Re: [AFMUG] missing part on Canopy SM
Ken, If that part was damaged (and then removed on purpose) there could be damage to the Ethernet Transceiver itself or a few of the other parts that support the transceiver. Obviously, send it back. For grins, you might try setting your computer interface to 10Mbit just to see what it does Paul From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 12:13 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] missing part on Canopy SM Could be, but it looks like it was cleanly desoldered. Seeing up close is not one of my superpowers though, not for quite awhile now. I was just trying to configure it at the office. Ethernet bounces up and down, and LEDs don’t seem to go through the regular sequence. I did once get into it at 192.168.1.1 which is strange because it was supposed to be defaulted, NAT was enabled. Strange. From: Paul McCall via Afmailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 10:36 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] missing part on Canopy SM Could be that when the part came off, a trace went with it From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 11:07 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] missing part on Canopy SM So the missing part doesn’t explain why it doesn’t work. It came with a guarantee, so I’ll send it back to the seller. From: Paul McCall via Afmailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 9:47 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] missing part on Canopy SM Gerard is correct. An SM will function without it, though it makes the Ethernet less than protected from basic transient surges (even little ones). I would suggest replacing it From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gerard Dupont III via Af Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 10:28 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] missing part on Canopy SM It's a Transient Voltage Suppressor. I haven't tested others, but I know 100 will function just fine without it. In a pinch I remove them to fix ethernet errors. I think this is the right part number if you wanted to replace it. RCLAMP0504FCT Gerard On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Anybody know what that little 6-leaded SMD is between the RJ45 jack and the Ethernet transformer on the PCB of a Canopy SM? We bought a used SM that doesn't work (it lights up and seems to be trying) and that part is missing. I don't think it's optional. But is its absence causing the problems? Or just an indication that a tech didn't finish repairing it and mistakenly marked it as tested and good? If it's a surge protection component, it seems too small to do much good.
[AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated?
I remember the good old days that most of our network was based on Canopy Classic: The radios were isolated form the tower, minor lightning issues.. Nowadays its has turned into a big issue for us, radios and MW getting zapped! Were do I start? Should I go back to the Isolation model and have all gear in tower isolated from the tower in any way possible? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr
Re: [AFMUG] Power up the tower?
We do power and fiber up the tower as our standard...ever since that standard has been used, I don't think we've lost a site yet. Regards, Chuck On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote: This is what we have used for all our CMM units for years. http://www.outdoorspeakerdepot.com/14ga2inspca5.html Outdoor, UV resistant, etc. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Planning on hanging a DC box on the tower 30-40w total power Cat5 using multiple pairs or 2 conductor cable? We are inclined on cat 5 for standardization purposes... Sent from Marconi's and Graham Bell's fused thoughts!!!
Re: [AFMUG] Power up the tower?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=1cad=rjauact=8ved=0CC0QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commscope.com%2FDocs%2FHELIAX_FFDirect_Brochure_BR-107083.pdfei=uhQoVLffMIWayQSu5YCoBAusg=AFQjCNFvqSzEDLibQ4WCTebhIbt3KgEQYQsig2=gR3vElbGdefgDpcYEtvB2Qbvm=bv.76247554,d.aWw I'm getting pricing on this - if it's anything remotely reasonable I'm really thinking about using this for tower sites. With 3 fiber feeds and 3 power feeds I can use one power/fiber pair to each of the SAF Integra's, and use the other one to go to a enclosure with power and a switch to connect to the APs'. I'm trying to find out if I can get a small switch and a PacketFlux Syncinjector stuffed into a 3M Tower Dome Closure: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=6UgxGCuNyXTtoxMVlxMVEVtQEcuZgVs6EVs6E66--fn=Tower_Dome_Terminal_TDT_T_25_6RS The combination seems like it would solve a lot of problems. It gives us one cable up the tower and the cable fits properly into standard tower hangers. The dome closure can be built on the ground with appropriate length cables to each AP so that the whole thing can be assembled on the ground and then hoisted into place so that the tower monkeys only have to plug things in. The other nice part is if you are using contract tower crews the whole thing looks just like installing a standard Remote Radio Unit (RRU) radio head, so they should both not need a lot of retraining. If we could get our radio manufacturers to start making equipment with SFP's this would be even easier.That's a hint there Cambium. Mark On 9/28/14, 9:50 AM, Chuck Hogg via Af wrote: We do power and fiber up the tower as our standard...ever since that standard has been used, I don't think we've lost a site yet. Regards, Chuck On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: This is what we have used for all our CMM units for years. http://www.outdoorspeakerdepot.com/14ga2inspca5.html Outdoor, UV resistant, etc. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Planning on hanging a DC box on the tower 30-40w total power Cat5 using multiple pairs or 2 conductor cable? We are inclined on cat 5 for standardization purposes... Sent from Marconi's and Graham Bell's fused thoughts!!! -- Mark Radabaugh Amplex m...@amplex.net 419.837.5015 x 1021
Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables codeinjection attack
Why? Take the case of a dedicated server that only does let’s say DHCP or DNS or NTP. It only has one port open to the Internet, and there’s no way to get to a bash shell via that port. How the hell is someone going to pass an environment variable to a bash shell on that server? From: Shayne Lebrun via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 8:40 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables codeinjection attack Ø I think the articles have maybe overstated the risk a bit, since you would need to either authenticate (at least as a regular user) to get to a shell, or find a publicly exposed script that will pass an environment variable to bash for you. Please don’t think like this. From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+slebrun=muskoka@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 1:38 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables code injection attack So maybe I won’t do that. The newer servers where I could just do a yum update have been straightforward, as you’d expect. I think the articles have maybe overstated the risk a bit, since you would need to either authenticate (at least as a regular user) to get to a shell, or find a publicly exposed script that will pass an environment variable to bash for you. From: Jeremy via Af Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:13 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables code injection attack Our webserver was vulnerable. Tried to fix it without backing it up firstyeah, I know. Lost it all. So I guess I will be building a new website from my 2013 backup this weekend. It's a good thing I carpet bombed my website to prevent anyone from messing with it! On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Unfortunately I have a couple old servers running RHEL4 and one old BlueQuartz webhosting appliance based on CentOS4. I’m a little reluctant to try compiling the patch myself unless I switch to a difference shell first, if I screw up my command shell it might be difficult to fix. Any guess if I’d be safe using the RPM cited in this thread: http://serverfault.com/questions/631055/how-do-i-patch-rhel-4-for-the-bash-vulnerabilities-in-cve-2014-6271-and-cve-2014 the RPM it points to is: http://public-yum.oracle.com/repo/EnterpriseLinux/EL4/latest/i386/getPackage/bash-3.0-27.0.2.el4.i386.rpm From: Ty Featherling via Af Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 10:52 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables code injection attack Yeah probably the NSA! Hahaha! -Ty On Sep 26, 2014 10:36 PM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Man I bet theres some guy whose been exploiting this for 20 years who is pissed right now On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Ty Featherling via Af af@afmug.com wrote: CentOS on some, Ubuntu on others. Already got the answers in this thread though, thanks. -Ty On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Mike Hammett via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Which distribution? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: Ty Featherling via Af af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:42:31 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables code injection attack Noob question but how can I easiest update my linux boxes to get the latest patches? -Ty On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Upgraded our systems at 6am yesterday for this. Also pulled the bash .deb out of debian-stable/security for our ubiquiti edgerouters. (I made on a post on the UBNT forum with the CVE info yesterday.) Side note: TONS of things are affected by this... Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/25/2014 10:25 AM, Peter Kranz via Af wrote: PS.. This vulnerability can be exploited via HTTP/Apache attack vectors, so you need to patch any vulnerable system running Apache. Peter KranzFounder/CEO - Unwired Ltdwww.UnwiredLtd.comDesk: 510-868-1614 x100Mobile: 510-207-pkr...@unwiredltd.com -Original Message-From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+pkranz=unwiredltd@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via AfSent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 10:27 AMTo: af@afmug.comSubject: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables code injection attack Bash specially-crafted environment variables code injection attack https://securityblog.redhat.com/2014/09/24/bash-specially-crafted-environment-variables-code-injection-attack/ -- 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
Re: [AFMUG] Power up the tower?
