Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
Their announcement said it would time right in with Canopy. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:15:47 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy A little birdie mentioned to me that the Proxim gear will use the same timing products as Canopy, and if I heard right, that is via the serial timing cable or sync over power. Which then means that you can plug Proxim WORP stuff into CMM, CTM, or Packetflux timing things. bp On 9/17/2014 11:03 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: George, you ought to be all over that new Proxim WORP stuff like white on rice. They claim that it will sync with Canopy. bp On 9/17/2014 10:41 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP latency down, then I'll buy some. On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
On 9/22/14, 17:08, Josh Reynolds via Af wrote: What ant/radio is that? I'm guessing a small Radiowaves. ~Seth
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
Ours are filled cinder block with heavy rebar. Very sturdy Jaime Solorza On Sep 22, 2014 9:18 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I was talking about the previous photo which I believe was from Bill. Sometimes those fortress looking walls are faux masonry, basically stucco. *From:* Bob Hrbek via Af af@afmug.com *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 10:08 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy This wall is 7 thick poured concrete, complete with rebar galore. Drilling holes on a rounded structure to mount pre-drilled angle was really fun. That and sinking rock anchors into the top so we could rapel off the top was something my climbers said they never wanted to do again. ;) On-belay.belay is on...climbing...climb away. -Bob On 9/22/2014 9:39 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I don’t know, those wallmounts are pretty impressive. Except why do I suspect the wall itself is not so beefy? *From:* Bob Hrbek via Af af@afmug.com *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 9:30 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy That's not beefy This is a Laird mount on a concrete silo, 65' up in the air holding a 4' 11ghz dish: That's beefy. On 9/22/2014 7:38 PM, Eric Kuhnke via Af wrote: Looks like somebody's buying steel products out of the wall mount section of the Andrew/Commscope steel catalog, or Valmont/Sitepro1 On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I'll double your beefy. bp On 9/22/2014 4:38 PM, Jaime Solorza via Af wrote: Now this is what I consider beefy Mount. Cable was repositioned ! New guy had a different idea of water loop. I was inside prepping connector. Jaime Solorza On Sep 17, 2014 8:37 AM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Sure looks like dual slant to me. -Original Message- From: Greg Osborn via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 8:22 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
(gosh, I hope I'm allowed to say all this, but what the hell, they didn't say 'and don't repeat nothing!' and it's not like other road-show goers can't ask themselves) Oh, I'm sure it'll be user-definable, on the 450, in terms of how to sync. The thing is, with the ePMP, you have exactly three options; something like 75/25, 50/50, and 30/70. Those are all you get for sync options; the downlink percent. They were very clear that 'max range' is NOT a timing parameter. So, making your 450s sync with your ePMP is going to have some tradeoffs, and that's to be expected. As to the 100/430s, it was pretty unambiguous that those would never sync with the ePMP. Or have their MTUs increased. Or all sorts of other stuff. The idea they seem to be moving to, and this is my conclusion rather than a direct statement, is that the 100 series gets flat-out replaced with ePMP, you put 450 where you have needs that the 450 meets (no guard bands, smaller latency, etc etc) and that the 430 is a red-headed stepchild. Don't ask what the 320 is in that analogy. Also, there's a new licensed PTP radio to be announced in a month or so, which, supposedly, a better pricing structure. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+slebrun=muskoka@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 6:00 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy I was told there will be various options coming soon to make all of this stuff sync. There will be advantages and disadvantages to each way of doing things, but at least it will work. As far as the aging PMP/PTP100, I assume it will do 5ms framing because that's what 900 does today, so it is possible on the platform, obviously with a latency hit, but what can you do. On 9/17/2014 4:23 PM, Peter Kranz via Af wrote: This would be a VERY bad thing for people with PMP450 networks.. Increasing the frame duration to match the ePMP will double the latency of the 450 platform. Peter Kranz Founder/CEO - Unwired Ltd www.UnwiredLtd.com Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 Mobile: 510-207- pkr...@unwiredltd.com -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+pkranz=unwiredltd@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Shayne Lebrun via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:23 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy 450 is being made to sync with ePMP, by increasing frame duration to match. 100/430/320 will likely see no new changes. This is what I got from an ePMP roadshow. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:25 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy I am guessing if anything, you will see Canopy (or at least 450) sync with ePMP/320. Seems like it would be easier to make the FPGA based radio use a longer frame than to make the Atheros based radio use a shorter frame. I'm sure they already tried that. -Original Message- From: Bill Prince via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:03 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy George, you ought to be all over that new Proxim WORP stuff like white on rice. They claim that it will sync with Canopy. bp On 9/17/2014 10:41 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP latency down, then I'll buy some. On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
