Last week I posted concerns about our AF24 putting out these FCS errors after a 
firmware upgrade from 1.5 to 2.0.  I noticed them in the TIK router running 6.x.

For ‘unknown’ reasons, no one could explain why the TIK router would not sync 
up at 1Gb and be stable with the Air fiber attached.  The resolution was to run 
100Mb.  UBNT wanted me to do ALL the things we did last year.  (swap cable, 
terminations, grounding, POE etc.)

Hah! That was all done including a different Air fiber.  Sorry but that is not 
the problem guys!

 

Upgraded to the BETA firmware and MOST of these errors cleared but still showed 
randomly at times.  Upgraded TIK to 6.2 same issue….actually got real bad…  
including some customers indicating the network had slowed.

We resolved the errors showing up on the TIK Ethernet side by doing all these 
things PLUS enabling the Flow Control on both the UBNT and TIK router.  No 
errors showing up but some customers SWEAR things have slowed down now.  I 
haven’t test from the other end yet.

There is no reason it should be slow since now  we have got this working on 1GB.

 

I am willing to lose some money that if we reverse those changes and put a 1GB 
switches in between the air fiber and TIK router all will clear.  

 

WHY does this industry put up with these silly quirks is beyond me.  VERY 
frustrating.  I don’t think either UBNT or MT really knows who is at fault 
here.  

 

 

Tyson Burris, President 
Internet Communications Inc. 
739 Commerce Dr. 
Franklin, IN 46131 
  
317-738-0320 Daytime # 
317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # 
Online: www.surfici.net 

 



What can ICI do for you? 


Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP 
Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. 
  
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the 
addressee shown. It contains information that is 
confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, 
dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by 
unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly 
prohibited. 

 

From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chuck Macenski via Af
Sent: Friday, November 7, 2014 3:10 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF5/24 errors

 

If you run into any issues, hit me ( [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  ) 
and we will figure it out.

 

Chuck

 

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:34 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af 
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

FWIW, the AF firmware has been pretty stable, even betas. I had to run 
2.2-beta3 on the AF5s since it has DFS/RADAR improvements. I've had a 3.4 mile 
link up running DFS band for a couple weeks and it has been pretty stable 
pushing about 100Mbps. I would kill for a 5.1-5.3GHz AF5.

Anyway... since Chuck seems to think it's MikroTik, I will pull out a spare 
AF24 and see if I get errors on either of my two managed switches in the office.

On 11/7/2014 11:05 AM, Bill Prince via Af wrote:

I wouldn't call it "issues", as I almost never do the Tools->Discovery.  I only 
went through that process after I read this from George.

The interface FCS error counter is zero (or near zero), and each time I did 
Tools->Discovery, the FCS counter would increment by between 5 and 15. Our 
AF24s are otherwise working fine.

We upgraded to 1.5 to get SNMP, and haven't had the need to upgrade beyond 
that. George tends to operate a bit closer to the bleeding edge than I'm 
comfortable with.




bp
<part-15@SkylineBroadbandService>



On 11/7/2014 8:44 AM, Chuck Macenski via Af wrote:

You also have issues when connected to Microtik?

 

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Bill Prince via Af <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

Same thing happens on version 1.5.

bp 



On 11/6/2014 2:59 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote:

Found this interesting. I have some AF24's on 2.0 and AF5's on 2.2-beta3. They 
work fine. If I do a Tools > Discovery, the MT ethernet counters on both sides 
will increment FCS and Code errors. Same thing happens if I run some pings 
between the radios (not router to router, radio to radio). I'm guessing this 
because of the switching method the AF's use (cut-through?).

 

 

 

 

 

Reply via email to