The built-in GPS in the 450 works reasonably well. Now that they have the option of internal GPS and freerun it's reasonably safe to let them run that way. We still have most of our units powered by CTM's but have increasingly gone to turning off sync-over-power. There is some risk of the unit losing GPS and going into freerun and then drifting off timing but I have not seen an issue with it to date. Other tower top GPS solutions are available if you don't want to risk the internal GPS unit - Cambium uGPS, Packetflux, Last Mile Gear. Mark On 9/28/14, 10:27 AM, Josh Baird via Af wrote: If the radios did have SFPs, wouldn't you still need to provide sync (which would mean additional cables)? On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Mark Radabaugh via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=1cad=rjauact=8ved=0CC0QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commscope.com%2FDocs%2FHELIAX_FFDirect_Brochure_BR-107083.pdfei=uhQoVLffMIWayQSu5YCoBAusg=AFQjCNFvqSzEDLibQ4WCTebhIbt3KgEQYQsig2=gR3vElbGdefgDpcYEtvB2Qbvm=bv.76247554,d.aWw I'm getting pricing on this - if it's anything remotely reasonable I'm really thinking about using this for tower sites. With 3 fiber feeds and 3 power feeds I can use one power/fiber pair to each of the SAF Integra's, and use the other one to go to a enclosure with power and a switch to connect to the APs'. I'm trying to find out if I can get a small switch and a PacketFlux Syncinjector stuffed into a 3M Tower Dome Closure: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=6UgxGCuNyXTtoxMVlxMVEVtQEcuZgVs6EVs6E66--fn=Tower_Dome_Terminal_TDT_T_25_6RS The combination seems like it would solve a lot of problems. It gives us one cable up the tower and the cable fits properly into standard tower hangers. The dome closure can be built on the ground with appropriate length cables to each AP so that the whole thing can be assembled on the ground and then hoisted into place so that the tower monkeys only have to plug things in. The other nice part is if you are using contract tower crews the whole thing looks just like installing a standard Remote Radio Unit (RRU) radio head, so they should both not need a lot of retraining. If we could get our radio manufacturers to start making equipment with SFP's this would be even easier. That's a hint there Cambium. Mark On 9/28/14, 9:50 AM, Chuck Hogg via Af wrote: We do power and fiber up the tower as our standard...ever since that standard has been used, I don't think we've lost a site yet. Regards, Chuck On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: This is what we have used for all our CMM units for years. http://www.outdoorspeakerdepot.com/14ga2inspca5.html Outdoor, UV resistant, etc. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Planning on hanging a DC box on the tower 30-40w total power Cat5 using multiple pairs or 2 conductor cable? We are inclined on cat 5 for standardization purposes... Sent from Marconi's and Graham Bell's fused thoughts!!! -- Mark Radabaugh Amplex m...@amplex.net mailto:m...@amplex.net 419.837.5015 x 1021 tel:419.837.5015%20x%201021 -- Mark Radabaugh Amplex m...@amplex.net 419.837.5015 x 1021
Re: [AFMUG] Power up the tower?
We use this, and solder two legs together. We send 48v DC up to the top and downconvert. I think we've gone about 450' with this configuration (including up the tower and along the cable raceway to the inside of a building) However, that's primarily why we send 48v up and downconvert, because of the voltage loss. Gives very clean 24v power to the equipment. http://www.amazon.com/Cable-Portable-Power-Gauge-Conductor/dp/B0076ZT4C2 It would probably be better for me to take a picture of one of our boxes. We are continually building them as we continue our wireless upgrades. I don't remember if Gerard resub'd to this list after it moved, but he's the engineer behind the box. He can give you parts. Regards, Chuck On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Tyson Burris @ Internet Comm. Inc via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Chuck, Are you doing any 8-10 gauge runs exceeding 500' ? I can't seem to find what I need Sent from my iPhone On Sep 28, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Chuck Hogg via Af af@afmug.com wrote: We do power and fiber up the tower as our standard...ever since that standard has been used, I don't think we've lost a site yet. Regards, Chuck On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote: This is what we have used for all our CMM units for years. http://www.outdoorspeakerdepot.com/14ga2inspca5.html Outdoor, UV resistant, etc. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Planning on hanging a DC box on the tower 30-40w total power Cat5 using multiple pairs or 2 conductor cable? We are inclined on cat 5 for standardization purposes... Sent from Marconi's and Graham Bell's fused thoughts!!!
Re: [AFMUG] Power up the tower?
