Re: [AFMUG] new GigE-APC issues

[Chuck McCown]

Thanks, all info like this is very helpful.  GigE is more akin to RF 
engineering than digital.  

From: Adair Winter 
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 8:19 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] new GigE-APC issues

If we can feed you any data to help troubleshoot, please let me know what that 
would be. in several places we've had to remove the modules. It only seems like 
it's airfiber 24's and 5x's we ever have problems with. I mostly chock it up 
them and possibly crummy ethernet ports. When we have trouble it doesn't seem 
to matter what cable we use or how long the run is it. We have lots on UBNT 
Carrier cable and recently many on Primus CAT6, doesn't seem to make a lot of 
difference. Removing the modules always fixes the CRC errors though.

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 9:10 PM,  wrote:

  It tests perfect on the lab  but as we all know

  Full speed, no CRC or any other type of errors.  Long cables, short cables 
etc etc.

  I generally only hear from cambium users.  And not that much, so it is not 
happening on all of them, but some.

  I do have 3 components coming that  have better specs that I am switching to.
  It will improve NEXT and return loss.
  If that is the cause then that will be the fix.

  There is also a thing in the POE inserters called the "Bob Smith" or BS 
termination.
  There really was a guy named Bob Smith that did the original calculation.

  There is another guy that has more recently published a different 
mathematical treatment of the BS termination that uses a different impedance.  
I am going to try this and see if it improves things as well.

  -Original Message- From: George Skorup
  Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 4:10 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] new GigE-APC issues

  I had very few issues with the previous ones. The RJ45 tab facing at the
  PCB was a minor inconvenience. Sync over power + gigabit didn't play
  nice with those, but GigE otherwise worked fine.

  I tested a couple prototypes of the new revision for Chuck. Sync over
  power + gigabit with a PowerInjector+Sync and a 450 AP worked fine. Then
  we replaced that AP with a 450i because of the 450's PPS limit. I didn't
  notice it at the time, but the 450i never came up at gigabit. We didn't
  really need >80Mbps downlink anyway. It would usually run about 55-60 at
  night which was where the 450 was crapping out. Well, more like 50 and
  9-10k PPS.

  Now I've got some ePMP GPS radios for PTP (not for sync, just the GigE
  interface). Same symptoms as the UBNT prism thingamajig. The link comes
  up at gig, but flaps and constant FCS errors. The 450i just goes, gig,
  gig, gig, nope.. 100mbps at bootup.

  Pulling the SS out makes it work, but I can't do that. We lost that 450i
  AP because someone went and bypassed the SS because they were apparently
  concerned about the CRC errors and didn't f'ing tell me about it, even
  after I said I'd debug it on Monday. Welp, a storm rolled in the Friday
  before and.. there went the AP. Good job! In Steve Jones' words, I have
  only one comment: fuckwits.

  I'd say just stay tuned. Chuck is working on it. As he put it, GigE is a
  different animal. NEXT, FEXT and all that fun stuff.

  On 7/29/2017 4:20 PM, Matt wrote:

Seeing same issues on Gigabit ethernet ports with Cambium PxP450i and
also SAF licensed gear.  Shorter cable runs help but just not possible
on some towers.  Bypassing the GigE-APC always fixes it.


On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 12:40 PM, George Skorup
 wrote:

  I think I've seen this mentioned a few times now. Maybe Steve and a couple
  others?

  The latest revision (D?) is causing CRC/FCS errors and random link drops.
  Taking the SS out makes all problems go away.

  Definitely more issues at gigabit. I have multiple sites with some UBNT 
and
  ePMP stuff (no sync over power). Some I've turned off gigabit negotiation
  and get only a few FCS errors here and there. Running gigabit sees lots 
more
  errors and adds a 2-3 second link loss randomly which is a big issue on a
  PTP link.

  Got a couple sites with 450i APs. One that I was working with the other 
day
  is a new radio (because the old one blew up). New cable, new GigE-APC, new
  PacketFlux PowerInjector. The link tries to negotiate gigabit, but falls
  back to 100 after a few tries. Turned off sync over power just to see and
  still no gigabit. Remove the SS and it works fine.

  Floating the shield makes no difference. Running the site on battery also
  makes no difference. Some FM sites, some water towers, some elevators, 
some
  regular towers with only our stuff on it.

  The stuff I was working with yesterday is a new UBNT Prism PTP radio, new
  GigE-APC, new CCR1009. This site also has an Exalt G2-11 fed by an older
  GigE-POE-APC and I get no errors on that. It used to be plugged into a
  MikroTik CRS210 and 

Re: [AFMUG] OT Movies

[Chuck McCown]

I want to see it again.  My wife told me she saw her name when they guy was 
looking at the data from the watch.  I didn’t notice it.  

From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 9:16 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Movies


A bit difficult to follow

In actually felt a little sorry for her at timesno girl should get beat up 
like that.

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Jaime Solorza" 
To: "Animal Farm" 
Subject: [AFMUG] OT Movies
Date: Sat, Jul 29, 2017 9:50 PM

Well she is hot


Jaime Solorza

On Jul 29, 2017 8:17 PM,  wrote:

  Atomic Blonde
  +1

Re: [AFMUG] OT Movies

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

A bit difficult to follow

In actually felt a little sorry for her at timesno girl should get beat up 
like that.

