Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question
I didn't read the whole thread, sorry. Did they put up new dishes or just swap radios? It wouldn't surprise me if the feedhorn is toasted too if it was indeed a direct strike with visible damage. And if they did put up new dishes, next logical thought is alignment. But just to rule it out, I would still temporarily shut down all of your 5GHz transmitters to prove them wrong, and give you ammo to tell them to go screw if they're going to be dicks about it. On 9/24/2014 12:46 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote: He had the same issue when he went to the lower 5ghz bands this started IMMEDIATELY after they replaced the radios. the remote side got struck by lightning the minute they turned the radios up there were problems power levels fluctuating and not mathmatically matching up are by no means an indicator of interference. I could see if there had been an issue with the prior ptp500, but there wasnt. I change the channel on the UBNT and the ptp650 spectrum shows a drop in the noise matching exactly the channel size of the ubnt channel. The antenna they have at this site is a radiowaves 2' HP antenna, so i could just about point the UBNT directly at it. This boils down to the blame game of a guy not wanting to have to deal with the aftermath of shoddy workmanship. When a path profile says you should be at -61 with 18 db power cap and youre at -78 with a 21 db output, thats shoddy workmanship. It was still on symmetric channels for gods sake. If you cant get a link to stabilize, the last thing you want to do is to try to run both sides on the same channel. If it werent for the douchey NDA this customer (our landlord)(they actually required that when I remoted in I did it as a contractor under him to be under the NDA he has) has I would post the screenshots and it would be obvious the primary issue here is not a single colocated radio. When your H/V is way off, that alone tells you you didnt do your job. The first thing that needs done is to fix the screaming physical issues, then mitigate the ambient interference, then, if there is still an issue, look into the radio that has been there for years as a tertiary source of problems. He actually got pissed when I started investigating all the radios, he said all I was supposed to do was log in and do channelization, I dont know how the fuck he thinks you can do a channel plan without even knowing what channels the radios are on. A note, this guy is also the same intermediary who said you absolutely can only have BGP on a single router in a network On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:30 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a receiver front-end overload. This happens far too often on Rocket radios. Isn't the 650 a whole-band radio, like 4.9-5.9? I hope it would have some spectacular filtering for the fify brazillion $ they want for it. I would shut your stuff down for 10 minutes and see what happens. On 9/24/2014 12:00 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote: INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!! On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of the woods. No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but it absolutely crushes anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and freq-use range. Atheros radios outside of the band also get overloaded and CCQ tanks. AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5... kinda not a fan at this point. Same for just about every -AC radio from every manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa does though, I am mildly interested in those. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 08:29 PM, David Milholen via Af wrote: Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the new 650 units. Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low if the power requirements are not being met. I have had ubiquity on my tower colo'd with a ptp230 5.4 unit and I set the ubiquity in the 5.2 range and it completely knocked off our ptp230 link. I had to turn the power way down below even min power levels before the 230 would come back up. If by turning your system down and levels do return to normal for them. Then I would take a closer look at your config on your AP to see if you can tweak it to meet standards and at the same time not mess with them. I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using ubiquity and the Out of band noise was incredible. I had 50' sep and andrew dish with at least 120 deg out of center. The Ns5 was the one with 3' dish. Another thing to try is to
Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question
I'm not talking about your issue, per say. Just commenting on the receiver front-end overload on rockets (and other UBNT AirMax radios). I'm sure this probably happens on MikroTik radios too. EPMP? Don't have any to test. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:52 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: Im pretty sure there is no atheros chipset in a ptp650 to have this issue happen and since the rocket is a backhaul, if it were deaf im pretty sure it would be hard to manage, and the fsk customers beyond it would be calling in with concerns about the lack of internet. I highly doubt that a brand new 650 would go deaf the minute it is powered on, and had it gone deaf the minute it was powered on, I doubt the spectrum would show well defined hills and valleys so clearly you can tell the channel size of the interfering systems, it would more likely either be fairly flatline or constantly in flux On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: This is exactly what I am talking about. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:31 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a receiver front-end overload. This happens far too often on Rocket radios. Isn't the 650 a whole-band radio, like 4.9-5.9? I hope it would have some spectacular filtering for the fify brazillion $ they want for it. I would shut your stuff down for 10 minutes and see what happens. On 9/24/2014 12:00 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote: INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!! On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of the woods. No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but it absolutely crushes anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and freq-use range. Atheros radios outside of the band also get overloaded and CCQ tanks. AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5... kinda not a fan at this point. Same for just about every -AC radio from every manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa does though, I am mildly interested in those. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 08:29 PM, David Milholen via Af wrote: Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the new 650 units. Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low if the power requirements are not being met. I have had ubiquity on my tower colo'd with a ptp230 5.4 unit and I set the ubiquity in the 5.2 range and it completely knocked off our ptp230 link. I had to turn the power way down below even min power levels before the 230 would come back up. If by turning your system down and levels do return to normal for them. Then I would take a closer look at your config on your AP to see if you can tweak it to meet standards and at the same time not mess with them. I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using ubiquity and the Out of band noise was incredible. I had 50' sep and andrew dish with at least 120 deg out of center. The Ns5 was the one with 3' dish. Another thing to try is to get someone who make gutters and use sheet metal to make an extended shield placed between the ubiquity and the 600s On 9/23/2014 7:05 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: but i do really like the interface on the 650 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:04 PM, That One Guy thatoneguyst...@gmail.com mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com wrote: This is really beginning to irritate me, Now the guy who replaced the gear is still blaming us for the problems here, I moved the ubnt gear clear down to like 5.1 or whatever the lowest channel is, the spectrum at this and the remote site are deplorable. The Signal/Noise ratio is moving around on the ptp650 and the Vector Errors are off the chart, but he still wants to blame our equipment. I can tell you it boils down to an improper system repair post disaster. I pulled screen shots, both before and after I moved our channels, showed them the issue with their own colocated radios, turned on assymetric channels, yes, they were running symmetric in a high noise environment, nothing could go wrong there, right? Now tomorrow, my boss is going there to unplug our radio, taking our
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
:-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear by whatever the spec sheets and feature notices tell them On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: For the first question, I have no idea, since the only released radios are PtP at this time. Pretty hard to tell. For the second one, ubntboys (at least the informed ones) don't run airsync, because they know it doesn't work well. :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:06 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: does it work? or does it work in ubntboys eyes like airsync? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: For clarification for EVERYBODY reading this post, ALL AIRMAX AC PRODUCTS HAVE AIRMAX OFFLOADING :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 07:33 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: The ptp-lites do have airmax offloading? I thought they didn't... We've had a link running for awhile, but it's got some noise issues, so it hasn't really been the best place to test these... that said, they've been running fine without any real problems that I've noticed. � -- *From:* Af [af-bounces+mathew=litewire@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Reynolds via Af [af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:49 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance ptp lites are missing the internal shielding (i think?) as well as airprism tech they do have airmax offloading, but it's also a brand new product line... some bugs are showing in the software Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 06:48 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: These are basically beta release hardware? its missing some guts? On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Rory Conaway via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I don�t have one but from what I�m reading, it�s not quite ready for primetime.� I�m waiting. � Rory � *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *TJ Trout via Af *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 6:39 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance � How are the rocket AC's performing for you guys? Throughput? Bugs? -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
AirMax seems to not work that well in some situations. On Wednesday, September 24, 2014, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: For the first question, I have no idea, since the only released radios are PtP at this time. Pretty hard to tell. For the second one, ubntboys (at least the informed ones) don't run airsync, because they know it doesn't work well. :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:06 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: does it work? or does it work in ubntboys eyes like airsync? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: For clarification for EVERYBODY reading this post, ALL AIRMAX AC PRODUCTS HAVE AIRMAX OFFLOADING :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 07:33 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: The ptp-lites do have airmax offloading? I thought they didn't... We've had a link running for awhile, but it's got some noise issues, so it hasn't really been the best place to test these... that said, they've been running fine without any real problems that I've noticed. � -- *From:* Af [af-bounces+mathew=litewire@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-bounces%2bmathew%5cx3dlitewire@afmug.com');] on behalf of Josh Reynolds via Af [af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:49 PM *To:* af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance ptp lites are missing the internal shielding (i think?) as well as airprism tech they do have airmax offloading, but it's also a brand new product line... some bugs are showing in the software Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 06:48 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: These are basically beta release hardware? its missing some guts? On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Rory Conaway via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: I don�t have one but from what I�m reading, it�s not quite ready for primetime.� I�m waiting. � Rory � *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-bounces%2Brory');= triadwireless@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','triadwireless@afmug.com');] *On Behalf Of *TJ Trout via Af *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 6:39 PM *To:* af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *Subject:* [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance � How are the rocket AC's performing for you guys? Throughput? Bugs? -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question
ptp650 works great in my neck of the woods tower to tower without colo interference and yes there is filtering and it does not use the entire spectrum unless you want it to. I have one on a tower with a ptp500 and another ptp600 along with ptp800 and 4 sectors of pmp450 with no issue. I have also installed 2 integrated ptp600 full links right on top of each other. I guess I need to do a spec anny with our 2 way guys and do a snap shot comparison. On 9/24/2014 12:31 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a receiver front-end overload. This happens far too often on Rocket radios. Isn't the 650 a whole-band radio, like 4.9-5.9? I hope it would have some spectacular filtering for the fify brazillion $ they want for it. I would shut your stuff down for 10 minutes and see what happens. On 9/24/2014 12:00 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote: INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!! On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of the woods. No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but it absolutely crushes anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and freq-use range. Atheros radios outside of the band also get overloaded and CCQ tanks. AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5... kinda not a fan at this point. Same for just about every -AC radio from every manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa does though, I am mildly interested in those. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 08:29 PM, David Milholen via Af wrote: Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the new 650 units. Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low if the power requirements are not being met. I have had ubiquity on my tower colo'd with a ptp230 5.4 unit and I set the ubiquity in the 5.2 range and it completely knocked off our ptp230 link. I had to turn the power way down below even min power levels before the 230 would come back up. If by turning your system down and levels do return to normal for them. Then I would take a closer look at your config on your AP to see if you can tweak it to meet standards and at the same time not mess with them. I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using ubiquity and the Out of band noise was incredible. I had 50' sep and andrew dish with at least 120 deg out of center. The Ns5 was the one with 3' dish. Another thing to try is to get someone who make gutters and use sheet metal to make an extended shield placed between the ubiquity and the 600s On 9/23/2014 7:05 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: but i do really like the interface on the 650 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:04 PM, That One Guy thatoneguyst...@gmail.com mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com wrote: This is really beginning to irritate me, Now the guy who replaced the gear is still blaming us for the problems here, I moved the ubnt gear clear down to like 5.1 or whatever the lowest channel is, the spectrum at this and the remote site are deplorable. The Signal/Noise ratio is moving around on the ptp650 and the Vector Errors are off the chart, but he still wants to blame our equipment. I can tell you it boils down to an improper system repair post disaster. I pulled screen shots, both before and after I moved our channels, showed them the issue with their own colocated radios, turned on assymetric channels, yes, they were running symmetric in a high noise environment, nothing could go wrong there, right? Now tomorrow, my boss is going there to unplug our radio, taking our customers down. Im betting some utter nonsense like capacitant power or our antenna shape ends up being to blame here. I know ubnt is shit and bleeds noise allover, this particular radio is a rocket m5 with the 30db dish and the shield kit. The link is 90 degrees off both of theirs (ours is west, they have one north and one south) I believe we have 30 foot vertical sep between it and their closest radio. I can see how a rocket would magically destroy the whole 5ghz spectrum and not have performance issues itself.I even cycled the UBNT radios to make sure that they actually did change channels. ATPC power ranging not matching current TX output and RX doesnt make any sense to me. Interference alone will not alter RX power unless its very very notable. And then to top it off its said it would be better to move completely off the band to 3ghz since it cant interfere. Yeah, great fucking idea,
Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question
He sounds like some of our city know it all's lol If he is the captain of this ship why dont he have a channel plan in place a dictate available spectrum for you? The one thing I do not like about boastful IT guys is their ability to know everything but know nothing at the same time LOL On 9/24/2014 12:46 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote: He had the same issue when he went to the lower 5ghz bands this started IMMEDIATELY after they replaced the radios. the remote side got struck by lightning the minute they turned the radios up there were problems power levels fluctuating and not mathmatically matching up are by no means an indicator of interference. I could see if there had been an issue with the prior ptp500, but there wasnt. I change the channel on the UBNT and the ptp650 spectrum shows a drop in the noise matching exactly the channel size of the ubnt channel. The antenna they have at this site is a radiowaves 2' HP antenna, so i could just about point the UBNT directly at it. This boils down to the blame game of a guy not wanting to have to deal with the aftermath of shoddy workmanship. When a path profile says you should be at -61 with 18 db power cap and youre at -78 with a 21 db output, thats shoddy workmanship. It was still on symmetric channels for gods sake. If you cant get a link to stabilize, the last thing you want to do is to try to run both sides on the same channel. If it werent for the douchey NDA this customer (our landlord)(they actually required that when I remoted in I did it as a contractor under him to be under the NDA he has) has I would post the screenshots and it would be obvious the primary issue here is not a single colocated radio. When your H/V is way off, that alone tells you you didnt do your job. The first thing that needs done is to fix the screaming physical issues, then mitigate the ambient interference, then, if there is still an issue, look into the radio that has been there for years as a tertiary source of problems. He actually got pissed when I started investigating all the radios, he said all I was supposed to do was log in and do channelization, I dont know how the fuck he thinks you can do a channel plan without even knowing what channels the radios are on. A note, this guy is also the same intermediary who said you absolutely can only have BGP on a single router in a network On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:30 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a receiver front-end overload. This happens far too often on Rocket radios. Isn't the 650 a whole-band radio, like 4.9-5.9? I hope it would have some spectacular filtering for the fify brazillion $ they want for it. I would shut your stuff down for 10 minutes and see what happens. On 9/24/2014 12:00 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote: INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!! On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of the woods. No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but it absolutely crushes anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and freq-use range. Atheros radios outside of the band also get overloaded and CCQ tanks. AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5... kinda not a fan at this point. Same for just about every -AC radio from every manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa does though, I am mildly interested in those. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 08:29 PM, David Milholen via Af wrote: Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the new 650 units. Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low if the power requirements are not being met. I have had ubiquity on my tower colo'd with a ptp230 5.4 unit and I set the ubiquity in the 5.2 range and it completely knocked off our ptp230 link. I had to turn the power way down below even min power levels before the 230 would come back up. If by turning your system down and levels do return to normal for them. Then I would take a closer look at your config on your AP to see if you can tweak it to meet standards and at the same time not mess with them. I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using ubiquity and the Out of band noise was incredible. I had 50' sep and andrew dish with at least 120 deg out of center. The Ns5 was the one with 3' dish. Another thing to try is to get someone who make gutters and use sheet metal to make an extended shield placed between the ubiquity and the 600s On 9/23/2014 7:05 PM, That One
