  Both Tx and Rx 
frequencies must be the same channel bandwidth.

This is useful in cases where there is localized noise at one end of a link OR 
in cases where FDD spectrum is allocated and the goal is to mimic FDD support 
(clearly not a N. America requirement).

Regards,

Bruce


Bruce Collins
Product Manager
Cambium Networks



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett via Af
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 5:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

The AF5 supports different Tx and Rx, so it can be done.

Didn't see any acknowledgment from Cambium on this one.


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


From: Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:00:02 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

I know its probably not feasible, but I would really like them to
support 45mhz Tx and 10mhz Rx channel sizes as well.

Matthew Jenkins
SmarterBroadband
m...@sbbinc.netmailto:m...@sbbinc.net
530.272.4000

On 09/18/2014 02:43 PM, Roland Houin via Af wrote:
 yes.

 roland


 Can the PTP650 do split TX and RX freqs? (example:Tx on 5740, RX on 5800)

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

2014-11-03 Thread Mike Hammett via Af 
The AF5 supports different Tx and Rx, so it can be done. 

Didn't see any acknowledgment from Cambium on this one. 




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

- Original Message -

From: Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:00:02 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650 

I know its probably not feasible, but I would really like them to 
support 45mhz Tx and 10mhz Rx channel sizes as well. 

Matthew Jenkins 
SmarterBroadband 
m...@sbbinc.net 
530.272.4000 

On 09/18/2014 02:43 PM, Roland Houin via Af wrote: 
 yes. 
 
 roland 
 
 
 Can the PTP650 do split TX and RX freqs? (example:Tx on 5740, RX on 5800)

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

2014-11-03 Thread Bruce Collins via Af 
Hi Mike,

You are correct.  The PTP 650 supports what we call ‘split frequency operation’ 
which assigns a Tx frequency separate from the Rx frequency.  Both Tx and Rx 
frequencies must be the same channel bandwidth.

This is useful in cases where there is localized noise at one end of a link OR 
in cases where FDD spectrum is allocated and the goal is to mimic FDD support 
(clearly not a N. America requirement).

Regards,

Bruce


Bruce Collins
Product Manager
Cambium Networks



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett via Af
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 5:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

The AF5 supports different Tx and Rx, so it can be done.

Didn't see any acknowledgment from Cambium on this one.


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


From: Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:00:02 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

I know its probably not feasible, but I would really like them to
support 45mhz Tx and 10mhz Rx channel sizes as well.

Matthew Jenkins
SmarterBroadband
m...@sbbinc.netmailto:m...@sbbinc.net
530.272.4000

On 09/18/2014 02:43 PM, Roland Houin via Af wrote:
 yes.

 roland


 Can the PTP650 do split TX and RX freqs? (example:Tx on 5740, RX on 5800)

[AFMUG] ptp650 antenna leads

2014-10-09 Thread That One Guy via Af 
I hate lmr400 which is what we have always used.
Is N-N LMR 195 lead sufficient, or what flexible leads are folks using for
antenna connections

-- 
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] ptp650 antenna leads

2014-10-09 Thread Matt Jenkins via Af 
I have lots of PTP600 and PTP650 links up. I always use LMR400 or for 
long leads LMR600


Matthew Jenkins
SmarterBroadband
m...@sbbinc.net
530.272.4000

On 10/09/2014 11:55 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

I hate lmr400 which is what we have always used.
Is N-N LMR 195 lead sufficient, or what flexible leads are folks using 
for antenna connections


--
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] ptp650 antenna leads

2014-10-09 Thread Chuck McCown via Af 
Totally depends on the frequency and length of run.  


From: That One Guy via Af 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 12:55 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] ptp650 antenna leads

I hate lmr400 which is what we have always used. 
Is N-N LMR 195 lead sufficient, or what flexible leads are folks using for 
antenna connections


-- 

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] ptp650 antenna leads

2014-10-09 Thread That One Guy via Af 
short runs with the radio on the same pipe as the antenna less than 36 in
5ghz

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

   Totally depends on the frequency and length of run.


  *From:* That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com
 *Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2014 12:55 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* [AFMUG] ptp650 antenna leads

  I hate lmr400 which is what we have always used.
 Is N-N LMR 195 lead sufficient, or what flexible leads are folks using for
 antenna connections

 --
 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] ptp650 antenna leads

2014-10-09 Thread Chuck McCown via Af 
That is plenty long for 5 GHz.  
It will work but you will have a loss of .29 dB per foot.  

From: That One Guy via Af 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 1:09 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 antenna leads

short runs with the radio on the same pipe as the antenna less than 36 in 5ghz

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

  Totally depends on the frequency and length of run.  


  From: That One Guy via Af 
  Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 12:55 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: [AFMUG] ptp650 antenna leads

  I hate lmr400 which is what we have always used. 
  Is N-N LMR 195 lead sufficient, or what flexible leads are folks using for 
antenna connections


  -- 

  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] ptp650 antenna leads

2014-10-09 Thread That One Guy via Af 
is ultraflex actually pretty flexible?
We used to make our own ends, but theyre solder type ends they had us
crimping on, and on top of it you can trust a tech knucklehead to secure
the lead without cranking on it.
i just want lowish loss leads with factory ends that are flexible enough to
offset the nimrod factor

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

   That is plenty long for 5 GHz.
 It will work but you will have a loss of .29 dB per foot.

  *From:* That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com
 *Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2014 1:09 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 antenna leads

  short runs with the radio on the same pipe as the antenna less than 36
 in 5ghz

 On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

   Totally depends on the frequency and length of run.


  *From:* That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com
 *Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2014 12:55 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* [AFMUG] ptp650 antenna leads

  I hate lmr400 which is what we have always used.
 Is N-N LMR 195 lead sufficient, or what flexible leads are folks using
 for antenna connections

 --
 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




-- 
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] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-25 Thread That One Guy via Af 
big shocker, with our radios off, not a single bit of change
hes recommending bigger antennas or a licensed link (better to make money
than go fix a poor installation, right?)

I did find out something cool I wish I had known yesterday, APC smart UPS
with a management card has a sleep feature you can set a time in tenths of
an hour to put the output power to sleep. I could have just shut the radios
off remotely for 15 minutes while running the spectrum on their radio.

Im still pissed for getting thrown under the bus. And I know every time the
landlord has a wireless issue theyre now going to immediately be on the
phone with us thinking we are interfering with them, hell probably even if
they go with a licensed link.


On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:36 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af
af@afmug.com wrote:

  So what happened?

 On 9/24/2014 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

 nope, just swapped radios, the leads are handmade crimp on N connectors
 that are like 4-5 years old, the lightning welded our switch to out battery
 backup.

  I dont have a problem with ten minute shutdown, but it will end up being
 an hour or more. I have 477 to do tomorrow so it will be the boss going.
 I told him to take the power supply completely out of the box so the guy
 doesnt claim the power supply capacitors must still have power going to the
 radio
 I also told him to not let the guy powercycle the 650 unless our radio is
 powered on because it will probably come back up and perform, so if our
 radio is powered down, of course its our radio causing the problems


  The whole point of this thread was to say the interface on the 650 is
 really cool and to find out about ATPC on the 650, but when i got the email
 telling me it was relayed to the landlord that its a combination of our
 radio and local interference I got really pissed.

  Going out on a limb and saying maybe there is not directly a physical
 issue looking at the fluctuations on both sides output power (-15 to 21)
 and receive power (-47 to -78) with an ATPC threshold set to -35 (is this
 the default value?) The numbers make sense, output power is ranging 36db
 and receive powers are ranging 31db. EXCEPT that when i was on them the
 remote transmit was 21 and the local rx was -78, its not correlated to the
 range of numbers.

  so our radio was on 5755 i think at the time before i moved it, 10mhz.
 so for the sake of argument their 650 was also sitting on 5755 for whatever
 reason, and we will say it was recieving at the linkplanner target of -61
 and had a -35 threshold on ATPC, if my ubnt had some sort of massive fart
 and hit the 650 antenna with more energy than -35, could the 650 assume
 that additional energy is coming from the remote and and issue an ATPC
 power down? would that account for all the tx power and rx power
 fluctuations? What I dont understand is since the peak rx was -47, why
 would the tx have even dropped if atpc was functioning especially don as
 low as a negative 15

  Are there any bugs with ATPC with the 650? I dont recall there being any
 real configurable atpc parameter in the 3/500 series.

