Re: [AFMUG] Access Broadband over Powerline

[Brian Webster]

I am not an expert on this but ask them what data throughput speeds they can do 
on this meter reading system? I know a lot of rural Co-Ops that have had meter 
reading and network monitoring over their lines for years. So yes you can do 
some level of data over power lines and pass through transformers but I don't 
think they had enough throughput capacity to offer it as a broadband service, 
just their own internal system monitoring and control.  My recollection is that 
they were on very low frequencies (sub one megahertz comes to mind). The BPL 
systems covered huge swaths of spectrum to deliver high speed services that was 
suitable for broadband internet use and as such used a lot more spectrum. 
Depending on the frequencies used  with the BPL equipment the open unshielded 
power lines actually become antennas and broadcast noise on the same spectrum 
used for the data. This is why cable TV systems all use shielded coax so as to 
not actually broadcast RF signals that they are sending through the coax 
system. This is such a big deal the cable systems are required to do an RF 
leakage test EVERY 6 MONTHS to ensure they do not leak any RF signals 
especially in the range that would interfere with aviation navigational 
devices. These test are physically done, typically via aircraft flyovers but 
are also done via drive test on the roads.  Meter reading can be done at very 
slow speeds.

But hey, doubt so many electric companies who tried and failed for various 
reasons, or that nobody else over the years got it working on any large scale 
in rural markets. What do all of those people know? Certainly not as much as a 
single WISP might ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-line_communication

"Data rates and distance limits vary widely over many power-line communication 
standards. Low-frequency (about 100–200 kHz) carriers impressed on high-voltage 
transmission lines may carry one or two analog voice circuits, or telemetry and 
control circuits with an equivalent data rate of a few hundred bits per second; 
however, these circuits may be many miles long. Higher data rates generally 
imply shorter ranges; a local area network operating at millions of bits per 
second may only cover one floor of an office building, but eliminates the need 
for installation of dedicated network cabling."

"Utility companies use special coupling capacitors to connect radio 
transmitters to the power-frequency AC conductors. Frequencies used are in the 
range of 24 to 500 kHz, with transmitter power levels up to hundreds of watts. 
These signals may be impressed on one conductor, on two conductors or on all 
three conductors of a high-voltage AC transmission line. Several PLC channels 
may be coupled onto one HV line. Filtering devices are applied at substations 
to prevent the carrier frequency current from being bypassed through the 
station apparatus and to ensure that distant faults do not affect the isolated 
segments of the PLC system. These circuits are used for control of switchgear, 
and for protection of transmission lines. For example, a protective relay can 
use a PLC channel to trip a line if a fault is detected between its two 
terminals, but to leave the line in operation if the fault is elsewhere on the 
system."

"The Distribution Line Carrier (DLC) System technology used a frequency range 
of 9 to 500 kHz with data rate up to 576 kbit/s."

Google the city of Manassas VA and BPL, they were the poster child for the 
technology. The systems have been used in MDU situations 

Thank You,
Brian Webster


-Original Message-
From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 9:11 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Access Broadband over Powerline

Hmmm. Just spoke with our power company. Their meter data flows throw the 
transformer. 

How’s that work?

> On Jul 19, 2018, at 21:07, Brian Webster  wrote:
> 
> That type of meter reading is very slow speed data as I recall, I think less
> than dial up. It works good for once a month meter readings and occasionally
> sending data bullets to shut down water heaters and such. As Adam mentioned
> the idea of BPL was flawed because they assumed in the models that there
> were many houses per transformer. In rural areas where they really want to
> do this there is more commonly one house per transformer so the business
> model falls apart. The other major issue was that the BPL systems used
> frequencies on open wires that interfered in a major way with various
> licensed services on the shortwave bands and as such they became
> unintentional radiators and that had international implications based on
> treaties. They tried to notch out the frequencies that they were causing
> interference but then that made the bandwidth for the broadband side suffer
> in a big way. 
> 
> Thank You,
> Brian Webster
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of 

[AFMUG] Ruckus Xclaim DHCP Issues

[Nate Burke]

I have a single site where I have multiple Xi-3 AP's deployed. About 
every 45 days, one of them goes into a state where it will happily 
connect the clients on the RF, but not allow DHCP to hand an IP address 
out.  Rebooting the AP (Through the cloud manager) fixes the issue.  
Since it's happily talking to the cloud, there aren't any Ethernet 
issues.  The mikrotik log shows 'Offering DHCP Lease without success' 
for anyone on the affected AP.  All on Current firmware, but it's been 
doing it for a while.  Ruckus Support hasn't been useful because I can't 
replicate it, and I have no way of getting on site when it happens.  Has 
anyone run into this before with the Xclaim lineup?


Nate

--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Access Broadband over Powerline

[Matt Hoppes]

Hmmm. Just spoke with our power company. Their meter data flows throw the 
transformer. 

How’s that work?