I have requested pricing on this as well. I think that in the end, it was overly expensive (something like 4x the cost of doing 2 split runs, $4.10/ft or something like that). If we could get that even within 15% of what I'm paying now, I'd be happy. Regards, Chuck On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Mark Radabaugh via Af af@afmug.com wrote: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=1cad=rjauact=8ved=0CC0QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commscope.com%2FDocs%2FHELIAX_FFDirect_Brochure_BR-107083.pdfei=uhQoVLffMIWayQSu5YCoBAusg=AFQjCNFvqSzEDLibQ4WCTebhIbt3KgEQYQsig2=gR3vElbGdefgDpcYEtvB2Qbvm=bv.76247554,d.aWw I'm getting pricing on this - if it's anything remotely reasonable I'm really thinking about using this for tower sites. With 3 fiber feeds and 3 power feeds I can use one power/fiber pair to each of the SAF Integra's, and use the other one to go to a enclosure with power and a switch to connect to the APs'. I'm trying to find out if I can get a small switch and a PacketFlux Syncinjector stuffed into a 3M Tower Dome Closure: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=6UgxGCuNyXTtoxMVlxMVEVtQEcuZgVs6EVs6E66--fn=Tower_Dome_Terminal_TDT_T_25_6RS The combination seems like it would solve a lot of problems. It gives us one cable up the tower and the cable fits properly into standard tower hangers. The dome closure can be built on the ground with appropriate length cables to each AP so that the whole thing can be assembled on the ground and then hoisted into place so that the tower monkeys only have to plug things in. The other nice part is if you are using contract tower crews the whole thing looks just like installing a standard Remote Radio Unit (RRU) radio head, so they should both not need a lot of retraining. If we could get our radio manufacturers to start making equipment with SFP's this would be even easier.That's a hint there Cambium. Mark On 9/28/14, 9:50 AM, Chuck Hogg via Af wrote: We do power and fiber up the tower as our standard...ever since that standard has been used, I don't think we've lost a site yet. Regards, Chuck On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote: This is what we have used for all our CMM units for years. http://www.outdoorspeakerdepot.com/14ga2inspca5.html Outdoor, UV resistant, etc. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Planning on hanging a DC box on the tower 30-40w total power Cat5 using multiple pairs or 2 conductor cable? We are inclined on cat 5 for standardization purposes... Sent from Marconi's and Graham Bell's fused thoughts!!! -- Mark Radabaugh Amplex m...@amplex.net 419.837.5015 x 1021
Re: [AFMUG] Power up the tower?
Any of these SW work? http://www.planet.com.tw/en/product/product_list.php?id=22154 Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr On 9/28/14, 11:28 AM, Mark Radabaugh via Af af@afmug.com wrote: At $4.10 it's not great, but I would probably go for it. Biggest driver for me would be the single cable up the tower and the ease of securing that cable. I used to do 'box at the top' and moved to individual runs to the base. The cabling is a nuisance with everything at the bottom which is why I am looking at going back to the 'box at the top' method. I have not found a great deal of difference in equipment survival either way. As for switches I'm considering doing 2 of these to serve 4 AP's - http://www.garrettcom.com/csg14.htm Using simplex SFP's I can use one fiber for each convertor. So far I have not found a 4 port GigE + 1 SFP extended temperature DIN rail mount switch. Still looking. Mark On 9/28/14, 11:00 AM, Chuck Hogg via Af wrote: I have requested pricing on this as well. I think that in the end, it was overly expensive (something like 4x the cost of doing 2 split runs, $4.10/ft or something like that). If we could get that even within 15% of what I'm paying now, I'd be happy. Regards, Chuck -- Mark Radabaugh Amplex m...@amplex.net 419.837.5015 x 1021
Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated?
Shouldn’t be. From: That One Guy via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 10:50 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? neutral is tied to mechanical ground anywhere there is an outlet anyway. the ground lug on an outlet has continuity to neutral, I dont know why On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Ground and neutral are not the same. Yes, they are tied together somewhere, probably the transformer. But you should not use the neutral as a ground or tie it to your ground anywhere. From: Kurt Fankhauser via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:38 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? I have a grounding question for the cabinet at the base of the tower. My electrician wired in the incoming power to the cabinet but he did not bond the cabinet ground/neutral to the actual tower itself. Tower has its own separate ground rods and cabinet ground actually is back where the meter base is, (over 150 feet away) Should I bond the tower and the cabinet together? I already have electrical conduit running out of the cabinet and then attaches to the tower itself so there is metal to metal contact just wondering if I should have something better Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I do think too that isolating its easier and should be the way to go… DC plant, fiber up. Problem would be mounts and tower attachments… thinking of using PVC conduit? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Date: Sunday, September 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? Great question Gino. I hope we get some good input. My opinion is that you have to be completed isolated or extremely properly grounded. Both can be complicated, but the second way being the most complicated Paul From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:31 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? I remember the good old days that most of our network was based on Canopy Classic: The radios were isolated form the tower, minor lightning issues.. Nowadays its has turned into a big issue for us, radios and MW getting zapped! Were do I start? Should I go back to the Isolation model and have all gear in tower isolated from the tower in any way possible? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr -- 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] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated?