 On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:

  I'm not talking about your issue, per say. Just commenting on the
 receiver front-end overload on rockets (and other UBNT AirMax radios).
 I'm sure this probably happens on MikroTik radios too. EPMP? Don't have
 any to test.

 Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
 SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com
  On 09/23/2014 09:52 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

 Im pretty sure there is no atheros chipset in a ptp650 to have this issue
 happen and since the rocket is a backhaul, if it were deaf im pretty sure
 it would be hard to manage, and the fsk customers beyond it would be
 calling in with concerns about the lack of internet.

  I highly doubt that a brand new 650 would go deaf the minute it is
 powered on, and had it gone deaf the minute it was powered on, I doubt the
 spectrum would show well defined hills and valleys so clearly you can tell
 the channel size of the interfering systems, it would more likely either be
 fairly flatline or constantly in flux

 On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:

  This is exactly what I am talking about.

 Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
 SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com
  On 09/23/2014 09:31 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af
 wrote:

 Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a receiver front-end
 overload. This happens far too often on Rocket radios. Isn't the 650 a
 whole-band radio, like 4.9-5.9? I hope it would have some spectacular
 filtering for the fify brazillion $ they want for it.

 I would shut your stuff down for 10 minutes and see what happens.

  On 9/24/2014 12:00 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

 INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!!

 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:

  Just wait until you have

Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-25 Thread Rory McCann via Af 
Bill them for the trip. It wasn't your problem or your fault and your 
time isn't free.


Rory McCann
MKAP Technology Solutions
Web: www.mkap.net

On 9/25/2014 1:47 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

big shocker, with our radios off, not a single bit of change
hes recommending bigger antennas or a licensed link (better to make 
money than go fix a poor installation, right?)


I did find out something cool I wish I had known yesterday, APC smart 
UPS with a management card has a sleep feature you can set a time in 
tenths of an hour to put the output power to sleep. I could have just 
shut the radios off remotely for 15 minutes while running the spectrum 
on their radio.


Im still pissed for getting thrown under the bus. And I know every 
time the landlord has a wireless issue theyre now going to immediately 
be on the phone with us thinking we are interfering with them, hell 
probably even if they go with a licensed link.



On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:36 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) 
via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:


So what happened?

On 9/24/2014 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

nope, just swapped radios, the leads are handmade crimp on N
connectors that are like 4-5 years old, the lightning welded our
switch to out battery backup.

I dont have a problem with ten minute shutdown, but it will end
up being an hour or more. I have 477 to do tomorrow so it will be
the boss going.
I told him to take the power supply completely out of the box so
the guy doesnt claim the power supply capacitors must still have
power going to the radio
I also told him to not let the guy powercycle the 650 unless our
radio is powered on because it will probably come back up and
perform, so if our radio is powered down, of course its our radio
causing the problems


The whole point of this thread was to say the interface on the
650 is really cool and to find out about ATPC on the 650, but
when i got the email telling me it was relayed to the landlord
that its a combination of our radio and local interference I got
really pissed.

Going out on a limb and saying maybe there is not directly a
physical issue looking at the fluctuations on both sides output
power (-15 to 21) and receive power (-47 to -78) with an ATPC
threshold set to -35 (is this the default value?) The numbers
make sense, output power is ranging 36db and receive powers are
ranging 31db. EXCEPT that when i was on them the remote transmit
was 21 and the local rx was -78, its not correlated to the range
of numbers.

so our radio was on 5755 i think at the time before i moved it,
10mhz. so for the sake of argument their 650 was also sitting on
5755 for whatever reason, and we will say it was recieving at the
linkplanner target of -61 and had a -35 threshold on ATPC, if my
ubnt had some sort of massive fart and hit the 650 antenna with
more energy than -35, could the 650 assume that additional energy
is coming from the remote and and issue an ATPC power down? would
that account for all the tx power and rx power fluctuations? What
I dont understand is since the peak rx was -47, why would the tx
have even dropped if atpc was functioning especially don as low
as a negative 15

Are there any bugs with ATPC with the 650? I dont recall there
being any real configurable atpc parameter in the 3/500 series.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af
af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:

I'm not talking about your issue, per say. Just commenting on
the receiver front-end overload on rockets (and other UBNT
AirMax radios). I'm sure this probably happens on MikroTik
radios too. EPMP? Don't have any to test.

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com

On 09/23/2014 09:52 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

Im pretty sure there is no atheros chipset in a ptp650 to
have this issue happen and since the rocket is a backhaul,
if it were deaf im pretty sure it would be hard to manage,
and the fsk customers beyond it would be calling in with
concerns about the lack of internet.

I highly doubt that a brand new 650 would go deaf the minute
it is powered on, and had it gone deaf the minute it was
powered on, I doubt the spectrum would show well defined
hills and valleys so clearly you can tell the channel size
of the interfering systems, it would more likely either be
fairly flatline or constantly in flux

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af
af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:

This is exactly what I am talking about.

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com

Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-25 Thread That One Guy via Af 
I would bill the shit out of everybody, but I dont get to make those
decisions, Im just a peon in the turd factory

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Rory McCann via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

  Bill them for the trip. It wasn't your problem or your fault and your
 time isn't free.

 Rory McCann
 MKAP Technology Solutions
 Web: www.mkap.net

 On 9/25/2014 1:47 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

 big shocker, with our radios off, not a single bit of change
 hes recommending bigger antennas or a licensed link (better to make money
 than go fix a poor installation, right?)

  I did find out something cool I wish I had known yesterday, APC smart
 UPS with a management card has a sleep feature you can set a time in tenths
 of an hour to put the output power to sleep. I could have just shut the
 radios off remotely for 15 minutes while running the spectrum on their
 radio.

  Im still pissed for getting thrown under the bus. And I know every time
 the landlord has a wireless issue theyre now going to immediately be on the
 phone with us thinking we are interfering with them, hell probably even if
 they go with a licensed link.


 On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:36 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via
 Af af@afmug.com wrote:

  So what happened?

 On 9/24/2014 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

 nope, just swapped radios, the leads are handmade crimp on N connectors
 that are like 4-5 years old, the lightning welded our switch to out battery
 backup.

  I dont have a problem with ten minute shutdown, but it will end up
 being an hour or more. I have 477 to do tomorrow so it will be the boss
 going.
 I told him to take the power supply completely out of the box so the guy
 doesnt claim the power supply capacitors must still have power going to the
 radio
 I also told him to not let the guy powercycle the 650 unless our radio is
 powered on because it will probably come back up and perform, so if our
 radio is powered down, of course its our radio causing the problems


  The whole point of this thread was to say the interface on the 650 is
 really cool and to find out about ATPC on the 650, but when i got the email
 telling me it was relayed to the landlord that its a combination of our
 radio and local interference I got really pissed.

  Going out on a limb and saying maybe there is not directly a physical
 issue looking at the fluctuations on both sides output power (-15 to 21)
 and receive power (-47 to -78) with an ATPC threshold set to -35 (is this
 the default value?) The numbers make sense, output power is ranging 36db
 and receive powers are ranging 31db. EXCEPT that when i was on them the
 remote transmit was 21 and the local rx was -78, its not correlated to the
 range of numbers.

  so our radio was on 5755 i think at the time before i moved it, 10mhz.
 so for the sake of argument their 650 was also sitting on 5755 for whatever
 reason, and we will say it was recieving at the linkplanner target of -61
 and had a -35 threshold on ATPC, if my ubnt had some sort of massive fart
 and hit the 650 antenna with more energy than -35, could the 650 assume
 that additional energy is coming from the remote and and issue an ATPC
 power down? would that account for all the tx power and rx power
 fluctuations? What I dont understand is since the peak rx was -47, why
 would the tx have even dropped if atpc was functioning especially don as
 low as a negative 15

  Are there any bugs with ATPC with the 650? I dont recall there being
 any real configurable atpc parameter in the 3/500 series.

 On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:

  I'm not talking about your issue, per say. Just commenting on the
 receiver front-end overload on rockets (and other UBNT AirMax radios).
 I'm sure this probably happens on MikroTik radios too. EPMP? Don't have
 any to test.

 Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
 SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com
  On 09/23/2014 09:52 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

 Im pretty sure there is no atheros chipset in a ptp650 to have this
 issue happen and since the rocket is a backhaul, if it were deaf im pretty
 sure it would be hard to manage, and the fsk customers beyond it would be
 calling in with concerns about the lack of internet.

  I highly doubt that a brand new 650 would go deaf the minute it is
 powered on, and had it gone deaf the minute it was powered on, I doubt the
 spectrum would show well defined hills and valleys so clearly you can tell
 the channel size of the interfering systems, it would more likely either be
 fairly flatline or constantly in flux

 On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:

  This is exactly what I am talking about.

 Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
 SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com
  On 09/23/2014 09:31 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af
 wrote:

 Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a receiver front-end
 overload. This happens far too often on Rocket radios. Isn't the

Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-25 Thread James Howard via Af 
“this job stinks” can be his motto even if he likes what he’s doing.

From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+james=litewire@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino 
Villarini via Af
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 10:28 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

Funny that “peon” in spanish means farter! Lol!!



Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.comhttp://www.aeronetpr.com
@aeronetpr



From: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Reply-To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com 
af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Date: Thursday, September 25, 2014 at 10:56 AM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

I would bill the shit out of everybody, but I dont get to make those decisions, 
Im just a peon in the turd factory

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Rory McCann via Af 
af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote:
Bill them for the trip. It wasn't your problem or your fault and your time 
isn't free.


Rory McCann

MKAP Technology Solutions

Web: www.mkap.nethttp://www.mkap.net
On 9/25/2014 1:47 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:
big shocker, with our radios off, not a single bit of change
hes recommending bigger antennas or a licensed link (better to make money than 
go fix a poor installation, right?)

I did find out something cool I wish I had known yesterday, APC smart UPS with 
a management card has a sleep feature you can set a time in tenths of an hour 
to put the output power to sleep. I could have just shut the radios off 
remotely for 15 minutes while running the spectrum on their radio.

Im still pissed for getting thrown under the bus. And I know every time the 
landlord has a wireless issue theyre now going to immediately be on the phone 
with us thinking we are interfering with them, hell probably even if they go 
with a licensed link.


On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:36 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af 
af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote:
So what happened?

On 9/24/2014 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:
nope, just swapped radios, the leads are handmade crimp on N connectors that 
are like 4-5 years old, the lightning welded our switch to out battery backup.

I dont have a problem with ten minute shutdown, but it will end up being an 
hour or more. I have 477 to do tomorrow so it will be the boss going.
I told him to take the power supply completely out of the box so the guy doesnt 
claim the power supply capacitors must still have power going to the radio
I also told him to not let the guy powercycle the 650 unless our radio is 
powered on because it will probably come back up and perform, so if our radio 
is powered down, of course its our radio causing the problems


The whole point of this thread was to say the interface on the 650 is really 
cool and to find out about ATPC on the 650, but when i got the email telling me 
it was relayed to the landlord that its a combination of our radio and local 
interference I got really pissed.

Going out on a limb and saying maybe there is not directly a physical issue 
looking at the fluctuations on both sides output power (-15 to 21) and receive 
power (-47 to -78) with an ATPC threshold set to -35 (is this the default 
value?) The numbers make sense, output power is ranging 36db and receive powers 
are ranging 31db. EXCEPT that when i was on them the remote transmit was 21 and 
the local rx was -78, its not correlated to the range of numbers.

so our radio was on 5755 i think at the time before i moved it, 10mhz. so for 
the sake of argument their 650 was also sitting on 5755 for whatever reason, 
and we will say it was recieving at the linkplanner target of -61 and had a -35 
threshold on ATPC, if my ubnt had some sort of massive fart and hit the 650 
antenna with more energy than -35, could the 650 assume that additional energy 
is coming from the remote and and issue an ATPC power down? would that account 
for all the tx power and rx power fluctuations? What I dont understand is since 
the peak rx was -47, why would the tx have even dropped if atpc was functioning 
especially don as low as a negative 15

Are there any bugs with ATPC with the 650? I dont recall there being any real 
configurable atpc parameter in the 3/500 series.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af 
af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote:
I'm not talking about your issue, per say. Just commenting on the receiver 
front-end overload on rockets (and other UBNT AirMax radios). I'm sure this 
probably happens on MikroTik radios too. EPMP? Don't have any to test.

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com
On 09/23/2014 09:52 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:
Im pretty sure there is no atheros chipset in a ptp650 to have this issue 
happen and since the rocket is a backhaul, if it were deaf im pretty sure it 
would be hard to manage

Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-24 Thread George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af 
I didn't read the whole thread, sorry. Did they put up new dishes or 
just swap radios? It wouldn't surprise me if the feedhorn is toasted too 
if it was indeed a direct strike with visible damage. And if they did 
put up new dishes, next logical thought is alignment.


But just to rule it out, I would still temporarily shut down all of your 
5GHz transmitters to prove them wrong, and give you ammo to tell them to 
go screw if they're going to be dicks about it.


On 9/24/2014 12:46 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

He had the same issue when he went to the lower 5ghz bands
this started IMMEDIATELY after they replaced the radios. the remote 
side got struck by lightning

the minute they turned the radios up there were problems
power levels fluctuating and not mathmatically matching up are by no 
means an indicator of interference. I could see if there had been an 
issue with the prior ptp500, but there wasnt.


I change the channel on the UBNT and the ptp650 spectrum shows a drop 
in the noise matching exactly the channel size of the ubnt channel. 
The antenna they have at this site is a radiowaves 2' HP antenna, so i 
could just about point the UBNT directly at it.


This boils down to the blame game of a guy not wanting to have to deal 
with the aftermath of shoddy workmanship. When a path profile says you 
should be at -61 with 18 db power cap and youre at -78 with a 21 db 
output, thats shoddy workmanship. It was still on symmetric channels 
for gods sake. If you cant get a link to stabilize, the last thing you 
want to do is to try to run both sides on the same channel.


If it werent for the douchey NDA this customer (our landlord)(they 
actually required that when I remoted in I did it as a contractor 
under him to be under the NDA he has) has I would post the screenshots 
and it would be obvious the primary issue here is not a single 
colocated radio. When your H/V is way off, that alone tells you you 
didnt do your job.


The first thing that needs done is to fix the screaming physical 
issues, then mitigate the ambient interference, then, if there is 
still an issue, look into the radio that has been there for years as a 
tertiary source of problems.


He actually got pissed when I started investigating all the radios, he 
said all I was supposed to do was log in and do channelization, I dont 
know how the fuck he thinks you can do a channel plan without even 
knowing what channels the radios are on.


A note, this guy is also the same intermediary who said you absolutely 
can only have BGP on a single router in a network




On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:30 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) 
via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:


Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a receiver
front-end overload. This happens far too often on Rocket radios.
Isn't the 650 a whole-band radio, like 4.9-5.9? I hope it would
have some spectacular filtering for the fify brazillion $ they
want for it.

I would shut your stuff down for 10 minutes and see what happens.

On 9/24/2014 12:00 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!!

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af
af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:

Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of
the woods. No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but it
absolutely crushes anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and
freq-use range. Atheros radios outside of the band also get
overloaded and CCQ tanks.

AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5...
kinda not a fan at this point. Same for just about every -AC
radio from every manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa does
though, I am mildly interested in those.

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com

On 09/23/2014 08:29 PM, David Milholen via Af wrote:

Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the
new 650 units. Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low if
the power requirements are not being met.  I have had
ubiquity on my tower colo'd with a ptp230 5.4 unit and I set
the ubiquity in the 5.2 range and it completely knocked off
our ptp230 link.  I had to turn the power way down below
even min power levels before the 230 would come back up.

 If by turning your system down and levels do return to
normal for them. Then I would take a closer look at your
config on your AP to see if you can tweak it to meet
standards and at the same time not mess with them.
 I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using
ubiquity and the Out of band noise was incredible. I had 50'
sep and andrew dish with at least 120 deg out of center. The
Ns5 was the one with 3' dish.

