Anyone else miss the Mikrotik days where every single change was instant? =(


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:52 PM, George Skorup <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Yeah, I don't have much on 3.3 yet. One of the annoyances I've experienced
> so far is that ANY config change, something even as simple as enabling
> syslog web view, will cause a system-wide config reload which results in
> DFS having to go through CAC all over again, obviously on an AP running in
> DFS land anyway. This didn't happen with 3.2.2. I'm sure this had to be
> done probably for a number of reasons, but I'm positive that one of them
> was that I informed Cambium a few months ago that an old bug came back. It
> was possible (on 3.2.2) to make the GUI available on the NAT WAN interface
> even with the separate wireless management interface enabled after saving
> network config changes. The only fix was to reboot the SM. Now I take it
> that they're completely resetting drivers, interfaces and daemons upon save
> w/ 3.3.
>
> Anyway.. I haven't loaded 3.3 on any deployed gear running in DFS bands
> yet, mostly just bench stuff, so I can't say if more DFS issues have been
> positively resolved. I believe there were some notes about radar stuffs in
> 3.3 betas/RCs though.
>
> On 4/18/2017 11:44 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> I thought that had been fixed awhile back... but I can't even remember
> what the problem was, so I could be wrong.
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Josh Luthman <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hasn't been any mention of it.  I don't use it myself.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340 <%28937%29%20552-2340>
>> Direct: 937-552-2343 <%28937%29%20552-2343>
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Dan Petermann <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Did they get the DFS figured out yet?
>>>
>>> It seems to me there was a problem using the DFS bands, but I can’t seem
>>> to find what it was.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Reply via email to