Yes, just be aware that for 430 to talk to 450i AP in its native mode, the 430's will need to be the latest 13.4.1 Open Beta. Otherwise, you'll have to enable the "legacy mode" on the 450i AP to let the older SW register. Enabling this mode limits the radio HW Queue depths to be compatible with the older SW.
The SMs need to be upgraded to be able to detect these new depths and adapt automatically during registration. For 430, 13.4.1 was the first load which supports this, and for 450, 13.3 was the first load which supports this (it originally came with 5ms Frame support, which was/is a 450/450i only feature). You can find this option on the 450i AP's Radio Configuration page: [cid:[email protected]] This is only there for you to use for migration of SW releases - it is not meant to be on indefinitely once all of your SMs are on acceptable releases (which is now 14.1.1 for 450i/450 sectors, including 450/430 SMs), as having it on will impact the performance capability of the 450i AP. Regards, -Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sriram Chaturvedi Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 1:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 14.1.1 Release and PTP Yes you can, Mark. ________________________________________ From: Af <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Mark Radabaugh <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 12:35 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> "right away" sounds ominous >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Sriram Chaturvedi >> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:00 AM >> To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of >> Mark Radabaugh <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:24 AM >> To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]%20on%20behalf%20of%[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? >>>> >> > >