Another thing to try is to

Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-24 Thread Josh Reynolds via Af 
I'm not talking about your issue, per say. Just commenting on the 
receiver front-end overload on rockets (and other UBNT AirMax radios). 
I'm sure this probably happens on MikroTik radios too. EPMP? Don't have 
any to test.


Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com

On 09/23/2014 09:52 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:
Im pretty sure there is no atheros chipset in a ptp650 to have this 
issue happen and since the rocket is a backhaul, if it were deaf im 
pretty sure it would be hard to manage, and the fsk customers beyond 
it would be calling in with concerns about the lack of internet.


I highly doubt that a brand new 650 would go deaf the minute it is 
powered on, and had it gone deaf the minute it was powered on, I doubt 
the spectrum would show well defined hills and valleys so clearly you 
can tell the channel size of the interfering systems, it would more 
likely either be fairly flatline or constantly in flux


On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com 
mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:


This is exactly what I am talking about.

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com

On 09/23/2014 09:31 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af
wrote:

Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a receiver
front-end overload. This happens far too often on Rocket radios.
Isn't the 650 a whole-band radio, like 4.9-5.9? I hope it would
have some spectacular filtering for the fify brazillion $ they
want for it.

I would shut your stuff down for 10 minutes and see what happens.

On 9/24/2014 12:00 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!!

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af
af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:

Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of
the woods. No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but
it absolutely crushes anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and
freq-use range. Atheros radios outside of the band also get
overloaded and CCQ tanks.

AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5...
kinda not a fan at this point. Same for just about every -AC
radio from every manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa
does though, I am mildly interested in those.

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com

On 09/23/2014 08:29 PM, David Milholen via Af wrote:

Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the
new 650 units. Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low
if the power requirements are not being met.  I have had
ubiquity on my tower colo'd with a ptp230 5.4 unit and I
set the ubiquity in the 5.2 range and it completely knocked
off our ptp230 link.  I had to turn the power way down
below even min power levels before the 230 would come back up.

 If by turning your system down and levels do return to
normal for them. Then I would take a closer look at your
config on your AP to see if you can tweak it to meet
standards and at the same time not mess with them.
 I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using
ubiquity and the Out of band noise was incredible. I had
50' sep and andrew dish with at least 120 deg out of
center. The Ns5 was the one with 3' dish.

Another thing to try is to  get someone who make gutters
and use sheet metal to make an extended shield placed
between the ubiquity and the 600s


On 9/23/2014 7:05 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

but i do really like the interface on the 650

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:04 PM, That One Guy
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com wrote:

This is really beginning to irritate me, Now the guy
who replaced the gear is still blaming us for the
problems here, I moved the ubnt gear clear down to
like 5.1 or whatever the lowest channel is, the
spectrum at this and the remote site are deplorable.
The Signal/Noise ratio is moving around on the ptp650
and the Vector Errors are off the chart, but he still
wants to blame our equipment.

I can tell you it boils down to an improper system
repair post disaster. I pulled screen shots, both
before and after I moved our channels, showed them the
issue with their own colocated radios, turned on
assymetric channels, yes, they were running symmetric
in a high noise environment, nothing could go wrong
there, right?

Now tomorrow, my boss is going there to unplug our
radio, taking our

Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-24 Thread David Milholen via Af 
ptp650 works great in my neck of the woods tower to tower without colo 
interference and yes there is filtering and it does not use the entire 
spectrum  unless you want it to.
 I have one on a tower with a ptp500 and another ptp600 along with 
ptp800 and 4 sectors of pmp450 with no issue.
I have also installed 2 integrated ptp600 full links right on top of 
each other.
 I guess I need to do a spec anny with our 2 way guys and do a snap 
shot comparison.


On 9/24/2014 12:31 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote:
Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a receiver 
front-end overload. This happens far too often on Rocket radios. Isn't 
the 650 a whole-band radio, like 4.9-5.9? I hope it would have some 
spectacular filtering for the fify brazillion $ they want for it.


I would shut your stuff down for 10 minutes and see what happens.

On 9/24/2014 12:00 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!!

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com 
mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:


Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of the
woods. No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but it
absolutely crushes anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and
freq-use range. Atheros radios outside of the band also get
overloaded and CCQ tanks.

AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5... kinda
not a fan at this point. Same for just about every -AC radio from
every manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa does though, I am
mildly interested in those.

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com

On 09/23/2014 08:29 PM, David Milholen via Af wrote:

Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the new
650 units. Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low if the
power requirements are not being met.  I have had ubiquity on my
tower colo'd with a ptp230 5.4 unit and I set the ubiquity in
the 5.2 range and it completely knocked off our ptp230 link.  I
had to turn the power way down below even min power levels
before the 230 would come back up.

 If by turning your system down and levels do return to normal
for them. Then I would take a closer look at your config on your
AP to see if you can tweak it to meet standards and at the same
time not mess with them.
 I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using ubiquity
and the Out of band noise was incredible. I had 50' sep and
andrew dish with at least 120 deg out of center. The Ns5 was the
one with 3' dish.

Another thing to try is to  get someone who make gutters and use
sheet metal to make an extended shield placed between the
ubiquity and the 600s


On 9/23/2014 7:05 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

but i do really like the interface on the 650

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:04 PM, That One Guy
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
wrote:

This is really beginning to irritate me, Now the guy who
replaced the gear is still blaming us for the problems
here, I moved the ubnt gear clear down to like 5.1 or
whatever the lowest channel is, the spectrum at this and
the remote site are deplorable.
The Signal/Noise ratio is moving around on the ptp650 and
the Vector Errors are off the chart, but he still wants to
blame our equipment.

I can tell you it boils down to an improper system repair
post disaster. I pulled screen shots, both before and after
I moved our channels, showed them the issue with their own
colocated radios, turned on assymetric channels, yes, they
were running symmetric in a high noise environment, nothing
could go wrong there, right?

Now tomorrow, my boss is going there to unplug our radio,
taking our customers down. Im betting some utter nonsense
like capacitant power or our antenna shape ends up being to
blame here.

I know ubnt is shit and bleeds noise allover, this
particular radio is a rocket m5 with the 30db dish and the
shield kit. The link is 90 degrees off both of theirs (ours
is west, they have one north and one south) I believe we
have 30 foot vertical sep between it and their closest
radio. I can see how a rocket would magically destroy the
whole 5ghz spectrum and not have performance issues
itself.I even cycled the UBNT radios to make sure that they
actually did change channels.

ATPC power ranging not matching current TX output and RX
doesnt make any sense to me. Interference alone will not
alter RX power unless its very very notable.
 And then to top it off its said it would be better to move
completely off the band to 3ghz since it cant interfere.
Yeah, great fucking idea,

Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-24 Thread David Milholen via Af 

He sounds like some of our city know it all's lol

If he is the captain of this ship why dont he have a channel plan in 
place a dictate available spectrum for you?
The one thing I do not like about boastful IT guys is their ability to 
know everything but know nothing at the same time LOL



On 9/24/2014 12:46 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

He had the same issue when he went to the lower 5ghz bands
this started IMMEDIATELY after they replaced the radios. the remote 
side got struck by lightning

the minute they turned the radios up there were problems
power levels fluctuating and not mathmatically matching up are by no 
means an indicator of interference. I could see if there had been an 
issue with the prior ptp500, but there wasnt.


I change the channel on the UBNT and the ptp650 spectrum shows a drop 
in the noise matching exactly the channel size of the ubnt channel. 
The antenna they have at this site is a radiowaves 2' HP antenna, so i 
could just about point the UBNT directly at it.


This boils down to the blame game of a guy not wanting to have to deal 
with the aftermath of shoddy workmanship. When a path profile says you 
should be at -61 with 18 db power cap and youre at -78 with a 21 db 
output, thats shoddy workmanship. It was still on symmetric channels 
for gods sake. If you cant get a link to stabilize, the last thing you 
want to do is to try to run both sides on the same channel.


If it werent for the douchey NDA this customer (our landlord)(they 
actually required that when I remoted in I did it as a contractor 
under him to be under the NDA he has) has I would post the screenshots 
and it would be obvious the primary issue here is not a single 
colocated radio. When your H/V is way off, that alone tells you you 
didnt do your job.


The first thing that needs done is to fix the screaming physical 
issues, then mitigate the ambient interference, then, if there is 
still an issue, look into the radio that has been there for years as a 
tertiary source of problems.


He actually got pissed when I started investigating all the radios, he 
said all I was supposed to do was log in and do channelization, I dont 
know how the fuck he thinks you can do a channel plan without even 
knowing what channels the radios are on.


A note, this guy is also the same intermediary who said you absolutely 
can only have BGP on a single router in a network




On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:30 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) 
via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:


Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a receiver
front-end overload. This happens far too often on Rocket radios.
Isn't the 650 a whole-band radio, like 4.9-5.9? I hope it would
have some spectacular filtering for the fify brazillion $ they
want for it.

I would shut your stuff down for 10 minutes and see what happens.

On 9/24/2014 12:00 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!!

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af
af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:

Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of
the woods. No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but it
absolutely crushes anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and
freq-use range. Atheros radios outside of the band also get
overloaded and CCQ tanks.

AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5...
kinda not a fan at this point. Same for just about every -AC
radio from every manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa does
though, I am mildly interested in those.

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com

On 09/23/2014 08:29 PM, David Milholen via Af wrote:

Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the
new 650 units. Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low if
the power requirements are not being met.  I have had
ubiquity on my tower colo'd with a ptp230 5.4 unit and I set
the ubiquity in the 5.2 range and it completely knocked off
our ptp230 link.  I had to turn the power way down below
even min power levels before the 230 would come back up.

 If by turning your system down and levels do return to
normal for them. Then I would take a closer look at your
config on your AP to see if you can tweak it to meet
standards and at the same time not mess with them.
 I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using
ubiquity and the Out of band noise was incredible. I had 50'
sep and andrew dish with at least 120 deg out of center. The
Ns5 was the one with 3' dish.

Another thing to try is to  get someone who make gutters and
use sheet metal to make an extended shield placed between
the ubiquity and the 600s


On 9/23/2014 7:05 PM, That One

Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-24 Thread David Milholen via Af 
There is some power gain per Mhz in the 650 but at the same time if 
there is interference on even some of the channel it will show up
in the waterfall spec. The issue is making sure link loss level is 
really close to what link planner says it suppose to have. This will 
ensure proper

alignment of those units. Its not all about the receive levels.
 Does he have 45Mhz wide channel selected?
Move them  to a 20Mhz or at best 30Mhz. There is no reason to use 45Mhz 
wide unless you really want to push tons of bandwidth.


If the link loss is met but receive levels are crap then is could be 
interference. Until the units link loss has been corrected I would not 
count your chickens before the hatch yet. Of all the links I have done 
with Cambium I always watch the Linkloss when we get very close to 
locking down the shot.



On 9/24/2014 12:52 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:
Im pretty sure there is no atheros chipset in a ptp650 to have this 
issue happen and since the rocket is a backhaul, if it were deaf im 
pretty sure it would be hard to manage, and the fsk customers beyond 
it would be calling in with concerns about the lack of internet.


I highly doubt that a brand new 650 would go deaf the minute it is 
powered on, and had it gone deaf the minute it was powered on, I doubt 
the spectrum would show well defined hills and valleys so clearly you 
can tell the channel size of the interfering systems, it would more 
likely either be fairly flatline or constantly in flux


On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com 
mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:


This is exactly what I am talking about.

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com

On 09/23/2014 09:31 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af
wrote:

Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a receiver
front-end overload. This happens far too often on Rocket radios.
Isn't the 650 a whole-band radio, like 4.9-5.9? I hope it would
have some spectacular filtering for the fify brazillion $ they
want for it.

I would shut your stuff down for 10 minutes and see what happens.

On 9/24/2014 12:00 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!!

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af
af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:

Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of
the woods. No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but
it absolutely crushes anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and
freq-use range. Atheros radios outside of the band also get
overloaded and CCQ tanks.

AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5...
kinda not a fan at this point. Same for just about every -AC
radio from every manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa
does though, I am mildly interested in those.

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com

On 09/23/2014 08:29 PM, David Milholen via Af wrote:

Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the
new 650 units. Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low
if the power requirements are not being met.  I have had
ubiquity on my tower colo'd with a ptp230 5.4 unit and I
set the ubiquity in the 5.2 range and it completely knocked
off our ptp230 link.  I had to turn the power way down
below even min power levels before the 230 would come back up.

 If by turning your system down and levels do return to
normal for them. Then I would take a closer look at your
config on your AP to see if you can tweak it to meet
standards and at the same time not mess with them.
 I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using
ubiquity and the Out of band noise was incredible. I had
50' sep and andrew dish with at least 120 deg out of
center. The Ns5 was the one with 3' dish.

Another thing to try is to  get someone who make gutters
and use sheet metal to make an extended shield placed
between the ubiquity and the 600s


On 9/23/2014 7:05 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

but i do really like the interface on the 650

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:04 PM, That One Guy
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com wrote:

This is really beginning to irritate me, Now the guy
who replaced the gear is still blaming us for the
problems here, I moved the ubnt gear clear down to
like 5.1 or whatever the lowest channel is, the
spectrum at this and the remote site are deplorable.
The Signal/Noise ratio is moving around on the ptp650
and the Vector Errors are off the chart, but he still
wants to blame our equipment.

Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-24 Thread George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af 

So what happened?

On 9/24/2014 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:
nope, just swapped radios, the leads are handmade crimp on N 
connectors that are like 4-5 years old, the lightning welded our 
switch to out battery backup.


I dont have a problem with ten minute shutdown, but it will end up 
being an hour or more. I have 477 to do tomorrow so it will be the 
boss going.
I told him to take the power supply completely out of the box so the 
guy doesnt claim the power supply capacitors must still have power 
going to the radio
I also told him to not let the guy powercycle the 650 unless our radio 
is powered on because it will probably come back up and perform, so if 
our radio is powered down, of course its our radio causing the problems



The whole point of this thread was to say the interface on the 650 is 
really cool and to find out about ATPC on the 650, but when i got the 
email telling me it was relayed to the landlord that its a combination 
of our radio and local interference I got really pissed.


Going out on a limb and saying maybe there is not directly a physical 
issue looking at the fluctuations on both sides output power (-15 to 
21) and receive power (-47 to -78) with an ATPC threshold set to -35 
(is this the default value?) The numbers make sense, output power is 
ranging 36db and receive powers are ranging 31db. EXCEPT that when i 
was on them the remote transmit was 21 and the local rx was -78, its 
not correlated to the range of numbers.


so our radio was on 5755 i think at the time before i moved it, 10mhz. 
so for the sake of argument their 650 was also sitting on 5755 for 
whatever reason, and we will say it was recieving at the linkplanner 
target of -61 and had a -35 threshold on ATPC, if my ubnt had some 
sort of massive fart and hit the 650 antenna with more energy than 
-35, could the 650 assume that additional energy is coming from the 
remote and and issue an ATPC power down? would that account for all 
the tx power and rx power fluctuations? What I dont understand is 
since the peak rx was -47, why would the tx have even dropped if atpc 
was functioning especially don as low as a negative 15


Are there any bugs with ATPC with the 650? I dont recall there being 
any real configurable atpc parameter in the 3/500 series.


On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com 
mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:


I'm not talking about your issue, per say. Just commenting on the
receiver front-end overload on rockets (and other UBNT AirMax
radios). I'm sure this probably happens on MikroTik radios too.
EPMP? Don't have any to test.

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com

On 09/23/2014 09:52 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

Im pretty sure there is no atheros chipset in a ptp650 to have
this issue happen and since the rocket is a backhaul, if it were
deaf im pretty sure it would be hard to manage, and the fsk
customers beyond it would be calling in with concerns about the
lack of internet.

I highly doubt that a brand new 650 would go deaf the minute it
is powered on, and had it gone deaf the minute it was powered on,
I doubt the spectrum would show well defined hills and valleys so
clearly you can tell the channel size of the interfering systems,
it would more likely either be fairly flatline or constantly in flux

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af
af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:

This is exactly what I am talking about.

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com

On 09/23/2014 09:31 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)
via Af wrote:

Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a
receiver front-end overload. This happens far too often on
Rocket radios. Isn't the 650 a whole-band radio, like
4.9-5.9? I hope it would have some spectacular filtering for
the fify brazillion $ they want for it.

I would shut your stuff down for 10 minutes and see what
happens.

On 9/24/2014 12:00 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!!

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af
af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:

Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck
of the woods. No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware
of, but it absolutely crushes anything on 5GHz in it's
beamwidth and freq-use range. Atheros radios outside of
the band also get overloaded and CCQ tanks.

AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better.
AF5... kinda not a fan at this point. Same for just
about every -AC radio from every manufacturer. Time
will tell how Mimosa does though, I am mildly

[AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-23 Thread That One Guy via Af 
I just got done troubleshooting a 650 link for our landlord we are coloed
with on a couple towers. I had not looked at the ptp interface since the
500.

This thing is freaking beautiful, and I never compliment anybody,
especially on a web gui.

So much information, so easy to find.


one question though, They have atpc set to -35 on these, does that
basically turn atpc off, or could it cause a problem?

Im pretty sure they have a loose antenna or damaged feedhorn/patch cables
(this was a lighnting replacement of a ptp500, reusing the cables/feedhorn)

The system statistics showed a variation of received power ranging from -47
to -78 with a peak of -110 , -78ish being current. Transmit powers show a
variation of -15dBm up to 21 dBm (I did not notice the negative value at
first). This would account for the range of  Received power except When the
Status screenshots were taken, the transmit power on both units was at 21
dBm with a 77/78 receive power on each side. If the output power is
accurate, the receive power on the remote end would be at the peak, not the
mean.

-- 
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] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-23 Thread That One Guy via Af 
This is really beginning to irritate me, Now the guy who replaced the gear
is still blaming us for the problems here, I moved the ubnt gear clear down
to like 5.1 or whatever the lowest channel is, the spectrum at this and the
remote site are deplorable.
The Signal/Noise ratio is moving around on the ptp650 and the Vector Errors
are off the chart, but he still wants to blame our equipment.

I can tell you it boils down to an improper system repair post disaster. I
pulled screen shots, both before and after I moved our channels, showed
them the issue with their own colocated radios, turned on assymetric
channels, yes, they were running symmetric in a high noise environment,
nothing could go wrong there, right?

Now tomorrow, my boss is going there to unplug our radio, taking our
customers down. Im betting some utter nonsense like capacitant power or our
antenna shape ends up being to blame here.

I know ubnt is shit and bleeds noise allover, this particular radio is a
rocket m5 with the 30db dish and the shield kit. The link is 90 degrees off
both of theirs (ours is west, they have one north and one south) I believe
we have 30 foot vertical sep between it and their closest radio. I can see
how a rocket would magically destroy the whole 5ghz spectrum and not have
performance issues itself.I even cycled the UBNT radios to make sure that
they actually did change channels.

ATPC power ranging not matching current TX output and RX doesnt make any
sense to me. Interference alone will not alter RX power unless its very
very notable.
 And then to top it off its said it would be better to move completely off
the band to 3ghz since it cant interfere. Yeah, great fucking idea, lets
take the only semi clean spectrum left and burn it on a backhaul thats
performing as it should because other people dont know how to troubleshoot
their own damn gear.
But the kicker to that would be oh, you must still be interfering, that
m365 is actually a 5ghz radio downconverted

how bout this, climb the damn tower and fix the fuckup

fucking meh

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:04 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 Im not doing anything, this is a not my chair not my problem issue.

 This strike blew everything on the tower, if it was electronic, it cooked,
 the switch was sitting on back of the APC and welded to it even tripped the
 breaker

 Im just curious with these if theres any issue with the ATPC on these bas
 boys

 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:42 PM, David via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

  Inspect the cables or at lease switch one or both out at one end and see
 if a prevalent change is made.
  Could be a feed horn but unlikely I would shoot for pigtails first.


 On 09/23/2014 02:38 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

 I just got done troubleshooting a 650 link for our landlord we are coloed
 with on a couple towers. I had not looked at the ptp interface since the
 500.

  This thing is freaking beautiful, and I never compliment anybody,
 especially on a web gui.

  So much information, so easy to find.


  one question though, They have atpc set to -35 on these, does that
 basically turn atpc off, or could it cause a problem?

  Im pretty sure they have a loose antenna or damaged feedhorn/patch
 cables (this was a lighnting replacement of a ptp500, reusing the
 cables/feedhorn)

  The system statistics showed a variation of received power ranging from
 -47 to -78 with a peak of -110 , -78ish being current. Transmit powers show
 a variation of -15dBm up to 21 dBm (I did not notice the negative value at
 first). This would account for the range of  Received power except When
 the Status screenshots were taken, the transmit power on both units was at
 21 dBm with a 77/78 receive power on each side. If the output power is
 accurate, the receive power on the remote end would be at the peak, not the
 mean.

  --
 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




-- 
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] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-23 Thread David Milholen via Af 
Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the new 650 
units. Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low if the power 
requirements are not being met.  I have had ubiquity on my tower colo'd 
with a ptp230 5.4 unit and I set the ubiquity in the 5.2 range and it 
completely knocked off our ptp230 link.  I had to turn the power way 
down below even min power levels before the 230 would come back up.


 If by turning your system down and levels do return to normal for 
them. Then I would take a closer look at your config on your AP to see 
if you can tweak it to meet standards and at the same time not mess with 
them.
 I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using ubiquity and the 
Out of band noise was incredible. I had 50' sep and andrew dish with at 
least 120 deg out of center. The Ns5 was the one with 3' dish.


Another thing to try is to  get someone who make gutters and use sheet 
metal to make an extended shield placed between the ubiquity and the 600s



On 9/23/2014 7:05 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

but i do really like the interface on the 650

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:04 PM, That One Guy 
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com wrote:


This is really beginning to irritate me, Now the guy who replaced
the gear is still blaming us for the problems here, I moved the
ubnt gear clear down to like 5.1 or whatever the lowest channel
is, the spectrum at this and the remote site are deplorable.
The Signal/Noise ratio is moving around on the ptp650 and the
Vector Errors are off the chart, but he still wants to blame our
equipment.

I can tell you it boils down to an improper system repair post
disaster. I pulled screen shots, both before and after I moved our
channels, showed them the issue with their own colocated radios,
turned on assymetric channels, yes, they were running symmetric in
a high noise environment, nothing could go wrong there, right?

Now tomorrow, my boss is going there to unplug our radio, taking
our customers down. Im betting some utter nonsense like capacitant
power or our antenna shape ends up being to blame here.

I know ubnt is shit and bleeds noise allover, this particular
radio is a rocket m5 with the 30db dish and the shield kit. The
link is 90 degrees off both of theirs (ours is west, they have one
north and one south) I believe we have 30 foot vertical sep
between it and their closest radio. I can see how a rocket would
magically destroy the whole 5ghz spectrum and not have performance
issues itself.I even cycled the UBNT radios to make sure that they
actually did change channels.

ATPC power ranging not matching current TX output and RX doesnt
make any sense to me. Interference alone will not alter RX power
unless its very very notable.
 And then to top it off its said it would be better to move
completely off the band to 3ghz since it cant interfere. Yeah,
great fucking idea, lets take the only semi clean spectrum left
and burn it on a backhaul thats performing as it should because
other people dont know how to troubleshoot their own damn gear.
But the kicker to that would be oh, you must still be
interfering, that m365 is actually a 5ghz radio downconverted

how bout this, climb the damn tower and fix the fuckup

fucking meh

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:04 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com
mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:

Im not doing anything, this is a not my chair not my problem
issue.

This strike blew everything on the tower, if it was
electronic, it cooked, the switch was sitting on back of the
APC and welded to it even tripped the breaker

Im just curious with these if theres any issue with the ATPC
on these bas boys

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:42 PM, David via Af af@afmug.com
mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:

Inspect the cables or at lease switch one or both out at
one end and see if a prevalent change is made.
 Could be a feed horn but unlikely I would shoot for
pigtails first.


On 09/23/2014 02:38 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

I just got done troubleshooting a 650 link for our
landlord we are coloed with on a couple towers. I had not
looked at the ptp interface since the 500.

This thing is freaking beautiful, and I never compliment
anybody, especially on a web gui.