tied together at the transformer? i thought they were tied together in the breaket panel 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 28, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Ground and neutral are not the same. Yes, they are tied together somewhere, probably the transformer. But you should not use the neutral as a ground or tie it to your ground anywhere. From: Kurt Fankhauser via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:38 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? I have a grounding question for the cabinet at the base of the tower. My electrician wired in the incoming power to the cabinet but he did not bond the cabinet ground/neutral to the actual tower itself. Tower has its own separate ground rods and cabinet ground actually is back where the meter base is, (over 150 feet away) Should I bond the tower and the cabinet together? I already have electrical conduit running out of the cabinet and then attaches to the tower itself so there is metal to metal contact just wondering if I should have something better Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I do think too that isolating its easier and should be the way to go… DC plant, fiber up. Problem would be mounts and tower attachments… thinking of using PVC conduit? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Date: Sunday, September 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? Great question Gino. I hope we get some good input. My opinion is that you have to be completed isolated or extremely properly grounded. Both can be complicated, but the second way being the most complicated Paul From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:31 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? I remember the good old days that most of our network was based on Canopy Classic: The radios were isolated form the tower, minor lightning issues.. Nowadays its has turned into a big issue for us, radios and MW getting zapped! Were do I start? Should I go back to the Isolation model and have all gear in tower isolated from the tower in any way possible? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr
Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun
That was awesome. I am envious. From: Paul McCall via Af Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 7:30 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun OK, that didn’t work… I should complain to the list sysop ! J Will send it your wbmfg address. Paul From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 9:28 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun For you Chuck... attempting to attach an .m4a file for you From: Af [af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] on behalf of Jeremy Grip via Af [af@afmug.com] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 8:06 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun MF! MF! MF! (never heard him live, alas)……….. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47uuEYv-C7o From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+grip=nbnworks@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via Af Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 6:26 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun I am talking about two octaves above the C on the staff. Is that what you are talking about? Cause that is pretty danged high. Three full octaves above the C below the staff. If so, impressive indeed. I was only reliable over two octaves. I have also heard Maynard Ferguson in concert. From: Paul McCall via Af Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 3:30 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun Double C’s are part of my daily warm-up Chuck. But, there are some guys that are just amazing… Doc being on my short list of trumpet players in that list… Maynard Ferguson and Harry James are the other biggies. Glad that you got to hear Doc ! From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via Af Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:38 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun Yes? Made my lips bleed in empathy. I only hit a double high C scale one time in my life. From: Jeremy Grip via Af Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 5:50 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun Still hittin’ double-high C’s?? ( Sorry--old trumpet player here). Jeremy Grip From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+grip=nbnworks@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jaime Solorza via Af Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 7:21 PM To: Animal Farm Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun Yep. Hope you hear him play McArthurs Park.He is close to 90 by now Jaime Solorza On Sep 26, 2014 4:14 PM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Probably. Wasn't he the band master for Johny Carson? bpOn 9/26/2014 2:48 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: He has to be near 90. He still plays the trumpet? Or is he a bandleader? From: Jaime Solorza via Af Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 4:32 PM To: Animal Farm Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun Damn. Thats awesome.Heard he joined Ides of March on Vehicle last year If u can take some pics. Jaime Solorza On Sep 26, 2014 12:09 PM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Going to see Doc Severinsen play tonight. Anybody gonna top that!
Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated?
Yeah, if that was true, you would trip any GFCI which looks for sneak current flowing back through ground rather than neutral. I forget how much but it doesn’t take much imbalance between hot and neutral current to trip them, something like 10 mA, because that could be going through you. From: Kurt Fankhauser via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 11:30 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? if you take an outlet thats not wired up i am pretty sure there is no continuity between the ground lug and neutral then once you wire it in to the breaker box it has continuity because the breaker box has a connection between the neutral and ground 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 28, 2014, at 11:50 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: neutral is tied to mechanical ground anywhere there is an outlet anyway. the ground lug on an outlet has continuity to neutral, I dont know why On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Ground and neutral are not the same. Yes, they are tied together somewhere, probably the transformer. But you should not use the neutral as a ground or tie it to your ground anywhere. From: Kurt Fankhauser via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:38 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? I have a grounding question for the cabinet at the base of the tower. My electrician wired in the incoming power to the cabinet but he did not bond the cabinet ground/neutral to the actual tower itself. Tower has its own separate ground rods and cabinet ground actually is back where the meter base is, (over 150 feet away) Should I bond the tower and the cabinet together? I already have electrical conduit running out of the cabinet and then attaches to the tower itself so there is metal to metal contact just wondering if I should have something better Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I do think too that isolating its easier and should be the way to go… DC plant, fiber up. Problem would be mounts and tower attachments… thinking of using PVC conduit? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Date: Sunday, September 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? Great question Gino. I hope we get some good input. My opinion is that you have to be completed isolated or extremely properly grounded. Both can be complicated, but the second way being the most complicated Paul From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:31 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? I remember the good old days that most of our network was based on Canopy Classic: The radios were isolated form the tower, minor lightning issues.. Nowadays its has turned into a big issue for us, radios and MW getting zapped! Were do I start? Should I go back to the Isolation model and have all gear in tower isolated from the tower in any way possible? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr -- 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] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated?
I was thinking of a tower with its own transformer on the pole. I know at the breaker panel at the H-frame there is typically a neutral bar and a ground bar, and I’ve seen several volts between them, also bad things when some rural electrician thinks they are interchangeable (many farmhouses don’t have grounded outlets or metal conduit, and some electricians figure neutral is better than nothing). From: Kurt Fankhauser via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 11:21 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? tied together at the transformer? i thought they were tied together in the breaket panel 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 28, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Ground and neutral are not the same. Yes, they are tied together somewhere, probably the transformer. But you should not use the neutral as a ground or tie it to your ground anywhere. From: Kurt Fankhauser via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:38 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? I have a grounding question for the cabinet at the base of the tower. My electrician wired in the incoming power to the cabinet but he did not bond the cabinet ground/neutral to the actual tower itself. Tower has its own separate ground rods and cabinet ground actually is back where the meter base is, (over 150 feet away) Should I bond the tower and the cabinet together? I already have electrical conduit running out of the cabinet and then attaches to the tower itself so there is metal to metal contact just wondering if I should have something better Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I do think too that isolating its easier and should be the way to go… DC plant, fiber up. Problem would be mounts and tower attachments… thinking of using PVC conduit? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Date: Sunday, September 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? Great question Gino. I hope we get some good input. My opinion is that you have to be completed isolated or extremely properly grounded. Both can be complicated, but the second way being the most complicated Paul From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:31 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? I remember the good old days that most of our network was based on Canopy Classic: The radios were isolated form the tower, minor lightning issues.. Nowadays its has turned into a big issue for us, radios and MW getting zapped! Were do I start? Should I go back to the Isolation model and have all gear in tower isolated from the tower in any way possible? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr
[AFMUG] standard 900 MHz Canopy channels
I have always assumed the standard channels are 906, 915 and 924. But I keep getting competitors going on 906 and 922. I understand they are probably trying to avoid high power licensed stuff like paging around 930. But if I go on 915, I find it overlaps with 922 and bad juju ensues. Especially when this is a newcomer and they have no subs yet and don't match your timing and don't care because ... they don't have subs yet and aren't suffering the effects of the interference. I have found that a hot interferer on 922 will pretty much blow you off the air if you try to use 915, unless the timing parameters match, even though that's only 1 MHz of overlap. So are the default channels actually 906, 914 and 922 in the real world?
Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun
Thanks Chuck! That’s really cool that you used to play also. Paul From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 12:47 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun That was awesome. I am envious. From: Paul McCall via Afmailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 7:30 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun OK, that didn’t work… I should complain to the list sysop ! ☺ Will send it your wbmfg address. Paul From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 9:28 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun For you Chuck... attempting to attach an .m4a file for you From: Af [af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] on behalf of Jeremy Grip via Af [af@afmug.com] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 8:06 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun MF! MF! MF! (never heard him live, alas)……….. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47uuEYv-C7o From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+grip=nbnworks@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via Af Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 6:26 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun I am talking about two octaves above the C on the staff. Is that what you are talking about? Cause that is pretty danged high. Three full octaves above the C below the staff. If so, impressive indeed. I was only reliable over two octaves. I have also heard Maynard Ferguson in concert. From: Paul McCall via Afmailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 3:30 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun Double C’s are part of my daily warm-up Chuck. But, there are some guys that are just amazing… Doc being on my short list of trumpet players in that list… Maynard Ferguson and Harry James are the other biggies. Glad that you got to hear Doc ! From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via Af Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:38 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun Yes? Made my lips bleed in empathy. I only hit a double high C scale one time in my life. From: Jeremy Grip via Afmailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 5:50 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun Still hittin’ double-high C’s?? ( Sorry--old trumpet player here). Jeremy Grip From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+grip=nbnworks@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jaime Solorza via Af Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 7:21 PM To: Animal Farm Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun Yep. Hope you hear him play McArthurs Park.He is close to 90 by now Jaime Solorza On Sep 26, 2014 4:14 PM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Probably. Wasn't he the band master for Johny Carson? bp On 9/26/2014 2:48 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: He has to be near 90. He still plays the trumpet? Or is he a bandleader? From: Jaime Solorza via Afmailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 4:32 PM To: Animal Farmmailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Friday Fun Damn. Thats awesome.Heard he joined Ides of March on Vehicle last year If u can take some pics. Jaime Solorza On Sep 26, 2014 12:09 PM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Going to see Doc Severinsen play tonight. Anybody gonna top that!
Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated?
It is a ridiculously low threshold. I hate those GFCI circuits. From: Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 11:00 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? Yeah, if that was true, you would trip any GFCI which looks for sneak current flowing back through ground rather than neutral. I forget how much but it doesn’t take much imbalance between hot and neutral current to trip them, something like 10 mA, because that could be going through you. From: Kurt Fankhauser via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 11:30 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? if you take an outlet thats not wired up i am pretty sure there is no continuity between the ground lug and neutral then once you wire it in to the breaker box it has continuity because the breaker box has a connection between the neutral and ground 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 28, 2014, at 11:50 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: neutral is tied to mechanical ground anywhere there is an outlet anyway. the ground lug on an outlet has continuity to neutral, I dont know why On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Ground and neutral are not the same. Yes, they are tied together somewhere, probably the transformer. But you should not use the neutral as a ground or tie it to your ground anywhere. From: Kurt Fankhauser via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:38 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? I have a grounding question for the cabinet at the base of the tower. My electrician wired in the incoming power to the cabinet but he did not bond the cabinet ground/neutral to the actual tower itself. Tower has its own separate ground rods and cabinet ground actually is back where the meter base is, (over 150 feet away) Should I bond the tower and the cabinet together? I already have electrical conduit running out of the cabinet and then attaches to the tower itself so there is metal to metal contact just wondering if I should have something better Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I do think too that isolating its easier and should be the way to go… DC plant, fiber up. Problem would be mounts and tower attachments… thinking of using PVC conduit? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Date: Sunday, September 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? Great question Gino. I hope we get some good input. My opinion is that you have to be completed isolated or extremely properly grounded. Both can be complicated, but the second way being the most complicated Paul From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:31 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? I remember the good old days that most of our network was based on Canopy Classic: The radios were isolated form the tower, minor lightning issues.. Nowadays its has turned into a big issue for us, radios and MW getting zapped! Were do I start? Should I go back to the Isolation model and have all gear in tower isolated from the tower in any way possible? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr -- 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] standard 900 MHz Canopy channels
We are getting good results colocating Rocket M900s with MDS and Phoenix Contact FHSS 900 systems in SCADA environment. You can shift center channels and have several width options. Jaime Solorza On Sep 28, 2014 11:18 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I have always assumed the standard channels are 906, 915 and 924. But I keep getting competitors going on 906 and 922. I understand they are probably trying to avoid high power licensed stuff like paging around 930. But if I go on 915, I find it overlaps with 922 and bad juju ensues. Especially when this is a newcomer and they have no subs yet and don't match your timing and don't care because ... they don't have subs yet and aren't suffering the effects of the interference. I have found that a hot interferer on 922 will pretty much blow you off the air if you try to use 915, unless the timing parameters match, even though that's only 1 MHz of overlap. So are the default channels actually 906, 914 and 922 in the real world?
Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated?
Take a look into R56 standards but as I recall as long as Earth ground is bonded to the cabinet you should be fine. Typically the tower ground would tie back to Earth ground as well. Earth ground referring to the meter ground for the entire site. On 9/28/2014 7:38 AM, Kurt Fankhauser via Af wrote: I have a grounding question for the cabinet at the base of the tower. My electrician wired in the incoming power to the cabinet but he did not bond the cabinet ground/neutral to the actual tower itself. Tower has its own separate ground rods and cabinet ground actually is back where the meter base is, (over 150 feet away) Should I bond the tower and the cabinet together? I already have electrical conduit running out of the cabinet and then attaches to the tower itself so there is metal to metal contact just wondering if I should have something better Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com http://www.wavelinc.com/ tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: I do think too that isolating its easier and should be the way to go… DC plant, fiber up. Problem would be mounts and tower attachments… thinking of using PVC conduit? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com http://www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Date: Sunday, September 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? Great question Gino. I hope we get some good input. My opinion is that you have to be completed isolated or extremely properly grounded. Both can be complicated, but the second way being the most complicated Paul *From:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino Villarini via Af *Sent:* Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:31 AM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* [AFMUG] Gear in Tower - Grounded or Isolated? I remember the good old days that most of our network was based on Canopy Classic: The radios were isolated form the tower, minor lightning issues.. Nowadays its has turned into a big issue for us, radios and MW getting zapped! Were do I start? Should I go back to the Isolation model and have all gear in tower isolated from the tower in any way possible? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com http://www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr --
Re: [AFMUG] Power up the tower?
+ 1 billion on hybrid cable My first site used RG58 for Power and fiber for the data but when the Hybrid cable came on the scene I fell in love with it LOL Bestronics does a turn-key cable with custom length pigtail on each end and what ever type terminations. On 9/28/2014 8:50 AM, Chuck Hogg via Af wrote: We do power and fiber up the tower as our standard...ever since that standard has been used, I don't think we've lost a site yet. Regards, Chuck On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: This is what we have used for all our CMM units for years. http://www.outdoorspeakerdepot.com/14ga2inspca5.html Outdoor, UV resistant, etc. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Gino Villarini via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Planning on hanging a DC box on the tower 30-40w total power Cat5 using multiple pairs or 2 conductor cable? We are inclined on cat 5 for standardization purposes... Sent from Marconi's and Graham Bell's fused thoughts!!! --
Re: [AFMUG] standard 900 MHz Canopy channels
Ken, We run 906, 915, 924 on all towers except one. That one has 924 plastered with signal all around it, for 7 years like that. On that tower, we do run 906, 914, 922 and it has been running that way since 2007 -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+paulm=pdmnet@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 1:18 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] standard 900 MHz Canopy channels I have always assumed the standard channels are 906, 915 and 924. But I keep getting competitors going on 906 and 922. I understand they are probably trying to avoid high power licensed stuff like paging around 930. But if I go on 915, I find it overlaps with 922 and bad juju ensues. Especially when this is a newcomer and they have no subs yet and don't match your timing and don't care because ... they don't have subs yet and aren't suffering the effects of the interference. I have found that a hot interferer on 922 will pretty much blow you off the air if you try to use 915, unless the timing parameters match, even though that's only 1 MHz of overlap. So are the default channels actually 906, 914 and 922 in the real world?
Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variablescodeinjection attack
Its times like these I wish I had learned to code. i would write a malware to infect all the connected devices, refrigerators, light bulbs, cameras, well pump monitors, all of them, just sitting behind consumer grade routers infected, waiting, calling home now and then to get their updates, helping to build a database of what I have and how to exploit it. Then one day I would pull the trigger, penises on every computer screen in the world. It would be beautiful, I would have a tear in my eye. On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: You are preaching rather than listening. What if it is an appliance with a distribution that is frozen in time on CentOS4 with no updates. Note that RHEL4 updates are only available via paid extended support, and CentOS4 is EOL. Doing a yum update on a CentOS4 box won’t get you anywhere, and I don’t believe RHEL4 even used yum, it used Redhat Network to get RPMs. All my new stuff on CentOS5 and 6 has been updated. What I was asking for an opinion on was whether the RPM that Oracle made available was likely to work, or to brick the box. Keep in mind that bricking your command shell could be difficult to recover from, especially on a headless appliance at a remote site. I’m guessing that creating another user with a different shell like csh or ksh might offer a failsafe. I would have to see what other shells are available on the device. So this is a Tyan kiosk type server with BlueQuartz installed, long ago defunct. Nuonce was maintaining repositories but stopped a long time ago. Other people are going to face similar situations. Not every server is built from scratch loading the OS and then the applications. Sometimes you use an all-in-one install disk, like CactiEZ or some of the Asterisk/FreePBX distributions. I’m evaluating the PBX appliances from Grandstream, clearly they run Asterisk and probably Linux under the hood, but you can’t even get to the command line, so any software updates would have to be from the web GUI with updates from Grandstream. So I’m thinking if that’s a problem, being totally dependent on the vendor, I guess stuff like routers are the same. But you can’t just go and do a yum update on everything that has Linux inside, or recompile the source code with the patch and install it yourself, even assuming you feel comfortable doing that. *From:* Shayne Lebrun via Af af@afmug.com *Sent:* Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:00 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variablescodeinjection attack Quite honestly, who cares? There’s zero downside to closing the security hole. Hopefully you’re closing all your other security holes too, especially for things like DNS or NTP that are almost public facing by default. Why not close this one at the same time? What happens in six months when you, or somebody, stick another service on that machine? *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+slebrun=muskoka@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof via Af *Sent:* Sunday, September 28, 2014 10:38 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables codeinjection attack Why? Take the case of a dedicated server that only does let’s say DHCP or DNS or NTP. It only has one port open to the Internet, and there’s no way to get to a bash shell via that port. How the hell is someone going to pass an environment variable to a bash shell on that server? *From:* Shayne Lebrun via Af af@afmug.com *Sent:* Sunday, September 28, 2014 8:40 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables codeinjection attack Ø I think the articles have maybe overstated the risk a bit, since you would need to either authenticate (at least as a regular user) to get to a shell, or find a publicly exposed script that will pass an environment variable to bash for you. Please don’t think like this. *From:* Af [mailto:af-bounces+slebrun=muskoka@afmug.com af-bounces+slebrun=muskoka@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof via Af *Sent:* Saturday, September 27, 2014 1:38 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables code injection attack So maybe I won’t do that. The newer servers where I could just do a yum update have been straightforward, as you’d expect. I think the articles have maybe overstated the risk a bit, since you would need to either authenticate (at least as a regular user) to get to a shell, or find a publicly exposed script that will pass an environment variable to bash for you. *From:* Jeremy via Af af@afmug.com *Sent:* Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:13 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables code injection attack Our webserver was vulnerable. Tried to fix it without backing it up firstyeah, I know. Lost
Re: [AFMUG] Physically Hooking up Voip Lines
We do the installs same day, and explain to customer whatever will be required to hook up their phones to the new service on number port day. Like Ken, most are sold as a bundle, few add later. We don't have much convincing to do usually, but if they start asking a lot of questions about reliability/quality we steer them away from the voip service. Unlicensed Wireless + VOIP is not the same as a landline, if that's the customer's expectation it's probably not a good match. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Nate Burke via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Do you schedule both the Wireless and ATA install on the same day, or are they 2 installs? If they are the same day, how do you convince the customer of switching their Phone over when they don't even have the service yet. Don't they question your reliability since their sisters daughters ex-boyfriends cousin had wireless once, and it dropped out this one time so it's not reliable? On 9/27/2014 4:35 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I forgot to address the due date issue. Like Jeremy, I try to schedule the install on the porting due date. We don’t get an exact time, but ports usually take effect around 8-9 am, rarely will it not be complete if you schedule a late morning or an afternoon install. Also note that many residential people use their landlines mostly to call out, other people call them on their cellphones because they don’t know if they will be home or not. Couple that with the fact that you can call out on the VoIP line and have the caller ID show the right number even before it ports, it’s the incoming calls that won’t get routed to the VoIP line until the number ports. So if you can’t schedule the install the same day, many people will be OK if you install it the day before. If they are going to use exclusively a cordless phone, most people can handle unplugging it from the wall and plugging it into the ATA on the morning of the porting due date. *From:* Chris Fabien via Af af@afmug.com *Sent:* Saturday, September 27, 2014 3:44 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Physically Hooking up Voip Lines We are moving toward strongly suggesting customers not use the house wiring. Seen way too many issues with poor house wiring causing problems or with damaged ATAs after lightning strikes. Our experience, many houses have hacked up phone wiring that somehow works OK for landline service but the ATAs don't tolerate it. Makes for a difficult conversation explaining to customer who wired up their house with radioshack phone cords and splitters, laying on ground in the wet crawlspace, why their new VOIP service isn't reliable. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Jeremy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I install every VoIP customer for no additional charge. I know the port date before it happens so I always schedule the install for that day, and let them know when we begin the process that they may be without for a few hours on the day that the porting completes. Most VoIP installs are simple, like two minutes. Occasionally we run into the nightmare installs. I ask them and if they just use one expandable cordless set I don't touch the wiring. Otherwise we do the whole home install. I'd say the majority are whole home installs. We try to make sure that we bring the wire into the hub whenever possible, or near a phone jack. That way if they decide that they want VoIP down the road it is an easy install. I always consider the potential VoIP install when doing the wireless install. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I will only rely on the customer to install the ATA if they are going to plug a cordless base into it, no house wiring. Otherwise, they will forget to disconnect the POTS line at the NID. Most people have a cordless phone system, but they may also have an old princess phone somewhere in the house, first try to convince them to ditch the corded phones and not use the house wiring. Failing that, have your installer tell them the router and ATA have to go near a phone jack. If they insist on putting the ATA in a room with no phone jack and still using the house wiring to reach corded phones, the professional way is probably to install a surface mount jack and wire it like a phone guy would, and charge them labor materials. If they have an old 900/2.4/5.8 cordless phone, you probably want them to replace it with a new DECT system anyway, you can get systems with a whole bunch of cordless handsets for not much money. Perhaps people can be convinced by comparing to WiFi. It used to be people would run Ethernet to every room to plug in their computers, no one does this anymore, they want all their devices to be portable and use WiFi. Same with phones, if you pick up the phone, you want to be able to move to another room or even outside and take the phone with you. If they really cannot go cordless or have the Internet
Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variablescodeinjection attack
You're right, yum updates are probably a problem for those pesky RedHat/Centos distros. Move to debian :P Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 09/28/2014 05:55 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: You are preaching rather than listening. What if it is an appliance with a distribution that is frozen in time on CentOS4 with no updates. Note that RHEL4 updates are only available via paid extended support, and CentOS4 is EOL. Doing a yum update on a CentOS4 box won’t get you anywhere, and I don’t believe RHEL4 even used yum, it used Redhat Network to get RPMs. All my new stuff on CentOS5 and 6 has been updated. What I was asking for an opinion on was whether the RPM that Oracle made available was likely to work, or to brick the box. Keep in mind that bricking your command shell could be difficult to recover from, especially on a headless appliance at a remote site. I’m guessing that creating another user with a different shell like csh or ksh might offer a failsafe. I would have to see what other shells are available on the device. So this is a Tyan kiosk type server with BlueQuartz installed, long ago defunct. Nuonce was maintaining repositories but stopped a long time ago. Other people are going to face similar situations. Not every server is built from scratch loading the OS and then the applications. Sometimes you use an all-in-one install disk, like CactiEZ or some of the Asterisk/FreePBX distributions. I’m evaluating the PBX appliances from Grandstream, clearly they run Asterisk and probably Linux under the hood, but you can’t even get to the command line, so any software updates would have to be from the web GUI with updates from Grandstream. So I’m thinking if that’s a problem, being totally dependent on the vendor, I guess stuff like routers are the same. But you can’t just go and do a yum update on everything that has Linux inside, or recompile the source code with the patch and install it yourself, even assuming you feel comfortable doing that. *From:* Shayne Lebrun via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:* Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:00 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variablescodeinjection attack Quite honestly, who cares? There’s zero downside to closing the security hole. Hopefully you’re closing all your other security holes too, especially for things like DNS or NTP that are almost public facing by default. Why not close this one at the same time? What happens in six months when you, or somebody, stick another service on that machine? *From:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+slebrun=muskoka@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof via Af *Sent:* Sunday, September 28, 2014 10:38 AM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables codeinjection attack Why? Take the case of a dedicated server that only does let’s say DHCP or DNS or NTP. It only has one port open to the Internet, and there’s no way to get to a bash shell via that port. How the hell is someone going to pass an environment variable to a bash shell on that server? *From:*Shayne Lebrun via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:*Sunday, September 28, 2014 8:40 AM *To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables codeinjection attack ØI think the articles have maybe overstated the risk a bit, since you would need to either authenticate (at least as a regular user) to get to a shell, or find a publicly exposed script that will pass an environment variable to bash for you. Please don’t think like this. *From:*Af [mailto:af-bounces+slebrun=muskoka@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof via Af *Sent:* Saturday, September 27, 2014 1:38 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables code injection attack So maybe I won’t do that. The newer servers where I could just do a yum update have been straightforward, as you’d expect. I think the articles have maybe overstated the risk a bit, since you would need to either authenticate (at least as a regular user) to get to a shell, or find a publicly exposed script that will pass an environment variable to bash for you. *From:*Jeremy via Af mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent:*Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:13 PM *To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables code injection attack Our webserver was vulnerable. Tried to fix it without backing it up firstyeah, I know. Lost it all. So I guess I will be building a new website from my 2013 backup this weekend. It's a good thing I carpet bombed my website to prevent anyone from messing with it! On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com wrote: Unfortunately I have a couple old servers running RHEL4
Re: [AFMUG] Physically Hooking up Voip Lines
Good point about not doing the hard sell on someone who is reluctant. I don’t feel we make enough money on VoIP to twist someone’s arm, it’s there mostly as a convenience for people who want it. If they don’t want it, fine. Like people with FAX machines, I’d rather they keep a POTS line, or use eFAX which is what I do. I recently had a guy with a new house with an elevator, and he found out he was required to have an emergency phone in the elevator. Sure enough, he found out it had to be POTS. Also we don’t really want “high risk” service where failure could result in personal injury or damage to property. From: Chris Fabien via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 10:19 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Physically Hooking up Voip Lines We do the installs same day, and explain to customer whatever will be required to hook up their phones to the new service on number port day. Like Ken, most are sold as a bundle, few add later. We don't have much convincing to do usually, but if they start asking a lot of questions about reliability/quality we steer them away from the voip service. Unlicensed Wireless + VOIP is not the same as a landline, if that's the customer's expectation it's probably not a good match. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Nate Burke via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Do you schedule both the Wireless and ATA install on the same day, or are they 2 installs? If they are the same day, how do you convince the customer of switching their Phone over when they don't even have the service yet. Don't they question your reliability since their sisters daughters ex-boyfriends cousin had wireless once, and it dropped out this one time so it's not reliable? On 9/27/2014 4:35 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: I forgot to address the due date issue. Like Jeremy, I try to schedule the install on the porting due date. We don’t get an exact time, but ports usually take effect around 8-9 am, rarely will it not be complete if you schedule a late morning or an afternoon install. Also note that many residential people use their landlines mostly to call out, other people call them on their cellphones because they don’t know if they will be home or not. Couple that with the fact that you can call out on the VoIP line and have the caller ID show the right number even before it ports, it’s the incoming calls that won’t get routed to the VoIP line until the number ports. So if you can’t schedule the install the same day, many people will be OK if you install it the day before. If they are going to use exclusively a cordless phone, most people can handle unplugging it from the wall and plugging it into the ATA on the morning of the porting due date. From: Chris Fabien via Af Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 3:44 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Physically Hooking up Voip Lines We are moving toward strongly suggesting customers not use the house wiring. Seen way too many issues with poor house wiring causing problems or with damaged ATAs after lightning strikes. Our experience, many houses have hacked up phone wiring that somehow works OK for landline service but the ATAs don't tolerate it. Makes for a difficult conversation explaining to customer who wired up their house with radioshack phone cords and splitters, laying on ground in the wet crawlspace, why their new VOIP service isn't reliable. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Jeremy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I install every VoIP customer for no additional charge. I know the port date before it happens so I always schedule the install for that day, and let them know when we begin the process that they may be without for a few hours on the day that the porting completes. Most VoIP installs are simple, like two minutes. Occasionally we run into the nightmare installs. I ask them and if they just use one expandable cordless set I don't touch the wiring. Otherwise we do the whole home install. I'd say the majority are whole home installs. We try to make sure that we bring the wire into the hub whenever possible, or near a phone jack. That way if they decide that they want VoIP down the road it is an easy install. I always consider the potential VoIP install when doing the wireless install. On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: I will only rely on the customer to install the ATA if they are going to plug a cordless base into it, no house wiring. Otherwise, they will forget to disconnect the POTS line at the NID. Most people have a cordless phone system, but they may also have an old princess phone somewhere in the house, first try to convince them to ditch the corded phones and not use the house wiring. Failing that, have your installer tell them the router and ATA have to go near a phone jack. If they insist on putting the ATA in a room with no phone
Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variablescodeinjection attack
I’ll bet you have a favorite brand of gasoline too. From: Josh Reynolds via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 10:30 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variablescodeinjection attack You're right, yum updates are probably a problem for those pesky RedHat/Centos distros. Move to debian :P Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com On 09/28/2014 05:55 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: You are preaching rather than listening. What if it is an appliance with a distribution that is frozen in time on CentOS4 with no updates. Note that RHEL4 updates are only available via paid extended support, and CentOS4 is EOL. Doing a yum update on a CentOS4 box won’t get you anywhere, and I don’t believe RHEL4 even used yum, it used Redhat Network to get RPMs. All my new stuff on CentOS5 and 6 has been updated. What I was asking for an opinion on was whether the RPM that Oracle made available was likely to work, or to brick the box. Keep in mind that bricking your command shell could be difficult to recover from, especially on a headless appliance at a remote site. I’m guessing that creating another user with a different shell like csh or ksh might offer a failsafe. I would have to see what other shells are available on the device. So this is a Tyan kiosk type server with BlueQuartz installed, long ago defunct. Nuonce was maintaining repositories but stopped a long time ago. Other people are going to face similar situations. Not every server is built from scratch loading the OS and then the applications. Sometimes you use an all-in-one install disk, like CactiEZ or some of the Asterisk/FreePBX distributions. I’m evaluating the PBX appliances from Grandstream, clearly they run Asterisk and probably Linux under the hood, but you can’t even get to the command line, so any software updates would have to be from the web GUI with updates from Grandstream. So I’m thinking if that’s a problem, being totally dependent on the vendor, I guess stuff like routers are the same. But you can’t just go and do a yum update on everything that has Linux inside, or recompile the source code with the patch and install it yourself, even assuming you feel comfortable doing that. From: Shayne Lebrun via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:00 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variablescodeinjection attack Quite honestly, who cares? There’s zero downside to closing the security hole. Hopefully you’re closing all your other security holes too, especially for things like DNS or NTP that are almost public facing by default. Why not close this one at the same time? What happens in six months when you, or somebody, stick another service on that machine? From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+slebrun=muskoka@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 10:38 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables codeinjection attack Why? Take the case of a dedicated server that only does let’s say DHCP or DNS or NTP. It only has one port open to the Internet, and there’s no way to get to a bash shell via that port. How the hell is someone going to pass an environment variable to a bash shell on that server? From: Shayne Lebrun via Af Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 8:40 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables codeinjection attack Ø I think the articles have maybe overstated the risk a bit, since you would need to either authenticate (at least as a regular user) to get to a shell, or find a publicly exposed script that will pass an environment variable to bash for you. Please don’t think like this. From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+slebrun=muskoka@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 1:38 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables code injection attack So maybe I won’t do that. The newer servers where I could just do a yum update have been straightforward, as you’d expect. I think the articles have maybe overstated the risk a bit, since you would need to either authenticate (at least as a regular user) to get to a shell, or find a publicly exposed script that will pass an environment variable to bash for you. From: Jeremy via Af Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:13 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Bash specially-crafted environment variables code injection attack Our webserver was vulnerable. Tried to fix it without backing it up firstyeah, I know. Lost it all. So I guess I will be building a new website from my 2013 backup this weekend. It's a good thing I carpet bombed my website to prevent