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Jaime Solorza" 
To: "Animal Farm" 
Subject: [AFMUG] OT Movies
Date: Sat, Jul 29, 2017 9:50 PM

Well she is hot

Jaime Solorza

On Jul 29, 2017 8:17 PM,   wrote:



Atomic Blonde

+1

Re: [AFMUG] OT Movies

[Jaime Solorza]

Well she is hot

Jaime Solorza

On Jul 29, 2017 8:17 PM,  wrote:

> Atomic Blonde
> +1
>

Re: [AFMUG] new GigE-APC issues

[Adair Winter]

If we can feed you any data to help troubleshoot, please let me know what
that would be. in several places we've had to remove the modules. It only
seems like it's airfiber 24's and 5x's we ever have problems with. I mostly
chock it up them and possibly crummy ethernet ports. When we have trouble
it doesn't seem to matter what cable we use or how long the run is it. We
have lots on UBNT Carrier cable and recently many on Primus CAT6, doesn't
seem to make a lot of difference. Removing the modules always fixes the CRC
errors though.

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 9:10 PM,  wrote:

> It tests perfect on the lab  but as we all know
>
> Full speed, no CRC or any other type of errors.  Long cables, short cables
> etc etc.
>
> I generally only hear from cambium users.  And not that much, so it is not
> happening on all of them, but some.
>
> I do have 3 components coming that  have better specs that I am switching
> to.
> It will improve NEXT and return loss.
> If that is the cause then that will be the fix.
>
> There is also a thing in the POE inserters called the "Bob Smith" or BS
> termination.
> There really was a guy named Bob Smith that did the original calculation.
>
> There is another guy that has more recently published a different
> mathematical treatment of the BS termination that uses a different
> impedance.  I am going to try this and see if it improves things as well.
>
> -Original Message- From: George Skorup
> Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 4:10 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] new GigE-APC issues
>
> I had very few issues with the previous ones. The RJ45 tab facing at the
> PCB was a minor inconvenience. Sync over power + gigabit didn't play
> nice with those, but GigE otherwise worked fine.
>
> I tested a couple prototypes of the new revision for Chuck. Sync over
> power + gigabit with a PowerInjector+Sync and a 450 AP worked fine. Then
> we replaced that AP with a 450i because of the 450's PPS limit. I didn't
> notice it at the time, but the 450i never came up at gigabit. We didn't
> really need >80Mbps downlink anyway. It would usually run about 55-60 at
> night which was where the 450 was crapping out. Well, more like 50 and
> 9-10k PPS.
>
> Now I've got some ePMP GPS radios for PTP (not for sync, just the GigE
> interface). Same symptoms as the UBNT prism thingamajig. The link comes
> up at gig, but flaps and constant FCS errors. The 450i just goes, gig,
> gig, gig, nope.. 100mbps at bootup.
>
> Pulling the SS out makes it work, but I can't do that. We lost that 450i
> AP because someone went and bypassed the SS because they were apparently
> concerned about the CRC errors and didn't f'ing tell me about it, even
> after I said I'd debug it on Monday. Welp, a storm rolled in the Friday
> before and.. there went the AP. Good job! In Steve Jones' words, I have
> only one comment: fuckwits.
>
> I'd say just stay tuned. Chuck is working on it. As he put it, GigE is a
> different animal. NEXT, FEXT and all that fun stuff.
>
> On 7/29/2017 4:20 PM, Matt wrote:
>
>> Seeing same issues on Gigabit ethernet ports with Cambium PxP450i and
>> also SAF licensed gear.  Shorter cable runs help but just not possible
>> on some towers.  Bypassing the GigE-APC always fixes it.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 12:40 PM, George Skorup
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> I think I've seen this mentioned a few times now. Maybe Steve and a
>>> couple
>>> others?
>>>
>>> The latest revision (D?) is causing CRC/FCS errors and random link drops.
>>> Taking the SS out makes all problems go away.
>>>
>>> Definitely more issues at gigabit. I have multiple sites with some UBNT
>>> and
>>> ePMP stuff (no sync over power). Some I've turned off gigabit negotiation
>>> and get only a few FCS errors here and there. Running gigabit sees lots
>>> more
>>> errors and adds a 2-3 second link loss randomly which is a big issue on a
>>> PTP link.
>>>
>>> Got a couple sites with 450i APs. One that I was working with the other
>>> day
>>> is a new radio (because the old one blew up). New cable, new GigE-APC,
>>> new
>>> PacketFlux PowerInjector. The link tries to negotiate gigabit, but falls
>>> back to 100 after a few tries. Turned off sync over power just to see and
>>> still no gigabit. Remove the SS and it works fine.
>>>
>>> Floating the shield makes no difference. Running the site on battery also
>>> makes no difference. Some FM sites, some water towers, some elevators,
>>> some
>>> regular towers with only our stuff on it.
>>>
>>> The stuff I was working with yesterday is a new UBNT Prism PTP radio, new
>>> GigE-APC, new CCR1009. This site also has an Exalt G2-11 fed by an older
>>> GigE-POE-APC and I get no errors on that. It used to be plugged into a
>>> MikroTik CRS210 and I didn't see any errors on that either.
>>>
>>> I had far fewer issues with the older cards. Unfortunately I don't think
>>> I
>>> have any good ones left to do a comparison. I do have a couple that got
>>> 

[AFMUG] OT Movies

[chuck]

Atomic Blonde
+1

Re: [AFMUG] new GigE-APC issues

[chuck]

It tests perfect on the lab  but as we all know

Full speed, no CRC or any other type of errors.  Long cables, short cables 
etc etc.


I generally only hear from cambium users.  And not that much, so it is not 
happening on all of them, but some.


I do have 3 components coming that  have better specs that I am switching 
to.

It will improve NEXT and return loss.
If that is the cause then that will be the fix.

There is also a thing in the POE inserters called the "Bob Smith" or BS 
termination.

There really was a guy named Bob Smith that did the original calculation.

There is another guy that has more recently published a different 
mathematical treatment of the BS termination that uses a different 
impedance.  I am going to try this and see if it improves things as well.