> On Jul 19, 2018, at 21:07, Brian Webster  wrote:
> 
> That type of meter reading is very slow speed data as I recall, I think less
> than dial up. It works good for once a month meter readings and occasionally
> sending data bullets to shut down water heaters and such. As Adam mentioned
> the idea of BPL was flawed because they assumed in the models that there
> were many houses per transformer. In rural areas where they really want to
> do this there is more commonly one house per transformer so the business
> model falls apart. The other major issue was that the BPL systems used
> frequencies on open wires that interfered in a major way with various
> licensed services on the shortwave bands and as such they became
> unintentional radiators and that had international implications based on
> treaties. They tried to notch out the frequencies that they were causing
> interference but then that made the bandwidth for the broadband side suffer
> in a big way. 
> 
> Thank You,
> Brian Webster
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 8:54 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Access Broadband over Powerline
> 
> Our local power company has smart meters that they absolutely read over the
> powerline.
> 
> I feel like even if you had to do a electric tap and a small access point at
> the transformer you could stomach it is the smile on it.
> 
>> On Jul 19, 2018, at 20:46, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>> 
>> They use wireless for smart meters.  Around here it's Wimax to feed a
> 900mhz base station, then 900 to the smart meter.  In a different
> municipality nearby they have a mobile system that polls the meters when
> they drive by.  So the meter reader still exists, but all he has to do is
> drive slowly down the street.
>> 
>> I didn't look hard at BPL after learning about the transformer issue.
> That seems to make it a non-starter as far as I can tell.  I think you can
> run some flavor of BPL on the primaries.  Or run fiber down the road.  Or
> wireless to the transformer, BPL to the house.
>> 
>> If there was a viable business in BPL, every power company would already
> be doing it.  They've had plenty of time to research the topic.
>> 
>> -Adam
>> 
>> 
>>> On 7/19/2018 8:38 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>>> Seems simple enough.
>>> 
>>> So what means exist for BPL to the transformer?
>>> 
>>> How do smart meters work?  They have to jump the transformer some how.
>>> 
 On Jul 19, 2018, at 20:33, Adam Moffett  wrote:
 
 Signal doesn't pass through transformers, so you need the access point
> on the customer side of the transformer.  So you need a means to get
> internet to the pole which has the customer's transformer on it.  If you
> could do that you wouldn't need the BPL.
 
 That's the long and the short of it.
 
 
> On 7/19/2018 8:18 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> There was much chatter about this technology some years ago, and then
> the talk of it fizzled - even though the FCC approved it.
> 
> Does anyone know of anyone making access wide area BPL equipment
> currently?
> 
> Anyone here have any experience with it?
> 
 
 -- 
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> 
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Access Broadband over Powerline

[Brian Webster]

That type of meter reading is very slow speed data as I recall, I think less
than dial up. It works good for once a month meter readings and occasionally
sending data bullets to shut down water heaters and such. As Adam mentioned
the idea of BPL was flawed because they assumed in the models that there
were many houses per transformer. In rural areas where they really want to
do this there is more commonly one house per transformer so the business
model falls apart. The other major issue was that the BPL systems used
frequencies on open wires that interfered in a major way with various
licensed services on the shortwave bands and as such they became
unintentional radiators and that had international implications based on
treaties. They tried to notch out the frequencies that they were causing
interference but then that made the bandwidth for the broadband side suffer
in a big way. 

Thank You,
Brian Webster


-Original Message-
From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 8:54 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Access Broadband over Powerline

Our local power company has smart meters that they absolutely read over the
powerline.

I feel like even if you had to do a electric tap and a small access point at
the transformer you could stomach it is the smile on it.

> On Jul 19, 2018, at 20:46, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> 
> They use wireless for smart meters.  Around here it's Wimax to feed a
900mhz base station, then 900 to the smart meter.  In a different
municipality nearby they have a mobile system that polls the meters when
they drive by.  So the meter reader still exists, but all he has to do is
drive slowly down the street.
> 
> I didn't look hard at BPL after learning about the transformer issue.
That seems to make it a non-starter as far as I can tell.  I think you can
run some flavor of BPL on the primaries.  Or run fiber down the road.  Or
wireless to the transformer, BPL to the house.
> 
> If there was a viable business in BPL, every power company would already
be doing it.  They've had plenty of time to research the topic.
> 
> -Adam
> 
> 
>> On 7/19/2018 8:38 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>> Seems simple enough.
>> 
>> So what means exist for BPL to the transformer?
>> 
>> How do smart meters work?  They have to jump the transformer some how.
>> 
>>> On Jul 19, 2018, at 20:33, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Signal doesn't pass through transformers, so you need the access point
on the customer side of the transformer.  So you need a means to get
internet to the pole which has the customer's transformer on it.  If you
could do that you wouldn't need the BPL.
>>> 
>>> That's the long and the short of it.
>>> 
>>> 
 On 7/19/2018 8:18 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
 There was much chatter about this technology some years ago, and then
the talk of it fizzled - even though the FCC approved it.
 
 Does anyone know of anyone making access wide area BPL equipment
currently?
 
 Anyone here have any experience with it?
 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> 
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Access Broadband over Powerline

[Matt Hoppes]

Our local power company has smart meters that they absolutely read over the 
powerline.

I feel like even if you had to do a electric tap and a small access point at 
the transformer you could stomach it is the smile on it.