So much information, so easy to find.


one question though, They have atpc set to -35 on these,
does that basically turn atpc off, or could it cause a
problem?

Im pretty sure they have a loose antenna or damaged
feedhorn/patch cables (this was a lighnting replacement
of a ptp500, reusing the cables/feedhorn)

The system statistics

Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-23 Thread That One Guy via Af 
INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!!

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

  Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of the woods. No
 overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but it absolutely crushes
 anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and freq-use range. Atheros radios
 outside of the band also get overloaded and CCQ tanks.

 AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5... kinda not a fan
 at this point. Same for just about every -AC radio from every
 manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa does though, I am mildly interested
 in those.

 Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
 SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com
  On 09/23/2014 08:29 PM, David Milholen via Af wrote:

 Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the new 650 units.
 Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low if the power requirements are
 not being met.  I have had ubiquity on my tower colo'd with a ptp230 5.4
 unit and I set the ubiquity in the 5.2 range and it completely knocked off
 our ptp230 link.  I had to turn the power way down below even min power
 levels before the 230 would come back up.

  If by turning your system down and levels do return to normal for them.
 Then I would take a closer look at your config on your AP to see if you can
 tweak it to meet standards and at the same time not mess with them.
  I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using ubiquity and the Out
 of band noise was incredible. I had 50' sep and andrew dish with at least
 120 deg out of center. The Ns5 was the one with 3' dish.

 Another thing to try is to  get someone who make gutters and use sheet
 metal to make an extended shield placed between the ubiquity and the 600s


 On 9/23/2014 7:05 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

 but i do really like the interface on the 650

 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:04 PM, That One Guy thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 This is really beginning to irritate me, Now the guy who replaced the
 gear is still blaming us for the problems here, I moved the ubnt gear clear
 down to like 5.1 or whatever the lowest channel is, the spectrum at this
 and the remote site are deplorable.
 The Signal/Noise ratio is moving around on the ptp650 and the Vector
 Errors are off the chart, but he still wants to blame our equipment.

  I can tell you it boils down to an improper system repair post
 disaster. I pulled screen shots, both before and after I moved our
 channels, showed them the issue with their own colocated radios, turned on
 assymetric channels, yes, they were running symmetric in a high noise
 environment, nothing could go wrong there, right?

  Now tomorrow, my boss is going there to unplug our radio, taking our
 customers down. Im betting some utter nonsense like capacitant power or our
 antenna shape ends up being to blame here.

  I know ubnt is shit and bleeds noise allover, this particular radio is
 a rocket m5 with the 30db dish and the shield kit. The link is 90 degrees
 off both of theirs (ours is west, they have one north and one south) I
 believe we have 30 foot vertical sep between it and their closest radio. I
 can see how a rocket would magically destroy the whole 5ghz spectrum and
 not have performance issues itself.I even cycled the UBNT radios to make
 sure that they actually did change channels.

  ATPC power ranging not matching current TX output and RX doesnt make
 any sense to me. Interference alone will not alter RX power unless its very
 very notable.
  And then to top it off its said it would be better to move completely
 off the band to 3ghz since it cant interfere. Yeah, great fucking idea,
 lets take the only semi clean spectrum left and burn it on a backhaul thats
 performing as it should because other people dont know how to troubleshoot
 their own damn gear.
 But the kicker to that would be oh, you must still be interfering, that
 m365 is actually a 5ghz radio downconverted

  how bout this, climb the damn tower and fix the fuckup

  fucking meh

 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:04 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:

 Im not doing anything, this is a not my chair not my problem issue.

  This strike blew everything on the tower, if it was electronic, it
 cooked, the switch was sitting on back of the APC and welded to it even
 tripped the breaker

  Im just curious with these if theres any issue with the ATPC on these
 bas boys

 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:42 PM, David via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

  Inspect the cables or at lease switch one or both out at one end and
 see if a prevalent change is made.
  Could be a feed horn but unlikely I would shoot for pigtails first.


 On 09/23/2014 02:38 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

 I just got done troubleshooting a 650 link for our landlord we are
 coloed with on a couple towers. I had not looked at the ptp interface since
 the 500.

  This thing is freaking beautiful, and I never compliment anybody,
 especially on a web gui.

  So much information, so easy

Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-23 Thread That One Guy via Af 
quickly tossing his link into the linkplanner the following is what it says
it should be, also note i limited output power to 18, just to make it fair,
not at the time of my troubleshooting he was at -78. The link had
absolutely no issues until they changed from ptp500 to ptp650, it started
the minute they turned up the radio

Antenna Gain 28.48 dBi
Cable Loss 1.0 dB
Maximum Transmit Power 18 dBm
Ranging Mode Auto 0 to 25 miles
Predicted Receive Power -61 dBm ± 5 dB while aligning
Predicted Link Loss 135.00 dB ± 5.00 dB

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:00 AM, That One Guy thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
wrote:

 INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!!

 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:

  Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of the woods.
 No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but it absolutely crushes
 anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and freq-use range. Atheros radios
 outside of the band also get overloaded and CCQ tanks.

 AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5... kinda not a fan
 at this point. Same for just about every -AC radio from every
 manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa does though, I am mildly interested
 in those.

 Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
 SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com
  On 09/23/2014 08:29 PM, David Milholen via Af wrote:

 Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the new 650
 units. Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low if the power requirements
 are not being met.  I have had ubiquity on my tower colo'd with a ptp230
 5.4 unit and I set the ubiquity in the 5.2 range and it completely knocked
 off our ptp230 link.  I had to turn the power way down below even min power
 levels before the 230 would come back up.

  If by turning your system down and levels do return to normal for them.
 Then I would take a closer look at your config on your AP to see if you can
 tweak it to meet standards and at the same time not mess with them.
  I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using ubiquity and the Out
 of band noise was incredible. I had 50' sep and andrew dish with at least
 120 deg out of center. The Ns5 was the one with 3' dish.

 Another thing to try is to  get someone who make gutters and use sheet
 metal to make an extended shield placed between the ubiquity and the 600s


 On 9/23/2014 7:05 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

 but i do really like the interface on the 650

 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:04 PM, That One Guy thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 This is really beginning to irritate me, Now the guy who replaced the
 gear is still blaming us for the problems here, I moved the ubnt gear clear
 down to like 5.1 or whatever the lowest channel is, the spectrum at this
 and the remote site are deplorable.
 The Signal/Noise ratio is moving around on the ptp650 and the Vector
 Errors are off the chart, but he still wants to blame our equipment.

  I can tell you it boils down to an improper system repair post
 disaster. I pulled screen shots, both before and after I moved our
 channels, showed them the issue with their own colocated radios, turned on
 assymetric channels, yes, they were running symmetric in a high noise
 environment, nothing could go wrong there, right?

  Now tomorrow, my boss is going there to unplug our radio, taking our
 customers down. Im betting some utter nonsense like capacitant power or our
 antenna shape ends up being to blame here.

  I know ubnt is shit and bleeds noise allover, this particular radio is
 a rocket m5 with the 30db dish and the shield kit. The link is 90 degrees
 off both of theirs (ours is west, they have one north and one south) I
 believe we have 30 foot vertical sep between it and their closest radio. I
 can see how a rocket would magically destroy the whole 5ghz spectrum and
 not have performance issues itself.I even cycled the UBNT radios to make
 sure that they actually did change channels.

  ATPC power ranging not matching current TX output and RX doesnt make
 any sense to me. Interference alone will not alter RX power unless its very
 very notable.
  And then to top it off its said it would be better to move completely
 off the band to 3ghz since it cant interfere. Yeah, great fucking idea,
 lets take the only semi clean spectrum left and burn it on a backhaul thats
 performing as it should because other people dont know how to troubleshoot
 their own damn gear.
 But the kicker to that would be oh, you must still be interfering, that
 m365 is actually a 5ghz radio downconverted

  how bout this, climb the damn tower and fix the fuckup

  fucking meh

 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:04 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:

 Im not doing anything, this is a not my chair not my problem issue.

  This strike blew everything on the tower, if it was electronic, it
 cooked, the switch was sitting on back of the APC and welded to it even
 tripped the breaker

  Im just curious with these if theres any issue with the

Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-23 Thread Josh Reynolds via Af 

This is exactly what I am talking about.

