820 needs a key for layer 2 QoS / DSCP? On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Daniel White <[email protected]> wrote:
> You may need to purchase one of the extra software keys like frame > cut-thru or QoS if you don't have that enabled. > > I'm sure Cambium should be able to assist. > > Daniel White > Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales > ConVergence Technologies > Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590 > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Craig Baird > > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 9:28 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration > > > > We haven't been able to determine this. Where we're seeing it is on a > pair of > > Exfo test sets. We're trying to qualify a new 50 Mbps dedicated circuit > using > > RFC 2544 testing using the Exfos. Tests are failing, reporting lost > frames. The > > confusing thing is that our counters on both radios and switches are > fairly > > clean. The radios report zero "defective blocks". The only errors I am > seeing > > that I wonder about show up on both the radio and ethernet sides. On one > > radio, I see 38 "TX length error frame count" errors since Saturday on > the > > ethernet port. I also have 38 "RX length error frame count" > > errors on the radio. On the other side, I have 39 "RX length error frame > > count" errors on the ethernet. None on the radio side. > > > > However, I question whether these errors are related to what I'm seeing > in > > any way. I tested another leg of this circuit the other day. Identical > radios. It > > tested clean, but was also showing some of these same errors. > > > > Craig > > > > > > > > Quoting David Milholen <[email protected]>: > > > > > Are these frame losses on the Radio side or the ethernet side? > > > > > > > > > On 4/16/2016 10:32 AM, Craig Baird wrote: > > >> So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link. We > > >> recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside > > >> from a little bit of frame loss that we are investigating. While > > >> looking into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something > > >> that concerns me. On Cambium's support forum there is a post that > > >> states that when dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the > > >> same sub-band. There is no explanation of why this is the case. > > >> In our situation, the radios are in separate sub-bands. When we > > >> did the frequency coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels > > >> available were in different sub-bands. I passed those channels > > >> along to our vendor who worked with Cambium to get a BOM. At no > > >> point did anyone say that this was a problem. So now, fast forward > > >> a few months, and I stumble across this post, and now I'm wondering > > >> what the implications will be. Both links are up and running. > > >> Signal on both is right where it should be (-39 on one, -40 on the > > >> other). Both are running at maximum modulation. There are no > > >> defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces. There is no > > >> indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside > > >> from possibly this frame loss thing. However, if I mute the radios > > >> on one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related. > > >> > > >> In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized. On one > > >> side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios. On > > >> the other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish. > > >> > > >> So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't > > >> use radios from different sub-bands. Are we in for trouble at some > > >> point? > > >> > > >> Craig > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > >
