Re: [AFMUG] Calix 844GE-2

[George Skorup]

Well I guess I didn't wait long enough for the GPON/AE detection stuff. 
Looks like it goes through a couple reboots. And it takes for freakin ever.
So it links up using an SFP in the Planet switch. Surprise, surprise.. 
does not work at all to the MikroTik CRS. It's running 6.39.2. Tried 
auto-neg on and off. Nothing. No idea. Fsck it. Typical MikroTik.


On 7/3/2017 8:39 PM, George Skorup wrote:
So I've got this thing sitting on my bench for testing. Had to order 
some bidi SFPs and SC/APC patch cables.


I ordered some of these: http://www.fs.com/products/20185.html

Can't get it to link up. I've tried multiple SFPs and patch cables 
now. And unfortunately I don't have any of the opposite Tx/Rx SFPs to 
try a link between two switches. So far I've used a MikroTik CRS and a 
Planet switch. Neither work. The SFP DDM data shows 1490nm, so I 
assume these are the correct Tx wavelength. And FiberStore hasn't sent 
us the wrong stuff.. yet.


WTF am I missing? Is there some hidden menu in the ONT GUI to switch 
between GPON and AE? I thought it was auto. Or perhaps some 
diagnostics? I don't have an OTDR, light meter or any of that basic 
stuff.. because that's not my problem for this project.

[AFMUG] Calix 844GE-2

[George Skorup]

So I've got this thing sitting on my bench for testing. Had to order 
some bidi SFPs and SC/APC patch cables.


I ordered some of these: http://www.fs.com/products/20185.html

Can't get it to link up. I've tried multiple SFPs and patch cables now. 
And unfortunately I don't have any of the opposite Tx/Rx SFPs to try a 
link between two switches. So far I've used a MikroTik CRS and a Planet 
switch. Neither work. The SFP DDM data shows 1490nm, so I assume these 
are the correct Tx wavelength. And FiberStore hasn't sent us the wrong 
stuff.. yet.


WTF am I missing? Is there some hidden menu in the ONT GUI to switch 
between GPON and AE? I thought it was auto. Or perhaps some diagnostics? 
I don't have an OTDR, light meter or any of that basic stuff.. because 
that's not my problem for this project.

Re: [AFMUG] What is this Device eating my DHCP IPs?

[Bill Prince]

I think you mean Nielsen?

This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings

bp


On 7/3/2017 2:04 PM, Sean Heskett wrote:
i think TMGR is the "nelson ratings" of all things internet.  they put 
a special router at user locations and data mine all the traffic going 
thru to see what that household/business does etc.  just like some 
people used to have a nelson box hooked up to their TV and it reported 
TV watching habits.


-sean


On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
> wrote:


I can't seem to trace it because the request comes, grabs an IP
with this device name, then leaves and is off the ARP table.
I don't think it's all at once, I think it happens slowly over a
period of a few hours or a day.

MAC always begins with 70:4c:ed which Wireshark identifies as
TMRG, Inc.

I have no idea what device TMRG, Inc. makes.

Anyone ever seen this before?

Is this an actual device with multiple MACs grabbing multiple IPs,
or is it a slew of devices hanging off my network somewhere?

That's what I can't figure out.

[AFMUG] Baicells power

[George Skorup]

I went to one of our sites with a couple eNBs on it. Put my ammeter on 
and one shows between 550-600mA. Couldn't get it around the other one 
since I'd have to unplug it and untwist the wires a bit. But anyway, 
yeah, about 30 watts.

Re: [AFMUG] What is this Device eating my DHCP IPs?

[Sean Heskett]

i think TMGR is the "nelson ratings" of all things internet.  they put a
special router at user locations and data mine all the traffic going thru
to see what that household/business does etc.  just like some people used
to have a nelson box hooked up to their TV and it reported TV watching
habits.

-sean


On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
wrote:

> I can't seem to trace it because the request comes, grabs an IP with this
> device name, then leaves and is off the ARP table.
> I don't think it's all at once, I think it happens slowly over a period of
> a few hours or a day.
>
> MAC always begins with 70:4c:ed which Wireshark identifies as TMRG, Inc.
>
> I have no idea what device TMRG, Inc. makes.
>
> Anyone ever seen this before?
>
> Is this an actual device with multiple MACs grabbing multiple IPs, or is
> it a slew of devices hanging off my network somewhere?
>
> That's what I can't figure out.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Dumb Mikrotik question

[Bill Prince]

Something stupid is probably happening. I see it all the time with some 
people and their iDevices.



bp


On 7/3/2017 12:03 PM, Jay Weekley wrote:
So, we installed a Mikrotik router at a customers home who owned 4 
Apple products; two IPhones and two IPads.  One Ipad and IPhone would 
connect but the others wouldn't and gave the message that we had input 
the incorrect password though I KNOW I put the correct one in.  We 
happened to have 3 employees there at the time and all three of our 
phones would connect using the password in we put in the router.  
Changing the encryption level didn't work either though when we did 
our phones re-connected with no problems. Finally, we put in an old 
Netgear router and within  minutes all devices were connected and 
passing traffic.  The SSID we were asked to input was supposedly one 
that they had never used before as well.  At least that is what they 
claimed.  Is this something unique to Mikrotiks and Apple products or 
did we do something wrong?

Re: [AFMUG] 450AP POE polarity

[Bill Prince]

Ah. A feature.

This is from Thunderchicken.


bp


On 7/3/2017 1:08 PM, George Skorup wrote:
Not sure if something with the list changed or just my Thunderchicken. 
My reply button used to go to the list, but now it's to the author. 
And I can't get used to clicking the 'reply list' button. Really 
friggin annoying.


On 7/3/2017 3:04 PM, George Skorup wrote:

Yup, -4,5 +7,8 and ~32VDC max.

On 7/3/2017 2:09 PM, Nate Burke wrote:

That's what I thought.  Monoprice Crossover blocks to the rescue.

On 7/3/2017 1:52 PM, Jon Langeler wrote:

Anything but standard canopy just won't work. Only 450i changed things

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.



On Jul 3, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Nate Burke  wrote:

Can an original 450AP (from when they were still trying to get FSK 
interop working) only run with Standard Cambium POE pin-outs, or 
can they take reversed POE polarity as well? The Spec sheet 
doesn't say polarity, just voltage range, and it seems like a 
potentially expensive test.

Re: [AFMUG] Dumb Mikrotik question

[Jay Weekley]

I believe it was an RB951.

Nate Burke wrote:
What type of Mikrotik?   I seem to remember in years gone by some 
issues with Mikrotik, Apple, and 802.11N, the solution was just to use 
B/G.  Haven't run into anything recently though with 751/951 series.


On 7/3/2017 2:03 PM, Jay Weekley wrote:
So, we installed a Mikrotik router at a customers home who owned 4 
Apple products; two IPhones and two IPads.  One Ipad and IPhone would 
connect but the others wouldn't and gave the message that we had 
input the incorrect password though I KNOW I put the correct one in.  
We happened to have 3 employees there at the time and all three of 
our phones would connect using the password in we put in the router. 
Changing the encryption level didn't work either though when we did 
our phones re-connected with no problems.  Finally, we put in an old 
Netgear router and within minutes all devices were connected and 
passing traffic.  The SSID we were asked to input was supposedly one 
that they had never used before as well.  At least that is what they 
claimed.  Is this something unique to Mikrotiks and Apple products or 
did we do something wrong?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Re: [AFMUG] 450AP POE polarity

[George Skorup]

Not sure if something with the list changed or just my Thunderchicken. 
My reply button used to go to the list, but now it's to the author. And 
I can't get used to clicking the 'reply list' button. Really friggin 
annoying.


On 7/3/2017 3:04 PM, George Skorup wrote:

Yup, -4,5 +7,8 and ~32VDC max.

On 7/3/2017 2:09 PM, Nate Burke wrote:

That's what I thought.  Monoprice Crossover blocks to the rescue.

On 7/3/2017 1:52 PM, Jon Langeler wrote:

Anything but standard canopy just won't work. Only 450i changed things

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.



On Jul 3, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Nate Burke  wrote:

Can an original 450AP (from when they were still trying to get FSK 
interop working) only run with Standard Cambium POE pin-outs, or 
can they take reversed POE polarity as well? The Spec sheet doesn't 
say polarity, just voltage range, and it seems like a potentially 
expensive test.

Re: [AFMUG] 450AP POE polarity

[Nate Burke]

That's what I thought.  Monoprice Crossover blocks to the rescue.

On 7/3/2017 1:52 PM, Jon Langeler wrote:

Anything but standard canopy just won't work. Only 450i changed things

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.



On Jul 3, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Nate Burke  wrote:

Can an original 450AP (from when they were still trying to get FSK interop 
working) only run with Standard Cambium POE pin-outs, or can they take reversed 
POE polarity as well?  The Spec sheet doesn't say polarity, just voltage range, 
and it seems like a potentially expensive test.

Re: [AFMUG] Dumb Mikrotik question

[Nate Burke]

What type of Mikrotik?   I seem to remember in years gone by some issues 
with Mikrotik, Apple, and 802.11N, the solution was just to use B/G.  
Haven't run into anything recently though with 751/951 series.


On 7/3/2017 2:03 PM, Jay Weekley wrote:
So, we installed a Mikrotik router at a customers home who owned 4 
Apple products; two IPhones and two IPads.  One Ipad and IPhone would 
connect but the others wouldn't and gave the message that we had input 
the incorrect password though I KNOW I put the correct one in.  We 
happened to have 3 employees there at the time and all three of our 
phones would connect using the password in we put in the router.  
Changing the encryption level didn't work either though when we did 
our phones re-connected with no problems.  Finally, we put in an old 
Netgear router and within minutes all devices were connected and 
passing traffic.  The SSID we were asked to input was supposedly one 
that they had never used before as well.  At least that is what they 
claimed.  Is this something unique to Mikrotiks and Apple products or 
did we do something wrong?

[AFMUG] Dumb Mikrotik question

[Jay Weekley]

So, we installed a Mikrotik router at a customers home who owned 4 Apple 
products; two IPhones and two IPads.  One Ipad and IPhone would connect 
but the others wouldn't and gave the message that we had input the 
incorrect password though I KNOW I put the correct one in.  We happened 
to have 3 employees there at the time and all three of our phones would 
connect using the password in we put in the router.  Changing the 
encryption level didn't work either though when we did our phones 
re-connected with no problems.  Finally, we put in an old Netgear router 
and within  minutes all devices were connected and passing traffic.  The 
SSID we were asked to input was supposedly one that they had never used 
before as well.  At least that is what they claimed.  Is this something 
unique to Mikrotiks and Apple products or did we do something wrong?

Re: [AFMUG] 450AP POE polarity

[Jon Langeler]

Anything but standard canopy just won't work. Only 450i changed things 

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.


> On Jul 3, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Nate Burke  wrote:
> 
> Can an original 450AP (from when they were still trying to get FSK interop 
> working) only run with Standard Cambium POE pin-outs, or can they take 
> reversed POE polarity as well?  The Spec sheet doesn't say polarity, just 
> voltage range, and it seems like a potentially expensive test.
> 
> 

[AFMUG] 450AP POE polarity

[Nate Burke]

Can an original 450AP (from when they were still trying to get FSK 
interop working) only run with Standard Cambium POE pin-outs, or can 
they take reversed POE polarity as well?  The Spec sheet doesn't say 
polarity, just voltage range, and it seems like a potentially expensive 
test.

Re: [AFMUG] Metrolinq power

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Re-posting.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "cdewey" 
> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" 
> Cc: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2017 11:20:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Metrolinq power

> Thanks Faisal.
> 
> Robert, our first gen equipment (ML-60-XX) is all 24V 1.5A. If running a 
> netonix
> with it we recommend 24VH. Many people run 24V without issue.
> 
> Our next generation equipment (ML2.5-60-XX) and subsequent releases will all 
> be
> 24-48v DC or PoE. For these 24VH will be a must but 48V is probably ok but has
> not been tested yet.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chad Dewey
> 
>> On Jul 1, 2017, at 6:45 PM, Faisal Imtiaz  wrote:
>> 
>> I am sure Chad can answer this question..
>> 
>> It looks like the 24v/48v is only for the newer Metrolinq 2.5  other versions
>> are still showing 24v on their spec sheets.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards.
>> 
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>> 
>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>> 
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Robert Andrews" 
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2017 4:00:36 PM
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] Metrolinq power
>> 
>>> Probably been asked and answered before, but I read that the 60 says
>>> 24/48V 1.5 amp.   So is it 1.5 amp at 24V and .75 amp at 48V?   are
>>> people running these off Netonix and if so are they running them off the
>>> 48V .75 or 48V HV?
>>> 
>>> Thanks for any answers  I trust you guys more than anywhere else..
>>> 
>>> 
> >> Robert

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik VPLS MAC Address

[Adam Moffett]

Wow..I'm retarded.


-- Original Message --
From: "George Skorup" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 7/3/2017 12:15:25 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik VPLS MAC Address


/interface bridge set bridge1 auto-mac=no admin-mac=00:00:00:00:00:01

On 7/3/2017 6:26 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:

Interestingand you can't override a bridge's MAC address.

I know a bridge starts out with the MAC of the first port you add to 
it.  If you remove that port it will choose the MAC of another member, 
but I have no clue how it makes the selection.


What you could do to ensure a unique MAC on the bridge is create an 
EoIP interface and add that interface to the bridge before adding the 
VPLS interfaces.  The EoIP interface is just a useless stub, but it 
has an algorithmically generated MAC address and you can override it.





-- Original Message --
From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 7/2/2017 4:21:38 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik VPLS MAC Address


Follow up, I found out that is correct with VPLS.

However, I had two bridges on a router each containing a separate 
VPLS endpoint/interface in them that had the same MAC address.
The MikroTik bridge assumes the MAC address of one of the member 
ports, not sure how it figures out which port MAC address to use.


In one case it had select the VPLS tunnel MAC in both bridges for the 
two spate VPLS endpoints, that happened to have the same MAC.
So I ended up with two bridges on the router with the same MAC 
address.


This caused a bridge loop, or at least a notification of a bridge 
loop my having the same MAC address show up in cycle.


Very interesting.

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2017 1:46 AM
To: 'af@afmug.com' 
Subject: [AFMUG] Mikrotik VPLS MAC Address

I noticed on Mikrotik you can assign/change a MAC address to a VPLS 
interface.


Is that MAC address supposed to be always unique?

Several of mine on any given device are using the same MAC address.

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik VPLS MAC Address

[George Skorup]

/interface bridge set bridge1 auto-mac=no admin-mac=00:00:00:00:00:01

On 7/3/2017 6:26 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:

Interestingand you can't override a bridge's MAC address.

I know a bridge starts out with the MAC of the first port you add to 
it.  If you remove that port it will choose the MAC of another member, 
but I have no clue how it makes the selection.


What you could do to ensure a unique MAC on the bridge is create an 
EoIP interface and add that interface to the bridge before adding the 
VPLS interfaces.  The EoIP interface is just a useless stub, but it 
has an algorithmically generated MAC address and you can override it.





-- Original Message --
From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 7/2/2017 4:21:38 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik VPLS MAC Address


Follow up, I found out that is correct with VPLS.

However, I had two bridges on a router each containing a separate 
VPLS endpoint/interface in them that had the same MAC address.
The MikroTik bridge assumes the MAC address of one of the member 
ports, not sure how it figures out which port MAC address to use.


In one case it had select the VPLS tunnel MAC in both bridges for the 
two spate VPLS endpoints, that happened to have the same MAC.

So I ended up with two bridges on the router with the same MAC address.

This caused a bridge loop, or at least a notification of a bridge 
loop my having the same MAC address show up in cycle.


Very interesting.

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2017 1:46 AM
To: 'af@afmug.com' 
Subject: [AFMUG] Mikrotik VPLS MAC Address

I noticed on Mikrotik you can assign/change a MAC address to a VPLS 
interface.


Is that MAC address supposed to be always unique?

Several of mine on any given device are using the same MAC address.

Re: [AFMUG] Easement language

[Jay Weekley]

Don't forget Steve Tyler.

Paul McCall wrote:


I love the Joe Walsh reference.  Thanks Chuck.  Exactly what I needed.

Paul

*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *ch...@wbmfg.com
*Sent:* Monday, July 3, 2017 10:52 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Easement language

*From:*ch...@wbmfg.com 

*Sent:*Wednesday, June 21, 2017 8:37 AM

*To:*af@afmug.com 

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] private community fiber network

Easement Language:

*LIMITED UTILITY LINE EASEMENT*

*AND RIGHT OF WAY*

Telecom Company and Land Owner with addresses at 
__ property owner (“Owner”) make this Limited 
Utility Line Easement and Right of Way (the “Agreement”) this _ 
day of June, 2017.


In exchange for the promises and performances described 
below, which Telecom and Owner hereby acknowledge to be good and 
sufficient consideration for the making of this Agreement, Telecom and 
Owner agree as follows.


1.Owner hereby grants to Telecom a non exclusive easement and right of 
way across the property of Owner.  This easement and right of way 
hereafter shall be called the “ROW.”  A legal description of the ROW 
is attached as exhibit A and incorporated by reference into this Agreement


2. The ROW shall be for the purpose of installing a fiber optic 
telecommunications line with associated conduit and handholes (the 
“Facilities”)  Owner hereby authorizes Telecom to install the 
Facilities and to do the other acts, described below, that may be 
necessary to service, enhance, improve, alter, maintain, and/or repair 
the Facilities.  Owner understands and agrees that the placement of 
the Facilities, as well as the need for service, enhancement, 
improvement, alteration, maintenance, and/or repair of the Facilities, 
are matters to be decided solely by Telecom, and that Owner shall have 
no right to influence or interfere with any such decision, provided, 
however, that in the process of making any such decision Telecom shall 
remain subject to any applicable rules and regulations of the (State) 
Public Service Commission. Owner restricts and forbids the building of 
any additional Facilities with out obtaining written permission from 
Owner. Owner hereby represents, warrants, and guarantees to Telecom 
that Owner is the exclusive owner of the property for the purpose of 
granting the ROW as described in this Agreement.


3. Owner hereby authorizes Telecom to enter on the 
property for the purpose of installing, servicing, enhancing, 
improving, altering, maintaining, and/or repairing the Facilities.  
Telecom may enter on to the property at any reasonable time in order 
to install, service, enhance, improve, alter, maintain, and/or repair 
the Facilities. Telecom may enter on to the property at any time in 
order to make emergency repairs to the Facilities.


4. The ROW shall run with the property (now titled in or 
otherwise owned by the Owner) in perpetuity, and at a minimum shall be 
a covenant running with the property.  Owner agrees to execute a 
recordable form of this Agreement for the purpose of giving record 
notice of the ROW by filing the same with the appropriate county 
recorder's office.  This Agreement shall remain binding upon and inure 
to the benefit of any and all successors, assigns, heirs, agents, 
and/or employees of the Owner. The ROW is transferable by Telecom to 
its successors, assigns, heirs, agents, and/or employees. Owner agrees 
to negotiate with the successors, assigns, and/or heirs of Telecom to 
formulate a new ROW agreement.


5. Telecom stipulates that it shall do a workmanlike job 
in connection with the installation of the Facilities, and that it 
shall clean-up the ROW at the conclusion of this work, all work and 
clean-up to be consistent with any applicable rules and regulations of 
the (State) Public Service Commission.Telecom hereby represents, 
warrants, and guarantees to Owner that failure to comply and perform 
according to the covenants stipulated in this agreement terminates and 
voids the ROW.




Joe Walsh

CEO/General Manager

Telecom



Steve Tyler

Registered Agent

Owner

Grantor of ROW


Then you must include attachment A which has the legal description of 
the ROW running line.  You will probably have to have a surveyor 
create that for you.


I do my own but I have had training.

*From:*Chris Fabien

*Sent:*Wednesday, June 21, 2017 6:09 AM

*To:*af@afmug.com 

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] private community fiber network

1.  You want innerduct  buried in the soil several feet under the 
water. Thia would be done by directional boring. 300ft is no problem. 
Probably "should" require erosion/sedmentation control permit and 
possibly wetlands study. But you can get away with about anything in a 
private location.


2. Handhole anywhere you want to splice.

3. Always 

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Adam Moffett]

Yeah I think we have 40 of them out there.  No failures that I know of.


-- Original Message --
From: "Mathew Howard" 
To: "af" 
Sent: 7/3/2017 10:46:45 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board 
revisions?


We have them all over the place... I've never had a problem with one 
yet.


On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Jeremy  wrote:
Oops...nevermind.  Looks like they are still on there.  They were 
great for powering Chuck's GIGE-POE-APC injectors, if only they were 
more reliable.  Perhaps he has worked out the bugs by now, as ours 
were purchased years ago when the product was first released.


On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Adam Moffett  
wrote:
http://store.packetflux.com/sitemonitor-5-channel-power-distribution-unit/ 





-- Original Message --
From: "Kurt Fankhauser" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 7/3/2017 9:09:44 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board 
revisions?



George,

What is a packetflux 5ch PDU? I can't find anything on their site 
except 4 and 8 port injectors.


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 9:22 PM, George Skorup 
 wrote:
I have some PacketFlux 5Ch PDUs. I've found the current 
measurements to be fairly accurate. One has an AF24 on it and 
measures 1020mA, so 49 watts. Others with Exalt ExtendAir G2-11's 
measuring 490-520mA, so 24-25 watts. And a pair of SAF Lumina 6GHz 
HP radios both about 825mA = 39.6 watts while the radios themselves 
say about 870mA and 40.4 watts, so.. close enough. All of these are 
fed from the regulated output Traco BCMU360's in 48V mode. I love 
the 5Ch PDUs + GigE-POE-APCs for +48 backhauls. No fuses to worry 
about. And slightly higher power than a typical POE injector will 
handle.


On 6/30/2017 5:36 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Well, I've always measured them from the DC side, so I could see 
them going drawing that much from the wall.


Kind of interesting, I was just checking some of ours... I have 
one site, where there are two AF-5x plugged being powered from a 
MikroTik hEX PoE, so they both have the exact same power source, 
similar cable lengths, etc. and one is showing 8.1 watts and the 
other is 10.5 watts. The interesting thing, is that the one that's 
drawing more power actually has less load going through it, and 
judging from the MAC address, is also slightly newer. I don't know 
how accurate those MikroTiks are at measuring current (wouldn't 
surprise me if they're far from accurate), but I would expect them 
to at least be kinda consistent.


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
 wrote:
I really thought I remembered seeing an AF5X about eighteen 
months ago, drawing 16-17W from the wall, but I could be wrong or 
the watt meter that it was plugged into was grossly inaccurate. 
This newer model of kill-a-watt seems to be better.




On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Mathew Howard 
 wrote:
Yeah, I think that's pretty consistent with what the AF-5X 
radios have always used. The AF5 (not X) and AF24 do use a lot 
more power.


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Stefan Englhardt 
 wrote:
Yes. All my AF5X use ~10W. UBNT AC use 6W and older MT 11n use 
3-4W. SAF is 30-35. PTP600 is 50.



On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:44 +
 Rory Conaway  wrote:
I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the 
time.


Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric 
Kuhnke

Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board 
revisions?


Provisioning a new AF5X link here on their AC PoE injectors 
before they go out to the field. Something interesting I've 
noticed, and maybe I'm not remembering right, but it seems 
that the newer AF5X use less power than the older ones.


This unit with its ubnt default PoE injector plugged into a 
kill-a-watt is measuring 11 watts. There's no traffic going 
through it, but as I recall an AF5X uses pretty much the same 
amount whether or not it's under load, since the AF 
architecture is constantly sending/receiving frames whether or 
not they have an ethernet data payload.





- GENIAS INTERNET -- www.genias.net --
Genias Internet
Stefan Englhardt Email: s...@genias.net
Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
Tel: +49 941 942798-0 Fax: +49 
941 942798-9 

Re: [AFMUG] Slack boxes

[Jason McKemie]

Gotcha. The 2200's might work for that, I'm not sure though, since that is
not the intended use.

On Monday, July 3, 2017, Paul McCall  wrote:

> No, these will literally be buried at the 3 ft. level next to a building
> (no traffic).  And, covered in a 1ft. of dirt so nobody will know its there
> (except the landowner)
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Jason
> McKemie
> *Sent:* Monday, July 3, 2017 10:25 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Slack boxes
>
>
>
> Do they have to be traffic grade? If not, I like the Carson 2200 round,
> you can also get an extension if necessary. I'm not sure about burying the
> entire thing, but they would work for the building boxes.
>
> On Monday, July 3, 2017, Paul McCall  > wrote:
>
> We are doing an underground conduit system for several buildings and have
> several places we want to place slack.  I was told by Corning to go for a
> 24”x24” box at since we have in a few cases, several different fiber cables
> we are slacking to get at least 12” high.  I was thinking a 24x24x12 PVC
> box would be inexpensive, but n..  
>
>
>
> Some of these cases will be buried underground, most likely never to be
> opened.  Others are in the overhang of the building and will house the
> multiport, and the slack to each unit within a building.  It can be as much
> as 8 cables slack (though not much length each) in each “building box”.  We
> bought preterminated cables for each unit in the building and the slack
> will end up there, so not much.  We are 100% in conduit for the entire
> project as I don’t want varmints getting in.
>
>
>
> Anyway, there has to be an cost-effective box for this
>
>
>
> Paul McCall, President
>
> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
>
> 658 Old Dixie Highway
>
> Vero Beach, FL 32962
>
> 772-564-6800
>
> pa...@pdmnet.net
>
> www.pdmnet.com
>
> www.floridabroadband.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Easement language

[chuck]

my maserati does 185

From: Paul McCall 
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 8:53 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Easement language

I love the Joe Walsh reference.  Thanks Chuck.  Exactly what I needed.

 

Paul

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 10:52 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Easement language

 

 

 

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 

Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 8:37 AM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private community fiber network

 

Easement Language:

LIMITED UTILITY LINE EASEMENT

AND RIGHT OF WAY

 

Telecom Company and Land Owner with addresses at 
__ property owner (“Owner”) make this Limited Utility Line 
Easement and Right of Way (the “Agreement”) this _ day of June, 2017.

 

In exchange for the promises and performances described below, 
which Telecom and Owner hereby acknowledge to be good and sufficient 
consideration for the making of this Agreement, Telecom and Owner agree as 
follows.

 

1.  Owner hereby grants to Telecom a non exclusive easement and right of 
way across the property of Owner.  This easement and right of way hereafter 
shall be called the “ROW.”  A legal description of the ROW is attached as 
exhibit A and incorporated by reference into this Agreement

 

2. The ROW shall be for the purpose of installing a fiber optic 
telecommunications line with associated conduit and handholes (the 
“Facilities”)  Owner hereby authorizes Telecom to install the Facilities and to 
do the other acts, described below, that may be necessary to service, enhance, 
improve, alter, maintain, and/or repair the Facilities.  Owner understands and 
agrees that the placement of the Facilities, as well as the need for service, 
enhancement, improvement, alteration, maintenance, and/or repair of the 
Facilities, are matters to be decided solely by Telecom, and that Owner shall 
have no right to influence or interfere with any such decision, provided, 
however, that in the process of making any such decision Telecom shall remain 
subject to any applicable rules and regulations of the (State) Public Service 
Commission. Owner restricts and forbids the building of any additional 
Facilities with out obtaining written permission from Owner.  Owner hereby 
represents, warrants, and guarantees to Telecom that Owner is the exclusive 
owner of the property for the purpose of granting the ROW as described in this 
Agreement.

 

3. Owner hereby authorizes Telecom to enter on the property for the 
purpose of installing, servicing, enhancing, improving, altering, maintaining, 
and/or repairing the Facilities.  Telecom may enter on to the property at any 
reasonable time in order to install, service, enhance, improve, alter, 
maintain, and/or repair the Facilities.  Telecom may enter on to the property 
at any time in order to make emergency repairs to the Facilities.

 

4. The ROW shall run with the property (now titled in or otherwise 
owned by the Owner) in perpetuity, and at a minimum shall be a covenant running 
with the property.  Owner agrees to execute a recordable form of this Agreement 
for the purpose of giving record notice of the ROW by filing the same with the 
appropriate county recorder's office.  This Agreement shall remain binding upon 
and inure to the benefit of any and all successors, assigns, heirs, agents, 
and/or employees of the Owner. The ROW is transferable by Telecom to its 
successors, assigns, heirs, agents, and/or employees. Owner agrees to negotiate 
with the successors, assigns, and/or heirs of Telecom to formulate a new ROW 
agreement.

 

5. Telecom stipulates that it shall do a workmanlike job in 
connection with the installation of the Facilities, and that it shall clean-up 
the ROW at the conclusion of this work, all work and clean-up to be consistent 
with any applicable rules and regulations of the (State) Public Service 
Commission.Telecom hereby represents, warrants, and guarantees to Owner 
that failure to comply and perform according to the covenants stipulated in 
this agreement terminates and voids the ROW.

 



 




Joe Walsh

CEO/General Manager

Telecom

 

 

 




Steve Tyler

Registered Agent

Owner

Grantor of ROW 



 

Then you must include attachment A which has the legal description of the ROW 
running line.  You will probably have to have a surveyor create that for you.

I do my own but I have 

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Jeremy]

That's great to hear!  We had extremely high hopes for them, but most all
of ours have failed on either channel 1 or channel 5.

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:

> We have them all over the place... I've never had a problem with one yet.
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Jeremy  wrote:
>
>> Oops...nevermind.  Looks like they are still on there.  They were great
>> for powering Chuck's GIGE-POE-APC injectors, if only they were more
>> reliable.  Perhaps he has worked out the bugs by now, as ours were
>> purchased years ago when the product was first released.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>>
>>> http://store.packetflux.com/sitemonitor-5-channel-power-dist
>>> ribution-unit/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" 
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: 7/3/2017 9:09:44 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board
>>> revisions?
>>>
>>> George,
>>>
>>> What is a packetflux 5ch PDU? I can't find anything on their site except
>>> 4 and 8 port injectors.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 9:22 PM, George Skorup >> > wrote:
>>>
 I have some PacketFlux 5Ch PDUs. I've found the current measurements to
 be fairly accurate. One has an AF24 on it and measures 1020mA, so 49 watts.
 Others with Exalt ExtendAir G2-11's measuring 490-520mA, so 24-25 watts.
 And a pair of SAF Lumina 6GHz HP radios both about 825mA = 39.6 watts while
 the radios themselves say about 870mA and 40.4 watts, so.. close enough.
 All of these are fed from the regulated output Traco BCMU360's in 48V mode.
 I love the 5Ch PDUs + GigE-POE-APCs for +48 backhauls. No fuses to worry
 about. And slightly higher power than a typical POE injector will handle.

 On 6/30/2017 5:36 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

 Well, I've always measured them from the DC side, so I could see them
 going drawing that much from the wall.

 Kind of interesting, I was just checking some of ours... I have one
 site, where there are two AF-5x plugged being powered from a MikroTik hEX
 PoE, so they both have the exact same power source, similar cable lengths,
 etc. and one is showing 8.1 watts and the other is 10.5 watts. The
 interesting thing, is that the one that's drawing more power actually has
 less load going through it, and judging from the MAC address, is also
 slightly newer. I don't know how accurate those MikroTiks are at measuring
 current (wouldn't surprise me if they're far from accurate), but I would
 expect them to at least be kinda consistent.

 On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
 wrote:

> I really thought I remembered seeing an AF5X about eighteen months
> ago, drawing 16-17W from the wall, but I could be wrong or the watt meter
> that it was plugged into was grossly inaccurate. This newer model of
> kill-a-watt seems to be better.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I think that's pretty consistent with what the AF-5X radios
>> have always used. The AF5 (not X) and AF24 do use a lot more power.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Stefan Englhardt 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. All my AF5X use ~10W. UBNT AC use 6W and older MT 11n use 3-4W.
>>> SAF is 30-35. PTP600 is 50.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:44 +
>>>  Rory Conaway  wrote:
>>>
 I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.

 Rory

 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
 Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
 To: af@afmug.com
 Subject: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board
 revisions?

 Provisioning a new AF5X link here on their AC PoE injectors before
 they go out to the field. Something interesting I've noticed, and 
 maybe I'm
 not remembering right, but it seems that the newer AF5X use less power 
 than
 the older ones.

 This unit with its ubnt default PoE injector plugged into a
 kill-a-watt is measuring 11 watts. There's no traffic going through 
 it, but
 as I recall an AF5X uses pretty much the same amount whether or not 
 it's
 under load, since the AF architecture is constantly sending/receiving
 frames whether or not they have an ethernet data payload.



>>> - GENIAS INTERNET -- www.genias.net --
>>> Genias Internet
>>> Stefan Englhardt Email: s...@genias.net
>>> Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
>>> Tel: +49 941 

Re: [AFMUG] Easement language

[Paul McCall]

I love the Joe Walsh reference.  Thanks Chuck.  Exactly what I needed.

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 10:52 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Easement language



From: ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 8:37 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private community fiber network

Easement Language:
LIMITED UTILITY LINE EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF WAY

Telecom Company and Land Owner with addresses at 
__  property owner (“Owner”) make this Limited Utility Line 
Easement and Right of Way (the “Agreement”) this _ day of June, 2017.

In exchange for the promises and performances described below, 
which Telecom and Owner hereby acknowledge to be good and sufficient 
consideration for the making of this Agreement, Telecom and Owner agree as 
follows.

1.  Owner hereby grants to Telecom a non exclusive easement and right of 
way across the property of Owner.  This easement and right of way hereafter 
shall be called the “ROW.”  A legal description of the ROW is attached as 
exhibit A and incorporated by reference into this Agreement

2. The ROW shall be for the purpose of installing a fiber optic 
telecommunications line with associated conduit and handholes (the 
“Facilities”)  Owner hereby authorizes Telecom to install the Facilities and to 
do the other acts, described below, that may be necessary to service, enhance, 
improve, alter, maintain, and/or repair the Facilities.  Owner understands and 
agrees that the placement of the Facilities, as well as the need for service, 
enhancement, improvement, alteration, maintenance, and/or repair of the 
Facilities, are matters to be decided solely by Telecom, and that Owner shall 
have no right to influence or interfere with any such decision, provided, 
however, that in the process of making any such decision Telecom shall remain 
subject to any applicable rules and regulations of the (State) Public Service 
Commission. Owner restricts and forbids the building of any additional 
Facilities with out obtaining written permission from Owner.  Owner hereby 
represents, warrants, and guarantees to Telecom that Owner is the exclusive 
owner of the property for the purpose of granting the ROW as described in this 
Agreement.

3. Owner hereby authorizes Telecom to enter on the property for the 
purpose of installing, servicing, enhancing, improving, altering, maintaining, 
and/or repairing the Facilities.  Telecom may enter on to the property at any 
reasonable time in order to install, service, enhance, improve, alter, 
maintain, and/or repair the Facilities.  Telecom may enter on to the property 
at any time in order to make emergency repairs to the Facilities.

4. The ROW shall run with the property (now titled in or otherwise 
owned by the Owner) in perpetuity, and at a minimum shall be a covenant running 
with the property.  Owner agrees to execute a recordable form of this Agreement 
for the purpose of giving record notice of the ROW by filing the same with the 
appropriate county recorder's office.  This Agreement shall remain binding upon 
and inure to the benefit of any and all successors, assigns, heirs, agents, 
and/or employees of the Owner. The ROW is transferable by Telecom to its 
successors, assigns, heirs, agents, and/or employees. Owner agrees to negotiate 
with the successors, assigns, and/or heirs of Telecom to formulate a new ROW 
agreement.


5. Telecom stipulates that it shall do a workmanlike job in 
connection with the installation of the Facilities, and that it shall clean-up 
the ROW at the conclusion of this work, all work and clean-up to be consistent 
with any applicable rules and regulations of the (State) Public Service 
Commission.Telecom hereby represents, warrants, and guarantees to Owner 
that failure to comply and perform according to the covenants stipulated in 
this agreement terminates and voids the ROW.





Joe Walsh
CEO/General Manager
Telecom





Steve Tyler
Registered Agent
Owner
Grantor of ROW


Then you must include attachment A which has the legal description of the ROW 
running line.  You will probably have to have a surveyor create that for you.
I do my own but I have had training.





From: Chris Fabien
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 6:09 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private community fiber network

[AFMUG] Easement language

[chuck]

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 8:37 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private community fiber network

Easement Language:
LIMITED UTILITY LINE EASEMENT

AND RIGHT OF WAY



Telecom Company and Land Owner with addresses at 
__  property owner (“Owner”) make this Limited Utility Line 
Easement and Right of Way (the “Agreement”) this _ day of June, 2017.



In exchange for the promises and performances described below, 
which Telecom and Owner hereby acknowledge to be good and sufficient 
consideration for the making of this Agreement, Telecom and Owner agree as 
follows.



1.  Owner hereby grants to Telecom a non exclusive easement and right of 
way across the property of Owner.  This easement and right of way hereafter 
shall be called the “ROW.”  A legal description of the ROW is attached as 
exhibit A and incorporated by reference into this Agreement



2. The ROW shall be for the purpose of installing a fiber optic 
telecommunications line with associated conduit and handholes (the 
“Facilities”)  Owner hereby authorizes Telecom to install the Facilities and to 
do the other acts, described below, that may be necessary to service, enhance, 
improve, alter, maintain, and/or repair the Facilities.  Owner understands and 
agrees that the placement of the Facilities, as well as the need for service, 
enhancement, improvement, alteration, maintenance, and/or repair of the 
Facilities, are matters to be decided solely by Telecom, and that Owner shall 
have no right to influence or interfere with any such decision, provided, 
however, that in the process of making any such decision Telecom shall remain 
subject to any applicable rules and regulations of the (State) Public Service 
Commission. Owner restricts and forbids the building of any additional 
Facilities with out obtaining written permission from Owner.  Owner hereby 
represents, warrants, and guarantees to Telecom that Owner is the exclusive 
owner of the property for the purpose of granting the ROW as described in this 
Agreement.



3. Owner hereby authorizes Telecom to enter on the property for the 
purpose of installing, servicing, enhancing, improving, altering, maintaining, 
and/or repairing the Facilities.  Telecom may enter on to the property at any 
reasonable time in order to install, service, enhance, improve, alter, 
maintain, and/or repair the Facilities.  Telecom may enter on to the property 
at any time in order to make emergency repairs to the Facilities.



4. The ROW shall run with the property (now titled in or otherwise 
owned by the Owner) in perpetuity, and at a minimum shall be a covenant running 
with the property.  Owner agrees to execute a recordable form of this Agreement 
for the purpose of giving record notice of the ROW by filing the same with the 
appropriate county recorder's office.  This Agreement shall remain binding upon 
and inure to the benefit of any and all successors, assigns, heirs, agents, 
and/or employees of the Owner. The ROW is transferable by Telecom to its 
successors, assigns, heirs, agents, and/or employees. Owner agrees to negotiate 
with the successors, assigns, and/or heirs of Telecom to formulate a new ROW 
agreement.



5. Telecom stipulates that it shall do a workmanlike job in 
connection with the installation of the Facilities, and that it shall clean-up 
the ROW at the conclusion of this work, all work and clean-up to be consistent 
with any applicable rules and regulations of the (State) Public Service 
Commission.Telecom hereby represents, warrants, and guarantees to Owner 
that failure to comply and perform according to the covenants stipulated in 
this agreement terminates and voids the ROW.










Joe Walsh

CEO/General Manager

Telecom










Steve Tyler

Registered Agent

Owner

Grantor of ROW 




Then you must include attachment A which has the legal description of the ROW 
running line.  You will probably have to have a surveyor create that for you.
I do my own but I have had training.  





From: Chris Fabien 
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 6:09 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private community fiber network

1.  You want innerduct  buried in the soil several feet under the water. Thia 
would be done by directional boring. 300ft is no problem. Probably "should" 
require erosion/sedmentation control permit and possibly wetlands study. But 
you can get away 

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Mathew Howard]

We have them all over the place... I've never had a problem with one yet.

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Jeremy  wrote:

> Oops...nevermind.  Looks like they are still on there.  They were great
> for powering Chuck's GIGE-POE-APC injectors, if only they were more
> reliable.  Perhaps he has worked out the bugs by now, as ours were
> purchased years ago when the product was first released.
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> http://store.packetflux.com/sitemonitor-5-channel-power-dist
>> ribution-unit/
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: 7/3/2017 9:09:44 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?
>>
>> George,
>>
>> What is a packetflux 5ch PDU? I can't find anything on their site except
>> 4 and 8 port injectors.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 9:22 PM, George Skorup 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have some PacketFlux 5Ch PDUs. I've found the current measurements to
>>> be fairly accurate. One has an AF24 on it and measures 1020mA, so 49 watts.
>>> Others with Exalt ExtendAir G2-11's measuring 490-520mA, so 24-25 watts.
>>> And a pair of SAF Lumina 6GHz HP radios both about 825mA = 39.6 watts while
>>> the radios themselves say about 870mA and 40.4 watts, so.. close enough.
>>> All of these are fed from the regulated output Traco BCMU360's in 48V mode.
>>> I love the 5Ch PDUs + GigE-POE-APCs for +48 backhauls. No fuses to worry
>>> about. And slightly higher power than a typical POE injector will handle.
>>>
>>> On 6/30/2017 5:36 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, I've always measured them from the DC side, so I could see them
>>> going drawing that much from the wall.
>>>
>>> Kind of interesting, I was just checking some of ours... I have one
>>> site, where there are two AF-5x plugged being powered from a MikroTik hEX
>>> PoE, so they both have the exact same power source, similar cable lengths,
>>> etc. and one is showing 8.1 watts and the other is 10.5 watts. The
>>> interesting thing, is that the one that's drawing more power actually has
>>> less load going through it, and judging from the MAC address, is also
>>> slightly newer. I don't know how accurate those MikroTiks are at measuring
>>> current (wouldn't surprise me if they're far from accurate), but I would
>>> expect them to at least be kinda consistent.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I really thought I remembered seeing an AF5X about eighteen months ago,
 drawing 16-17W from the wall, but I could be wrong or the watt meter that
 it was plugged into was grossly inaccurate. This newer model of kill-a-watt
 seems to be better.



 On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Mathew Howard 
 wrote:

> Yeah, I think that's pretty consistent with what the AF-5X radios have
> always used. The AF5 (not X) and AF24 do use a lot more power.
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Stefan Englhardt 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes. All my AF5X use ~10W. UBNT AC use 6W and older MT 11n use 3-4W.
>> SAF is 30-35. PTP600 is 50.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:44 +
>>  Rory Conaway  wrote:
>>
>>> I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.
>>>
>>> Rory
>>>
>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board
>>> revisions?
>>>
>>> Provisioning a new AF5X link here on their AC PoE injectors before
>>> they go out to the field. Something interesting I've noticed, and maybe 
>>> I'm
>>> not remembering right, but it seems that the newer AF5X use less power 
>>> than
>>> the older ones.
>>>
>>> This unit with its ubnt default PoE injector plugged into a
>>> kill-a-watt is measuring 11 watts. There's no traffic going through it, 
>>> but
>>> as I recall an AF5X uses pretty much the same amount whether or not it's
>>> under load, since the AF architecture is constantly sending/receiving
>>> frames whether or not they have an ethernet data payload.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> - GENIAS INTERNET -- www.genias.net --
>> Genias Internet
>> Stefan Englhardt Email: s...@genias.net
>> Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
>> Tel: +49 941 942798-0 <%2B49%20941%20942798-0>Fax: +49 941
>> 942798-9 <%2B49%20941%20942798-9>
>>
>
>

>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Jeremy]

Oops...nevermind.  Looks like they are still on there.  They were great for
powering Chuck's GIGE-POE-APC injectors, if only they were more reliable.
Perhaps he has worked out the bugs by now, as ours were purchased years ago
when the product was first released.

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> http://store.packetflux.com/sitemonitor-5-channel-power-distribution-unit/
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Kurt Fankhauser" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 7/3/2017 9:09:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?
>
> George,
>
> What is a packetflux 5ch PDU? I can't find anything on their site except 4
> and 8 port injectors.
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 9:22 PM, George Skorup 
> wrote:
>
>> I have some PacketFlux 5Ch PDUs. I've found the current measurements to
>> be fairly accurate. One has an AF24 on it and measures 1020mA, so 49 watts.
>> Others with Exalt ExtendAir G2-11's measuring 490-520mA, so 24-25 watts.
>> And a pair of SAF Lumina 6GHz HP radios both about 825mA = 39.6 watts while
>> the radios themselves say about 870mA and 40.4 watts, so.. close enough.
>> All of these are fed from the regulated output Traco BCMU360's in 48V mode.
>> I love the 5Ch PDUs + GigE-POE-APCs for +48 backhauls. No fuses to worry
>> about. And slightly higher power than a typical POE injector will handle.
>>
>> On 6/30/2017 5:36 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> Well, I've always measured them from the DC side, so I could see them
>> going drawing that much from the wall.
>>
>> Kind of interesting, I was just checking some of ours... I have one site,
>> where there are two AF-5x plugged being powered from a MikroTik hEX PoE, so
>> they both have the exact same power source, similar cable lengths, etc. and
>> one is showing 8.1 watts and the other is 10.5 watts. The interesting
>> thing, is that the one that's drawing more power actually has less load
>> going through it, and judging from the MAC address, is also slightly newer.
>> I don't know how accurate those MikroTiks are at measuring current
>> (wouldn't surprise me if they're far from accurate), but I would expect
>> them to at least be kinda consistent.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I really thought I remembered seeing an AF5X about eighteen months ago,
>>> drawing 16-17W from the wall, but I could be wrong or the watt meter that
>>> it was plugged into was grossly inaccurate. This newer model of kill-a-watt
>>> seems to be better.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yeah, I think that's pretty consistent with what the AF-5X radios have
 always used. The AF5 (not X) and AF24 do use a lot more power.