Re: [AFMUG] NanoBeam5 -400 Performance
I’ve got 400’s and they work great. Mostly replacing Nanobridges and using them for PTP with 10 and 20MHz channels where I don’t need DFS. Can’t use 500’s yet, firmware still needs some TLC. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com] On Behalf Of timothy steele via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:56 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] NanoBeam5 -400 Performance Anyone using NanoBeam5 400/500's Connecting to RocketM5 Sectors? what Firmware are you using and what performance are you seeing? Thanks,
Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question
There is some power gain per Mhz in the 650 but at the same time if there is interference on even some of the channel it will show up in the waterfall spec. The issue is making sure link loss level is really close to what link planner says it suppose to have. This will ensure proper alignment of those units. Its not all about the receive levels. Does he have 45Mhz wide channel selected? Move them to a 20Mhz or at best 30Mhz. There is no reason to use 45Mhz wide unless you really want to push tons of bandwidth. If the link loss is met but receive levels are crap then is could be interference. Until the units link loss has been corrected I would not count your chickens before the hatch yet. Of all the links I have done with Cambium I always watch the Linkloss when we get very close to locking down the shot. On 9/24/2014 12:52 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote: Im pretty sure there is no atheros chipset in a ptp650 to have this issue happen and since the rocket is a backhaul, if it were deaf im pretty sure it would be hard to manage, and the fsk customers beyond it would be calling in with concerns about the lack of internet. I highly doubt that a brand new 650 would go deaf the minute it is powered on, and had it gone deaf the minute it was powered on, I doubt the spectrum would show well defined hills and valleys so clearly you can tell the channel size of the interfering systems, it would more likely either be fairly flatline or constantly in flux On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: This is exactly what I am talking about. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:31 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a receiver front-end overload. This happens far too often on Rocket radios. Isn't the 650 a whole-band radio, like 4.9-5.9? I hope it would have some spectacular filtering for the fify brazillion $ they want for it. I would shut your stuff down for 10 minutes and see what happens. On 9/24/2014 12:00 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote: INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!! On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of the woods. No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but it absolutely crushes anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and freq-use range. Atheros radios outside of the band also get overloaded and CCQ tanks. AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5... kinda not a fan at this point. Same for just about every -AC radio from every manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa does though, I am mildly interested in those. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 08:29 PM, David Milholen via Af wrote: Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the new 650 units. Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low if the power requirements are not being met. I have had ubiquity on my tower colo'd with a ptp230 5.4 unit and I set the ubiquity in the 5.2 range and it completely knocked off our ptp230 link. I had to turn the power way down below even min power levels before the 230 would come back up. If by turning your system down and levels do return to normal for them. Then I would take a closer look at your config on your AP to see if you can tweak it to meet standards and at the same time not mess with them. I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using ubiquity and the Out of band noise was incredible. I had 50' sep and andrew dish with at least 120 deg out of center. The Ns5 was the one with 3' dish. Another thing to try is to get someone who make gutters and use sheet metal to make an extended shield placed between the ubiquity and the 600s On 9/23/2014 7:05 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: but i do really like the interface on the 650 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:04 PM, That One Guy thatoneguyst...@gmail.com mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com wrote: This is really beginning to irritate me, Now the guy who replaced the gear is still blaming us for the problems here, I moved the ubnt gear clear down to like 5.1 or whatever the lowest channel is, the spectrum at this and the remote site are deplorable. The Signal/Noise ratio is moving around on the ptp650 and the Vector Errors are off the chart, but he still wants to blame our equipment.
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
The SXT antenna were always too weak. Give me 25 dBi or give me death. Well, okay, I don't feel that strongly. I just won't buy it if not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Stefan Englhardt via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30:07 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance We’re starting the move to .ac with MT now. The 922UAGS-5HPacD has the same dimensions as the 911/411 Boards so we just replace boards. We get good results with Mars Antennas with housing for P2P. The SXT-Antennas are to weak for .ac. The 19db Mars Antennas give good CPE/short range PTP with a small footprint. We use these as Sector-Antennas where we have to cover small areas. The .ac firmware adaption is quite new but we see stable results in the 300-400 Mbit/s range for short links. The .ac boards have faster CPUs so they may increase 11n-Speeds/NAT Performance. The 922-Board has a SFP. Ethernetport has moved. Due to this the RFElements Stationbox XL do not fit. MT .ac does PTP and PTMP and is downward compatible to older boards with 11n/a. SXTs with .ac are not stable with the latest sw-release. So as always with MT you’ve to betatest HW/FW-combination to get it running smooth. Von: Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Rory Conaway via Af Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 14:26 An: af@afmug.com Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. Rory From: Af [ mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of That One Guy via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:47 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance :-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear by whatever the spec sheets and feature notices tell them On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: For the first question, I have no idea, since the only released radios are PtP at this time. Pretty hard to tell. For the second one, ubntboys (at least the informed ones) don't run airsync, because they know it doesn't work well. :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:06 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: does it work? or does it work in ubntboys eyes like airsync? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: For clarification for EVERYBODY reading this post, ALL AIRMAX AC PRODUCTS HAVE AIRMAX OFFLOADING :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 07:33 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: blockquote The ptp-lites do have airmax offloading? I thought they didn't... We've had a link running for awhile, but it's got some noise issues, so it hasn't really been the best place to test these... that said, they've been running fine without any real problems that I've noticed. � From: Af [ af-bounces+mathew=litewire@afmug.com ] on behalf of Josh Reynolds via Af [ af@afmug.com ] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:49 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance ptp lites are missing the internal shielding (i think?) as well as airprism tech they do have airmax offloading, but it's also a brand new product line... some bugs are showing in the software Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 06:48 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: blockquote These are basically beta release hardware? its
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
I can't get over the small gain MT uses. It also bugs me that the FCC seems to be all about massive amps and small antennas rather than the reverse. If it was actually about interference PTP shots with narrow beamwidth is preferred. I suppose it is too much to ask for those in our government that set the regulations to actually understand the tech they're regulating. I suppose it could be the manufacturers are going with big amps and small antennas, but it seems that would cost more. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett via Af To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance The SXT antenna were always too weak. Give me 25 dBi or give me death. Well, okay, I don't feel that strongly. I just won't buy it if not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Stefan Englhardt via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30:07 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance We’re starting the move to .ac with MT now. The 922UAGS-5HPacD has the same dimensions as the 911/411 Boards so we just replace boards. We get good results with Mars Antennas with housing for P2P. The SXT-Antennas are to weak for .ac. The 19db Mars Antennas give good CPE/short range PTP with a small footprint. We use these as Sector-Antennas where we have to cover small areas. The .ac firmware adaption is quite new but we see stable results in the 300-400 Mbit/s range for short links. The .ac boards have faster CPUs so they may increase 11n-Speeds/NAT Performance. The 922-Board has a SFP. Ethernetport has moved. Due to this the RFElements Stationbox XL do not fit. MT .ac does PTP and PTMP and is downward compatible to older boards with 11n/a. SXTs with .ac are not stable with the latest sw-release. So as always with MT you’ve to betatest HW/FW-combination to get it running smooth. Von: Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Rory Conaway via Af Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 14:26 An: af@afmug.com Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:47 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance :-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear by whatever the spec sheets and feature notices tell them On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: For the first question, I have no idea, since the only released radios are PtP at this time. Pretty hard to tell. For the second one, ubntboys (at least the informed ones) don't run airsync, because they know it doesn't work well. :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:06 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: does it work? or does it work in ubntboys eyes like airsync? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: For clarification for EVERYBODY reading this post, ALL AIRMAX AC PRODUCTS HAVE AIRMAX OFFLOADING :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 07:33 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: The ptp-lites do have airmax offloading? I thought they didn't... We've had a
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
I remember when they announced their new high gain CPE the Sextant... which was still smaller than the smallest CPE I used. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Glen Waldrop via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:37:54 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance I can't get over the small gain MT uses. It also bugs me that the FCC seems to be all about massive amps and small antennas rather than the reverse. If it was actually about interference PTP shots with narrow beamwidth is preferred. I suppose it is too much to ask for those in our government that set the regulations to actually understand the tech they're regulating. I suppose it could be the manufacturers are going with big amps and small antennas, but it seems that would cost more. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett via Af To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance The SXT antenna were always too weak. Give me 25 dBi or give me death. Well, okay, I don't feel that strongly. I just won't buy it if not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Stefan Englhardt via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30:07 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance We’re starting the move to .ac with MT now. The 922UAGS-5HPacD has the same dimensions as the 911/411 Boards so we just replace boards. We get good results with Mars Antennas with housing for P2P. The SXT-Antennas are to weak for .ac. The 19db Mars Antennas give good CPE/short range PTP with a small footprint. We use these as Sector-Antennas where we have to cover small areas. The .ac firmware adaption is quite new but we see stable results in the 300-400 Mbit/s range for short links. The .ac boards have faster CPUs so they may increase 11n-Speeds/NAT Performance. The 922-Board has a SFP. Ethernetport has moved. Due to this the RFElements Stationbox XL do not fit. MT .ac does PTP and PTMP and is downward compatible to older boards with 11n/a. SXTs with .ac are not stable with the latest sw-release. So as always with MT you’ve to betatest HW/FW-combination to get it running smooth. Von: Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Rory Conaway via Af Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 14:26 An: af@afmug.com Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. Rory From: Af [ mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of That One Guy via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:47 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance :-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear by whatever the spec sheets and feature notices tell them On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: For the first question, I have no idea, since the only released radios are PtP at this time. Pretty hard to tell. For the second one, ubntboys (at least the informed ones) don't run airsync, because they know it doesn't work well. :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:06 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: blockquote does it work? or does it work in ubntboys eyes like airsync? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: For clarification for EVERYBODY reading this post,
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
Unfortunately this legislation went nowhere: http://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/3/sens-snowe-warner-introduce-legislation-to-enhance-technical-resources-and-expertise-at-fcc From: Glen Waldrop via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:37 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance I can't get over the small gain MT uses. It also bugs me that the FCC seems to be all about massive amps and small antennas rather than the reverse. If it was actually about interference PTP shots with narrow beamwidth is preferred. I suppose it is too much to ask for those in our government that set the regulations to actually understand the tech they're regulating. I suppose it could be the manufacturers are going with big amps and small antennas, but it seems that would cost more. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett via Af To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance The SXT antenna were always too weak. Give me 25 dBi or give me death. Well, okay, I don't feel that strongly. I just won't buy it if not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Stefan Englhardt via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30:07 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance We’re starting the move to .ac with MT now. The 922UAGS-5HPacD has the same dimensions as the 911/411 Boards so we just replace boards. We get good results with Mars Antennas with housing for P2P. The SXT-Antennas are to weak for .ac. The 19db Mars Antennas give good CPE/short range PTP with a small footprint. We use these as Sector-Antennas where we have to cover small areas. The .ac firmware adaption is quite new but we see stable results in the 300-400 Mbit/s range for short links. The .ac boards have faster CPUs so they may increase 11n-Speeds/NAT Performance. The 922-Board has a SFP. Ethernetport has moved. Due to this the RFElements Stationbox XL do not fit. MT .ac does PTP and PTMP and is downward compatible to older boards with 11n/a. SXTs with .ac are not stable with the latest sw-release. So as always with MT you’ve to betatest HW/FW-combination to get it running smooth. Von: Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Rory Conaway via Af Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 14:26 An: af@afmug.com Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:47 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance :-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear by whatever the spec sheets and feature notices tell them On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: For the first question, I have no idea, since the only released radios are PtP at this time. Pretty hard to tell. For the second one, ubntboys (at least the informed ones) don't run airsync, because they know it doesn't work well. :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:06 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: does it work? or does it work in ubntboys eyes like airsync? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: For
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
It probably conflicted with Comcast plans to hire an FCC Commissioner. The Lobbyists need to make sure they are the only ones feeding technical information to the FCC. Nobody wants them to have a clue or they might make an informed decision that actually helps the public they are supposed to be serving instead of the businesses that control them. Then again, who am I kidding, they just want better jobs or bigger consultancy checks when they leave. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:45 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance Unfortunately this legislation went nowhere: http://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/3/sens-snowe-warner-introduce-legislation-to-enhance-technical-resources-and-expertise-at-fcc From: Glen Waldrop via Af mailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:37 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance I can't get over the small gain MT uses. It also bugs me that the FCC seems to be all about massive amps and small antennas rather than the reverse. If it was actually about interference PTP shots with narrow beamwidth is preferred. I suppose it is too much to ask for those in our government that set the regulations to actually understand the tech they're regulating. I suppose it could be the manufacturers are going with big amps and small antennas, but it seems that would cost more. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett via Af mailto:af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance The SXT antenna were always too weak. Give me 25 dBi or give me death. Well, okay, I don't feel that strongly. I just won't buy it if not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Stefan Englhardt via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30:07 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance We’re starting the move to .ac with MT now. The 922UAGS-5HPacD has the same dimensions as the 911/411 Boards so we just replace boards. We get good results with Mars Antennas with housing for P2P. The SXT-Antennas are to weak for .ac. The 19db Mars Antennas give good CPE/short range PTP with a small footprint. We use these as Sector-Antennas where we have to cover small areas. The .ac firmware adaption is quite new but we see stable results in the 300-400 Mbit/s range for short links. The .ac boards have faster CPUs so they may increase 11n-Speeds/NAT Performance. The 922-Board has a SFP. Ethernetport has moved. Due to this the RFElements Stationbox XL do not fit. MT .ac does PTP and PTMP and is downward compatible to older boards with 11n/a. SXTs with .ac are not stable with the latest sw-release. So as always with MT you’ve to betatest HW/FW-combination to get it running smooth. Von: Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Rory Conaway via Af Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 14:26 An: af@afmug.com Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
The Sextant did not work for us at all. The QRT-5 has a quite good Antenna for it’s size. But you cant upgrade/repair them as they use special screws you cant open without damaging them. The Mars-Antennas have a metal housing so there is some shielding to the back. We don’t like the outdoor-pigtails/connectors as with the rocket / ePMP-Force / ePMP Sectors. Just one Ethernet leaving the housing to the bottom is the solution we see the least problems. Von: Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Mike Hammett via Af Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 15:40 An: af@afmug.com Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance I remember when they announced their new high gain CPE the Sextant... which was still smaller than the smallest CPE I used. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com _ From: Glen Waldrop via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:37:54 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance I can't get over the small gain MT uses. It also bugs me that the FCC seems to be all about massive amps and small antennas rather than the reverse. If it was actually about interference PTP shots with narrow beamwidth is preferred. I suppose it is too much to ask for those in our government that set the regulations to actually understand the tech they're regulating. I suppose it could be the manufacturers are going with big amps and small antennas, but it seems that would cost more. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett via Af mailto:af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance The SXT antenna were always too weak. Give me 25 dBi or give me death. Well, okay, I don't feel that strongly. I just won't buy it if not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com _ From: Stefan Englhardt via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30:07 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance We’re starting the move to .ac with MT now. The 922UAGS-5HPacD has the same dimensions as the 911/411 Boards so we just replace boards. We get good results with Mars Antennas with housing for P2P. The SXT-Antennas are to weak for .ac. The 19db Mars Antennas give good CPE/short range PTP with a small footprint. We use these as Sector-Antennas where we have to cover small areas. The .ac firmware adaption is quite new but we see stable results in the 300-400 Mbit/s range for short links. The .ac boards have faster CPUs so they may increase 11n-Speeds/NAT Performance. The 922-Board has a SFP. Ethernetport has moved. Due to this the RFElements Stationbox XL do not fit. MT .ac does PTP and PTMP and is downward compatible to older boards with 11n/a. SXTs with .ac are not stable with the latest sw-release. So as always with MT you’ve to betatest HW/FW-combination to get it running smooth. Von: Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Rory Conaway via Af Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 14:26 An: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. Rory From: Af [ mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:47 PM To: mailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
I wonder how the performance of the Mimosa 256QAM product will compare in a 20 MHz wide, TDD channel when used with the same antennas, head-to-head against the Mikrotik board. In a scenario not using any of the special frequency auto selecting features of the Mimosa/Quantenna chipset. I have in mind a setup with a pair of the Jirous 32dB high performance type antennas with a metal enclosure on the rear. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Stefan Englhardt via Af af@afmug.com wrote: The Sextant did not work for us at all. The QRT-5 has a quite good Antenna for it’s size. But you cant upgrade/repair them as they use special screws you cant open without damaging them. The Mars-Antennas have a metal housing so there is some shielding to the back. We don’t like the outdoor-pigtails/connectors as with the rocket / ePMP-Force / ePMP Sectors. Just one Ethernet leaving the housing to the bottom is the solution we see the least problems. *Von:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *Mike Hammett via Af *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 15:40 *An:* af@afmug.com *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance I remember when they announced their new high gain CPE the Sextant... which was still smaller than the smallest CPE I used. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- *From: *Glen Waldrop via Af af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:37:54 AM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance I can't get over the small gain MT uses. It also bugs me that the FCC seems to be all about massive amps and small antennas rather than the reverse. If it was actually about interference PTP shots with narrow beamwidth is preferred. I suppose it is too much to ask for those in our government that set the regulations to actually understand the tech they're regulating. I suppose it could be the manufacturers are going with big amps and small antennas, but it seems that would cost more. - Original Message - *From:* Mike Hammett via Af af@afmug.com *To:* af@afmug.com *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:33 AM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance The SXT antenna were always too weak. Give me 25 dBi or give me death. Well, okay, I don't feel that strongly. I just won't buy it if not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- *From: *Stefan Englhardt via Af af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30:07 AM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance We’re starting the move to .ac with MT now. The 922UAGS-5HPacD has the same dimensions as the 911/411 Boards so we just replace boards. We get good results with Mars Antennas with housing for P2P. The SXT-Antennas are to weak for .ac. The 19db Mars Antennas give good CPE/short range PTP with a small footprint. We use these as Sector-Antennas where we have to cover small areas. The .ac firmware adaption is quite new but we see stable results in the 300-400 Mbit/s range for short links. The .ac boards have faster CPUs so they may increase 11n-Speeds/NAT Performance. The 922-Board has a SFP. Ethernetport has moved. Due to this the RFElements Stationbox XL do not fit. MT .ac does PTP and PTMP and is downward compatible to older boards with 11n/a. SXTs with .ac are not stable with the latest sw-release. So as always with MT you’ve to betatest HW/FW-combination to get it running smooth. *Von:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *Rory Conaway via Af *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 14:26 *An:* af@afmug.com *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start
Re: [AFMUG] NanoBeam5 -400 Performance
The Nanobeam M5-400s do work nicely. I have done a bunch of links in a dense downtown core, with the RF armor shield kits they stay consistently in MCS15 (64QAM 5/6 code rate) 99.9% of the time. 20 MHz channel = 112 Mbps traffic flow from the ubnt built in speed test one direction, assuming a primarily downstream traffic pattern. About 115-120 Mbps from router gigE ports to router gigE port when not putting any load on the ubnt device's CPU. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Rory Conaway via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I’ve got 400’s and they work great. Mostly replacing Nanobridges and using them for PTP with 10 and 20MHz channels where I don’t need DFS. Can’t use 500’s yet, firmware still needs some TLC. Rory *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *timothy steele via Af *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:56 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] NanoBeam5 -400 Performance Anyone using NanoBeam5 400/500's Connecting to RocketM5 Sectors? what Firmware are you using and what performance are you seeing? Thanks,
Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 Oddities
Not that I'm aware of, just a different claw at the end, which may or may not change the focal length. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:45 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: doesnt the kp reflector have a different length arm for the 3.65? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: My advice to customers on how long to wait before calling – 5 minutes is too short, 5 days is too long. And there are the people who call in “my Internet is slow”. How slow? “I’ve been waiting for Google to load for 3 days.” *From:* Matt Jenkins via Af af@afmug.com *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:54 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 Oddities tongue in cheek Like that customer who's Internet went down last week and they figured it would just automagically come up again without calling in? /tongue in cheek Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadbandmatt@sbbinc.net530.272.4000 On 09/23/2014 07:44 AM, Andreas Wiatowski via Af wrote: I do too...I was just hoping it would automagically go away �;. Cheers, Andreas Wiatowski Director / CEO *Silo Wireless Inc.*p: 519 449-5656 / 1-866-727-4138 x600 *http://silowireless.com/ http://silowireless.com/* � *http://twitter.com/#!/silowireless http://twitter.com/#%21/silowireless* � *http://www.facebook.com/silowireless http://www.facebook.com/silowireless* *This email and any files transmitted with it are CONFIDENTIAL and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. �If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.* -- *From: *AFMUG LIST wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com *Reply-To: *AFMUG LIST wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com *Date: *Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:25:09 + *To: *AFMUG LIST wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 Oddities Is it just me, or do you all see your replies twice? When I post, I see my post, then I see it come through again via AF On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Kade Sullivan via Af wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com wrote: All integrated SMs, all with KP Reflectors. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Glen Waldrop via Af wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com wrote: A B hooked to the same polarity on each client? � � - Original Message - � *From:* �Kade Sullivan via Af mailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.com �� � *To:* wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com � *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:10 �AM � *Subject:* [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 �Oddities � � � So I have our second 450 3.65 AP up, and every single �AP at this site is showing a ~10dbi gap between the 2 polarities on the Uplink �side of things (from the SM's perspective). � � The strangest part is that the 10db gap seems to go �back and forth between the A side being the stronger signal and the B �side.� It seems random, and I have included a shot of each of the link �status pages on this AP.� All these SMs are in the same general �geographic area, within 10 degrees of each in relation to the AP. � � You can see the top SM here actually has the A side �with a better signal, while the other 4 show a B side with the higher �signal.� What in the crap is going on here.� Do we have a bad �antenna on the AP? � � I can't seem to make any sense of this at all.� �All these SMs have the same KP reflector, and they have all been visited twice �to ensure they are peaked. � � I'm at a loss here. � � Help me AFMUG! -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 Oddities
We’ve been using the regular KP reflector with the 3.65 SM, no special claw. It fits, unlike the old Motorola 27RD which does not. Am I missing something about a special claw? I assume you are not talking about the KP feedhorn which would be used with a connectorized SM. From: Kade Sullivan via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:12 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 Oddities Not that I'm aware of, just a different claw at the end, which may or may not change the focal length. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:45 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: doesnt the kp reflector have a different length arm for the 3.65? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: My advice to customers on how long to wait before calling – 5 minutes is too short, 5 days is too long. And there are the people who call in “my Internet is slow”. How slow? “I’ve been waiting for Google to load for 3 days.” From: Matt Jenkins via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:54 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 Oddities tongue in cheek Like that customer who's Internet went down last week and they figured it would just automagically come up again without calling in? /tongue in cheek Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/23/2014 07:44 AM, Andreas Wiatowski via Af wrote: I do too...I was just hoping it would automagically go away �;. Cheers, Andreas Wiatowski Director / CEO Silo Wireless Inc. p: 519 449-5656 / 1-866-727-4138 x600 http://silowireless.com/ � http://twitter.com/#!/silowireless � http://www.facebook.com/silowireless This email and any files transmitted with it are CONFIDENTIAL and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. �If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. -- From: AFMUG LIST wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com Reply-To: AFMUG LIST wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:25:09 + To: AFMUG LIST wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 Oddities Is it just me, or do you all see your replies twice? When I post, I see my post, then I see it come through again via AF On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Kade Sullivan via Af wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com wrote: All integrated SMs, all with KP Reflectors. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Glen Waldrop via Af wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com wrote: A B hooked to the same polarity on each client? � � - Original Message - � From: �Kade Sullivan via Af mailto:af@afmug.com �� � To: wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com � Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:10 �AM � Subject: [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 �Oddities � � � So I have our second 450 3.65 AP up, and every single �AP at this site is showing a ~10dbi gap between the 2 polarities on the Uplink �side of things (from the SM's perspective). � � The strangest part is that the 10db gap seems to go �back and forth between the A side being the stronger signal and the B �side.� It seems random, and I have included a shot of each of the link �status pages on this AP.� All these SMs are in the same general �geographic area, within 10 degrees of each in relation to the AP. � � You can see the top SM here actually has the A side �with a better signal, while the other 4 show a B side with the higher �signal.� What in the crap is going on here.� Do we have a bad �antenna on the AP? � � I can't seem to make any sense of this at all.� �All these SMs have the same KP reflector, and they have all been visited twice �to ensure they are peaked. � � I'm at a loss here. � � Help me AFMUG! -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] cat5
We use this stuff at all of our non-tower installs. Never has a single box of it fail and have been using it for about 4 years in the field now. Arguably don't need shielded for resi stuff, but we use cable clips to attach cable to everything and this cable is a 1/4 of an inch thick which fits the coax clips perfectly. Plus gives us flexibility with grounding. Works great for us. They also make a white UV rated cable, albeit not shielded or with a ground wire. http://www.cabling-supplies.com/cat5e-350mhz-shielded-direct-burial-outdoor-cable-black.html Robbie Wright Siuslaw Broadband http://siuslawbroadband.com 541-902-5101 On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Rex-List Account via Af af@afmug.com wrote: And while we are at it, how about RJ45 ends, also. *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+xorex63list=gmail@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rex-List Account via Af *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:21 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] cat5 I am looking for a new source of cat5 cable. Who has the best price on quality cable? I stress that I am not looking for cheap. I want something that lasts. Install it once and forget about it. Thanks, Rex
Re: [AFMUG] cat5
If you go toughcable, make SURE the boxes havnt been sitting around for a while. The last batch we bought to replace the bad batch ended up being another bad batch. So we ended up replacing crap with crap and now have to replace it all again. Evidently the boxes had sat in a warehouse forever or something. It's all turning green already and water is seeping into the cables. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Eric Kuhnke via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I have had zero problems with the ubnt toughcable carrier ($180/box). They had their hands burned so thoroughly (presumably by a third party manufacturer in China) by the UV/cracking issue with the first generation toughcable, it's been resolved in everything shipping in the last 18 months. Monoprice sells packs of 100 shielded RJ45 male for around ten bucks, they're good quality. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Robbie Wright via Af af@afmug.com wrote: We use this stuff at all of our non-tower installs. Never has a single box of it fail and have been using it for about 4 years in the field now. Arguably don't need shielded for resi stuff, but we use cable clips to attach cable to everything and this cable is a 1/4 of an inch thick which fits the coax clips perfectly. Plus gives us flexibility with grounding. Works great for us. They also make a white UV rated cable, albeit not shielded or with a ground wire. http://www.cabling-supplies.com/cat5e-350mhz-shielded-direct-burial-outdoor-cable-black.html Robbie Wright Siuslaw Broadband http://siuslawbroadband.com 541-902-5101 On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Rex-List Account via Af af@afmug.com wrote: And while we are at it, how about RJ45 ends, also. *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+xorex63list=gmail@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rex-List Account via Af *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:21 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] cat5 I am looking for a new source of cat5 cable. Who has the best price on quality cable? I stress that I am not looking for cheap. I want something that lasts. Install it once and forget about it. Thanks, Rex
Re: [AFMUG] Redline and Purewave
I was actually at Mercury Wireless’s office yesterday. Grant Wiseman is the CEO. He said Redline bought the LTE portion of Purewave and Mercury bought the WIMAX products. Look for some new improved products soon. http://www.wispapalooza.net/ Join us at WISPAPALOOZA 2014 in Las Vegas, Oct. 11th – 18th Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-622-5699 Cell 866-317-2851 Ext. 101 WISPA Office 260-622-5774 Direct Line Skype: rick.harnish. mailto:rharn...@wispa.org rharn...@wispa.org mailto:adm...@wispa.org adm...@wispa.org (Rick and Trina) From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+rickh=wispa@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:04 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Redline and Purewave Did Mercury actually buy it from them, or did they take it over free because PW was going to kill it? I don’t know, but I don’t remember seeing anything that actually said they “bought” it. From: Mike Hammett via Af mailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 7:49 PM To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Redline and Purewave After a WISP bought out their WiMAX portfolio? - 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 _ From: Jon Langeler via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 7:47:25 PM Subject: [AFMUG] Redline and Purewave http://rdlcom.com/news/281/108/Redline-Communications-Acquires-PureWave-Networks-Assets Is this news? Jon Langeler Michwave Technologies, Inc.
Re: [AFMUG] cat5
Yup, we had a few boxes of toughcable go bad and had to be replaced. We'll never use it again. Robbie Wright Siuslaw Broadband http://siuslawbroadband.com 541-902-5101 On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Kade Sullivan via Af af@afmug.com wrote: If you go toughcable, make SURE the boxes havnt been sitting around for a while. The last batch we bought to replace the bad batch ended up being another bad batch. So we ended up replacing crap with crap and now have to replace it all again. Evidently the boxes had sat in a warehouse forever or something. It's all turning green already and water is seeping into the cables. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Eric Kuhnke via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I have had zero problems with the ubnt toughcable carrier ($180/box). They had their hands burned so thoroughly (presumably by a third party manufacturer in China) by the UV/cracking issue with the first generation toughcable, it's been resolved in everything shipping in the last 18 months. Monoprice sells packs of 100 shielded RJ45 male for around ten bucks, they're good quality. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Robbie Wright via Af af@afmug.com wrote: We use this stuff at all of our non-tower installs. Never has a single box of it fail and have been using it for about 4 years in the field now. Arguably don't need shielded for resi stuff, but we use cable clips to attach cable to everything and this cable is a 1/4 of an inch thick which fits the coax clips perfectly. Plus gives us flexibility with grounding. Works great for us. They also make a white UV rated cable, albeit not shielded or with a ground wire. http://www.cabling-supplies.com/cat5e-350mhz-shielded-direct-burial-outdoor-cable-black.html Robbie Wright Siuslaw Broadband http://siuslawbroadband.com 541-902-5101 On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Rex-List Account via Af af@afmug.com wrote: And while we are at it, how about RJ45 ends, also. *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+xorex63list=gmail@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rex-List Account via Af *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:21 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] cat5 I am looking for a new source of cat5 cable. Who has the best price on quality cable? I stress that I am not looking for cheap. I want something that lasts. Install it once and forget about it. Thanks, Rex
Re: [AFMUG] cat5
the box design for the new stuff is totally different than the old stuff... I only buy it from distributors that move a good quantity through and got rid of all their old stuff a year or more ago. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Kade Sullivan via Af af@afmug.com wrote: If you go toughcable, make SURE the boxes havnt been sitting around for a while. The last batch we bought to replace the bad batch ended up being another bad batch. So we ended up replacing crap with crap and now have to replace it all again. Evidently the boxes had sat in a warehouse forever or something. It's all turning green already and water is seeping into the cables. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Eric Kuhnke via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I have had zero problems with the ubnt toughcable carrier ($180/box). They had their hands burned so thoroughly (presumably by a third party manufacturer in China) by the UV/cracking issue with the first generation toughcable, it's been resolved in everything shipping in the last 18 months. Monoprice sells packs of 100 shielded RJ45 male for around ten bucks, they're good quality. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Robbie Wright via Af af@afmug.com wrote: We use this stuff at all of our non-tower installs. Never has a single box of it fail and have been using it for about 4 years in the field now. Arguably don't need shielded for resi stuff, but we use cable clips to attach cable to everything and this cable is a 1/4 of an inch thick which fits the coax clips perfectly. Plus gives us flexibility with grounding. Works great for us. They also make a white UV rated cable, albeit not shielded or with a ground wire. http://www.cabling-supplies.com/cat5e-350mhz-shielded-direct-burial-outdoor-cable-black.html Robbie Wright Siuslaw Broadband http://siuslawbroadband.com 541-902-5101 On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Rex-List Account via Af af@afmug.com wrote: And while we are at it, how about RJ45 ends, also. *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+xorex63list=gmail@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rex-List Account via Af *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:21 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] cat5 I am looking for a new source of cat5 cable. Who has the best price on quality cable? I stress that I am not looking for cheap. I want something that lasts. Install it once and forget about it. Thanks, Rex
[AFMUG] While searching..
doing some homework for a license and I saw this,,,its expired but still, Humm? *Lat:* 31.747306 *Lon:* -106.467194, *Overall height:* 6.1 m, *Call Sign:* WPNC964 *Assigned Frequencies:* 2457.18 MHz *Grant Date:* 11/16/2001, *Expiration Date:* 01/09/2012, *Cancellation Date:* 03/10/2012 *Registrant:* *Phone:* (915) 541-4259 Read more: http://www.city-data.com/towers/other-El-Paso-Texas.html#ixzz3EFNatgnJ Jaime Solorza Wireless Systems Architect 915-861-1390
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
Not sure you're aware, but there's this group of ~15 people or so in this thing called the SuperUser program that probably has a combined total of over 300 years experience in telco/commo/IT (pre-ALOHANet). Pretty sure none of us would ever say oh yeah use airsync! :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 10:47 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: :-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear by whatever the spec sheets and feature notices tell them On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: For the first question, I have no idea, since the only released radios are PtP at this time. Pretty hard to tell. For the second one, ubntboys (at least the informed ones) don't run airsync, because they know it doesn't work well. :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:06 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: does it work? or does it work in ubntboys eyes like airsync? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: For clarification for EVERYBODY reading this post, ALL AIRMAX AC PRODUCTS HAVE AIRMAX OFFLOADING :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 07:33 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: The ptp-lites do have airmax offloading? I thought they didn't... We've had a link running for awhile, but it's got some noise issues, so it hasn't really been the best place to test these... that said, they've been running fine without any real problems that I've noticed. � *From:* Af [af-bounces+mathew=litewire@afmug.com mailto:af-bounces+mathew=litewire@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Reynolds via Af [af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:49 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance ptp lites are missing the internal shielding (i think?) as well as airprism tech they do have airmax offloading, but it's also a brand new product line... some bugs are showing in the software Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 06:48 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: These are basically beta release hardware? its missing some guts? On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Rory Conaway via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I don�t have one but from what I�m reading, it�s not quite ready for primetime.� I�m waiting. � Rory � *From:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory mailto:af-bounces%2Brory=triadwireless@afmug.com mailto:triadwireless@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *TJ Trout via Af *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 6:39 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance � How are the rocket AC's performing for you guys? Throughput? Bugs? -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
We're doing OKAY on the XW Ti's, they do handle the load better. 50+ subsper. Wish they had airmax offloading ofcourse. We do block torrents/magnet links though.This forces all torrent traffic to go through VPNs, which is fine by us as it doesn't cause a negative impact on the network. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 04:26 AM, Rory Conaway via Af wrote: Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. Rory *From:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy via Af *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:47 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance :-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear by whatever the spec sheets and feature notices tell them On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: For the first question, I have no idea, since the only released radios are PtP at this time. Pretty hard to tell. For the second one, ubntboys (at least the informed ones) don't run airsync, because they know it doesn't work well. :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:06 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: does it work? or does it work in ubntboys eyes like airsync? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: For clarification for EVERYBODY reading this post, ALL AIRMAX AC PRODUCTS HAVE AIRMAX OFFLOADING :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 07:33 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: The ptp-lites do have airmax offloading? I thought they didn't... We've had a link running for awhile, but it's got some noise issues, so it hasn't really been the best place to test these... that said, they've been running fine without any real problems that I've noticed. � *From:*Af [af-bounces+mathew=litewire@afmug.com mailto:af-bounces+mathew=litewire@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Reynolds via Af [af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:49 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance ptp lites are missing the internal shielding (i think?) as well as airprism tech they do have airmax offloading, but it's also a brand new product line... some bugs are showing in the software Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 06:48 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: These are basically beta release hardware? its missing some guts? On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Rory Conaway via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I don�t have one but from what I�m reading, it�s not quite ready for primetime.� I�m waiting. � Rory � *From:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory mailto:af-bounces%2Brory=triadwireless@afmug.com mailto:triadwireless@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *TJ Trout via Af *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 6:39 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:*
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
MT doesn't really give two sheets about the FCC. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 05:37 AM, Glen Waldrop via Af wrote: I can't get over the small gain MT uses. It also bugs me that the FCC seems to be all about massive amps and small antennas rather than the reverse. If it was actually about interference PTP shots with narrow beamwidth is preferred. I suppose it is too much to ask for those in our government that set the regulations to actually understand the tech they're regulating. I suppose it could be the manufacturers are going with big amps and small antennas, but it seems that would cost more. - Original Message - *From:* Mike Hammett via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:33 AM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance The SXT antenna were always too weak. Give me 25 dBi or give me death. Well, okay, I don't feel that strongly. I just won't buy it if not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Stefan Englhardt via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent: *Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30:07 AM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance We’re starting the move to .ac with MT now. The 922UAGS-5HPacD has the same dimensions as the 911/411 Boards so we just replace boards. We get good results with Mars Antennas with housing for P2P. The SXT-Antennas are to weak for .ac. The 19db Mars Antennas give good CPE/short range PTP with a small footprint. We use these as Sector-Antennas where we have to cover small areas. The .ac firmware adaption is quite new but we see stable results in the 300-400 Mbit/s range for short links. The .ac boards have faster CPUs so they may increase 11n-Speeds/NAT Performance. The 922-Board has a SFP. Ethernetport has moved. Due to this the RFElements Stationbox XL do not fit. MT .ac does PTP and PTMP and is downward compatible to older boards with 11n/a. SXTs with .ac are not stable with the latest sw-release. So as always with MT you’ve to betatest HW/FW-combination to get it running smooth. *Von:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *Rory Conaway via Af *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 14:26 *An:* af@afmug.com *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. Rory *From:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy via Af *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:47 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance :-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear by whatever the spec sheets and feature notices tell them On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: For the first question, I have no idea, since the only released radios are PtP at this time. Pretty hard to tell. For the second one, ubntboys (at least the informed ones) don't run airsync, because they know it doesn't work well. :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
LOL this! I took a look at their new dish amonth ago. The specs are HORRIBLE compared to just about any decent kit out there. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 05:40 AM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: I remember when they announced their new high gain CPE the Sextant... which was still smaller than the smallest CPE I used. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Glen Waldrop via Af af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:37:54 AM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance I can't get over the small gain MT uses. It also bugs me that the FCC seems to be all about massive amps and small antennas rather than the reverse. If it was actually about interference PTP shots with narrow beamwidth is preferred. I suppose it is too much to ask for those in our government that set the regulations to actually understand the tech they're regulating. I suppose it could be the manufacturers are going with big amps and small antennas, but it seems that would cost more. - Original Message - *From:* Mike Hammett via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:33 AM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance The SXT antenna were always too weak. Give me 25 dBi or give me death. Well, okay, I don't feel that strongly. I just won't buy it if not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Stefan Englhardt via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent: *Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30:07 AM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance We’re starting the move to .ac with MT now. The 922UAGS-5HPacD has the same dimensions as the 911/411 Boards so we just replace boards. We get good results with Mars Antennas with housing for P2P. The SXT-Antennas are to weak for .ac. The 19db Mars Antennas give good CPE/short range PTP with a small footprint. We use these as Sector-Antennas where we have to cover small areas. The .ac firmware adaption is quite new but we see stable results in the 300-400 Mbit/s range for short links. The .ac boards have faster CPUs so they may increase 11n-Speeds/NAT Performance. The 922-Board has a SFP. Ethernetport has moved. Due to this the RFElements Stationbox XL do not fit. MT .ac does PTP and PTMP and is downward compatible to older boards with 11n/a. SXTs with .ac are not stable with the latest sw-release. So as always with MT you’ve to betatest HW/FW-combination to get it running smooth. *Von:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *Rory Conaway via Af *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 14:26 *An:* af@afmug.com *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. Rory *From:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy via Af *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:47 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance :-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear
[AFMUG] Fun with SSDs
Scroll down a bit. In Japanese, but the technical specs need no translation. Many fun things: http://akiba-pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/dosv/20140923_667831.html PCI-Express card that can hold two M.2 type SSDs. M2 is the new standard for SSDs directly on motherboards and in laptops.