-Original Message- 
From: George Skorup

Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 4:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] new GigE-APC issues

I had very few issues with the previous ones. The RJ45 tab facing at the
PCB was a minor inconvenience. Sync over power + gigabit didn't play
nice with those, but GigE otherwise worked fine.

I tested a couple prototypes of the new revision for Chuck. Sync over
power + gigabit with a PowerInjector+Sync and a 450 AP worked fine. Then
we replaced that AP with a 450i because of the 450's PPS limit. I didn't
notice it at the time, but the 450i never came up at gigabit. We didn't
really need >80Mbps downlink anyway. It would usually run about 55-60 at
night which was where the 450 was crapping out. Well, more like 50 and
9-10k PPS.

Now I've got some ePMP GPS radios for PTP (not for sync, just the GigE
interface). Same symptoms as the UBNT prism thingamajig. The link comes
up at gig, but flaps and constant FCS errors. The 450i just goes, gig,
gig, gig, nope.. 100mbps at bootup.

Pulling the SS out makes it work, but I can't do that. We lost that 450i
AP because someone went and bypassed the SS because they were apparently
concerned about the CRC errors and didn't f'ing tell me about it, even
after I said I'd debug it on Monday. Welp, a storm rolled in the Friday
before and.. there went the AP. Good job! In Steve Jones' words, I have
only one comment: fuckwits.

I'd say just stay tuned. Chuck is working on it. As he put it, GigE is a
different animal. NEXT, FEXT and all that fun stuff.

On 7/29/2017 4:20 PM, Matt wrote:

Seeing same issues on Gigabit ethernet ports with Cambium PxP450i and
also SAF licensed gear.  Shorter cable runs help but just not possible
on some towers.  Bypassing the GigE-APC always fixes it.


On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 12:40 PM, George Skorup
 wrote:
I think I've seen this mentioned a few times now. Maybe Steve and a 
couple

others?

The latest revision (D?) is causing CRC/FCS errors and random link drops.
Taking the SS out makes all problems go away.

Definitely more issues at gigabit. I have multiple sites with some UBNT 
and

ePMP stuff (no sync over power). Some I've turned off gigabit negotiation
and get only a few FCS errors here and there. Running gigabit sees lots 
more

errors and adds a 2-3 second link loss randomly which is a big issue on a
PTP link.

Got a couple sites with 450i APs. One that I was working with the other 
day
is a new radio (because the old one blew up). New cable, new GigE-APC, 
new

PacketFlux PowerInjector. The link tries to negotiate gigabit, but falls
back to 100 after a few tries. Turned off sync over power just to see and
still no gigabit. Remove the SS and it works fine.

Floating the shield makes no difference. Running the site on battery also
makes no difference. Some FM sites, some water towers, some elevators, 
some

regular towers with only our stuff on it.

The stuff I was working with yesterday is a new UBNT Prism PTP radio, new
GigE-APC, new CCR1009. This site also has an Exalt G2-11 fed by an older
GigE-POE-APC and I get no errors on that. It used to be plugged into a
MikroTik CRS210 and I didn't see any errors on that either.

I had far fewer issues with the older cards. Unfortunately I don't think 
I
have any good ones left to do a comparison. I do have a couple that got 
some
water in the jack, maybe I can clean those up for testing. I've used 
maybe

10 of the new ones now and they all seem to be causing issues. And before
you ask, yes, I've tried dumb gigabit switches at a few sites temporarily
and still see the random link loss with the SS in line.

Re: [AFMUG] EPMP sync question

[Jay Weekley]

Yeah, I didn't think about that.

Steve Jones wrote:
One thing to remember about that att router, thats not likely the 
channel it will stay on. If they power cycle it it will do that auto 
and pick a new channel.


On Jul 28, 2017 9:16 PM, "Josh Luthman" > wrote:


Oh no that's definitely the case...


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Jay Weekley
> wrote:

No. There is a nearby ATT router that is being picked up by
one of our APS and causing interference.  At least that's my
theory.



Josh Luthman wrote:

Are you saying one of the three sectors is actually a
wireless router?


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Jay Weekley
> wrote:

It's actually for an existing sector.  There is a nearby
wireless router that is out of our control that is on the
same channel as the AP in question.

George Skorup wrote:

Run a frame calculator. 20 vs 10 vs 5MHz with the
same settings do not line up. In the ePMP world, I
think the only thing you can do is mess with the max
range a bit since all you get is 30/70, 50/50 and
75/25 TDD ratios. And obviously you need to be on the
same frame duration. If you're running the 20MHz
sectors at 2.5ms for timing with PMP100, then another
sector on 5MHz/5ms isn't gonna play nice.

I really pisses me off that I can't do 2.5ms framing
on 5 and 10MHz.

On 7/28/2017 1:17 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

I don't think channel size changes the rules of
sync - you need a 5 MHz guard band, time them,
face different directions.

If the three APs are each on 120* you should have
no problem, though I don't believe any of the
sectors have good enough ftb to frequency refuse
(assuming the 5 MHz is the same space as 20 MHz).

If the three APs are using different frequency
space with a 5 MHz guard band you're fine.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Jay Weekley

>> wrote:

Are there any sync problems associated with
running APs with
different channel widths with EPMP?  For
example, if I have a
tower with 3 access points and 2 are set for
20 MHz wide channels
and one is set for a 5 MHZ wide channel will
that cause problems?





>
  Virus-free. www.avg.com 

>


<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>






Virus-free. www.avg.com





<#m_5968073062938460201_m_7188115016625119220_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Re: [AFMUG] Magnets on a warm summer day

[Jaime Solorza]

Very cool video... definitely a need for this product

Jaime Solorza

On Jul 29, 2017 3:37 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

>
> Magnetic Tower Mount
> Some more destructive testing.
> Magnetic mount for water towers and other structures.  Check out my
> latest video:
> *Havin' Fun With Magnets *
>
>
>
> Come see all the fun stuff at *McCown Technology Corporation*
> 
> 
> *Copyright © 2017 McCown Technology Corporation, All rights reserved.*
> Thanks for attending the show. (Or being on the af@afmug.com list.) See
> us at WispAmerica. Check out www.surge-protection.org and www.afmug.com
>
> *Our mailing address is:*
> McCown Technology Corporation
> 8400 North HWY 36
> Lake Point, UT 84074
>
> Add us to your address book
> 
>
>
> Want to change how you receive these emails?
> You can update your preferences
> 
> or unsubscribe from this list
> .
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] new GigE-APC issues

[George Skorup]

I had very few issues with the previous ones. The RJ45 tab facing at the 
PCB was a minor inconvenience. Sync over power + gigabit didn't play 
nice with those, but GigE otherwise worked fine.


I tested a couple prototypes of the new revision for Chuck. Sync over 
power + gigabit with a PowerInjector+Sync and a 450 AP worked fine. Then 
we replaced that AP with a 450i because of the 450's PPS limit. I didn't 
notice it at the time, but the 450i never came up at gigabit. We didn't 
really need >80Mbps downlink anyway. It would usually run about 55-60 at 
night which was where the 450 was crapping out. Well, more like 50 and 
9-10k PPS.


Now I've got some ePMP GPS radios for PTP (not for sync, just the GigE 
interface). Same symptoms as the UBNT prism thingamajig. The link comes 
up at gig, but flaps and constant FCS errors. The 450i just goes, gig, 
gig, gig, nope.. 100mbps at bootup.


Pulling the SS out makes it work, but I can't do that. We lost that 450i 
AP because someone went and bypassed the SS because they were apparently 
concerned about the CRC errors and didn't f'ing tell me about it, even 
after I said I'd debug it on Monday. Welp, a storm rolled in the Friday 
before and.. there went the AP. Good job! In Steve Jones' words, I have 
only one comment: fuckwits.


I'd say just stay tuned. Chuck is working on it. As he put it, GigE is a 
different animal. NEXT, FEXT and all that fun stuff.


On 7/29/2017 4:20 PM, Matt wrote:

Seeing same issues on Gigabit ethernet ports with Cambium PxP450i and
also SAF licensed gear.  Shorter cable runs help but just not possible
on some towers.  Bypassing the GigE-APC always fixes it.


On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 12:40 PM, George Skorup
 wrote:

I think I've seen this mentioned a few times now. Maybe Steve and a couple
others?

The latest revision (D?) is causing CRC/FCS errors and random link drops.
Taking the SS out makes all problems go away.

Definitely more issues at gigabit. I have multiple sites with some UBNT and
ePMP stuff (no sync over power). Some I've turned off gigabit negotiation
and get only a few FCS errors here and there. Running gigabit sees lots more
errors and adds a 2-3 second link loss randomly which is a big issue on a
PTP link.

Got a couple sites with 450i APs. One that I was working with the other day
is a new radio (because the old one blew up). New cable, new GigE-APC, new
PacketFlux PowerInjector. The link tries to negotiate gigabit, but falls
back to 100 after a few tries. Turned off sync over power just to see and
still no gigabit. Remove the SS and it works fine.

Floating the shield makes no difference. Running the site on battery also
makes no difference. Some FM sites, some water towers, some elevators, some
regular towers with only our stuff on it.

The stuff I was working with yesterday is a new UBNT Prism PTP radio, new
GigE-APC, new CCR1009. This site also has an Exalt G2-11 fed by an older
GigE-POE-APC and I get no errors on that. It used to be plugged into a
MikroTik CRS210 and I didn't see any errors on that either.

I had far fewer issues with the older cards. Unfortunately I don't think I
have any good ones left to do a comparison. I do have a couple that got some
water in the jack, maybe I can clean those up for testing. I've used maybe
10 of the new ones now and they all seem to be causing issues. And before
you ask, yes, I've tried dumb gigabit switches at a few sites temporarily
and still see the random link loss with the SS in line.

[AFMUG] Magnets on a warm summer day

[Chuck McCown]

Magnets on a warm summer day
Magnetic Tower Mount 

   
  Some more destructive testing.   
   
 
   
  Magnetic mount for water towers and other 
structures.  
  Check out my latest video: 
  Havin' Fun With Magnets


  Come see all the fun stuff at McCown Technology 
Corporation
 
   
 
   
 
   
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
   
  Copyright © 2017 McCown Technology Corporation, 
All rights reserved. 
  Thanks for attending the show. (Or being on the 
af@afmug.com list.) See us at WispAmerica. Check out www.surge-protection.org 
and www.afmug.com 

  Our mailing address is: 

  McCown Technology Corporation 
  8400 North HWY 36
  Lake Point, UT 84074

  Add us to your address book


  Want to change how you receive these emails?
  You can update your preferences or unsubscribe 
from this list. 

 
   
 
   
 

Re: [AFMUG] new GigE-APC issues

[Matt]

Seeing same issues on Gigabit ethernet ports with Cambium PxP450i and
also SAF licensed gear.  Shorter cable runs help but just not possible
on some towers.  Bypassing the GigE-APC always fixes it.