 On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Stefan Englhardt 
 wrote:

> Yes. All my AF5X use ~10W. UBNT AC use 6W and older MT 11n use 3-4W.
> SAF is 30-35. PTP600 is 50.
>
>
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:44 +
>  Rory Conaway  wrote:
>
>> I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.
>>
>> Rory
>>
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
>> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?
>>
>> Provisioning a new AF5X link here on their AC PoE injectors before
>> they go out to the field. Something interesting I've noticed, and maybe 
>> I'm
>> not remembering right, but it seems that the newer AF5X use less power 
>> than
>> the older ones.
>>
>> This unit with its ubnt default PoE injector plugged into a
>> kill-a-watt is measuring 11 watts. There's no traffic going through it, 
>> but
>> as I recall an AF5X uses pretty much the same amount whether or not it's
>> under load, since the AF architecture is constantly sending/receiving
>> frames whether or not they have an ethernet data payload.
>>
>>
>>
> - GENIAS INTERNET -- www.genias.net --
> Genias Internet
> Stefan Englhardt Email: s...@genias.net
> Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
> Tel: +49 941 942798-0 <%2B49%20941%20942798-0>Fax: +49 941
> 942798-9 <%2B49%20941%20942798-9>
>


>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Jeremy]

I think he may have stopped selling them.  I had more outages due to them
than anything else we have deployed.  Not really worth it for the ability
to power cycle remotely.  They had issues with channels dying.  That being
said, I still have like 4-5 in the field (with only 3-4 of the 5 channels
still working).

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Kurt Fankhauser 
wrote:

> George,
>
> What is a packetflux 5ch PDU? I can't find anything on their site except 4
> and 8 port injectors.
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 9:22 PM, George Skorup 
> wrote:
>
>> I have some PacketFlux 5Ch PDUs. I've found the current measurements to
>> be fairly accurate. One has an AF24 on it and measures 1020mA, so 49 watts.
>> Others with Exalt ExtendAir G2-11's measuring 490-520mA, so 24-25 watts.
>> And a pair of SAF Lumina 6GHz HP radios both about 825mA = 39.6 watts while
>> the radios themselves say about 870mA and 40.4 watts, so.. close enough.
>> All of these are fed from the regulated output Traco BCMU360's in 48V mode.
>> I love the 5Ch PDUs + GigE-POE-APCs for +48 backhauls. No fuses to worry
>> about. And slightly higher power than a typical POE injector will handle.
>>
>> On 6/30/2017 5:36 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> Well, I've always measured them from the DC side, so I could see them
>> going drawing that much from the wall.
>>
>> Kind of interesting, I was just checking some of ours... I have one site,
>> where there are two AF-5x plugged being powered from a MikroTik hEX PoE, so
>> they both have the exact same power source, similar cable lengths, etc. and
>> one is showing 8.1 watts and the other is 10.5 watts. The interesting
>> thing, is that the one that's drawing more power actually has less load
>> going through it, and judging from the MAC address, is also slightly newer.
>> I don't know how accurate those MikroTiks are at measuring current
>> (wouldn't surprise me if they're far from accurate), but I would expect
>> them to at least be kinda consistent.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I really thought I remembered seeing an AF5X about eighteen months ago,
>>> drawing 16-17W from the wall, but I could be wrong or the watt meter that
>>> it was plugged into was grossly inaccurate. This newer model of kill-a-watt
>>> seems to be better.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yeah, I think that's pretty consistent with what the AF-5X radios have
 always used. The AF5 (not X) and AF24 do use a lot more power.

 On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Stefan Englhardt 
 wrote:

> Yes. All my AF5X use ~10W. UBNT AC use 6W and older MT 11n use 3-4W.
> SAF is 30-35. PTP600 is 50.
>
>
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:44 +
>  Rory Conaway  wrote:
>
>> I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.
>>
>> Rory
>>
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
>> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?
>>
>> Provisioning a new AF5X link here on their AC PoE injectors before
>> they go out to the field. Something interesting I've noticed, and maybe 
>> I'm
>> not remembering right, but it seems that the newer AF5X use less power 
>> than
>> the older ones.
>>
>> This unit with its ubnt default PoE injector plugged into a
>> kill-a-watt is measuring 11 watts. There's no traffic going through it, 
>> but
>> as I recall an AF5X uses pretty much the same amount whether or not it's
>> under load, since the AF architecture is constantly sending/receiving
>> frames whether or not they have an ethernet data payload.
>>
>>
>>
> - GENIAS INTERNET -- www.genias.net --
> Genias Internet
> Stefan Englhardt Email: s...@genias.net
> Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
> Tel: +49 941 942798-0 <%2B49%20941%20942798-0>Fax: +49 941
> 942798-9 <%2B49%20941%20942798-9>
>


>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Adam Moffett]

http://store.packetflux.com/sitemonitor-5-channel-power-distribution-unit/



-- Original Message --
From: "Kurt Fankhauser" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 7/3/2017 9:09:44 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board 
revisions?



George,

What is a packetflux 5ch PDU? I can't find anything on their site 
except 4 and 8 port injectors.


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 9:22 PM, George Skorup 
 wrote:
I have some PacketFlux 5Ch PDUs. I've found the current measurements 
to be fairly accurate. One has an AF24 on it and measures 1020mA, so 
49 watts. Others with Exalt ExtendAir G2-11's measuring 490-520mA, so 
24-25 watts. And a pair of SAF Lumina 6GHz HP radios both about 825mA 
= 39.6 watts while the radios themselves say about 870mA and 40.4 
watts, so.. close enough. All of these are fed from the regulated 
output Traco BCMU360's in 48V mode. I love the 5Ch PDUs + 
GigE-POE-APCs for +48 backhauls. No fuses to worry about. And slightly 
higher power than a typical POE injector will handle.


On 6/30/2017 5:36 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Well, I've always measured them from the DC side, so I could see them 
going drawing that much from the wall.


Kind of interesting, I was just checking some of ours... I have one 
site, where there are two AF-5x plugged being powered from a MikroTik 
hEX PoE, so they both have the exact same power source, similar cable 
lengths, etc. and one is showing 8.1 watts and the other is 10.5 
watts. The interesting thing, is that the one that's drawing more 
power actually has less load going through it, and judging from the 
MAC address, is also slightly newer. I don't know how accurate those 
MikroTiks are at measuring current (wouldn't surprise me if they're 
far from accurate), but I would expect them to at least be kinda 
consistent.


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Eric Kuhnke  
wrote:
I really thought I remembered seeing an AF5X about eighteen months 
ago, drawing 16-17W from the wall, but I could be wrong or the watt 
meter that it was plugged into was grossly inaccurate. This newer 
model of kill-a-watt seems to be better.




On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Mathew Howard 
 wrote:
Yeah, I think that's pretty consistent with what the AF-5X radios 
have always used. The AF5 (not X) and AF24 do use a lot more power.


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Stefan Englhardt  
wrote:
Yes. All my AF5X use ~10W. UBNT AC use 6W and older MT 11n use 
3-4W. SAF is 30-35. PTP600 is 50.



On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:44 +
 Rory Conaway  wrote:
I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the 
time.


Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board 
revisions?


Provisioning a new AF5X link here on their AC PoE injectors 
before they go out to the field. Something interesting I've 
noticed, and maybe I'm not remembering right, but it seems that 
the newer AF5X use less power than the older ones.


This unit with its ubnt default PoE injector plugged into a 
kill-a-watt is measuring 11 watts. There's no traffic going 
through it, but as I recall an AF5X uses pretty much the same 
amount whether or not it's under load, since the AF architecture 
is constantly sending/receiving frames whether or not they have 
an ethernet data payload.





- GENIAS INTERNET -- www.genias.net --
Genias Internet
Stefan Englhardt Email: s...@genias.net
Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
Tel: +49 941 942798-0 Fax: +49 941 
942798-9 

Re: [AFMUG] Slack boxes

[Paul McCall]

No, these will literally be buried at the 3 ft. level next to a building (no 
traffic).  And, covered in a 1ft. of dirt so nobody will know its there (except 
the landowner)

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 10:25 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Slack boxes

Do they have to be traffic grade? If not, I like the Carson 2200 round, you can 
also get an extension if necessary. I'm not sure about burying the entire 
thing, but they would work for the building boxes.

