I'm not sure why everyone doesn't use that for timing. There may be technical
reasons I don't know about, but it seems like a logical first step, use
something everyone else is already using.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Prince" <part15...@gmail.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 6:30:53 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux & 450M Timing
So that makes me very confused unless the PTPV2 is a "future" feature...
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 4:19 PM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> wrote:
So interesting story here...we have three 450m's in the air and they are
getting sync over power from a packetflux gigabit sync injector & timing over
timing port via a packetflux sync injector 12.
Old style sync seems to work just fine on the 450m.
-Sean
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:06 PM Bill Prince < part15...@gmail.com > wrote:
Based on what others have said, I think it is all part of the "Precision Timing
Protocol", it is an IP-based way of distributing timing information. Look up
IEEE 1588-2008, or Precision Timing Protocol Version 2.
No more timing pulses.
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 3:03 PM, Chuck McCown < ch...@wbmfg.com > wrote:
Well, sending a pulse sounds like AM to me. Perhaps level shifting would be a
better term to use.
From: Daniel White
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 3:40 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux & 450M Timing
Something completely new.
Instead of interrupting power, they are sending a “pulse” of power per sync
pulse. I don’t recall the details on it at this point.
CMM5 FYI is looking like December availability now.
Daniel White
Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales
ConVergence Technologies
Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
dwh...@converge-tech.com
From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of George Skorup
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 12:40 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux & 450M Timing
So.. is "Cambium Sync" still a power interruption scheme or something
completely new? I thought the thing they were going to move to was 1588v2?
On 11/15/2016 1:26 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
<blockquote>
I guess I need to be more clear on this. ..
There are two types of sync over power.
The first is being called Canopy sync, which is compatible with the 450i and
earlier radios.
The second is being called Cambium sync and is compatible with the 450M and I'm
guessing later radios.
Currently there are devices that produce the cambium sync pulse... The CMM5 and
I'm about 100% certain that Last Mile Gear has one as well. I have the
technical information I need, just haven't had a chance to get the circuit
designed (I only received it shortly before wispapalooza), let alone tested.
On Nov 14, 2016 7:52 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
li...@packetflux.com > wrote:
<blockquote>
No, Cambium elected to drop the traditional sync over power on the 450M.
So, you either need to use timing port sync (via the aux port) or use what
they're calling cambium sync.
The 1U injector is very close. I need to finish validation on the latest board
revisions and then will be releasing it to production assuming there isn't some
showstopper I missed.
On Nov 14, 2016 7:34 PM, "Matt" < matt.mailingli...@gmail.com > wrote:
<blockquote>
Shouldn't the sync over power for the 450M be the same as PMP450i?
How is the 1u sync injector coming?
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account)
< li...@packetflux.com > wrote:
> All of the currently shipping syncbox product line are compatible. For sync
> over power, I have the specs, but the design isn't done yet.
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2016 5:40 PM, "Sam Lambie" < samtaos...@gmail.com > wrote:
>>
>> A question for Forrest mostly. Have you come up with a timing product for
>> the 450m AP yet? If not, have you got a timeline for release?
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Sam Lambie
>> Taosnet Wireless Tech.
>> 575-758-7598 Office
>> www.Taosnet.com
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Virus-free. www.avast.com
</blockquote>