On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 12:40 PM, George Skorup
 wrote:
> I think I've seen this mentioned a few times now. Maybe Steve and a couple
> others?
>
> The latest revision (D?) is causing CRC/FCS errors and random link drops.
> Taking the SS out makes all problems go away.
>
> Definitely more issues at gigabit. I have multiple sites with some UBNT and
> ePMP stuff (no sync over power). Some I've turned off gigabit negotiation
> and get only a few FCS errors here and there. Running gigabit sees lots more
> errors and adds a 2-3 second link loss randomly which is a big issue on a
> PTP link.
>
> Got a couple sites with 450i APs. One that I was working with the other day
> is a new radio (because the old one blew up). New cable, new GigE-APC, new
> PacketFlux PowerInjector. The link tries to negotiate gigabit, but falls
> back to 100 after a few tries. Turned off sync over power just to see and
> still no gigabit. Remove the SS and it works fine.
>
> Floating the shield makes no difference. Running the site on battery also
> makes no difference. Some FM sites, some water towers, some elevators, some
> regular towers with only our stuff on it.
>
> The stuff I was working with yesterday is a new UBNT Prism PTP radio, new
> GigE-APC, new CCR1009. This site also has an Exalt G2-11 fed by an older
> GigE-POE-APC and I get no errors on that. It used to be plugged into a
> MikroTik CRS210 and I didn't see any errors on that either.
>
> I had far fewer issues with the older cards. Unfortunately I don't think I
> have any good ones left to do a comparison. I do have a couple that got some
> water in the jack, maybe I can clean those up for testing. I've used maybe
> 10 of the new ones now and they all seem to be causing issues. And before
> you ask, yes, I've tried dumb gigabit switches at a few sites temporarily
> and still see the random link loss with the SS in line.
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] new GigE-APC issues

[Adair Winter]

We've had a lot of issues with almost all the revs of modules mostly with
airfiber. I can't quite pin down who's to blame. But on many sites if we
have airfiber x we just remove the modules if we have problems.

On Jul 29, 2017 12:40 PM, "George Skorup"  wrote:

> I think I've seen this mentioned a few times now. Maybe Steve and a couple
> others?
>
> The latest revision (D?) is causing CRC/FCS errors and random link drops.
> Taking the SS out makes all problems go away.
>
> Definitely more issues at gigabit. I have multiple sites with some UBNT
> and ePMP stuff (no sync over power). Some I've turned off gigabit
> negotiation and get only a few FCS errors here and there. Running gigabit
> sees lots more errors and adds a 2-3 second link loss randomly which is a
> big issue on a PTP link.
>
> Got a couple sites with 450i APs. One that I was working with the other
> day is a new radio (because the old one blew up). New cable, new GigE-APC,
> new PacketFlux PowerInjector. The link tries to negotiate gigabit, but
> falls back to 100 after a few tries. Turned off sync over power just to see
> and still no gigabit. Remove the SS and it works fine.
>
> Floating the shield makes no difference. Running the site on battery also
> makes no difference. Some FM sites, some water towers, some elevators, some
> regular towers with only our stuff on it.
>
> The stuff I was working with yesterday is a new UBNT Prism PTP radio, new
> GigE-APC, new CCR1009. This site also has an Exalt G2-11 fed by an older
> GigE-POE-APC and I get no errors on that. It used to be plugged into a
> MikroTik CRS210 and I didn't see any errors on that either.
>
> I had far fewer issues with the older cards. Unfortunately I don't think I
> have any good ones left to do a comparison. I do have a couple that got
> some water in the jack, maybe I can clean those up for testing. I've used
> maybe 10 of the new ones now and they all seem to be causing issues. And
> before you ask, yes, I've tried dumb gigabit switches at a few sites
> temporarily and still see the random link loss with the SS in line.
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

[Bill Prince]

From the "Secret of Success" 
http://iranarze.ir/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/6293-English-IranArze.pdf


Second paragraph, page 8.

Fuller context is that "If you don't eat your children, someone else will."


bp


On 7/29/2017 10:59 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote:

Sounds very Greek / Roman

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Bill Prince > wrote:


The saying is "Eat your children."

bp


On 7/29/2017 10:37 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com  wrote:

Yeah, but sometimes you don’t like some of your children.
*From:* Matt Mangriotis
*Sent:* Saturday, July 29, 2017 10:22 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

We love ALL of our children!

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino A.
Villarini
*Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2017 2:04 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

Ouch! Lol

*From: *Af  on behalf of Josh Luthman

*Reply-To: *"af@afmug.com" 
*Date: *Friday, July 28, 2017 at 2:22 PM
*To: *"af@afmug.com" 
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

EPMP team showing the PMP450 guys how it's done *flex*


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

/*Gino A. Villarini*/

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists
 wrote:

First one will look a lot like the Force 180.  List is $299. 
Full band, full speed.


Second one will look like the Force 200 (scheduled for
October).  List is $349 IIRC.

Jeff Broadwick

ConVergence Technologies, Inc.

312-205-2519  Office

574-220-7826  Cell

jbroadw...@converge-tech.com


On Jul 28, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Gino A. Villarini
 wrote:

What is the 450b?