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
What firmware are you running onthe XW Ti's? We've been using 5.6B4, but it hasn't been updated in a long time. Earlier revisions had lots of issues. On 9/24/2014 10:07 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af wrote: We're doing OKAY on the XW Ti's, they do handle the load better. 50+ subsper. Wish they had airmax offloading ofcourse. We do block torrents/magnet links though.This forces all torrent traffic to go through VPNs, which is fine by us as it doesn't cause a negative impact on the network. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 04:26 AM, Rory Conaway via Af wrote: Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. Rory *From:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy via Af *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:47 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance :-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear by whatever the spec sheets and feature notices tell them On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: For the first question, I have no idea, since the only released radios are PtP at this time. Pretty hard to tell. For the second one, ubntboys (at least the informed ones) don't run airsync, because they know it doesn't work well. :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:06 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: does it work? or does it work in ubntboys eyes like airsync? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: For clarification for EVERYBODY reading this post, ALL AIRMAX AC PRODUCTS HAVE AIRMAX OFFLOADING :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 07:33 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: The ptp-lites do have airmax offloading? I thought they didn't... We've had a link running for awhile, but it's got some noise issues, so it hasn't really been the best place to test these... that said, they've been running fine without any real problems that I've noticed. � *From:*Af [af-bounces+mathew=litewire@afmug.com mailto:af-bounces+mathew=litewire@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Reynolds via Af [af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:49 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance ptp lites are missing the internal shielding (i think?) as well as airprism tech they do have airmax offloading, but it's also a brand new product line... some bugs are showing in the software Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 06:48 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: These are basically beta release hardware? its missing some guts? On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Rory Conaway via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I don�t have one but from what I�m reading, it�s not quite ready for primetime.� I�m waiting. � Rory � *From:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory mailto:af-bounces%2Brory=triadwireless@afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
There's a 5.5.10b3 out that fixes some issues with 5.5.10b2 as well as still allows the new lower band. 5.6b4 isout, and as always there are some -dev firmwares floating around... Running a mix of b2, b3, and 5.6-dev... Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 08:14 AM, Randy Cosby via Af wrote: What firmware are you running onthe XW Ti's? We've been using 5.6B4, but it hasn't been updated in a long time. Earlier revisions had lots of issues. On 9/24/2014 10:07 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af wrote: We're doing OKAY on the XW Ti's, they do handle the load better. 50+ subsper. Wish they had airmax offloading ofcourse. We do block torrents/magnet links though.This forces all torrent traffic to go through VPNs, which is fine by us as it doesn't cause a negative impact on the network. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 04:26 AM, Rory Conaway via Af wrote: Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. Rory *From:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy via Af *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:47 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance :-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear by whatever the spec sheets and feature notices tell them On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: For the first question, I have no idea, since the only released radios are PtP at this time. Pretty hard to tell. For the second one, ubntboys (at least the informed ones) don't run airsync, because they know it doesn't work well. :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:06 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: does it work? or does it work in ubntboys eyes like airsync? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: For clarification for EVERYBODY reading this post, ALL AIRMAX AC PRODUCTS HAVE AIRMAX OFFLOADING :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 07:33 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: The ptp-lites do have airmax offloading? I thought they didn't... We've had a link running for awhile, but it's got some noise issues, so it hasn't really been the best place to test these... that said, they've been running fine without any real problems that I've noticed. � *From:*Af [af-bounces+mathew=litewire@afmug.com mailto:af-bounces+mathew=litewire@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Reynolds via Af [af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:49 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance ptp lites are missing the internal shielding (i think?) as well as airprism tech they do have airmax offloading, but it's also a brand new product line... some bugs are showing in the software Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 06:48 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: These are basically beta release hardware? its missing some guts? On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at
Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 Oddities
Exact same design as the RCL-2 when it comes to the azimuth and elevation adjust. Just not understanding, but that is OK. From: Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 Oddities Yeah, I’m not fond of that. But my installers didn’t like your latest dish anyway, they say it’s too hard to align because tightening down the elevation adjustment changes the azimuth. The RCL-2 didn’t have this issue. Then there’s the odd diameter J-pipe which I believe you’ve fixed. From: Chuck McCown via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:18 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 Oddities We have a special holder for the 3.65. But we have lots of radio holders for our reflector now. The list continues to grow. From: Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:15 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 Oddities We’ve been using the regular KP reflector with the 3.65 SM, no special claw. It fits, unlike the old Motorola 27RD which does not. Am I missing something about a special claw? I assume you are not talking about the KP feedhorn which would be used with a connectorized SM. From: Kade Sullivan via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:12 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 Oddities Not that I'm aware of, just a different claw at the end, which may or may not change the focal length. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:45 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: doesnt the kp reflector have a different length arm for the 3.65? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: My advice to customers on how long to wait before calling – 5 minutes is too short, 5 days is too long. And there are the people who call in “my Internet is slow”. How slow? “I’ve been waiting for Google to load for 3 days.” From: Matt Jenkins via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:54 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 Oddities tongue in cheek Like that customer who's Internet went down last week and they figured it would just automagically come up again without calling in? /tongue in cheek Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband m...@sbbinc.net 530.272.4000 On 09/23/2014 07:44 AM, Andreas Wiatowski via Af wrote: I do too...I was just hoping it would automagically go away �;. Cheers, Andreas Wiatowski Director / CEO Silo Wireless Inc. p: 519 449-5656 / 1-866-727-4138 x600 http://silowireless.com/ � http://twitter.com/#!/silowireless � http://www.facebook.com/silowireless This email and any files transmitted with it are CONFIDENTIAL and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. �If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. -- From: AFMUG LIST wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com Reply-To: AFMUG LIST wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:25:09 + To: AFMUG LIST wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 Oddities Is it just me, or do you all see your replies twice? When I post, I see my post, then I see it come through again via AF On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Kade Sullivan via Af wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com wrote: All integrated SMs, all with KP Reflectors. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Glen Waldrop via Af wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com wrote: A B hooked to the same polarity on each client? � � - Original Message - � From: �Kade Sullivan via Af mailto:af@afmug.com �� � To: wlmailhtml:af@afmug.com � Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:10 �AM � Subject: [AFMUG] PMP450 3.65 �Oddities � � � So I have our second 450 3.65 AP up, and every single �AP at this site is showing a ~10dbi gap between the 2 polarities on the Uplink �side of things (from the SM's perspective). � � The strangest part is that the 10db gap seems to go �back and forth between the A side being the stronger signal and the B �side.� It seems random, and I have included a shot of each of the link �status pages on this AP.� All these SMs are in the same general �geographic area, within 10 degrees of each in relation to the AP. � � You can see the top SM here actually has the A side �with a better signal, while the other 4
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
The last 5.6-dev I got a few weeks ago had ebola. Are you seeing any better performance in 5.5.10B3 vs 5.6b4? Randy On 9/24/2014 10:19 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af wrote: There's a 5.5.10b3 out that fixes some issues with 5.5.10b2 as well as still allows the new lower band. 5.6b4 isout, and as always there are some -dev firmwares floating around... Running a mix of b2, b3, and 5.6-dev... Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 08:14 AM, Randy Cosby via Af wrote: What firmware are you running onthe XW Ti's? We've been using 5.6B4, but it hasn't been updated in a long time. Earlier revisions had lots of issues. On 9/24/2014 10:07 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af wrote: We're doing OKAY on the XW Ti's, they do handle the load better. 50+ subsper. Wish they had airmax offloading ofcourse. We do block torrents/magnet links though.This forces all torrent traffic to go through VPNs, which is fine by us as it doesn't cause a negative impact on the network. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 04:26 AM, Rory Conaway via Af wrote: Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. Rory *From:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy via Af *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:47 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance :-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear by whatever the spec sheets and feature notices tell them On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: For the first question, I have no idea, since the only released radios are PtP at this time. Pretty hard to tell. For the second one, ubntboys (at least the informed ones) don't run airsync, because they know it doesn't work well. :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:06 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: does it work? or does it work in ubntboys eyes like airsync? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: For clarification for EVERYBODY reading this post, ALL AIRMAX AC PRODUCTS HAVE AIRMAX OFFLOADING :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 07:33 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: The ptp-lites do have airmax offloading? I thought they didn't... We've had a link running for awhile, but it's got some noise issues, so it hasn't really been the best place to test these... that said, they've been running fine without any real problems that I've noticed. � *From:*Af [af-bounces+mathew=litewire@afmug.com mailto:af-bounces+mathew=litewire@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Reynolds via Af [af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:49 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance ptp lites are missing the internal shielding (i think?) as well as airprism tech they do have airmax offloading, but it's also a brand new product line... some bugs are showing in the software Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com
Re: [AFMUG] cat5
We installed something close to 80k' of Toughcable and have probably installed somwhere close to 100k' of Toughcable since the 2nd generation of cable. I haven't had any issues with it since it was fixed. We have tried other cable from different manufacturers, ARC, Shireen, Apex9, etc. Nothing wrong with any of it, just keep finding myself still ordering the Toughcable for both towers and installs. Regards, Chuck On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Eric Kuhnke via Af af@afmug.com wrote: the box design for the new stuff is totally different than the old stuff... I only buy it from distributors that move a good quantity through and got rid of all their old stuff a year or more ago. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Kade Sullivan via Af af@afmug.com wrote: If you go toughcable, make SURE the boxes havnt been sitting around for a while. The last batch we bought to replace the bad batch ended up being another bad batch. So we ended up replacing crap with crap and now have to replace it all again. Evidently the boxes had sat in a warehouse forever or something. It's all turning green already and water is seeping into the cables. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Eric Kuhnke via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I have had zero problems with the ubnt toughcable carrier ($180/box). They had their hands burned so thoroughly (presumably by a third party manufacturer in China) by the UV/cracking issue with the first generation toughcable, it's been resolved in everything shipping in the last 18 months. Monoprice sells packs of 100 shielded RJ45 male for around ten bucks, they're good quality. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Robbie Wright via Af af@afmug.com wrote: We use this stuff at all of our non-tower installs. Never has a single box of it fail and have been using it for about 4 years in the field now. Arguably don't need shielded for resi stuff, but we use cable clips to attach cable to everything and this cable is a 1/4 of an inch thick which fits the coax clips perfectly. Plus gives us flexibility with grounding. Works great for us. They also make a white UV rated cable, albeit not shielded or with a ground wire. http://www.cabling-supplies.com/cat5e-350mhz-shielded-direct-burial-outdoor-cable-black.html Robbie Wright Siuslaw Broadband http://siuslawbroadband.com 541-902-5101 On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Rex-List Account via Af af@afmug.com wrote: And while we are at it, how about RJ45 ends, also. *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+xorex63list=gmail@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rex-List Account via Af *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:21 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] cat5 I am looking for a new source of cat5 cable. Who has the best price on quality cable? I stress that I am not looking for cheap. I want something that lasts. Install it once and forget about it. Thanks, Rex
[AFMUG] Mimosa 477 Tool
Is anyone else having difficulty logging in? I haven't been able to access it for a few days, keep getting a HTTP error. -Jason
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
Our radios don't stop beaconing or have as many ethernet lockups on 5.5.10b3 compared to 5.6b4 :/ Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 08:21 AM, Randy Cosby via Af wrote: The last 5.6-dev I got a few weeks ago had ebola. Are you seeing any better performance in 5.5.10B3 vs 5.6b4? Randy On 9/24/2014 10:19 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af wrote: There's a 5.5.10b3 out that fixes some issues with 5.5.10b2 as well as still allows the new lower band. 5.6b4 isout, and as always there are some -dev firmwares floating around... Running a mix of b2, b3, and 5.6-dev... Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 08:14 AM, Randy Cosby via Af wrote: What firmware are you running onthe XW Ti's? We've been using 5.6B4, but it hasn't been updated in a long time. Earlier revisions had lots of issues. On 9/24/2014 10:07 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af wrote: We're doing OKAY on the XW Ti's, they do handle the load better. 50+ subsper. Wish they had airmax offloading ofcourse. We do block torrents/magnet links though.This forces all torrent traffic to go through VPNs, which is fine by us as it doesn't cause a negative impact on the network. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 04:26 AM, Rory Conaway via Af wrote: Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. Rory *From:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy via Af *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:47 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance :-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear by whatever the spec sheets and feature notices tell them On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: For the first question, I have no idea, since the only released radios are PtP at this time. Pretty hard to tell. For the second one, ubntboys (at least the informed ones) don't run airsync, because they know it doesn't work well. :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:06 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: does it work? or does it work in ubntboys eyes like airsync? On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: For clarification for EVERYBODY reading this post, ALL AIRMAX AC PRODUCTS HAVE AIRMAX OFFLOADING :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 07:33 PM, Mathew Howard via Af wrote: The ptp-lites do have airmax offloading? I thought they didn't... We've had a link running for awhile, but it's got some noise issues, so it hasn't really been the best place to test these... that said, they've been running fine without any real problems that I've noticed. � *From:*Af [af-bounces+mathew=litewire@afmug.com mailto:af-bounces+mathew=litewire@afmug.com] on behalf of Josh Reynolds via Af [af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:49 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance ptp lites are missing the internal shielding (i think?) as well as airprism tech