I found an RB230 (I think that is the number) on a tower. Can that handle MPLS\VPLS with full BGP routes? ;-) Better pricing? They have to what, cut it in half to be competitive? GigE radios are something like $7k/link now. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Shayne Lebrun via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:09:37 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy (gosh, I hope I'm allowed to say all this, but what the hell, they didn't say 'and don't repeat nothing!' and it's not like other road-show goers can't ask themselves) Oh, I'm sure it'll be user-definable, on the 450, in terms of how to sync. The thing is, with the ePMP, you have exactly three options; something like 75/25, 50/50, and 30/70. Those are all you get for sync options; the downlink percent. They were very clear that 'max range' is NOT a timing parameter. So, making your 450s sync with your ePMP is going to have some tradeoffs, and that's to be expected. As to the 100/430s, it was pretty unambiguous that those would never sync with the ePMP. Or have their MTUs increased. Or all sorts of other stuff. The idea they seem to be moving to, and this is my conclusion rather than a direct statement, is that the 100 series gets flat-out replaced with ePMP, you put 450 where you have needs that the 450 meets (no guard bands, smaller latency, etc etc) and that the 430 is a red-headed stepchild. Don't ask what the 320 is in that analogy. Also, there's a new licensed PTP radio to be announced in a month or so, which, supposedly, a better pricing structure. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+slebrun=muskoka@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 6:00 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy I was told there will be various options coming soon to make all of this stuff sync. There will be advantages and disadvantages to each way of doing things, but at least it will work. As far as the aging PMP/PTP100, I assume it will do 5ms framing because that's what 900 does today, so it is possible on the platform, obviously with a latency hit, but what can you do. On 9/17/2014 4:23 PM, Peter Kranz via Af wrote: This would be a VERY bad thing for people with PMP450 networks.. Increasing the frame duration to match the ePMP will double the latency of the 450 platform. Peter Kranz Founder/CEO - Unwired Ltd www.UnwiredLtd.com Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 Mobile: 510-207- pkr...@unwiredltd.com -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+pkranz=unwiredltd@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Shayne Lebrun via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:23 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy 450 is being made to sync with ePMP, by increasing frame duration to match. 100/430/320 will likely see no new changes. This is what I got from an ePMP roadshow. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:25 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy I am guessing if anything, you will see Canopy (or at least 450) sync with ePMP/320. Seems like it would be easier to make the FPGA based radio use a longer frame than to make the Atheros based radio use a shorter frame. I'm sure they already tried that. -Original Message- From: Bill Prince via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:03 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy George, you ought to be all over that new Proxim WORP stuff like white on rice. They claim that it will sync with Canopy. bp On 9/17/2014 10:41 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP latency down, then I'll buy some. On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
Maximum of 512 MB of memory on the RB230. I don't think that's enough to handle full BGP roues these days. bp On 9/18/2014 6:13 AM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: I found an RB230 (I think that is the number) on a tower. Can that handle MPLS\VPLS with full BGP routes? ;-) Better pricing? They have to what, cut it in half to be competitive? GigE radios are something like $7k/link now. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Shayne Lebrun via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:09:37 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy (gosh, I hope I'm allowed to say all this, but what the hell, they didn't say 'and don't repeat nothing!' and it's not like other road-show goers can't ask themselves) Oh, I'm sure it'll be user-definable, on the 450, in terms of how to sync. The thing is, with the ePMP, you have exactly three options; something like 75/25, 50/50, and 30/70. Those are all you get for sync options; the downlink percent. They were very clear that 'max range' is NOT a timing parameter. So, making your 450s sync with your ePMP is going to have some tradeoffs, and that's to be expected. As to the 100/430s, it was pretty unambiguous that those would never sync with the ePMP. Or have their MTUs increased. Or all sorts of other stuff. The idea they seem to be moving to, and this is my conclusion rather than a direct statement, is that the 100 series gets flat-out replaced with ePMP, you put 450 where you have needs that the 450 meets (no guard bands, smaller latency, etc etc) and that the 430 is a red-headed stepchild. Don't ask what the 320 is in that analogy. Also, there's a new licensed PTP radio to be announced in a month or so, which, supposedly, a better pricing structure. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+slebrun=muskoka@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 6:00 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy I was told there will be various options coming soon to make all of this stuff sync. There will be advantages and disadvantages to each way of doing things, but at least it will work. As far as the aging PMP/PTP100, I assume it will do 5ms framing because that's what 900 does today, so it is possible on the platform, obviously with a latency hit, but what can you do. On 9/17/2014 4:23 PM, Peter Kranz via Af wrote: This would be a VERY bad thing for people with PMP450 networks.. Increasing the frame duration to match the ePMP will double the latency of the 450 platform. Peter Kranz Founder/CEO - Unwired Ltd www.UnwiredLtd.com Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 Mobile: 510-207- pkr...@unwiredltd.com -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+pkranz=unwiredltd@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Shayne Lebrun via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:23 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy 450 is being made to sync with ePMP, by increasing frame duration to match. 100/430/320 will likely see no new changes. This is what I got from an ePMP roadshow. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:25 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy I am guessing if anything, you will see Canopy (or at least 450) sync with ePMP/320. Seems like it would be easier to make the FPGA based radio use a longer frame than to make the Atheros based radio use a shorter frame. I'm sure they already tried that. -Original Message- From: Bill Prince via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:03 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy George, you ought to be all over that new Proxim WORP stuff like white on rice. They claim that it will sync with Canopy. bp On 9/17/2014 10:41 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP latency down, then I'll buy some. On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
I was just being factious, but you ran with it. Actually, if Version 7 will install on it (whenever that comes out), a full feed will take 36 megs of RAM and 12 million routes will take about 500 megs of RAM. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:45:28 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy Maximum of 512 MB of memory on the RB230. I don't think that's enough to handle full BGP roues these days. bp On 9/18/2014 6:13 AM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: I found an RB230 (I think that is the number) on a tower. Can that handle MPLS\VPLS with full BGP routes? ;-) Better pricing? They have to what, cut it in half to be competitive? GigE radios are something like $7k/link now. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Shayne Lebrun via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:09:37 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy (gosh, I hope I'm allowed to say all this, but what the hell, they didn't say 'and don't repeat nothing!' and it's not like other road-show goers can't ask themselves) Oh, I'm sure it'll be user-definable, on the 450, in terms of how to sync. The thing is, with the ePMP, you have exactly three options; something like 75/25, 50/50, and 30/70. Those are all you get for sync options; the downlink percent. They were very clear that 'max range' is NOT a timing parameter. So, making your 450s sync with your ePMP is going to have some tradeoffs, and that's to be expected. As to the 100/430s, it was pretty unambiguous that those would never sync with the ePMP. Or have their MTUs increased. Or all sorts of other stuff. The idea they seem to be moving to, and this is my conclusion rather than a direct statement, is that the 100 series gets flat-out replaced with ePMP, you put 450 where you have needs that the 450 meets (no guard bands, smaller latency, etc etc) and that the 430 is a red-headed stepchild. Don't ask what the 320 is in that analogy. Also, there's a new licensed PTP radio to be announced in a month or so, which, supposedly, a better pricing structure. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+slebrun=muskoka@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 6:00 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy I was told there will be various options coming soon to make all of this stuff sync. There will be advantages and disadvantages to each way of doing things, but at least it will work. As far as the aging PMP/PTP100, I assume it will do 5ms framing because that's what 900 does today, so it is possible on the platform, obviously with a latency hit, but what can you do. On 9/17/2014 4:23 PM, Peter Kranz via Af wrote: This would be a VERY bad thing for people with PMP450 networks.. Increasing the frame duration to match the ePMP will double the latency of the 450 platform. Peter Kranz Founder/CEO - Unwired Ltd www.UnwiredLtd.com Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 Mobile: 510-207- pkr...@unwiredltd.com -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+pkranz=unwiredltd@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Shayne Lebrun via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:23 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy 450 is being made to sync with ePMP, by increasing frame duration to match. 100/430/320 will likely see no new changes. This is what I got from an ePMP roadshow. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:25 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy I am guessing if anything, you will see Canopy (or at least 450) sync with ePMP/320. Seems like it would be easier to make the FPGA based radio use a longer frame than to make the Atheros based radio use a shorter frame. I'm sure they already tried that. -Original Message- From: Bill Prince via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:03 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy George, you ought to be all over that new Proxim WORP stuff like white on rice. They claim that it will sync with Canopy. bp On 9/17/2014 10:41 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