> On Jul 19, 2018, at 20:46, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> 
> They use wireless for smart meters.  Around here it's Wimax to feed a 900mhz 
> base station, then 900 to the smart meter.  In a different municipality 
> nearby they have a mobile system that polls the meters when they drive by.  
> So the meter reader still exists, but all he has to do is drive slowly down 
> the street.
> 
> I didn't look hard at BPL after learning about the transformer issue.  That 
> seems to make it a non-starter as far as I can tell.  I think you can run 
> some flavor of BPL on the primaries.  Or run fiber down the road.  Or 
> wireless to the transformer, BPL to the house.
> 
> If there was a viable business in BPL, every power company would already be 
> doing it.  They've had plenty of time to research the topic.
> 
> -Adam
> 
> 
>> On 7/19/2018 8:38 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>> Seems simple enough.
>> 
>> So what means exist for BPL to the transformer?
>> 
>> How do smart meters work?  They have to jump the transformer some how.
>> 
>>> On Jul 19, 2018, at 20:33, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Signal doesn't pass through transformers, so you need the access point on 
>>> the customer side of the transformer.  So you need a means to get internet 
>>> to the pole which has the customer's transformer on it.  If you could do 
>>> that you wouldn't need the BPL.
>>> 
>>> That's the long and the short of it.
>>> 
>>> 
 On 7/19/2018 8:18 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
 There was much chatter about this technology some years ago, and then the 
 talk of it fizzled - even though the FCC approved it.
 
 Does anyone know of anyone making access wide area BPL equipment currently?
 
 Anyone here have any experience with it?
 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> 
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Access Broadband over Powerline

[Adam Moffett]

Signal doesn't pass through transformers, so you need the access point 
on the customer side of the transformer.  So you need a means to get 
internet to the pole which has the customer's transformer on it.  If you 
could do that you wouldn't need the BPL.


That's the long and the short of it.


On 7/19/2018 8:18 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

There was much chatter about this technology some years ago, and then the talk 
of it fizzled - even though the FCC approved it.

Does anyone know of anyone making access wide area BPL equipment currently?

Anyone here have any experience with it?




--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] Access Broadband over Powerline

[Matt Hoppes]

There was much chatter about this technology some years ago, and then the talk 
of it fizzled - even though the FCC approved it. 

Does anyone know of anyone making access wide area BPL equipment currently?

Anyone here have any experience with it?

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OSPF not propagating default route...

[Nate Burke]

All different mix of ROS Versions.  There must be something special 
about the default route.


On 7/19/2018 5:20 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
What version(s) of ROS are you using? We have a couple of the routers 
that are back-rev, and we're wondering if this is a version issue. 
It's kind of ironic that the only route that does not propagate is the 
default route. That seems counter to what you would expect.


--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com


On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 3:07 PM Nate Burke > wrote:


Exactly, only the default route is affected.  I see the same
thing.  All other routes are fine except for the default route.

On 7/19/2018 5:02 PM, Bill Prince wrote:

It's a mix of Mikrotik routers. Many MIPSBE, CCR, and X86
architectures.

It seems to be specific to the OSPF routing table and the default
route. If it's not a default route, but a loopback interface, or
other ordinary interface, the route will propagate from one end
to the other almost immediately. But if it's the default route,
it will drop from ip/routes, but hang out as a zombie in OSPF.

--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com


On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 2:02 PM Nate Burke mailto:n...@blastcomm.com>> wrote:

What types of routers?  I've seen this happen on Mikrotik. 
Any OSPF change anywhere in the network will fix it.  I have
dedicated routers hanging at points on the network running a
script that pings an Internet Address, and downs it's OSPF
network if it's unreachable.  To address this specific senario.

On 7/19/2018 2:02 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:


Maybe not quite a similar problem, but I had forgotten to
advertise BGP one time on one of the routers when I thought
things would magically fail over.

*From:* AF 
 *On Behalf Of * Bill Prince
*Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2018 11:44 AM
*To:* AFMUG  
*Subject:* [AFMUG] OSPF not propagating default route...

Our backbone is 9 hops from one end to the other. We have 2
ASes and 2 exits at either end. "Most" of the time the
traffic is 50/50 right at the midpoint (4 hops one way, and
4 hops the other). However, when we kill BGP at one end or
the other, the default routes do not switch over. The two
BGP routers are set to "distribute-default" "always as type
1". Clearly, this is not working the way we expect it to.
Any clues about what we are missing here?

--

bp

part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com





-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com





-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com





-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OSPF not propagating default route...

[Bill Prince]

What version(s) of ROS are you using? We have a couple of the routers that
are back-rev, and we're wondering if this is a version issue. It's kind of
ironic that the only route that does not propagate is the default route.
That seems counter to what you would expect.

--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com


On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 3:07 PM Nate Burke  wrote:

> Exactly, only the default route is affected.  I see the same thing.  All
> other routes are fine except for the default route.
>
> On 7/19/2018 5:02 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
>
> It's a mix of Mikrotik routers. Many MIPSBE, CCR, and X86 architectures.
>
> It seems to be specific to the OSPF routing table and the default route.
> If it's not a default route, but a loopback interface, or other ordinary
> interface, the route will propagate from one end to the other almost
> immediately. But if it's the default route, it will drop from ip/routes,
> but hang out as a zombie in OSPF.
>
> --
> bp
> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 2:02 PM Nate Burke  wrote:
>
>> What types of routers?  I've seen this happen on Mikrotik.  Any OSPF
>> change anywhere in the network will fix it.  I have dedicated routers
>> hanging at points on the network running a script that pings an Internet
>> Address, and downs it's OSPF network if it's unreachable.  To address this
>> specific senario.
>>
>> On 7/19/2018 2:02 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
>>
>> Maybe not quite a similar problem, but I had forgotten to advertise BGP
>> one time on one of the routers when I thought things would magically fail
>> over.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF   *On
>> Behalf Of * Bill Prince
>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2018 11:44 AM
>> *To:* AFMUG  
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] OSPF not propagating default route...
>>
>>
>>
>> Our backbone is 9 hops from one end to the other. We have 2 ASes and 2
>> exits at either end. "Most" of the time the traffic is 50/50 right at the
>> midpoint (4 hops one way, and 4 hops the other). However, when we kill BGP
>> at one end or the other, the default routes do not switch over. The two BGP
>> routers are set to "distribute-default" "always as type 1". Clearly, this
>> is not working the way we expect it to. Any clues about what we are missing
>> here?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> bp
>>
>> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OSPF not propagating default route...

[Bill Prince]

It's a mix of Mikrotik routers. Many MIPSBE, CCR, and X86 architectures.

It seems to be specific to the OSPF routing table and the default route. If
it's not a default route, but a loopback interface, or other ordinary
interface, the route will propagate from one end to the other almost
immediately. But if it's the default route, it will drop from ip/routes,
but hang out as a zombie in OSPF.

--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com


On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 2:02 PM Nate Burke  wrote:

> What types of routers?  I've seen this happen on Mikrotik.  Any OSPF
> change anywhere in the network will fix it.  I have dedicated routers
> hanging at points on the network running a script that pings an Internet
> Address, and downs it's OSPF network if it's unreachable.  To address this
> specific senario.
>
> On 7/19/2018 2:02 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
>
> Maybe not quite a similar problem, but I had forgotten to advertise BGP
> one time on one of the routers when I thought things would magically fail
> over.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF   *On Behalf
> Of * Bill Prince
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2018 11:44 AM
> *To:* AFMUG  
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] OSPF not propagating default route...
>
>
>
> Our backbone is 9 hops from one end to the other. We have 2 ASes and 2
> exits at either end. "Most" of the time the traffic is 50/50 right at the
> midpoint (4 hops one way, and 4 hops the other). However, when we kill BGP
> at one end or the other, the default routes do not switch over. The two BGP
> routers are set to "distribute-default" "always as type 1". Clearly, this
> is not working the way we expect it to. Any clues about what we are missing
> here?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> bp
>
> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT camper toilets

[chuck]

We will have a fridge and microwave within easy reach too.  Fridge will be full 
of hot pockets.  

From: Dustin Jurman 
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 2:14 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT camper toilets

That’s interesting Chuck,  I haven’t tried to spice on a toilet before but 
certainly could improve efficiency.  If there is a large fiber count I would 
consider the padded seat. 

 

DSJ

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 8:28 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] OT camper toilets

 

I am outfitting a new fiber splice trailer.  This one will have a toilet.  

I know next to nothing about camper toilets.  Not much room for a holding tank.

Been googling cassette toilets.  They seem like they might be a good solution.

 

Deed advice.




-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF11x

[Mitch Koep]

Dragonwave from what I can find

Mitch


On 7/19/2018 9:43 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
So what current product current release radio has the best throughput 
in the 11 GHz band?

*From:* Adam Moffett
*Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2018 8:04 AM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] AF11x
So I just read up about the AF11x.  I haven't been paying much 
attention to this product because I've been busy with other things.


The datasheet claims "best spectral efficiency in class" and "1.2gbps".
Various people on the forum made claims that don't match up with 
simple comparisons of spec sheets.  Some were UBNT employees, others 
were just fanboys.


The actual info on the spec sheets is that you get about 22% less 
throughput per channel at the same modulation level and same channel 
size as competing products.  They claim huge numbers by adding 
multiple channels together.  You also can't use a full 80mhz channel, 
so if I compare to a PTP820C (which actually /can /do 1.2gbps full 
duplex in XPIC), the Airfiber 11x is more like 42% less throughput.


So the spec sheet is factually accurate with it's numbers, but the 
text narrative is clearly intended to mislead the buyer.  Having just 
realized this, I'm a bit offended.


It seems the only thing it really has going for it is being very 
inexpensive.  Like I can get 2 AF11x's for less than one PTP820S with 
full speed licenses.  So /if /I can get enough channels licensed for 2 
XPIC links, then the AF11x is still compelling.  And it might mean I 
can justify an 11ghz link for a lower volume site than I could 
otherwise.  They didn't need to lie about it.





--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com




-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OSPF not propagating default route...

[Nate Burke]

What types of routers?  I've seen this happen on Mikrotik.  Any OSPF 
change anywhere in the network will fix it.  I have dedicated routers 
hanging at points on the network running a script that pings an Internet 
Address, and downs it's OSPF network if it's unreachable.  To address 
this specific senario.


On 7/19/2018 2:02 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:


Maybe not quite a similar problem, but I had forgotten to advertise 
BGP one time on one of the routers when I thought things would 
magically fail over.


*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * Bill Prince
*Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2018 11:44 AM
*To:* AFMUG 
*Subject:* [AFMUG] OSPF not propagating default route...

Our backbone is 9 hops from one end to the other. We have 2 ASes and 2 
exits at either end. "Most" of the time the traffic is 50/50 right at 
the midpoint (4 hops one way, and 4 hops the other). However, when we 
kill BGP at one end or the other, the default routes do not switch 
over. The two BGP routers are set to "distribute-default" "always as 
type 1". Clearly, this is not working the way we expect it to. Any 
clues about what we are missing here?


--

bp

part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com





-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT camper toilets

[Dustin Jurman]

That's interesting Chuck,  I haven't tried to spice on a toilet before but 
certainly could improve efficiency.  If there is a large fiber count I would 
consider the padded seat.

DSJ

From: AF  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 8:28 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] OT camper toilets

I am outfitting a new fiber splice trailer.  This one will have a toilet.
I know next to nothing about camper toilets.  Not much room for a holding tank.
Been googling cassette toilets.  They seem like they might be a good solution.

Deed advice.
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OSPF not propagating default route...

[Dennis Burgess]

If installed ☺


Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270  Website: 
http://www.linktechs.net
Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com

From: AF  On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 2:03 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OSPF not propagating default route...

Maybe not quite a similar problem, but I had forgotten to advertise BGP one 
time on one of the routers when I thought things would magically fail over.



From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of 
Bill Prince
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 11:44 AM
To: AFMUG mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
Subject: [AFMUG] OSPF not propagating default route...

Our backbone is 9 hops from one end to the other. We have 2 ASes and 2 exits at 
either end. "Most" of the time the traffic is 50/50 right at the midpoint (4 
hops one way, and 4 hops the other). However, when we kill BGP at one end or 
the other, the default routes do not switch over. The two BGP routers are set 
to "distribute-default" "always as type 1". Clearly, this is not working the 
way we expect it to. Any clues about what we are missing here?


--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF11x

[Rory Conaway]

The 820 can’t do 80MHz channels at 2048QAM.  The Bridgewave Navigator is what 
I’d be looking at next, way more capabilities and capacity.  They are just 
starting to ship them.

Rory

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 9:45 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11x

What does an aviat link cost? The alfoplus2 is about $15k a link, the regular 
alfoplus used to be a solid deal, not as much anymore.

On Thursday, July 19, 2018, Mike Hammett 
mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote:
SIAE I believe will be your best bang and at a reasonable buck. Aviat, maybe. 
Bridgewave, still waiting.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]




From: ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@af.afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 9:43:01 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11x
So what current product current release radio has the best throughput in the 11 
GHz band?

From: Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 8:04 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] AF11x

So I just read up about the AF11x.  I haven't been paying much attention to 
this product because I've been busy with other things.

The datasheet claims "best spectral efficiency in class" and "1.2gbps".
Various people on the forum made claims that don't match up with simple 
comparisons of spec sheets.  Some were UBNT employees, others were just fanboys.

The actual info on the spec sheets is that you get about 22% less throughput 
per channel at the same modulation level and same channel size as competing 
products.  They claim huge numbers by adding multiple channels together.  You 
also can't use a full 80mhz channel, so if I compare to a PTP820C (which 
actually can do 1.2gbps full duplex in XPIC), the Airfiber 11x is more like 42% 
less throughput.

So the spec sheet is factually accurate with it's numbers, but the text 
narrative is clearly intended to mislead the buyer.  Having just realized this, 
I'm a bit offended.

It seems the only thing it really has going for it is being very inexpensive.  
Like I can get 2 AF11x's for less than one PTP820S with full speed licenses.  
So if I can get enough channels licensed for 2 XPIC links, then the AF11x is 
still compelling.  And it might mean I can justify an 11ghz link for a lower 
volume site than I could otherwise.  They didn't need to lie about it.



--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] OSPF not propagating default route...

[Bill Prince]

Our backbone is 9 hops from one end to the other. We have 2 ASes and 2
exits at either end. "Most" of the time the traffic is 50/50 right at the
midpoint (4 hops one way, and 4 hops the other). However, when we kill BGP
at one end or the other, the default routes do not switch over. The two BGP
routers are set to "distribute-default" "always as type 1". Clearly, this
is not working the way we expect it to. Any clues about what we are missing
here?


--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF11x

[Jason McKemie]

What does an aviat link cost? The alfoplus2 is about $15k a link, the
regular alfoplus used to be a solid deal, not as much anymore.