On 7/28/17, 12:55 PM, "Af on behalf of Matt Mangriotis"

wrote:

>Joe - I just answered your forum post... but might as
well repeat and add
>to it here too.
>
>You guys are right in that the combination of the two
factors are what
>matters to the modulation that the radio will achieve. 
You have to be

>above a certain absolute power level (RSL), but ALSO
have enough distance
>(SNR) above the noise to decipher the bits.  That is,
even if you're
>receiving the intended signal at -55, but have noise at
-70, the 15 dB
>separation (i.e. SNR) isn't enough to allow for 256QAM
modulation.
>
>Regarding sensitivity levels, the easiest place for me
to find these is
>in the Link Capacity Planner Tool:
>https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/capacityplanner/


>
>You can input the radios you're using and it'll spit
those out.
>
>During final product testing, we've determined that the
450b is
>equivalent to the 450i SM in these specifications, so
until that tool
>gets updated with official numbers (which may vary
slightly), I would use
>that.
>
>Hope this helps,
>Matt
>
>

/*Gino A. Villarini*/

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

-Original Message-
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Joe
Falaschi
>Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 11:49 AM
>To: af@afmug.com
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications
>
>Sure it would.  We have some links reporting a SNR above
32db, enough to
>get 8x but are weaker than -56 signals.  So both matter.
>
>Joe
>
>
>
>> On Jul 28, 2017, at 11:44 

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

[Josh Reynolds]

Sounds very Greek / Roman

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

> The saying is "Eat your children."
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 7/29/2017 10:37 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
>
> Yeah, but sometimes you don’t like some of your children.
>
> *From:* Matt Mangriotis
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 29, 2017 10:22 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications
>
>
> We love ALL of our children!
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini
> *Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2017 2:04 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications
>
>
>
> Ouch! Lol
>
>
>
> *From: *Af  on behalf of Josh Luthman <
> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>
> *Reply-To: *"af@afmug.com" 
> *Date: *Friday, July 28, 2017 at 2:22 PM
> *To: *"af@afmug.com" 
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications
>
>
>
> EPMP team showing the PMP450 guys how it's done *flex*
>
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
>
>
> *Gino A. Villarini*
>
> President
>
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
> wrote:
>
> First one will look a lot like the Force 180.  List is $299.  Full band,
> full speed.
>
>
>
> Second one will look like the Force 200 (scheduled for October).  List is
> $349 IIRC.
>
> Jeff Broadwick
>
> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
>
> 312-205-2519 <%28312%29%20205-2519> Office
>
> 574-220-7826 <%28574%29%20220-7826> Cell
>
> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Gino A. Villarini  wrote:
>
> What is the 450b?
>
> On 7/28/17, 12:55 PM, "Af on behalf of Matt Mangriotis"
> 
> wrote:
>
> >Joe - I just answered your forum post... but might as well repeat and add
> >to it here too.
> >
> >You guys are right in that the combination of the two factors are what
> >matters to the modulation that the radio will achieve.  You have to be
> >above a certain absolute power level (RSL), but ALSO have enough distance
> >(SNR) above the noise to decipher the bits.  That is, even if you're
> >receiving the intended signal at -55, but have noise at -70, the 15 dB
> >separation (i.e. SNR) isn't enough to allow for 256QAM modulation.
> >
> >Regarding sensitivity levels, the easiest place for me to find these is
> >in the Link Capacity Planner Tool:
> >https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/capacityplanner/
> 
> >
> >You can input the radios you're using and it'll spit those out.
> >
> >During final product testing, we've determined that the 450b is
> >equivalent to the 450i SM in these specifications, so until that tool
> >gets updated with official numbers (which may vary slightly), I would use
> >that.
> >
> >Hope this helps,
> >Matt
> >
> >
>
>
>
> *Gino A. Villarini*
>
> President
>
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>
> -Original Message-
> >From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Joe Falaschi
> >Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 11:49 AM
> >To: af@afmug.com
> >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications
> >
> >Sure it would.  We have some links reporting a SNR above 32db, enough to
> >get 8x but are weaker than -56 signals.  So both matter.
> >
> >Joe
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Jul 28, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Chris Wright  wrote:
> >>
> >> Wouldn't SNR play a bigger role than general signal level? What good is
> >>-67.8dBm if the noise floor is -75dBm?
> >>
> >> Chris Wright
> >> Network Administrator
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Joe Falaschi
> >> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 9:28 AM
> >> To: af@afmug.com
> >> Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications
> >>
> >> We¹re looking at some questions of why certain links are at certain
> >>modulations (uplink is better than downlink).  It¹s explained by the
> >>spec sheet of the current equipment and RX sensitivity.  Basically the
> >>450M AP can do more with less signal than the CPE can.  Specs below.  In
> >>any case we were then wondering what the new 450b RX sensitivity would
> >>be.  There is a spec sheet on the Cambium website but this isn¹t listed.
> >> Anyone have this information?
> >>
> >> 450M AP RX sensitivity
> >> 1x = - 93.5 dBm
> >> 2x = -88.6 dBm
> >> 4x = -81.5 dBm
> >> 6x = -75.9.0 dBm
> >> 8x = -67.8 dBm
> >>
> >> 450SM 

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

[Bill Prince]

The saying is "Eat your children."

bp


On 7/29/2017 10:37 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

Yeah, but sometimes you don’t like some of your children.
*From:* Matt Mangriotis
*Sent:* Saturday, July 29, 2017 10:22 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

We love ALL of our children!

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini
*Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2017 2:04 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

Ouch! Lol

*From: *Af  on behalf of Josh Luthman 


*Reply-To: *"af@afmug.com" 
*Date: *Friday, July 28, 2017 at 2:22 PM
*To: *"af@afmug.com" 
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

EPMP team showing the PMP450 guys how it's done *flex*


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

/*Gino A. Villarini*/

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
 wrote:


First one will look a lot like the Force 180.  List is $299.  Full
band, full speed.

Second one will look like the Force 200 (scheduled for October). 
List is $349 IIRC.


Jeff Broadwick

ConVergence Technologies, Inc.

312-205-2519  Office

574-220-7826  Cell

jbroadw...@converge-tech.com


On Jul 28, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Gino A. Villarini 
wrote:

What is the 450b?

