Hello Chuck, a bit off subject for most posts Ive seen here, i was trying to do the Cambium 13.4, pmp 100 update for our equipment (11/09/15), I keep getting this message:
"Error occurred while updating device: AP-DES: null 11/15/15 03:05:58 WARN: Host: . . . . ;ESN: 0A003E910EBE;Message: Invalid File Image(status:211). and another freakish event took place : Thanksgiving morning, a raven was pecking at our Memory Link GHR 5011 timing slave/ backhaul, and succeeded at knocking the antenna off of the unit. I tried repairing the connector (the keeper/ internal snap ring was dislodged from the collar) but the stub extension will not stay in position once the winds here pick up. I also do not know how to access the Memory Link unit, since the previous events I no longer can access any equipment downstream from T 1 ( T 2 and T 3 ), If I am on site with an SM or CMM registered with T2 or T3 I can access everything downstream of T1 as long as the unit I am plugged into is downstream of T1, logic says : T1 and T2 have an issue with a timing master or timing slave or both, I don't know where to find more resources to expand my peanut (brain) possibly due to frustration but I need to trouble shoot this issue our network is down and Cambium generally takes too long. so far, every instance of Cambium support has been an education in what doesn't work, and after 2 or three reads of the card provided procedures I spend two to three weeks undoing their support. Cambium Updater could have been the cause, the program locked up and did nothing for three days, which led to having restore the PC due to corrupt or missing files, of which I am still finding. My redheaded temper and lack of patients has me in a spin, any body familiar with Memory link procedures i.e default/reset access for configuration ? thanks HAGD Chedder On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote: > We have a number of towers to convert from 4 450’s with 90 degree sectors > to 6 AP’s with 60 degree sectors. Most of these are already at 80-90% 450 > SM’s. I was asking if I can go directly to 450i AP’s without having to > finish collecting the 430’s. > > Mark > > > On Nov 28, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Sriram Chaturvedi < > sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Chuck, I was directly responding to Mark’s question on 430 “upgrade” > project where I assumed he was eventually going to upgrade his 430 SMs to > 450/450i. Perhaps it was an incorrect assumption. Believe it or not, my > responses aren’t loaded when I post here. > > > > > >> On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > >> > >> "right away" sounds ominous > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- From: Sriram Chaturvedi > >> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM > >> To: af@afmug.com > >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP > >> > >> 450i AP will interop with 430 SMs. You don't need to swap the SMs out > right away. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Sriram > >> > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh < > m...@amplex.net> > >> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM > >> To: af@afmug.com > >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP > >> > >> How about 450i AP to 430 SM? I would like to start deploying 450i > instead of 450 for 430 upgrade projects. Do I have to get all of the 430 > SM�s swapped first? > >> > >> Mark > >> > >> > >>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Schneider < > aaron.schnei...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> It should work, but at the moment I can�t recall if/when we tried > this with PTP mode. I�ll let you know. > >>> > >>> 450i - 450 isn�t really an �interop� situation like 430 - 450 > was. 430 - 450 was quite a bit different, needing SISO to talk to MIMO > with the way we did MIMO at first (MIMO-B using both channels for data). > 450i - 450 is much more similar, and we have been using that combination > internally for a long time. It wasn�t part of the initial release of > 450i due to needing to focus on the HW release itself. > >>> > >>> I�ll be in touch on the PTP question. It is important to allow you > to upgrade a PTP link one end at a time. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> -Aaron > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 11/27/15, 12:09 AM, "Af on behalf of George Skorup" < > af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of geo...@cbcast.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I thought interop was only for PMP? > >>>> > >>>> On 11/26/2015 11:38 PM, Matt wrote: > >>>>> Is it possible for a PTP450i master to talk to a PTP450 slave now? > >>>> > >> > > > > > >
