Both are possible scenarios, but 1480 MTU is still just /wrong/ when a
pair of $48 ubnt nanostation m5 loco can do a cross-the-street 1600
byte MTU bridge.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
If they're wanting a layer2 tunnel, vpls it up. If they're wanting a
layer3 ptmp/etree/eline/elan design (which is a much better solution
anyway), why not just VRF it?
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Eric Kuhnke
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> The small MTU immediately removes it from contention for certain
> small/medium business last mile connections (sites that are too
small for
> their own PTP link, but more valuable in $$$/mo than a
residential user).
> This is because 1480 makes it impossible to do MPLS.
>
> There are all kinds of things that could require an EoMPLS
tunnel such as a
> centralized wifi captive portal system, or branch offices of the
same small
> government entity in a county (ex: Libraries, schools, whatever).
>
> Radio systems functioning as layer 2 bridges need to support
1600 byte MTU.
> That's pretty much standard for all equipment these days. Even
ubnt got
> their act together and fixed the MTU issue, I believe it used to
be not
> larger than 1500 on the very earliest series of AirMax/N radios.
Issue has
> been fixed for a few years now.
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Adam Moffett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> RSRP is how LTE systems measure signal. I don't believe it's an
>> intentional skewing on Telrad's part, but I'm sure it leads to
plenty of
>> misunderstandings.
>>
>> My experience over time has been that every vendor says their
stuff works
>> NLOS. They can say that because they all DO work NLOS
depending on how
>> strictly you define "working". I do believe that Telrad LTE
works better
>> than average at NLOS, but yeah I don't believe it would work
everywhere, and
>> I hope nobody believes that it makes extra signal power appear
out of
>> nowhere simply by being LTE.
>>
>> I'm actually more worried about...well...everything else.
There's so much
>> focus on their NLOS claims that I think it has drowned out
other discussion
>> on the product. For example:
>>
>> Is anyone else bothered that there is no documentation?
>> Is anyone else bothered that the Gemtek CPE provides no status
or control
>> of the ethernet port?
>> Has anyone else had the CPE lose configuration values after a
firmware
>> update (like the Wimax channel scan table and radius username,
which you
>> can't fix without a damn truckroll)?
>> Has anyone else had to RMA BTS's that weren't particularly
old? I had
>> two with RH alarms that were each less than a year old. One
with a corrupt
>> file system after 3 days in the field.
>> Has anyone had success using the ACS for automatic firmware
updates of
>> CPE? Ours download the firmware, then lose contact with the
server until
>> they're rebooted (through the web GUI, or power plug). After a
reboot they
>> do have the new firmware version, but it's no help if I have to
touch them
>> all.
>> Anyone had tech support issues? They've closed our ticket about
the ACS
>> issue TWICE. Both times saying, "Oh sorry, we thought that was
working
>> now." This has been an ongoing investigation since September by
the way.
>> Is anyone else troubled by the small MTU (max is 1480 I think)?
>>
>> I have tons of other complaints that are specific to the wimax
firmware.
>> Are we so impressed by NLOS that we don't need to discuss
whether it's good
>> at anything else?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/16/2016 3:01 PM, John Woodfield wrote:
>>
>> If you expect LTE 3ghz to be the silver NLOS bullet it is not.
>>
>>
>>
>> Putting speeds aside for the moment. Lets just talk signal.
Same tower,
>> same height Telrad 3ghz LTE with the Alpha dual-slant sector
within 1db
>> signal as 2.4 NBM2 on a UBNT 10db omni.
>>
>>
>>
>> LTE does not change physics. The sales guys want you to believe
that. It
>> ain't so.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, if you can attain a -75 on a 2.4 omni on a tower it won't
work worth
>> anything. That same signal on LTE will rock.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you think it was have equal penetration to 900mhz and be a
replacement
>> for your old FSK system, you are sorely mistaken.
>>
>>
>>
>> Near line of site? Yes.
>>
>>
>>
>> We had a very specific application that Patrick said without
question
>> would work. When it didn't it was a bad antenna, then it was
bad jumpers,
>> then it was a bad compact, finally they flew someone in who
argued with it
>> for a day and at the end of the day? You can't argue with physics.
>>
>>
>>
>> The whole "watch it work at -110" is garbage too. They skewed
the numbers
>> by 30db. Yes, it will work at -80, will it work well? YMMV.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the end it was too expensive for the limited benefits we
observed. They
>> swear I'm the only one in the world it didn't work for in the
same breath
>> they swore it would work without any doubt.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John Woodfield, President
>>
>> Delmarva WiFi Inc.
>>
>> 410-870-WiFi
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Ty Featherling" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:46pm
>> To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] I need a valium
>>
>> Ditto. Hell, onlist would be fine too. I'm sure many of us
would like to
>> hear your experience.
>> -Ty
>>
>>
>> -Ty
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:49 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to know your complaints as well, please.
Thanks. (offlist
>>> is fine)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Adam Moffett
>>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 9:30 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] I need a valium
>>> If I may ask John, what were your complaints?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/16/2016 10:17 AM, John Woodfield wrote:
>>>
>>> I wouldn't touch Telrad again if you paid me. That is a week
of my life
>>> I'll never get back.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John Woodfield, President
>>>
>>> Delmarva WiFi Inc.
>>>
>>> 410-870-WiFi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: "CBB - Jay Fuller" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 10:14am
>>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] I need a valium
>>>
>>> Hate being a decision maker sometimes.
>>> Love the cambium pmp450 roadmap. I know several people are
using pmp450
>>> in 3.65 and it works. I also see now that a panel antenna is
available
>>> based on the 450i in 3.65
>>> I may have fallen in love with lte. Haven't seen the telrad
talk yet.
>>> Hear the new vendor does lte for roughly what we started our
900 network for
>>> back in 2004.
>>> Why would I choose lte over cambium ?
>>> Would I? I think the cambium pmp450 (in 3.65) has a better
>>> roadmap....one gig aps by like 2017.....
>>> What if I choose the wrong product?
>>> Convince me.....
>>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
>>>
>>> ----- Reply message -----
>>> From: "Jeff Broadwick - Lists" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> To: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] 450M
>>> Date: Wed, Mar 16, 2016 10:02 AM
>>>
>>> 450i is backwards compatible with 450 today.
>>>
>>> Jeff Broadwick
>>> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
>>> 312-205-2519 Office
>>> 574-220-7826 Cell
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>
>>> On Mar 16, 2016, at 9:36 AM, Brian Sullivan
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just like FSK?
>>>
>>> On 3/16/2016 7:40 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>>>
>>> Backwards compatibility.
>>>
>>> With existing 450
>>
>>
>