On Monday, July 3, 2017, Paul McCall 
> wrote:
We are doing an underground conduit system for several buildings and have 
several places we want to place slack.  I was told by Corning to go for a 
24”x24” box at since we have in a few cases, several different fiber cables we 
are slacking to get at least 12” high.  I was thinking a 24x24x12 PVC box would 
be inexpensive, but n..  

Some of these cases will be buried underground, most likely never to be opened. 
 Others are in the overhang of the building and will house the multiport, and 
the slack to each unit within a building.  It can be as much as 8 cables slack 
(though not much length each) in each “building box”.  We bought preterminated 
cables for each unit in the building and the slack will end up there, so not 
much.  We are 100% in conduit for the entire project as I don’t want varmints 
getting in.

Anyway, there has to be an cost-effective box for this

Paul McCall, President
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800
pa...@pdmnet.net
www.pdmnet.com
www.floridabroadband.com

Re: [AFMUG] Slack boxes

[Jason McKemie]

Do they have to be traffic grade? If not, I like the Carson 2200 round, you
can also get an extension if necessary. I'm not sure about burying the
entire thing, but they would work for the building boxes.

On Monday, July 3, 2017, Paul McCall  wrote:

> We are doing an underground conduit system for several buildings and have
> several places we want to place slack.  I was told by Corning to go for a
> 24”x24” box at since we have in a few cases, several different fiber cables
> we are slacking to get at least 12” high.  I was thinking a 24x24x12 PVC
> box would be inexpensive, but n..  
>
>
>
> Some of these cases will be buried underground, most likely never to be
> opened.  Others are in the overhang of the building and will house the
> multiport, and the slack to each unit within a building.  It can be as much
> as 8 cables slack (though not much length each) in each “building box”.  We
> bought preterminated cables for each unit in the building and the slack
> will end up there, so not much.  We are 100% in conduit for the entire
> project as I don’t want varmints getting in.
>
>
>
> Anyway, there has to be an cost-effective box for this
>
>
>
> Paul McCall, President
>
> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
>
> 658 Old Dixie Highway
>
> Vero Beach, FL 32962
>
> 772-564-6800
>
> pa...@pdmnet.net 
>
> www.pdmnet.com
>
> www.floridabroadband.com
>
>
>
>
>

[AFMUG] Slack boxes

[Paul McCall]

We are doing an underground conduit system for several buildings and have 
several places we want to place slack.  I was told by Corning to go for a 
24”x24” box at since we have in a few cases, several different fiber cables we 
are slacking to get at least 12” high.  I was thinking a 24x24x12 PVC box would 
be inexpensive, but n..  

Some of these cases will be buried underground, most likely never to be opened. 
 Others are in the overhang of the building and will house the multiport, and 
the slack to each unit within a building.  It can be as much as 8 cables slack 
(though not much length each) in each “building box”.  We bought preterminated 
cables for each unit in the building and the slack will end up there, so not 
much.  We are 100% in conduit for the entire project as I don’t want varmints 
getting in.

Anyway, there has to be an cost-effective box for this

Paul McCall, President
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800
pa...@pdmnet.net
www.pdmnet.com
www.floridabroadband.com

Re: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?

[Kurt Fankhauser]

George,

What is a packetflux 5ch PDU? I can't find anything on their site except 4
and 8 port injectors.

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 9:22 PM, George Skorup 
wrote:

> I have some PacketFlux 5Ch PDUs. I've found the current measurements to be
> fairly accurate. One has an AF24 on it and measures 1020mA, so 49 watts.
> Others with Exalt ExtendAir G2-11's measuring 490-520mA, so 24-25 watts.
> And a pair of SAF Lumina 6GHz HP radios both about 825mA = 39.6 watts while
> the radios themselves say about 870mA and 40.4 watts, so.. close enough.
> All of these are fed from the regulated output Traco BCMU360's in 48V mode.
> I love the 5Ch PDUs + GigE-POE-APCs for +48 backhauls. No fuses to worry
> about. And slightly higher power than a typical POE injector will handle.
>
> On 6/30/2017 5:36 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> Well, I've always measured them from the DC side, so I could see them
> going drawing that much from the wall.
>
> Kind of interesting, I was just checking some of ours... I have one site,
> where there are two AF-5x plugged being powered from a MikroTik hEX PoE, so
> they both have the exact same power source, similar cable lengths, etc. and
> one is showing 8.1 watts and the other is 10.5 watts. The interesting
> thing, is that the one that's drawing more power actually has less load
> going through it, and judging from the MAC address, is also slightly newer.
> I don't know how accurate those MikroTiks are at measuring current
> (wouldn't surprise me if they're far from accurate), but I would expect
> them to at least be kinda consistent.
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
> wrote:
>
>> I really thought I remembered seeing an AF5X about eighteen months ago,
>> drawing 16-17W from the wall, but I could be wrong or the watt meter that
>> it was plugged into was grossly inaccurate. This newer model of kill-a-watt
>> seems to be better.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I think that's pretty consistent with what the AF-5X radios have
>>> always used. The AF5 (not X) and AF24 do use a lot more power.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Stefan Englhardt 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yes. All my AF5X use ~10W. UBNT AC use 6W and older MT 11n use 3-4W.
 SAF is 30-35. PTP600 is 50.


 On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:04:44 +
  Rory Conaway  wrote:

> I think you are thinking of the AF24 which cranks 50W all the time.
>
> Rory
>
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:43 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] New AF5X using less power than older board revisions?
>
> Provisioning a new AF5X link here on their AC PoE injectors before
> they go out to the field. Something interesting I've noticed, and maybe 
> I'm
> not remembering right, but it seems that the newer AF5X use less power 
> than
> the older ones.
>
> This unit with its ubnt default PoE injector plugged into a
> kill-a-watt is measuring 11 watts. There's no traffic going through it, 
> but
> as I recall an AF5X uses pretty much the same amount whether or not it's
> under load, since the AF architecture is constantly sending/receiving
> frames whether or not they have an ethernet data payload.
>
>
>
 - GENIAS INTERNET -- www.genias.net --
 Genias Internet
 Stefan Englhardt Email: s...@genias.net
 Dr. Gesslerstr. 20   D-93051 Regensburg
 Tel: +49 941 942798-0 <%2B49%20941%20942798-0>Fax: +49 941 942798-9
 <%2B49%20941%20942798-9>

>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik VPLS MAC Address

[Adam Moffett]

Interestingand you can't override a bridge's MAC address.

I know a bridge starts out with the MAC of the first port you add to it. 
 If you remove that port it will choose the MAC of another member, but I 
have no clue how it makes the selection.


What you could do to ensure a unique MAC on the bridge is create an EoIP 
interface and add that interface to the bridge before adding the VPLS 
interfaces.  The EoIP interface is just a useless stub, but it has an 
algorithmically generated MAC address and you can override it.





-- Original Message --
From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 7/2/2017 4:21:38 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik VPLS MAC Address


Follow up, I found out that is correct with VPLS.

However, I had two bridges on a router each containing a separate VPLS 
endpoint/interface in them that had the same MAC address.
The MikroTik bridge assumes the MAC address of one of the member ports, 
not sure how it figures out which port MAC address to use.


In one case it had select the VPLS tunnel MAC in both bridges for the 
two spate VPLS endpoints, that happened to have the same MAC.

So I ended up with two bridges on the router with the same MAC address.

This caused a bridge loop, or at least a notification of a bridge loop 
my having the same MAC address show up in cycle.


Very interesting.

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2017 1:46 AM
To: 'af@afmug.com' 
Subject: [AFMUG] Mikrotik VPLS MAC Address

I noticed on Mikrotik you can assign/change a MAC address to a VPLS 
interface.


Is that MAC address supposed to be always unique?

Several of mine on any given device are using the same MAC address.