A little birdie mentioned to me that the Proxim gear will use the same timing products as Canopy, and if I heard right, that is via the serial timing cable or sync over power. Which then means that you can plug Proxim WORP stuff into CMM, CTM, or Packetflux timing things. bp On 9/17/2014 11:03 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: George, you ought to be all over that new Proxim WORP stuff like white on rice. They claim that it will sync with Canopy. bp On 9/17/2014 10:41 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP latency down, then I'll buy some. On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
Do you think that's all they mean by sync with Canopy? Surely they know better. -Original Message- From: Bill Prince via Af Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:15 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy A little birdie mentioned to me that the Proxim gear will use the same timing products as Canopy, and if I heard right, that is via the serial timing cable or sync over power. Which then means that you can plug Proxim WORP stuff into CMM, CTM, or Packetflux timing things. bp On 9/17/2014 11:03 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: George, you ought to be all over that new Proxim WORP stuff like white on rice. They claim that it will sync with Canopy. bp On 9/17/2014 10:41 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP latency down, then I'll buy some. On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
AKAIK Proxim its 48 vdc 802.3at poe Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr On 9/18/14, 1:37 PM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I'm a natural skeptic. Especially with Proxim. But, accepting sync pulses from existing timing products is a good start (__IF__ it's true). Getting them to play together in the same sandbox could be a big plus. Again... __IF__ it works. bp On 9/18/2014 10:27 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: Do you think that's all they mean by sync with Canopy? Surely they know better. -Original Message- From: Bill Prince via Af Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:15 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy A little birdie mentioned to me that the Proxim gear will use the same timing products as Canopy, and if I heard right, that is via the serial timing cable or sync over power. Which then means that you can plug Proxim WORP stuff into CMM, CTM, or Packetflux timing things. bp On 9/17/2014 11:03 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote: George, you ought to be all over that new Proxim WORP stuff like white on rice. They claim that it will sync with Canopy. bp On 9/17/2014 10:41 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP latency down, then I'll buy some. On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
A few questions: How bad was the assembly? Do they recommend sealing those N Connectors? (ugh) The jumpers look a little on the “low end”. Any transition concerns? Any range tests yet? GLOBAL QUESTIONS FOR ANYBODY USING THE EPMP gear - What range are you generally getting from the “naked” SM’s? - What range are you seeing from these Force 100’s? - Other concerns with the system? - Anybody else notice that the SM’s show they’ll accept 24-56v but they will die after 30v? :) -Bob On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af af@afmug.com wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV. 2014-09-17 10.09.30.jpg
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
Sure looks like dual slant to me. -Original Message- From: Greg Osborn via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 8:22 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
Can you tell what type of finish is on the u-bolts and nuts? It looks too shiny for galvanized. Do they (the nuts and bolts) respond to magnets? We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
I am sure I have seen that back waveguide casting before. Perhaps a cheap Laird... http://www.lairdtech.com/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=idItemID=4734 -Original Message- From: Greg Osborn via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 8:22 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP latency down, then I'll buy some. On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
On this topic: I'll be at their roadshow in Albany tomorrow. If anybody has ePMP questions that they need answered, I'll put them on my list and button hole somebody from Cambium into answering them. Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP latency down, then I'll buy some. On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
Is there a 2.4ghz version yet? last I heard, these only came in 5ghz. From: Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af [af@afmug.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:41 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP latency down, then I'll buy some. On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
I am guessing if anything, you will see Canopy (or at least 450) sync with ePMP/320. Seems like it would be easier to make the FPGA based radio use a longer frame than to make the Atheros based radio use a shorter frame. I'm sure they already tried that. -Original Message- From: Bill Prince via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:03 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy George, you ought to be all over that new Proxim WORP stuff like white on rice. They claim that it will sync with Canopy. bp On 9/17/2014 10:41 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP latency down, then I'll buy some. On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