[AFMUG] wind load analysis
Without getting into the do you know the history of the tower rohn should have it registered etc If the only information available is the tower section types and the visible dimenstions of the concrete base, and nothing else is, assume all records have been destroyed by isis, everyone involved in the build was on a plane that wrecked, all structural analysts are in an internment camp, etc. We will assume the base is appropriate for the tower. is there a quick and dirty tool to calculate the wind load capability of a tower? We are on a couple smaller towers, 120 and 140 rohn ssv. We have a single backhaul and ap on each tower, the tower owner has 2 backhauls on one and one backhaul on the other. Our APs are the MTI 900mhz surfboards, the tower with 2 backhauls, we have a 2' parabolic and the one with a single owner backhaul is an 18 parabolic. Their backhauls are all 2' parabolic and theyre talking about going to a minimum 3' The little site I dont think we will have an affect on, I think we are at 90' on both I just want to be able to punch in some numbers from spec sheets and spit out a calculation on whether the additional load of their antennas will be an issue or not so we can make a decision whether to pull down an 800 dollar antenna and put back up another 700 dollar antenna to decrease windload. Given the circumstances, Im confident if left in the hands of the 3rd party there will be no calculation and they will blindly tell the tower owner that our gear presents to great a load. Im not looking for an engineering firm to come do anything, Im not looking for legal protection, Im not looking for much beyond peace of mind, just a calculator. We are talking about 700 bucks for antenna, going much beyond peace of mind would cost more than just swapping the antenna -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa 477 Tool
No issues. We are logged in and using it now. -Chris From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+wireless1=ntinet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:36 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Mimosa 477 Tool Is anyone else having difficulty logging in? I haven't been able to access it for a few days, keep getting a HTTP error. -Jason
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
MT gear is all uncertified isnt it? Why is the FCC cracking down so muxh on UBNT but not MT? Sent from my iPhone Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Sep 24, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: MT doesn't really give two sheets about the FCC. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 05:37 AM, Glen Waldrop via Af wrote: I can't get over the small gain MT uses. It also bugs me that the FCC seems to be all about massive amps and small antennas rather than the reverse. If it was actually about interference PTP shots with narrow beamwidth is preferred. I suppose it is too much to ask for those in our government that set the regulations to actually understand the tech they're regulating. I suppose it could be the manufacturers are going with big amps and small antennas, but it seems that would cost more. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett via Af To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance The SXT antenna were always too weak. Give me 25 dBi or give me death. Well, okay, I don't feel that strongly. I just won't buy it if not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Stefan Englhardt via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30:07 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance We’re starting the move to .ac with MT now. The 922UAGS-5HPacD has the same dimensions as the 911/411 Boards so we just replace boards. We get good results with Mars Antennas with housing for P2P. The SXT-Antennas are to weak for .ac. The 19db Mars Antennas give good CPE/short range PTP with a small footprint. We use these as Sector-Antennas where we have to cover small areas. The .ac firmware adaption is quite new but we see stable results in the 300-400 Mbit/s range for short links. The .ac boards have faster CPUs so they may increase 11n-Speeds/NAT Performance. The 922-Board has a SFP. Ethernetport has moved. Due to this the RFElements Stationbox XL do not fit. MT .ac does PTP and PTMP and is downward compatible to older boards with 11n/a. SXTs with .ac are not stable with the latest sw-release. So as always with MT you’ve to betatest HW/FW-combination to get it running smooth. Von: Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Rory Conaway via Af Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 14:26 An: af@afmug.com Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:47 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance :-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear by whatever the spec sheets and feature notices tell them On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: For the first question, I have no idea, since the only released radios are PtP at this time. Pretty hard to tell. For the second one, ubntboys (at least the informed ones) don't run airsync, because they know it doesn't work well. :) Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:06 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: does it work? or does it work in ubntboys eyes
Re: [AFMUG] FW: wispa.org down? - American Tower Contact
Hi Rick, Thanks for following up with the info. For some reason my DNS servers still won't resolve wispa.org. I haven't had time to dig too much into it though. -Patrick On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Rick Harnish via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Hi all, Here is the follow-up information for American Tower. *Join us at WISPAPALOOZA 2014 in Las Vegas, Oct. 11th – 18th http://www.wispapalooza.net/* Respectfully, *Rick Harnish* Executive Director WISPA 260-622-5699 Cell 866-317-2851 Ext. 101 WISPA Office 260-622-5774 Direct Line Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org adm...@wispa.org (Rick and Trina) *From:* Josephine Smart [mailto:josephine.hu...@americantower.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:23 AM *To:* Rick Harnish *Subject:* RE: [AFMUG] wispa.org down? Hi Rick, Jeff Deal is the new American Tower contact. I’ve provided his contact below. Jeffrey A. Deal *American Tower Corporation* 602.284.7443 Cell jeffrey.d...@americantower.com *Josephine (Huang) Smart* *Marketing Specialist* *American Tower Corporation* 10 Presidential Way Woburn, MA 01801 781-926-4790 Office josephine.sm...@americantower.com *Find, Apply and Track Online with ON AIR Access http://www.americantower.com/corporateus/solutions/on-air-access/index.htm.* *From:* Rick Harnish [mailto:ri...@wispa.org ri...@wispa.org] *Sent:* Friday, September 19, 2014 3:25 PM *To:* Josephine Smart *Subject:* RE: [AFMUG] wispa.org down? Josephine, Who is the contact I should provide for this request given that Beth is no longer with the company? *Join us at WISPAPALOOZA 2014 in Las Vegas, Oct. 11th – 18th http://www.wispapalooza.net/* Respectfully, *Rick Harnish* Executive Director WISPA 260-622-5699 Cell 866-317-2851 Ext. 101 WISPA Office 260-622-5774 Direct Line Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org adm...@wispa.org (Rick and Trina) *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+rickh=wispa@afmug.com af-bounces+rickh=wispa@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Patrick Wheeland via Af *Sent:* Friday, September 19, 2014 12:44 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] wispa.org down? I was trying to look up the American Tower WISPA contact but can't pull up wispa.org. My DNS servers won't resolve the name. If I use google's DNS, I get the IP but if I put that in my browser I get a TurnKey LAMP page. Is anyone else having trouble pulling up wispa.org? -Patrick
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
I had decent luck with mikrotik wireless, but haven't used it much since Ubiquiti started making integrated radios. What's the Iran compliance test thing? On Wednesday, September 24, 2014, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: MT isn't based in the US. Also there was that whole thing with compliance test and Iran... Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 10:34 AM, Kurt Fankhauser via Af wrote: MT gear is all uncertified isnt it? Why is the FCC cracking down so muxh on UBNT but not MT? Sent from my iPhone Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Sep 24, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: MT doesn't really give two sheets about the FCC. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 05:37 AM, Glen Waldrop via Af wrote: I can't get over the small gain MT uses. It also bugs me that the FCC seems to be all about massive amps and small antennas rather than the reverse. If it was actually about interference PTP shots with narrow beamwidth is preferred. I suppose it is too much to ask for those in our government that set the regulations to actually understand the tech they're regulating. I suppose it could be the manufacturers are going with big amps and small antennas, but it seems that would cost more. - Original Message - *From:* Mike Hammett via Af javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *To:* af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:33 AM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance The SXT antenna were always too weak. Give me 25 dBi or give me death. Well, okay, I don't feel that strongly. I just won't buy it if not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- *From: *Stefan Englhardt via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *To: *af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *Sent: *Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30:07 AM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance We’re starting the move to .ac with MT now. The 922UAGS-5HPacD has the same dimensions as the 911/411 Boards so we just replace boards. We get good results with Mars Antennas with housing for P2P. The SXT-Antennas are to weak for .ac. The 19db Mars Antennas give good CPE/short range PTP with a small footprint. We use these as Sector-Antennas where we have to cover small areas. The .ac firmware adaption is quite new but we see stable results in the 300-400 Mbit/s range for short links. The .ac boards have faster CPUs so they may increase 11n-Speeds/NAT Performance. The 922-Board has a SFP. Ethernetport has moved. Due to this the RFElements Stationbox XL do not fit. MT .ac does PTP and PTMP and is downward compatible to older boards with 11n/a. SXTs with .ac are not stable with the latest sw-release. So as always with MT you’ve to betatest HW/FW-combination to get it running smooth. *Von:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-bounces%2bste%5cx3dgenias@afmug.com');] *Im Auftrag von *Rory Conaway via Af *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 14:26 *An:* af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. Rory *From:* Af
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
Iran was the SEC investigation, compliance test was Sling using UBNT radios on DFS without DFS support, which caused Ubiquiti to have to have a compliance manager among other things, eventual removal of compliance test mode, etc. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 12:05 PM, Jason McKemie via Af wrote: I had decent luck with mikrotik wireless, but haven't used it much since Ubiquiti started making integrated radios. What's the Iran compliance test thing? On Wednesday, September 24, 2014, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: MT isn't based in the US. Also there was that whole thing with compliance test and Iran... Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 10:34 AM, Kurt Fankhauser via Af wrote: MT gear is all uncertified isnt it? Why is the FCC cracking down so muxh on UBNT but not MT? Sent from my iPhone Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Sep 24, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: MT doesn't really give two sheets about the FCC. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 05:37 AM, Glen Waldrop via Af wrote: I can't get over the small gain MT uses. It also bugs me that the FCC seems to be all about massive amps and small antennas rather than the reverse. If it was actually about interference PTP shots with narrow beamwidth is preferred. I suppose it is too much to ask for those in our government that set the regulations to actually understand the tech they're regulating. I suppose it could be the manufacturers are going with big amps and small antennas, but it seems that would cost more. - Original Message - *From:* Mike Hammett via Af javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *To:* af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:33 AM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance The SXT antenna were always too weak. Give me 25 dBi or give me death. Well, okay, I don't feel that strongly. I just won't buy it if not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Stefan Englhardt via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *To: *af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *Sent: *Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30:07 AM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance We’re starting the move to .ac with MT now. The 922UAGS-5HPacD has the same dimensions as the 911/411 Boards so we just replace boards. We get good results with Mars Antennas with housing for P2P. The SXT-Antennas are to weak for .ac. The 19db Mars Antennas give good CPE/short range PTP with a small footprint. We use these as Sector-Antennas where we have to cover small areas. The .ac firmware adaption is quite new but we see stable results in the 300-400 Mbit/s range for short links. The .ac boards have faster CPUs so they may increase 11n-Speeds/NAT Performance. The 922-Board has a SFP. Ethernetport has moved. Due to this the RFElements Stationbox XL do not fit. MT .ac does PTP and PTMP and is downward compatible to older boards with 11n/a. SXTs with .ac are not stable with the latest sw-release. So as always with MT you’ve to betatest HW/FW-combination to get it running smooth. *Von:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-bounces%2bste%5cx3dgenias@afmug.com');] *Im Auftrag von *Rory Conaway via Af *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 14:26 *An:* af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for
Re: [AFMUG] Exalt part 2