On Thursday, July 19, 2018, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> SIAE I believe will be your best bang and at a reasonable buck. Aviat,
> maybe. Bridgewave, still waiting.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *ch...@wbmfg.com
> *To: *af@af.afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, July 19, 2018 9:43:01 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF11x
>
> So what current product current release radio has the best throughput in
> the 11 GHz band?
>
> *From:* Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2018 8:04 AM
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] AF11x
>
> So I just read up about the AF11x.  I haven't been paying much attention
> to this product because I've been busy with other things.
>
> The datasheet claims "best spectral efficiency in class" and "1.2gbps".
> Various people on the forum made claims that don't match up with simple
> comparisons of spec sheets.  Some were UBNT employees, others were just
> fanboys.
>
> The actual info on the spec sheets is that you get about 22% less
> throughput per channel at the same modulation level and same channel size
> as competing products.  They claim huge numbers by adding multiple channels
> together.  You also can't use a full 80mhz channel, so if I compare to a
> PTP820C (which actually *can *do 1.2gbps full duplex in XPIC), the
> Airfiber 11x is more like 42% less throughput.
>
> So the spec sheet is factually accurate with it's numbers, but the text
> narrative is clearly intended to mislead the buyer.  Having just realized
> this, I'm a bit offended.
>
> It seems the only thing it really has going for it is being very
> inexpensive.  Like I can get 2 AF11x's for less than one PTP820S with full
> speed licenses.  So *if *I can get enough channels licensed for 2 XPIC
> links, then the AF11x is still compelling.  And it might mean I can justify
> an 11ghz link for a lower volume site than I could otherwise.  They didn't
> need to lie about it.
>
> 
>
> --
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF11x

[Mike Hammett]

They also compare their dual polarity against others single polarity and then 
claim theirs is better. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Mathew Howard"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 9:48:06 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11x 


The 1.2Gbps claim is aggregate... it's somewhat deceptive marketing, that UBNT 
has been doing for years. It's factually correct, but as far as I know, nobody 
else markets full duplex radios that way. 


22% less than throughput at any giving modulations compared to competing 
products (with the exception of the Mimosa B11, which is much less efficient, 
hence the "best in class" claim), sounds about right. 


Realistically, the AF-11 can do somewhere around 650Mbps in each direction... 
and as far as I know, the only way to get anything beyond that with them, is to 
put up two complete links (including two sets of dishes). It would be nice if 
there was a way to stack multiple radios onto one dish at least, but as far as 
I know, there's not currently a way to do that. 


On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Adam Moffett < dmmoff...@gmail.com > wrote: 



So I just read up about the AF11x. I haven't been paying much attention to this 
product because I've been busy with other things. 

The datasheet claims "best spectral efficiency in class" and "1.2gbps". 
Various people on the forum made claims that don't match up with simple 
comparisons of spec sheets. Some were UBNT employees, others were just fanboys. 

The actual info on the spec sheets is that you get about 22% less throughput 
per channel at the same modulation level and same channel size as competing 
products. They claim huge numbers by adding multiple channels together. You 
also can't use a full 80mhz channel, so if I compare to a PTP820C (which 
actually can do 1.2gbps full duplex in XPIC), the Airfiber 11x is more like 42% 
less throughput. 

So the spec sheet is factually accurate with it's numbers, but the text 
narrative is clearly intended to mislead the buyer. Having just realized this, 
I'm a bit offended. 

It seems the only thing it really has going for it is being very inexpensive. 
Like I can get 2 AF11x's for less than one PTP820S with full speed licenses. So 
if I can get enough channels licensed for 2 XPIC links, then the AF11x is still 
compelling. And it might mean I can justify an 11ghz link for a lower volume 
site than I could otherwise. They didn't need to lie about it. 

 


-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 





-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF11x

[Mike Hammett]

Yes, the UBNT claims are a bit... bold... and misleading. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 9:04:12 AM 
Subject: [AFMUG] AF11x 

So I just read up about the AF11x. I haven't been paying much attention to this 
product because I've been busy with other things. 

The datasheet claims "best spectral efficiency in class" and "1.2gbps". 
Various people on the forum made claims that don't match up with simple 
comparisons of spec sheets. Some were UBNT employees, others were just fanboys. 

The actual info on the spec sheets is that you get about 22% less throughput 
per channel at the same modulation level and same channel size as competing 
products. They claim huge numbers by adding multiple channels together. You 
also can't use a full 80mhz channel, so if I compare to a PTP820C (which 
actually can do 1.2gbps full duplex in XPIC), the Airfiber 11x is more like 42% 
less throughput. 

So the spec sheet is factually accurate with it's numbers, but the text 
narrative is clearly intended to mislead the buyer. Having just realized this, 
I'm a bit offended. 

It seems the only thing it really has going for it is being very inexpensive. 
Like I can get 2 AF11x's for less than one PTP820S with full speed licenses. So 
if I can get enough channels licensed for 2 XPIC links, then the AF11x is still 
compelling. And it might mean I can justify an 11ghz link for a lower volume 
site than I could otherwise. They didn't need to lie about it. 

 


-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF11x

[chuck]

You can combine multiple radios into one dish but the cost of circulators, 
hybrid combiners and filters would cost more that the extra dishes.  

From: Mathew Howard 
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 8:48 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF11x

The 1.2Gbps claim is aggregate... it's somewhat deceptive marketing, that UBNT 
has been doing for years. It's factually correct, but as far as I know, nobody 
else markets full duplex radios that way.  

22% less than throughput at any giving modulations compared to competing 
products (with the exception of the Mimosa B11, which is much less efficient, 
hence the "best in class" claim), sounds about right.

