But the problem remains. That P8/430/low mod 450 kills the sector
efficiency every time they talk / the AP talks to them. Maybe the thing
Aaron was just talking about (air-time scheduling or de-prioritizing low
mod SMs) could help.
On 11/28/2015 5:42 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
The other possibility would be to offer a super cheap tier for people
who don't want to watch video, like maybe just for the kids to do
homework. If the customer radio was essentially free, it might become
feasible to sell something like 1M service for $20 or $25/mo. We
still have some older customers who literally just use it to check
email, don't even know how to do anything else. They end up paying
the same as people on the 3M tier who watch 250GB of Netflix per month.
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 5:27 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP
Very much like that already.
We watch frame utilization and as it gets high we hunt down high usage
430's and swap those out, and fix any 450's running with poor signals.
There isn't a lot of point to swapping out low usage 430's so it's
nice that we are able to leave them if we decide to deploy 450i
Mark
On Nov 28, 2015, at 5:40 PM, George Skorup <[email protected]> wrote:
I imagine at some point, the 430 SMs will be like the old P8 SMs. You
will want to get them off of the network to keep the overall sector
capacity in check.
On 11/28/2015 1:05 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi wrote:
Yes you can, Mark.
________________________________________
From: Af <[email protected]> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh
<[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 12:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP
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
<[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
"right away" sounds ominous
-----Original Message----- From: Sriram Chaturvedi
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM
To: [email protected]
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 <[email protected]> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh
<[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM
To: [email protected]
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
<[email protected]> 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"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> 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?
