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]> 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]> > 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]> > 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]> > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:46pm > >> To: "[email protected]" <[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]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> I would like to know your complaints as well, please. Thanks. > (offlist > >>> is fine) > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: Adam Moffett > >>> To: [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]> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 10:14am > >>> To: [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]> > >>> To: <[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] > >>> > >>> On Mar 16, 2016, at 9:36 AM, Brian Sullivan <[email protected] > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Just like FSK? > >>> > >>> On 3/16/2016 7:40 AM, Chuck McCown wrote: > >>> > >>> Backwards compatibility. > >>> > >>> With existing 450 > >> > >> > > >