Realistically, the AF-11 can do somewhere around 650Mbps in each direction... 
and as far as I know, the only way to get anything beyond that with them, is to 
put up two complete links (including two sets of dishes). It would be nice if 
there was a way to stack multiple radios onto one dish at least, but as far as 
I know, there's not currently a way to do that.

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

  So I just read up about the AF11x.  I haven't been paying much attention to 
this product because I've been busy with other things.

  The datasheet claims "best spectral efficiency in class" and "1.2gbps".
  Various people on the forum made claims that don't match up with simple 
comparisons of spec sheets.  Some were UBNT employees, others were just fanboys.

  The actual info on the spec sheets is that you get about 22% less throughput 
per channel at the same modulation level and same channel size as competing 
products.  They claim huge numbers by adding multiple channels together.  You 
also can't use a full 80mhz channel, so if I compare to a PTP820C (which 
actually can do 1.2gbps full duplex in XPIC), the Airfiber 11x is more like 42% 
less throughput.

  So the spec sheet is factually accurate with it's numbers, but the text 
narrative is clearly intended to mislead the buyer.  Having just realized this, 
I'm a bit offended.

  It seems the only thing it really has going for it is being very inexpensive. 
 Like I can get 2 AF11x's for less than one PTP820S with full speed licenses.  
So if I can get enough channels licensed for 2 XPIC links, then the AF11x is 
still compelling.  And it might mean I can justify an 11ghz link for a lower 
volume site than I could otherwise.  They didn't need to lie about it.

  



  -- 
  AF mailing list
  AF@af.afmug.com
  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com






-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF11x

[Mathew Howard]

Probably something like SIAE that can do 4096qam... and use lots of
channels.

Bridgewave Navigator looks pretty promising, but I don't think that's
shipping yet.

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:43 AM,  wrote:

> So what current product current release radio has the best throughput in
> the 11 GHz band?
>
> *From:* Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2018 8:04 AM
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] AF11x
>
> So I just read up about the AF11x.  I haven't been paying much attention
> to this product because I've been busy with other things.
>
> The datasheet claims "best spectral efficiency in class" and "1.2gbps".
> Various people on the forum made claims that don't match up with simple
> comparisons of spec sheets.  Some were UBNT employees, others were just
> fanboys.
>
> The actual info on the spec sheets is that you get about 22% less
> throughput per channel at the same modulation level and same channel size
> as competing products.  They claim huge numbers by adding multiple channels
> together.  You also can't use a full 80mhz channel, so if I compare to a
> PTP820C (which actually *can *do 1.2gbps full duplex in XPIC), the
> Airfiber 11x is more like 42% less throughput.
>
> So the spec sheet is factually accurate with it's numbers, but the text
> narrative is clearly intended to mislead the buyer.  Having just realized
> this, I'm a bit offended.
>
> It seems the only thing it really has going for it is being very
> inexpensive.  Like I can get 2 AF11x's for less than one PTP820S with full
> speed licenses.  So *if *I can get enough channels licensed for 2 XPIC
> links, then the AF11x is still compelling.  And it might mean I can justify
> an 11ghz link for a lower volume site than I could otherwise.  They didn't
> need to lie about it.
>
> 
>
> --
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF11x

[Cassidy B. Larson]

Something with XPIC 80MHz channels and 4096QAM would probably be your best 
throughput option for a single radio, I’d think.
However, stacking all those features and you start adding $$. 


> On Jul 19, 2018, at 8:43 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
> 
> So what current product current release radio has the best throughput in the 
> 11 GHz band?
>  
> From: Adam Moffett <>
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 8:04 AM
> To: af@af.afmug.com <>
> Subject: [AFMUG] AF11x
>  
> So I just read up about the AF11x.  I haven't been paying much attention to 
> this product because I've been busy with other things.
> 
> The datasheet claims "best spectral efficiency in class" and "1.2gbps".
> Various people on the forum made claims that don't match up with simple 
> comparisons of spec sheets.  Some were UBNT employees, others were just 
> fanboys.
> 
> The actual info on the spec sheets is that you get about 22% less throughput 
> per channel at the same modulation level and same channel size as competing 
> products.  They claim huge numbers by adding multiple channels together.  You 
> also can't use a full 80mhz channel, so if I compare to a PTP820C (which 
> actually can do 1.2gbps full duplex in XPIC), the Airfiber 11x is more like 
> 42% less throughput.
> 
> So the spec sheet is factually accurate with it's numbers, but the text 
> narrative is clearly intended to mislead the buyer.  Having just realized 
> this, I'm a bit offended.
> 
> It seems the only thing it really has going for it is being very inexpensive. 
>  Like I can get 2 AF11x's for less than one PTP820S with full speed licenses. 
>  So if I can get enough channels licensed for 2 XPIC links, then the AF11x is 
> still compelling.  And it might mean I can justify an 11ghz link for a lower 
> volume site than I could otherwise.  They didn't need to lie about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF11x

[Mathew Howard]

The 1.2Gbps claim is aggregate... it's somewhat deceptive marketing, that
UBNT has been doing for years. It's factually correct, but as far as I
know, nobody else markets full duplex radios that way.