Is the WORP stuff any good? On Sep 17, 2014, at 1:25 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I am guessing if anything, you will see Canopy (or at least 450) sync with ePMP/320. Seems like it would be easier to make the FPGA based radio use a longer frame than to make the Atheros based radio use a shorter frame. I'm sure they already tried that. -Original Message- From: Bill Prince via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:03 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy George, you ought to be all over that new Proxim WORP stuff like white on rice. They claim that it will sync with Canopy. bp On 9/17/2014 10:41 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP latency down, then I'll buy some. On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
5ghz -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:41 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP latency down, then I'll buy some. On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
Proxim is heavy in the video surveillance market. Price/performace doesn't matter as much when you're selling to integrators whose experience isn't on the wireless side and who only know your name. -Original Message- From: Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com Sender: Af af-boun...@afmug.com Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 18:21:28 To: af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy Not sure how/why Proxim is still in business myself. Their gear has always looked out of line WRT price/performance. I must be a minority or something. Would you like a hot apple pie with that? bp On 9/17/2014 11:14 AM, Gino Villarini via Af wrote: For the price it should Make Espresso too Sent from my Motorola Startac... On Sep 17, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com wrote: George, you ought to be all over that new Proxim WORP stuff like white on rice. They claim that it will sync with Canopy. bp On 9/17/2014 10:41 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP latency down, then I'll buy some. On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
The conversation with them was to build the indoor AP as an outdoor but keep the price under $1000. They responded by spending $1M buying some stupid mesh firmware and then charging $3000. Brilliant plan. Then again, they couldn't even get their panels to work right. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 11:32 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy Vivato! Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr On 9/17/14, 2:27 PM, Rory Conaway via Af af@afmug.com wrote: If I had a nickel for every time some employee of some wireless company, going all the way back to Vivato, told me their competitors stuff was garbage and they would never get marketshare, I'd have about 30 cents. Then again, most of them aren't around anymore to pay me or even let me shoot off a good I told you so email. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 11:21 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy Not sure how/why Proxim is still in business myself. Their gear has always looked out of line WRT price/performance. I must be a minority or something. Would you like a hot apple pie with that? bp On 9/17/2014 11:14 AM, Gino Villarini via Af wrote: For the price it should Make Espresso too Sent from my Motorola Startac... On Sep 17, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com wrote: George, you ought to be all over that new Proxim WORP stuff like white on rice. They claim that it will sync with Canopy. bp On 9/17/2014 10:41 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP latency down, then I'll buy some. On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy
I was told there will be various options coming soon to make all of this stuff sync. There will be advantages and disadvantages to each way of doing things, but at least it will work. As far as the aging PMP/PTP100, I assume it will do 5ms framing because that's what 900 does today, so it is possible on the platform, obviously with a latency hit, but what can you do. On 9/17/2014 4:23 PM, Peter Kranz via Af wrote: This would be a VERY bad thing for people with PMP450 networks.. Increasing the frame duration to match the ePMP will double the latency of the 450 platform. Peter Kranz Founder/CEO - Unwired Ltd www.UnwiredLtd.com Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 Mobile: 510-207- pkr...@unwiredltd.com -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+pkranz=unwiredltd@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Shayne Lebrun via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:23 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy 450 is being made to sync with ePMP, by increasing frame duration to match. 100/430/320 will likely see no new changes. This is what I got from an ePMP roadshow. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 2:25 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy I am guessing if anything, you will see Canopy (or at least 450) sync with ePMP/320. Seems like it would be easier to make the FPGA based radio use a longer frame than to make the Atheros based radio use a shorter frame. I'm sure they already tried that. -Original Message- From: Bill Prince via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 1:03 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 100 beefy George, you ought to be all over that new Proxim WORP stuff like white on rice. They claim that it will sync with Canopy. bp On 9/17/2014 10:41 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Is that 2.4 or 5GHz? A couple weeks ago someone asked why the 2.4 AP sector is slant and the integrated SMs are H/V. Cambium responded with an explanation, something about the SM detecting phases and doing its thing. Definitely looks like a Laird/Pac feed design. That has to be a pain to weather seal. When they get these things to sync with Canopy and get the PTP latency down, then I'll buy some. On 9/17/2014 9:22 AM, Greg Osborn via Af wrote: We received our first shipment of ePMP Force 100's yesterday. Pretty beefy at 10 lbs. Quite a curious angle on the feed horn N-type connections. It would lead you to believe the antenna system is dual slant. All the specs say HV.