Hi all: We received the following email from Exalt’s CEO today. Dear Dan, During the past couple weeks we have gone through a major reorganization and change of ownership. The company is now primarily owned by management and employees. I apologize for any business disruption or confusion that this process may have caused for you and your partners and customers. Our vision is global connectivity and our mission is to be a world class innovator and manufacturer of wireless connectivity systems for enterprises and service providers worldwide. We continue to develop, manufacture, book, and ship the same world class Exalt brands such as EX-Series and Air-Series. I am very excited about our future. The market drivers have never been stronger. Cloud based content and applications, HD streaming video, IOT, and broadband mobility are causing a massive shift in the amount of bandwidth that will be required at every location, node, or personal device. Copper is dead! And new fiber still remains very expensive and slow to market. Wireless technologies, including microwave and mm wave backhaul and access, are rapidly becoming the optimum choice for connectivity. Exalt is more than ever focused on these new market trends. As for our relationship with Winncom, we continue on our end to support you with any and all customer activities and projects. Business as usual. All the best, Amir P.s. Please forward to your management and others on your team. And feel free to blast to your database of customers and partners. Dan Lorenz Product Manager / Business Development Main: 888-Winncom Direct: 440-519-2932 Mobile: 440-570-1533 Email:d.lor...@winncom.commailto:d.lor...@winncom.com Skype: dan-lorenz Twitter: winncomdan Visit me at ASIS 2014, 9/29 – 10/1 – Free pass below Winncom Booth #4046 https://www.tradeshowregistrar.com/regsystem18/?event=ASIS2014brand=EB-456 From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+d.lorenz=winncom@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:16 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Exalt part 2 What would be ironic is if Cambium is going to announce at Wispalooza that they bought Exalt. From: Eric Kuhnke via Afmailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:32 AM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Exalt part 2 I don't think Cambium cares, the PTP800 and PTP810 are marketed so heavily to government/institutional/enterprise customers that they consider themselves to be in a whole different price range. At least when compared to what you can get for a single polarity, 1024QAM, 40MHz wide, full-ODU licensed band system under $7000 with antennas these days. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Mark Radabaugh via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Reality Check to Cambium. Mark On 9/23/14, 9:24 AM, Eric Kuhnke via Af wrote: It is kind of obvious when you look at it. In the last 18 months every one of their competitors has developed and released a 1024QAM part 101 band product. Exalt's top-end product is still 256QAM and 20W more power hungry than the competition. If they did not scrape up the RD funding to develop and put into production keeping them in sync with every one of their current competition's products, that is a worrisome sign. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Tushar Patel via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Business as usual, speaking that may not translate in practice. For example, we were about to buy 10 links and had simple question, we could never get hold of sales rep who was helping us promptly before, for 2 weeks we have not been able to get simple answers. I think Matt posted here, they had sent unit for repair and was suppose to take 30 days to repair and it has been 60 days and was having difficult time getting hold off, or getting the unit. Light reading reports support call going straight to voice mail. If this is business as usual for exalt we will have hard time if we run into issues with products in the field or if we need any kind of support. Current level of response from them is not even at functional level. Tushar On Sep 22, 2014, at 11:20 PM, Steve Utick via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I've talked to sales reps that have talked to Exalt Staff, and have said what was already posted, they were bought out, doing a major re-org due to the purchase, but still operating business as usual. On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Bruce Robertson via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Like I said earlier, there's no evidence that I can find of a BK filing. On 09/22/2014 07:17 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: Dangerous to speculate, not enough actual information. I would observe that a bankruptcy is hard to hide for long, documents need to filed with courts, and creditors need to be notified. On the other hand, it seems that ownership changes can be kept secret for at least a couple months. We see it all
Re: [AFMUG] Exalt
Hi all: We received the email below from Exalt’s CEO. Dear Dan, During the past couple weeks we have gone through a major reorganization and change of ownership. The company is now primarily owned by management and employees. I apologize for any business disruption or confusion that this process may have caused for you and your partners and customers. Our vision is global connectivity and our mission is to be a world class innovator and manufacturer of wireless connectivity systems for enterprises and service providers worldwide. We continue to develop, manufacture, book, and ship the same world class Exalt brands such as EX-Series and Air-Series. I am very excited about our future. The market drivers have never been stronger. Cloud based content and applications, HD streaming video, IOT, and broadband mobility are causing a massive shift in the amount of bandwidth that will be required at every location, node, or personal device. Copper is dead! And new fiber still remains very expensive and slow to market. Wireless technologies, including microwave and mm wave backhaul and access, are rapidly becoming the optimum choice for connectivity. Exalt is more than ever focused on these new market trends. As for our relationship with Winncom, we continue on our end to support you with any and all customer activities and projects. Business as usual. All the best, Amir P.s. Please forward to your management and others on your team. And feel free to blast to your database of customers and partners. Dan Lorenz Product Manager / Business Development Main: 888-Winncom Direct: 440-519-2932 Mobile: 440-570-1533 Email:d.lor...@winncom.commailto:d.lor...@winncom.com Skype: dan-lorenz Twitter: winncomdan Visit me at ASIS 2014, 9/29 – 10/1 – Free pass below Winncom Booth #4046 https://www.tradeshowregistrar.com/regsystem18/?event=ASIS2014brand=EB-456 From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+d.lorenz=winncom@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:08 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Exalt I hope so, I was going to buy more stuff from them. The licensed backhaul business is strange, you look at any of the management, engineering or sales people on Linkedin, and it seems they have all worked for most of the companies at some time or another. It’s a small world unto itself. From: SmarterBroadband via Afmailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:40 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Exalt I had contact with Exalt today. I was told there should be a statement from Senior Management shortly. Maybe if new ownership and re-organization, could be for the better? Adam
Re: [AFMUG] Exalt part 2
Now if they would just start putting an optical interface on their entry level radios... On Wednesday, September 24, 2014, Dan Lorenz via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Hi all: We received the following email from Exalt’s CEO today. Dear Dan, During the past couple weeks we have gone through a major reorganization and change of ownership. The company is now primarily owned by management and employees. I apologize for any business disruption or confusion that this process may have caused for you and your partners and customers. Our vision is global connectivity and our mission is to be a world class innovator and manufacturer of wireless connectivity systems for enterprises and service providers worldwide. We continue to develop, manufacture, book, and ship the same world class Exalt brands such as EX-Series and Air-Series. I am very excited about our future. The market drivers have never been stronger. Cloud based content and applications, HD streaming video, IOT, and broadband mobility are causing a massive shift in the amount of bandwidth that will be required at every location, node, or personal device. Copper is dead! And new fiber still remains very expensive and slow to market. Wireless technologies, including microwave and mm wave backhaul and access, are rapidly becoming the optimum choice for connectivity. Exalt is more than ever focused on these new market trends. As for our relationship with Winncom, we continue on our end to support you with any and all customer activities and projects. Business as usual. All the best, Amir P.s. Please forward to your management and others on your team. And feel free to blast to your database of customers and partners. *Dan Lorenz* *Product Manager / Business Development* *Main: 888-Winncom* *Direct: 440-519-2932* *Mobile: 440-570-1533* *Email:**d.lor...@winncom.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','d.lor...@winncom.com');* *Skype: dan-lorenz* *Twitter: winncomdan* *Visit me at ASIS 2014, 9/29 – 10/1 – Free pass below* *Winncom Booth #4046* *https://www.tradeshowregistrar.com/regsystem18/?event=ASIS2014brand=EB-456 https://www.tradeshowregistrar.com/regsystem18/?event=ASIS2014brand=EB-456* *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+d.lorenz javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-bounces%2Bd.lorenz');= winncom@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','winncom@afmug.com');] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof via Af *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:16 AM *To:* af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Exalt part 2 What would be ironic is if Cambium is going to announce at Wispalooza that they bought Exalt. *From:* Eric Kuhnke via Af javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:32 AM *To:* af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Exalt part 2 I don't think Cambium cares, the PTP800 and PTP810 are marketed so heavily to government/institutional/enterprise customers that they consider themselves to be in a whole different price range. At least when compared to what you can get for a single polarity, 1024QAM, 40MHz wide, full-ODU licensed band system under $7000 with antennas these days. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Mark Radabaugh via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: Reality Check to Cambium. Mark On 9/23/14, 9:24 AM, Eric Kuhnke via Af wrote: It is kind of obvious when you look at it. In the last 18 months every one of their competitors has developed and released a 1024QAM part 101 band product. Exalt's top-end product is still 256QAM and 20W more power hungry than the competition. If they did not scrape up the RD funding to develop and put into production keeping them in sync with every one of their current competition's products, that is a worrisome sign. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Tushar Patel via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: Business as usual, speaking that may not translate in practice. For example, we were about to buy 10 links and had simple question, we could never get hold of sales rep who was helping us promptly before, for 2 weeks we have not been able to get simple answers. I think Matt posted here, they had sent unit for repair and was suppose to take 30 days to repair and it has been 60 days and was having difficult time getting hold off, or getting the unit. Light reading reports support call going straight to voice mail. If this is business as usual for exalt we will have hard time if we run into issues with products in the field or if we need any kind of support. Current level of response from them is not even at functional level. Tushar On Sep 22, 2014, at 11:20 PM, Steve Utick via Af af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: I've talked to sales reps that
Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa 477 Tool
It must have been something specific to my account. They fixed it. -Jason On Wednesday, September 24, 2014, Christopher Hair via Af af@afmug.com wrote: No issues. We are logged in and using it now. -Chris *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+wireless1 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-bounces%2Bwireless1');= ntinet@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ntinet@afmug.com');] *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie via Af *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:36 PM *To:* af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); *Subject:* [AFMUG] Mimosa 477 Tool Is anyone else having difficulty logging in? I haven't been able to access it for a few days, keep getting a HTTP error. -Jason
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
Ahem. They sell in the US so they must follow the rules Just saying Jaime Solorza On Sep 24, 2014 1:48 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: MT isn't based in the US. Also there was that whole thing with compliance test and Iran... Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 10:34 AM, Kurt Fankhauser via Af wrote: MT gear is all uncertified isnt it? Why is the FCC cracking down so muxh on UBNT but not MT? Sent from my iPhone Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Sep 24, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: MT doesn't really give two sheets about the FCC. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 05:37 AM, Glen Waldrop via Af wrote: I can't get over the small gain MT uses. It also bugs me that the FCC seems to be all about massive amps and small antennas rather than the reverse. If it was actually about interference PTP shots with narrow beamwidth is preferred. I suppose it is too much to ask for those in our government that set the regulations to actually understand the tech they're regulating. I suppose it could be the manufacturers are going with big amps and small antennas, but it seems that would cost more. - Original Message - *From:* Mike Hammett via Af af@afmug.com *To:* af@afmug.com *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:33 AM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance The SXT antenna were always too weak. Give me 25 dBi or give me death. Well, okay, I don't feel that strongly. I just won't buy it if not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- *From: *Stefan Englhardt via Af af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com *Sent: *Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30:07 AM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance We’re starting the move to .ac with MT now. The 922UAGS-5HPacD has the same dimensions as the 911/411 Boards so we just replace boards. We get good results with Mars Antennas with housing for P2P. The SXT-Antennas are to weak for .ac. The 19db Mars Antennas give good CPE/short range PTP with a small footprint. We use these as Sector-Antennas where we have to cover small areas. The .ac firmware adaption is quite new but we see stable results in the 300-400 Mbit/s range for short links. The .ac boards have faster CPUs so they may increase 11n-Speeds/NAT Performance. The 922-Board has a SFP. Ethernetport has moved. Due to this the RFElements Stationbox XL do not fit. MT .ac does PTP and PTMP and is downward compatible to older boards with 11n/a. SXTs with .ac are not stable with the latest sw-release. So as always with MT you’ve to betatest HW/FW-combination to get it running smooth. *Von:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *Rory Conaway via Af *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 14:26 *An:* af@afmug.com *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming means we are pushing that down to a planned 30 over the next couple of months. That numbers are just estimates but somewhere between 30-50 under heavy video streaming usage and AirMax will start causing issues. If you allow torrents or anything that opens up a massive number of connections, then the number of users per AP drops significantly which is why we run filtering on the back end to reduce that. I’ve seen APs with less than 30 go apoplectic with a couple of wild torrent users. Rory *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com af-bounces+rory=triadwireless@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy via Af *Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:47 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance :-) the ubntboys tend to not be all that informed they blindly swear by whatever the spec sheets and feature notices tell them On
Re: [AFMUG] Exalt part 2
Hey, they just did a Brick Tamland and showed up at their own funeral. Give them a couple days to recover from their experience. (Who knows, maybe they brought ray guns from the future.) Maybe they could do like some manufacturers and put it on there, but require a big fat license key to use it. Maybe we’ll read about it in Light Reading. From: Jason McKemie via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:34 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Exalt part 2 Now if they would just start putting an optical interface on their entry level radios... On Wednesday, September 24, 2014, Dan Lorenz via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Hi all: We received the following email from Exalt’s CEO today. Dear Dan, During the past couple weeks we have gone through a major reorganization and change of ownership. The company is now primarily owned by management and employees. I apologize for any business disruption or confusion that this process may have caused for you and your partners and customers. Our vision is global connectivity and our mission is to be a world class innovator and manufacturer of wireless connectivity systems for enterprises and service providers worldwide. We continue to develop, manufacture, book, and ship the same world class Exalt brands such as EX-Series and Air-Series. I am very excited about our future. The market drivers have never been stronger. Cloud based content and applications, HD streaming video, IOT, and broadband mobility are causing a massive shift in the amount of bandwidth that will be required at every location, node, or personal device. Copper is dead! And new fiber still remains very expensive and slow to market. Wireless technologies, including microwave and mm wave backhaul and access, are rapidly becoming the optimum choice for connectivity. Exalt is more than ever focused on these new market trends. As for our relationship with Winncom, we continue on our end to support you with any and all customer activities and projects. Business as usual. All the best, Amir P.s. Please forward to your management and others on your team. And feel free to blast to your database of customers and partners. Dan Lorenz Product Manager / Business Development Main: 888-Winncom Direct: 440-519-2932 Mobile: 440-570-1533 Email:d.lor...@winncom.com Skype: dan-lorenz Twitter: winncomdan Visit me at ASIS 2014, 9/29 – 10/1 – Free pass below Winncom Booth #4046 https://www.tradeshowregistrar.com/regsystem18/?event=ASIS2014brand=EB-456 From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+d.lorenz=javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','winncom@afmug.com');] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:16 AM To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Exalt part 2 What would be ironic is if Cambium is going to announce at Wispalooza that they bought Exalt. From: Eric Kuhnke via Af Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:32 AM To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Exalt part 2 I don't think Cambium cares, the PTP800 and PTP810 are marketed so heavily to government/institutional/enterprise customers that they consider themselves to be in a whole different price range. At least when compared to what you can get for a single polarity, 1024QAM, 40MHz wide, full-ODU licensed band system under $7000 with antennas these days. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Mark Radabaugh via Af javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: Reality Check to Cambium. Mark On 9/23/14, 9:24 AM, Eric Kuhnke via Af wrote: It is kind of obvious when you look at it. In the last 18 months every one of their competitors has developed and released a 1024QAM part 101 band product. Exalt's top-end product is still 256QAM and 20W more power hungry than the competition. If they did not scrape up the RD funding to develop and put into production keeping them in sync with every one of their current competition's products, that is a worrisome sign. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Tushar Patel via Af javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); wrote: Business as usual, speaking that may not translate in practice. For example, we were about to buy 10 links and had simple question, we could never get hold of sales rep who was helping us promptly before, for 2 weeks we have not been able to get simple answers. I think Matt posted here, they had sent unit for repair and was suppose to take 30 days to repair and it has been 60 days and was having difficult time getting hold off, or getting the unit. Light reading reports support call going straight to voice mail. If this is business as usual for exalt we will have hard time if we run into issues with products in the field or if we need any kind of support. Current level of response from them is not even
Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance
Well they're not, and never have been(following the rules). Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 12:52 PM, Jaime Solorza via Af wrote: Ahem. They sell in the US so they must follow the rules Just saying Jaime Solorza On Sep 24, 2014 1:48 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: MT isn't based in the US. Also there was that whole thing with compliance test and Iran... Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 10:34 AM, Kurt Fankhauser via Af wrote: MT gear is all uncertified isnt it? Why is the FCC cracking down so muxh on UBNT but not MT? Sent from my iPhone Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 tel:419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 tel:419-617-0110 On Sep 24, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: MT doesn't really give two sheets about the FCC. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/24/2014 05:37 AM, Glen Waldrop via Af wrote: I can't get over the small gain MT uses. It also bugs me that the FCC seems to be all about massive amps and small antennas rather than the reverse. If it was actually about interference PTP shots with narrow beamwidth is preferred. I suppose it is too much to ask for those in our government that set the regulations to actually understand the tech they're regulating. I suppose it could be the manufacturers are going with big amps and small antennas, but it seems that would cost more. - Original Message - *From:* Mike Hammett via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:33 AM *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance The SXT antenna were always too weak. Give me 25 dBi or give me death. Well, okay, I don't feel that strongly. I just won't buy it if not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Stefan Englhardt via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *To: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent: *Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:30:07 AM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance We’re starting the move to .ac with MT now. The 922UAGS-5HPacD has the same dimensions as the 911/411 Boards so we just replace boards. We get good results with Mars Antennas with housing for P2P. The SXT-Antennas are to weak for .ac. The 19db Mars Antennas give good CPE/short range PTP with a small footprint. We use these as Sector-Antennas where we have to cover small areas. The .ac firmware adaption is quite new but we see stable results in the 300-400 Mbit/s range for short links. The .ac boards have faster CPUs so they may increase 11n-Speeds/NAT Performance. The 922-Board has a SFP. Ethernetport has moved. Due to this the RFElements Stationbox XL do not fit. MT .ac does PTP and PTMP and is downward compatible to older boards with 11n/a. SXTs with .ac are not stable with the latest sw-release. So as always with MT you’ve to betatest HW/FW-combination to get it running smooth. *Von:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+ste=genias@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *Rory Conaway via Af *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 14:26 *An:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] rocket ac lite performance Ya, I don’t’ think so. If you use Ubiquiti you pretty much know what works and what doesn’t. in reality, you use as few custom features as possible outside 802.11 compatibility and limit the radios to Layer 2 bridges or nothing more than NAT whenever possible. Try not to use any of the customer features although AirMax seems to be working pretty well. You just don’t want to add anything that adds to processor overhead on an AP for Rocket M5’s if you have a higher density. When the Titanium’s tanked a couple years ago, there was a huge hole in any kind of AP product with the ability to handle density due to the processor but nobody filled it. It still hasn’t been filled to my satisfaction meaning we aren’t replacing Rocket 5M’s any time soon and we are keeping them at 50 users or less for another few months. However, NetFlix and video streaming
[AFMUG] CCR-1036 fun with PPPoE
CCR-1036 running RouterOS 6.19 After some serious amounts of testing, we felt our CCR was ready to take the plunge. The core router talks BGP to our two Imagestream Edge routers and gets all 500k+ routes from each in about three minutes. Its PPPoE server manages to authenticate the bulk of nearly 1800 customers in four minutes. All's fine and dandy for about 12 hours, then not so fine and dandy things start happening. Overall traffic that should be near 600mbps seems to top off around 400mbps. Edge 1 goes unresponsive, VRRP doesn't kick in on Edge 2 and the entire network degrades. All devices on our public switch go partially unresponsive to pings including our DNS servers, other various VM's, and ESXi hosts themselves. Here's the fun part: We took the CCR out, just flat out unplugged it and turned on our old Core routers. They start authenticating customers but they're insanely slow in doing it. It's not until we reboot our Edge 1 router that things get back to normal and the old Core routers authenticate at acceptable speeds. Could the CCR be inducing a problem in our Edge routers perhaps? Chris Wright Velociter Wirelesshttp://www.velociter.net/
Re: [AFMUG] SNMP Monitoring or power with a Packetflux Site Monitor
Thanks. How can I be lazy and copy that pop up to copy the OID? Sam Lambie Wireless Internet Technician www.taosnet.com 575.758.7598 On Sep 24, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Forrest Christian \(List Account\) via Af af@afmug.com wrote: That's the right way to do it. If you go into the web interface and into the analog tab and put your mouse pointer over the value for the appropriate dc input, the oid will be shown in the lower right corner of your screen. On Sep 24, 2014 2:43 PM, Sam Lambie via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I want to monitor grid power by placing a wall wort into PWR 2 on the site monitor. Then plug the wall wort (sp?) into the Surge side of the UPS. What OID would I use to see if there is power or NOT for SNMP queries? Or is there a better way to go about this? thanks Sam -- -- Sam Lambie Taosnet Wireless Tech. 575-758-7598 Office www.Taosnet.com
Re: [AFMUG] SNMP Monitoring or power with a Packetflux Site Monitor
If you use SiteMonitor Manager instead of the web gui, you can copy the OID's to clipboard with a right click menu option. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Sam Lambie via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Thanks. How can I be lazy and copy that pop up to copy the OID? Sam Lambie Wireless Internet Technician www.taosnet.com 575.758.7598 On Sep 24, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Forrest Christian \(List Account\) via Af af@afmug.com wrote: That's the right way to do it. If you go into the web interface and into the analog tab and put your mouse pointer over the value for the appropriate dc input, the oid will be shown in the lower right corner of your screen. On Sep 24, 2014 2:43 PM, Sam Lambie via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I want to monitor grid power by placing a wall wort into PWR 2 on the site monitor. Then plug the wall wort (sp?) into the Surge side of the UPS. What OID would I use to see if there is power or NOT for SNMP queries? Or is there a better way to go about this? thanks Sam -- -- *Sam Lambie* Taosnet Wireless Tech. 575-758-7598 Office www.Taosnet.com http://www.newmex.com
Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa 477 Tool
Call your ISP, they're responsible for any problem on the internet. On Sep 24, 2014 3:39 PM, Jason McKemie via Af af@afmug.com wrote: It must have been something specific to my account. They fixed it. -Jason On Wednesday, September 24, 2014, Christopher Hair via Af af@afmug.com wrote: No issues. We are logged in and using it now. -Chris *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+wireless1=ntinet@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie via Af *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:36 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] Mimosa 477 Tool Is anyone else having difficulty logging in? I haven't been able to access it for a few days, keep getting a HTTP error. -Jason
Re: [AFMUG] Not bad for a 24 mile ptmp link
Who has that kind of 2.4 SNR at a -73!?!? ___ Mangled by my iPhone. ___ Tyler Treat Corn Belt Technologies, Inc. tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.com ___ On Sep 24, 2014, at 7:10 PM, Ryan Ray via Af af@afmug.com wrote: image1.jpeg Sent while mobile
Re: [AFMUG] Not bad for a 24 mile ptmp link
-56 23 plus miles Been this way for 7 years. Never even touched it.
Re: [AFMUG] Not bad for a 24 mile ptmp link
We had one like that Craig. 26.9 miles - 5700BH20 - started with P8s in 2003. later upgraded to P10s on 2011, recently upgrade to something else. It was at 310 ft at one end and 260 ft at the other. VERY strong link... -62 and never any problems. Oh, the good ol' days -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House via Af Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:07 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Not bad for a 24 mile ptmp link -56 23 plus miles Been this way for 7 years. Never even touched it.
Re: [AFMUG] FW: wispa.org down? - American Tower Contact
Patrick: I recommend you hitting up DJ at my shop, he hosts the WISPA domain/listserv and the website is also hosted in my facility. d...@shelbybb.com Regards, Chuck On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Patrick Wheeland via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Hi Rick, Thanks for following up with the info. For some reason my DNS servers still won't resolve wispa.org. I haven't had time to dig too much into it though. -Patrick On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Rick Harnish via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Hi all, Here is the follow-up information for American Tower. *Join us at WISPAPALOOZA 2014 in Las Vegas, Oct. 11th – 18th http://www.wispapalooza.net/* Respectfully, *Rick Harnish* Executive Director WISPA 260-622-5699 Cell 866-317-2851 Ext. 101 WISPA Office 260-622-5774 Direct Line Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org adm...@wispa.org (Rick and Trina) *From:* Josephine Smart [mailto:josephine.hu...@americantower.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:23 AM *To:* Rick Harnish *Subject:* RE: [AFMUG] wispa.org down? Hi Rick, Jeff Deal is the new American Tower contact. I’ve provided his contact below. Jeffrey A. Deal *American Tower Corporation* 602.284.7443 Cell jeffrey.d...@americantower.com *Josephine (Huang) Smart* *Marketing Specialist* *American Tower Corporation* 10 Presidential Way Woburn, MA 01801 781-926-4790 Office josephine.sm...@americantower.com *Find, Apply and Track Online with ON AIR Access http://www.americantower.com/corporateus/solutions/on-air-access/index.htm.* *From:* Rick Harnish [mailto:ri...@wispa.org ri...@wispa.org] *Sent:* Friday, September 19, 2014 3:25 PM *To:* Josephine Smart *Subject:* RE: [AFMUG] wispa.org down? Josephine, Who is the contact I should provide for this request given that Beth is no longer with the company? *Join us at WISPAPALOOZA 2014 in Las Vegas, Oct. 11th – 18th http://www.wispapalooza.net/* Respectfully, *Rick Harnish* Executive Director WISPA 260-622-5699 Cell 866-317-2851 Ext. 101 WISPA Office 260-622-5774 Direct Line Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org adm...@wispa.org (Rick and Trina) *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+rickh=wispa@afmug.com af-bounces+rickh=wispa@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Patrick Wheeland via Af *Sent:* Friday, September 19, 2014 12:44 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] wispa.org down? I was trying to look up the American Tower WISPA contact but can't pull up wispa.org. My DNS servers won't resolve the name. If I use google's DNS, I get the IP but if I put that in my browser I get a TurnKey LAMP page. Is anyone else having trouble pulling up wispa.org? -Patrick
Re: [AFMUG] Not bad for a 24 mile ptmp link
Those were the days BH20 pushing long miles lol I had a ptp600 that went 71 miles. spacial diversity crazy stuff. On 9/24/2014 8:06 PM, Craig House via Af wrote: -56 23 plus miles Been this way for 7 years. Never even touched it. --
Re: [AFMUG] ptp650 interface - nice - and an ATPC question
So what happened? On 9/24/2014 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote: nope, just swapped radios, the leads are handmade crimp on N connectors that are like 4-5 years old, the lightning welded our switch to out battery backup. I dont have a problem with ten minute shutdown, but it will end up being an hour or more. I have 477 to do tomorrow so it will be the boss going. I told him to take the power supply completely out of the box so the guy doesnt claim the power supply capacitors must still have power going to the radio I also told him to not let the guy powercycle the 650 unless our radio is powered on because it will probably come back up and perform, so if our radio is powered down, of course its our radio causing the problems The whole point of this thread was to say the interface on the 650 is really cool and to find out about ATPC on the 650, but when i got the email telling me it was relayed to the landlord that its a combination of our radio and local interference I got really pissed. Going out on a limb and saying maybe there is not directly a physical issue looking at the fluctuations on both sides output power (-15 to 21) and receive power (-47 to -78) with an ATPC threshold set to -35 (is this the default value?) The numbers make sense, output power is ranging 36db and receive powers are ranging 31db. EXCEPT that when i was on them the remote transmit was 21 and the local rx was -78, its not correlated to the range of numbers. so our radio was on 5755 i think at the time before i moved it, 10mhz. so for the sake of argument their 650 was also sitting on 5755 for whatever reason, and we will say it was recieving at the linkplanner target of -61 and had a -35 threshold on ATPC, if my ubnt had some sort of massive fart and hit the 650 antenna with more energy than -35, could the 650 assume that additional energy is coming from the remote and and issue an ATPC power down? would that account for all the tx power and rx power fluctuations? What I dont understand is since the peak rx was -47, why would the tx have even dropped if atpc was functioning especially don as low as a negative 15 Are there any bugs with ATPC with the 650? I dont recall there being any real configurable atpc parameter in the 3/500 series. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I'm not talking about your issue, per say. Just commenting on the receiver front-end overload on rockets (and other UBNT AirMax radios). I'm sure this probably happens on MikroTik radios too. EPMP? Don't have any to test. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:52 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote: Im pretty sure there is no atheros chipset in a ptp650 to have this issue happen and since the rocket is a backhaul, if it were deaf im pretty sure it would be hard to manage, and the fsk customers beyond it would be calling in with concerns about the lack of internet. I highly doubt that a brand new 650 would go deaf the minute it is powered on, and had it gone deaf the minute it was powered on, I doubt the spectrum would show well defined hills and valleys so clearly you can tell the channel size of the interfering systems, it would more likely either be fairly flatline or constantly in flux On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: This is exactly what I am talking about. Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/23/2014 09:31 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: Fundamentally, no. But what you can end up with is a receiver front-end overload. This happens far too often on Rocket radios. Isn't the 650 a whole-band radio, like 4.9-5.9? I hope it would have some spectacular filtering for the fify brazillion $ they want for it. I would shut your stuff down for 10 minutes and see what happens. On 9/24/2014 12:00 AM, That One Guy via Af wrote: INTERFERENCE DOES NOT ALTER RECEIVED POWER!!! On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of the woods. No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but it absolutely crushes anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and freq-use range. Atheros radios outside of the band also get overloaded and CCQ tanks. AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5... kinda not a fan at this point. Same for just about every -AC radio from every manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa does though, I am mildly