22% less than throughput at any giving modulations compared to competing
products (with the exception of the Mimosa B11, which is much less
efficient, hence the "best in class" claim), sounds about right.

Realistically, the AF-11 can do somewhere around 650Mbps in each
direction... and as far as I know, the only way to get anything beyond that
with them, is to put up two complete links (including two sets of dishes).
It would be nice if there was a way to stack multiple radios onto one dish
at least, but as far as I know, there's not currently a way to do that.

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> So I just read up about the AF11x.  I haven't been paying much attention
> to this product because I've been busy with other things.
>
> The datasheet claims "best spectral efficiency in class" and "1.2gbps".
> Various people on the forum made claims that don't match up with simple
> comparisons of spec sheets.  Some were UBNT employees, others were just
> fanboys.
>
> The actual info on the spec sheets is that you get about 22% less
> throughput per channel at the same modulation level and same channel size
> as competing products.  They claim huge numbers by adding multiple channels
> together.  You also can't use a full 80mhz channel, so if I compare to a
> PTP820C (which actually *can *do 1.2gbps full duplex in XPIC), the
> Airfiber 11x is more like 42% less throughput.
>
> So the spec sheet is factually accurate with it's numbers, but the text
> narrative is clearly intended to mislead the buyer.  Having just realized
> this, I'm a bit offended.
>
> It seems the only thing it really has going for it is being very
> inexpensive.  Like I can get 2 AF11x's for less than one PTP820S with full
> speed licenses.  So *if *I can get enough channels licensed for 2 XPIC
> links, then the AF11x is still compelling.  And it might mean I can justify
> an 11ghz link for a lower volume site than I could otherwise.  They didn't
> need to lie about it.
>
> 
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF11x

[chuck]

So what current product current release radio has the best throughput in the 11 
GHz band?

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 8:04 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] AF11x

So I just read up about the AF11x.  I haven't been paying much attention to 
this product because I've been busy with other things.

The datasheet claims "best spectral efficiency in class" and "1.2gbps".
Various people on the forum made claims that don't match up with simple 
comparisons of spec sheets.  Some were UBNT employees, others were just fanboys.

The actual info on the spec sheets is that you get about 22% less throughput 
per channel at the same modulation level and same channel size as competing 
products.  They claim huge numbers by adding multiple channels together.  You 
also can't use a full 80mhz channel, so if I compare to a PTP820C (which 
actually can do 1.2gbps full duplex in XPIC), the Airfiber 11x is more like 42% 
less throughput.

So the spec sheet is factually accurate with it's numbers, but the text 
narrative is clearly intended to mislead the buyer.  Having just realized this, 
I'm a bit offended.

It seems the only thing it really has going for it is being very inexpensive.  
Like I can get 2 AF11x's for less than one PTP820S with full speed licenses.  
So if I can get enough channels licensed for 2 XPIC links, then the AF11x is 
still compelling.  And it might mean I can justify an 11ghz link for a lower 
volume site than I could otherwise.  They didn't need to lie about it.







-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF11x

[Seth Mattinen]

On 7/19/18 7:04 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
It seems the only thing it really has going for it is being very 
inexpensive.



I see it pretty much as a My First Microwave. Almost anything else 
outperforms it, but costs more.


--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] AF11x

[Adam Moffett]

So I just read up about the AF11x.  I haven't been paying much attention 
to this product because I've been busy with other things.


The datasheet claims "best spectral efficiency in class" and "1.2gbps".
Various people on the forum made claims that don't match up with simple 
comparisons of spec sheets.  Some were UBNT employees, others were just 
fanboys.


The actual info on the spec sheets is that you get about 22% less 
throughput per channel at the same modulation level and same channel 
size as competing products.  They claim huge numbers by adding multiple 
channels together.  You also can't use a full 80mhz channel, so if I 
compare to a PTP820C (which actually /can /do 1.2gbps full duplex in 
XPIC), the Airfiber 11x is more like 42% less throughput.


So the spec sheet is factually accurate with it's numbers, but the text 
narrative is clearly intended to mislead the buyer.  Having just 
realized this, I'm a bit offended.


It seems the only thing it really has going for it is being very 
inexpensive.  Like I can get 2 AF11x's for less than one PTP820S with 
full speed licenses.  So /if /I can get enough channels licensed for 2 
XPIC links, then the AF11x is still compelling.  And it might mean I can 
justify an 11ghz link for a lower volume site than I could otherwise.  
They didn't need to lie about it.




-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] lightwight tablet recomendations for troubleshooting

[Micah Miller]

The new Surface Go with the type cover might fit the bill...
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Brandon Yuchasz
 wrote:
> So looking for a lightweight tablet with good battery life that I can use
> for basic troubleshooting.
>
> Want something less then 2lbs.
>
> Windows 10, keyboard and touchpad, wifi, run winbox, chrome, firefox,
> teamviewer ect..
>
> Love to keep the cost under 600.
>
>
>
> Any good recommendations that you guys are actually using for this type of
> work?
>
>
>
> Thanks everyone.
>
>
>
> Brandon
>
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>



-- 
Micah Miller
Network/Server Administrator
Network Business Systems, Inc.
Phone: 309-944-8823

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com