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com

On 09/23/2014 09:31 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote:
Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a receiver 
front-end overload. This happens far too often on Rocket radios. Isn't 
the 650 a whole-band radio, like 4.9-5.9? I hope it would have some 
spectacular filtering for the fify brazillion $ they want for it.


I would shut your stuff down for 10 minutes and see what happens.

On 9/24/2014 12:00 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!!

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com 
mailto:af@afmug.com wrote:


Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of the
woods. No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but it
absolutely crushes anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and
freq-use range. Atheros radios outside of the band also get
overloaded and CCQ tanks.

AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5... kinda
not a fan at this point. Same for just about every -AC radio from
every manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa does though, I am
mildly interested in those.

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com

On 09/23/2014 08:29 PM, David Milholen via Af wrote:

Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the new
650 units. Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low if the
power requirements are not being met.  I have had ubiquity on my
tower colo'd with a ptp230 5.4 unit and I set the ubiquity in
the 5.2 range and it completely knocked off our ptp230 link.  I
had to turn the power way down below even min power levels
before the 230 would come back up.

 If by turning your system down and levels do return to normal
for them. Then I would take a closer look at your config on your
AP to see if you can tweak it to meet standards and at the same
time not mess with them.
 I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using ubiquity
and the Out of band noise was incredible. I had 50' sep and
andrew dish with at least 120 deg out of center. The Ns5 was the
one with 3' dish.

Another thing to try is to  get someone who make gutters and use
sheet metal to make an extended shield placed between the
ubiquity and the 600s


On 9/23/2014 7:05 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

but i do really like the interface on the 650

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:04 PM, That One Guy
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
wrote:

This is really beginning to irritate me, Now the guy who
replaced the gear is still blaming us for the problems
here, I moved the ubnt gear clear down to like 5.1 or
whatever the lowest channel is, the spectrum at this and
the remote site are deplorable.
The Signal/Noise ratio is moving around on the ptp650 and
the Vector Errors are off the chart, but he still wants to
blame our equipment.

I can tell you it boils down to an improper system repair
post disaster. I pulled screen shots, both before and after
I moved our channels, showed them the issue with their own
colocated radios, turned on assymetric channels, yes, they
were running symmetric in a high noise environment, nothing
could go wrong there, right?

Now tomorrow, my boss is going there to unplug our radio,
taking our customers down. Im betting some utter nonsense
like capacitant power or our antenna shape ends up being to
blame here.

I know ubnt is shit and bleeds noise allover, this
particular radio is a rocket m5 with the 30db dish and the
shield kit. The link is 90 degrees off both of theirs (ours
is west, they have one north and one south) I believe we
have 30 foot vertical sep between it and their closest
radio. I can see how a rocket would magically destroy the
whole 5ghz spectrum and not have performance issues
itself.I even cycled the UBNT radios to make sure that they
actually did change channels.

ATPC power ranging not matching current TX output and RX
doesnt make any sense to me. Interference alone will not
alter RX power unless its very very notable.
 And then to top it off its said it would be better to move
completely off the band to 3ghz since it cant interfere.
Yeah, great fucking idea, lets take the only semi clean
spectrum left and burn it on a backhaul thats performing as
it should because other people dont know how to
troubleshoot their own damn gear.
But the kicker to that would be oh, you must still be
interfering, that m365 is actually a 5ghz radio

Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question

2014-09-23 Thread That One Guy via Af 
Im pretty sure there is no atheros chipset in a ptp650 to have this issue
happen and since the rocket is a backhaul, if it were deaf im pretty sure
it would be hard to manage, and the fsk customers beyond it would be
calling in with concerns about the lack of internet.

I highly doubt that a brand new 650 would go deaf the minute it is powered
on, and had it gone deaf the minute it was powered on, I doubt the spectrum
would show well defined hills and valleys so clearly you can tell the
channel size of the interfering systems, it would more likely either be
fairly flatline or constantly in flux

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

  This is exactly what I am talking about.

 Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
 SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com
  On 09/23/2014 09:31 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote:

 Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a receiver front-end
 overload. This happens far too often on Rocket radios. Isn't the 650 a
 whole-band radio, like 4.9-5.9? I hope it would have some spectacular
 filtering for the fify brazillion $ they want for it.

 I would shut your stuff down for 10 minutes and see what happens.

 On 9/24/2014 12:00 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

 INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!!

 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:

  Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of the woods.
 No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but it absolutely crushes
 anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and freq-use range. Atheros radios
 outside of the band also get overloaded and CCQ tanks.

 AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5... kinda not a fan
 at this point. Same for just about every -AC radio from every
 manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa does though, I am mildly interested
 in those.

 Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
 SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com
  On 09/23/2014 08:29 PM, David Milholen via Af wrote:

 Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the new 650
 units. Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low if the power requirements
 are not being met.  I have had ubiquity on my tower colo'd with a ptp230
 5.4 unit and I set the ubiquity in the 5.2 range and it completely knocked
 off our ptp230 link.  I had to turn the power way down below even min power
 levels before the 230 would come back up.

  If by turning your system down and levels do return to normal for them.
 Then I would take a closer look at your config on your AP to see if you can
 tweak it to meet standards and at the same time not mess with them.
  I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using ubiquity and the Out
 of band noise was incredible. I had 50' sep and andrew dish with at least
 120 deg out of center. The Ns5 was the one with 3' dish.

 Another thing to try is to  get someone who make gutters and use sheet
 metal to make an extended shield placed between the ubiquity and the 600s


 On 9/23/2014 7:05 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:

 but i do really like the interface on the 650

 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:04 PM, That One Guy thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 This is really beginning to irritate me, Now the guy who replaced the
 gear is still blaming us for the problems here, I moved the ubnt gear clear
 down to like 5.1 or whatever the lowest channel is, the spectrum at this
 and the remote site are deplorable.
 The Signal/Noise ratio is moving around on the ptp650 and the Vector
 Errors are off the chart, but he still wants to blame our equipment.

  I can tell you it boils down to an improper system repair post
 disaster. I pulled screen shots, both before and after I moved our
 channels, showed them the issue with their own colocated radios, turned on
 assymetric channels, yes, they were running symmetric in a high noise
 environment, nothing could go wrong there, right?

  Now tomorrow, my boss is going there to unplug our radio, taking our
 customers down. Im betting some utter nonsense like capacitant power or our
 antenna shape ends up being to blame here.

  I know ubnt is shit and bleeds noise allover, this particular radio is
 a rocket m5 with the 30db dish and the shield kit. The link is 90 degrees
 off both of theirs (ours is west, they have one north and one south) I
 believe we have 30 foot vertical sep between it and their closest radio. I
 can see how a rocket would magically destroy the whole 5ghz spectrum and
 not have performance issues itself.I even cycled the UBNT radios to make
 sure that they actually did change channels.

  ATPC power ranging not matching current TX output and RX doesnt make
 any sense to me. Interference alone will not alter RX power unless its very
 very notable.
  And then to top it off its said it would be better to move completely
 off the band to 3ghz since it cant interfere. Yeah, great fucking idea,
 lets take the only semi clean spectrum left and burn it on a backhaul thats

[AFMUG] PTP650

2014-09-18 Thread Dan Petermann via Af 
Can the PTP650 do split TX and RX freqs? (example:Tx on 5740, RX on 5800)

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

2014-09-18 Thread Gino Villarini via Af 
Since 2002 



Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com  
@aeronetpr






On 9/18/14, 4:26 PM, Dan Petermann via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

Can the PTP650 do split TX and RX freqs? (example:Tx on 5740, RX on 5800)

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

2014-09-18 Thread Roland Houin via Af 
yes.

roland


 Can the PTP650 do split TX and RX freqs? (example:Tx on 5740, RX on 5800)

Re: [AFMUG] PTP650

2014-09-18 Thread Matt Jenkins via Af 
I know its probably not feasible, but I would really like them to 
support 45mhz Tx and 10mhz Rx channel sizes as well.


Matthew Jenkins
SmarterBroadband
m...@sbbinc.net
530.272.4000

On 09/18/2014 02:43 PM, Roland Houin via Af wrote:

yes.

roland



Can the PTP650 do split TX and RX freqs? (example:Tx on 5740, RX on 5800)