They are Chuck's suppressors and I'm pretty sure they are an older revision
as well, so that could be a contributing factor.

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:14 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com>
wrote:

> Guess I should correct my grammar and say which suppressor(s)?
>
> And follow that up with the assumption that you're using Chuck's
> suppressors? The only one that produced no errors for me is the CAT6-APC
> which is just gas tubes, no diodes. He asked me to test one more thing with
> the Rev G GigE-APC, but I just haven't had the time to get out to a site
> and do it.
>
> I am using some Rev D and E GigE-APCs on Canopy and ePMP at 100Mbps and
> sync pulses present and those work fine. Gigabit is the real pain in the
> ass. Gigabit + Canopy sync is even more of a pain in the ass. I've got old
> Rev A (or B? I don't remember) GigE-APCs and GigE-POE-APCs that work fine
> at gigabit and no sync pulse, mostly AirFibers and some Exalt radios on
> those.
>
> The CAT6-APC is probably what we'll move forward with for everything since
> it'll be the most universal and offer decent protection. Actually probably
> better than decent. I think Chuck said the clamp voltage is around 90-100
> volts. The cheap stuff might die, but it's cheap so who cares.
>
>
> On 6/9/2018 3:58 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>
>> What suppressors?
>>
>> On 6/9/2018 3:23 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
>>
>>> I have a A5C that is giving me grief.  I'm getting hundreds of Rx FCS
>>> errors on the Mikrotik when I'm running gigabit, if I force it to 100 fdx,
>>> the Rx FCS errors stop, but Rx Code errors start incrementing instead.
>>> I've always gotten some amount of Rx FCS errors from Mimosa A5/A5C units,
>>> but not nearly this many.  It's starting to have an effect on service on
>>> the sector.
>>>
>>> Any ideas what I should look at?  Some people were claiming that putting
>>> something like a Netonix in between the Mimosa and the Mikrotik solved
>>> their issues, but I'm wondering if the surge suppressors are creating an
>>> issue as well.
>>>
>>> -Jason
>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to