I'm not here for your approval friend!
Pal!
Buddy!

/smacks Mike on slack

On Sep 28, 2017 1:10 PM, "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]> wrote:

> That's a much better statement.
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]>
> *To: *[email protected]
> *Sent: *Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:54:43 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Ben Moore, ubnt, fix your documentation of basic
> things!
>
> I think you're thinking about this too hard, or maybe I wasn't explicit
> enough. Typing from a phone causes that.
>
> Yes, I'm staying if you are building the type of network where you have
> identified a large MTU is desirable on the L2 path, you want everything to
> be as high as possible, and you will be limited by the devices smallest MTU
> on the path.
>
> On Sep 28, 2017 12:51 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> no, it doesn't, only if you are building L2 networks bridged between
>> multiple locations. It's perfectly fine to have a router-to-router OSPF /30
>> link that is carried across a PTP system with a 1600 byte MTU (older
>> Bridgewave radios for instance), then another separate set of OSPF
>> interfaces onwards from that same router, to another router, over a 9000
>> byte MTU radio bridge. Or whatever.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> MTU needs to be consistent on the entirety of the path.
>>>
>>> AirFiber supports 9600 MTU since 1.1 FW.
>>>
>>> On Sep 28, 2017 12:35 PM, "Sterling Jacobson" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree, was just looking for that a week ago too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I’m still unclear.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My backbone is generally set for 9000+ MTU.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do I need to change my Mikrotik Ethernet ports attached to the Air
>>>> Fiber units to a specific MTU?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Eric Kuhnke
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 28, 2017 11:34 AM
>>>> *To:* [email protected]
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Ben Moore, ubnt, fix your documentation of
>>>> basic things!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> oh yeah, and there is no mention of MTU capabilities for any model of
>>>> airfiber in the most recent pdf datasheet either:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/airfiber/airFiber_DS.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is that not a basic datasheet thing to list?  Particularly for PTP
>>>> bridge radios?  I know it is for every serious PTP radio I've seen from
>>>> almost every other manufacturer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Eric Kuhnke <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Now, I know this, and everyone on the list knows this, because we've
>>>> been using the AF24 for years. We know we can use it with either 1600 or
>>>> 9000 byte MTU.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But I find it amazing that there is no mention anywhere of max MTU (or
>>>> MTU settings/capabilities in general) anywhere whatsoever in the ubnt AF24
>>>> users manual:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://dl.ubnt.com/guides/airfiber/airFiber_AF24_UG.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ctrl-f for "mtu"...  nothing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People should not be required to google "af24 mtu 9000" and trawl
>>>> through forum posts from non-ubnt-employee third parties on the ubnt forum
>>>> to know if a PTP bridge product is going to work for a particular
>>>> application or not. Same goes for the AF11FX and AF24HD.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to