On 7/28/17, 12:55 PM, "Af on behalf of Matt Mangriotis"

wrote:

>Joe - I just answered your forum post... but might as well
repeat and add
>to it here too.
>
>You guys are right in that the combination of the two factors
are what
>matters to the modulation that the radio will achieve. You
have to be
>above a certain absolute power level (RSL), but ALSO have
enough distance
>(SNR) above the noise to decipher the bits.  That is, even if
you're
>receiving the intended signal at -55, but have noise at -70,
the 15 dB
>separation (i.e. SNR) isn't enough to allow for 256QAM
modulation.
>
>Regarding sensitivity levels, the easiest place for me to
find these is
>in the Link Capacity Planner Tool:
>https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/capacityplanner/


>
>You can input the radios you're using and it'll spit those out.
>
>During final product testing, we've determined that the 450b is
>equivalent to the 450i SM in these specifications, so until
that tool
>gets updated with official numbers (which may vary slightly),
I would use
>that.
>
>Hope this helps,
>Matt
>
>

/*Gino A. Villarini*/

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

-Original Message-
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Joe Falaschi
>Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 11:49 AM
>To: af@afmug.com
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications
>
>Sure it would.  We have some links reporting a SNR above
32db, enough to
>get 8x but are weaker than -56 signals.  So both matter.
>
>Joe
>
>
>
>> On Jul 28, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Chris Wright
 wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't SNR play a bigger role than general signal level?
What good is
>>-67.8dBm if the noise floor is -75dBm?
>>
>> Chris Wright
>> Network Administrator
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Joe
Falaschi
>> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 9:28 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications
>>
>> We¹re looking at some questions of why certain links are at
certain
>>modulations (uplink is better than downlink).  It¹s
explained by the
>>spec sheet of the current equipment and RX sensitivity. 
Basically the

>>450M AP can do more with less signal than the CPE can. Specs
below.  In
>>any case we were then wondering what the new 450b 

Re: [AFMUG] new GigE-APC issues

[chuck]

I have some changes planned in the very near future that could affect this 
situation.


-Original Message- 
From: ch...@wbmfg.com

Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 11:50 AM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] new GigE-APC issues

Hard to guess.  Try taking some long  nose pliers and break that tiny
surface mount chip capacitor off the board and see if that changes the
nature of the problem.

-Original Message- 
From: George Skorup

Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 11:40 AM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: [AFMUG] new GigE-APC issues

I think I've seen this mentioned a few times now. Maybe Steve and a
couple others?

The latest revision (D?) is causing CRC/FCS errors and random link
drops. Taking the SS out makes all problems go away.

Definitely more issues at gigabit. I have multiple sites with some UBNT
and ePMP stuff (no sync over power). Some I've turned off gigabit
negotiation and get only a few FCS errors here and there. Running
gigabit sees lots more errors and adds a 2-3 second link loss randomly
which is a big issue on a PTP link.

Got a couple sites with 450i APs. One that I was working with the other
day is a new radio (because the old one blew up). New cable, new
GigE-APC, new PacketFlux PowerInjector. The link tries to negotiate
gigabit, but falls back to 100 after a few tries. Turned off sync over
power just to see and still no gigabit. Remove the SS and it works fine.

Floating the shield makes no difference. Running the site on battery
also makes no difference. Some FM sites, some water towers, some
elevators, some regular towers with only our stuff on it.

The stuff I was working with yesterday is a new UBNT Prism PTP radio,
new GigE-APC, new CCR1009. This site also has an Exalt G2-11 fed by an
older GigE-POE-APC and I get no errors on that. It used to be plugged
into a MikroTik CRS210 and I didn't see any errors on that either.

I had far fewer issues with the older cards. Unfortunately I don't think
I have any good ones left to do a comparison. I do have a couple that
got some water in the jack, maybe I can clean those up for testing. I've
used maybe 10 of the new ones now and they all seem to be causing
issues. And before you ask, yes, I've tried dumb gigabit switches at a
few sites temporarily and still see the random link loss with the SS in
line.

Re: [AFMUG] new GigE-APC issues

[chuck]

Hard to guess.  Try taking some long  nose pliers and break that tiny 
surface mount chip capacitor off the board and see if that changes the 
nature of the problem.


-Original Message- 
From: George Skorup

Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 11:40 AM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: [AFMUG] new GigE-APC issues

I think I've seen this mentioned a few times now. Maybe Steve and a
couple others?

The latest revision (D?) is causing CRC/FCS errors and random link
drops. Taking the SS out makes all problems go away.

Definitely more issues at gigabit. I have multiple sites with some UBNT
and ePMP stuff (no sync over power). Some I've turned off gigabit
negotiation and get only a few FCS errors here and there. Running
gigabit sees lots more errors and adds a 2-3 second link loss randomly
which is a big issue on a PTP link.

Got a couple sites with 450i APs. One that I was working with the other
day is a new radio (because the old one blew up). New cable, new
GigE-APC, new PacketFlux PowerInjector. The link tries to negotiate
gigabit, but falls back to 100 after a few tries. Turned off sync over
power just to see and still no gigabit. Remove the SS and it works fine.

Floating the shield makes no difference. Running the site on battery
also makes no difference. Some FM sites, some water towers, some
elevators, some regular towers with only our stuff on it.

The stuff I was working with yesterday is a new UBNT Prism PTP radio,
new GigE-APC, new CCR1009. This site also has an Exalt G2-11 fed by an
older GigE-POE-APC and I get no errors on that. It used to be plugged
into a MikroTik CRS210 and I didn't see any errors on that either.

I had far fewer issues with the older cards. Unfortunately I don't think
I have any good ones left to do a comparison. I do have a couple that
got some water in the jack, maybe I can clean those up for testing. I've
used maybe 10 of the new ones now and they all seem to be causing
issues. And before you ask, yes, I've tried dumb gigabit switches at a
few sites temporarily and still see the random link loss with the SS in
line.

[AFMUG] new GigE-APC issues

[George Skorup]

I think I've seen this mentioned a few times now. Maybe Steve and a 
couple others?


The latest revision (D?) is causing CRC/FCS errors and random link 
drops. Taking the SS out makes all problems go away.


Definitely more issues at gigabit. I have multiple sites with some UBNT 
and ePMP stuff (no sync over power). Some I've turned off gigabit 
negotiation and get only a few FCS errors here and there. Running 
gigabit sees lots more errors and adds a 2-3 second link loss randomly 
which is a big issue on a PTP link.


Got a couple sites with 450i APs. One that I was working with the other 
day is a new radio (because the old one blew up). New cable, new 
GigE-APC, new PacketFlux PowerInjector. The link tries to negotiate 
gigabit, but falls back to 100 after a few tries. Turned off sync over 
power just to see and still no gigabit. Remove the SS and it works fine.


Floating the shield makes no difference. Running the site on battery 
also makes no difference. Some FM sites, some water towers, some 
elevators, some regular towers with only our stuff on it.


The stuff I was working with yesterday is a new UBNT Prism PTP radio, 
new GigE-APC, new CCR1009. This site also has an Exalt G2-11 fed by an 
older GigE-POE-APC and I get no errors on that. It used to be plugged 
into a MikroTik CRS210 and I didn't see any errors on that either.


I had far fewer issues with the older cards. Unfortunately I don't think 
I have any good ones left to do a comparison. I do have a couple that 
got some water in the jack, maybe I can clean those up for testing. I've 
used maybe 10 of the new ones now and they all seem to be causing 
issues. And before you ask, yes, I've tried dumb gigabit switches at a 
few sites temporarily and still see the random link loss with the SS in 
line.

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

[chuck]

Yeah, but sometimes you don’t like some of your children.  

From: Matt Mangriotis 
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 10:22 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

We love ALL of our children!

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 2:04 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

 

Ouch! Lol 

 

From: Af  on behalf of Josh Luthman 

Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
Date: Friday, July 28, 2017 at 2:22 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

 

EPMP team showing the PMP450 guys how it's done *flex*




 

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

 

   

  Gino A. Villarini
 
  President
 
  Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
 



On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists  
wrote:

  First one will look a lot like the Force 180.  List is $299.  Full band, full 
speed.

   

  Second one will look like the Force 200 (scheduled for October).  List is 
$349 IIRC.

  Jeff Broadwick 

  ConVergence Technologies, Inc.

  312-205-2519 Office

  574-220-7826 Cell

  jbroadw...@converge-tech.com


  On Jul 28, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Gino A. Villarini  wrote:

What is the 450b?

On 7/28/17, 12:55 PM, "Af on behalf of Matt Mangriotis"

wrote:

>Joe - I just answered your forum post... but might as well repeat and add
>to it here too.
>
>You guys are right in that the combination of the two factors are what
>matters to the modulation that the radio will achieve.  You have to be
>above a certain absolute power level (RSL), but ALSO have enough distance
>(SNR) above the noise to decipher the bits.  That is, even if you're
>receiving the intended signal at -55, but have noise at -70, the 15 dB
>separation (i.e. SNR) isn't enough to allow for 256QAM modulation.
>
>Regarding sensitivity levels, the easiest place for me to find these is
>in the Link Capacity Planner Tool:
>https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/capacityplanner/
>
>You can input the radios you're using and it'll spit those out.
>
>During final product testing, we've determined that the 450b is
>equivalent to the 450i SM in these specifications, so until that tool
>gets updated with official numbers (which may vary slightly), I would use
>that.
>
>Hope this helps,
>Matt
>
> 

   

  Gino A. Villarini
 
  President
 
  Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
 



-Original Message-
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Joe Falaschi
>Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 11:49 AM
>To: af@afmug.com
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications
>
>Sure it would.  We have some links reporting a SNR above 32db, enough to
>get 8x but are weaker than -56 signals.  So both matter.
>
>Joe
>
>
>
>> On Jul 28, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Chris Wright  wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't SNR play a bigger role than general signal level? What good is
>>-67.8dBm if the noise floor is -75dBm?
>>
>> Chris Wright
>> Network Administrator
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Joe Falaschi
>> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 9:28 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications
>>
>> We¹re looking at some questions of why certain links are at certain
>>modulations (uplink is better than downlink).  It¹s explained by the
>>spec sheet of the current equipment and RX sensitivity.  Basically the
>>450M AP can do more with less signal than the CPE can.  Specs below.  In
>>any case we were then wondering what the new 450b RX sensitivity would
>>be.  There is a spec sheet on the Cambium website but this isn¹t listed.
>> Anyone have this information?
>>
>> 450M AP RX sensitivity
>> 1x = - 93.5 dBm
>> 2x = -88.6 dBm
>> 4x = -81.5 dBm
>> 6x = -75.9.0 dBm
>> 8x = -67.8 dBm
>>
>> 450SM RX sensitivity
>> 1x = -84 dBm
>> 2x = -80.5 dBm
>> 4x = -74 dBm
>> 6x = -66.9 dBm
>> 8x = -56 dBm
>>
>> 450i SM RX sensitivity
>> 1x = -85.9 dBm
>> 2x = -81.5 dBm
>> 4x = -75.8 dBm
>> 6x = -69.3 dBm
>> 8x = -61.6 dBm
>>
>> Joe Falaschi
>> e-vergent
>>
>

 

Re: [AFMUG] EPMP sync question

[Steve Jones]

One thing to remember about that att router, thats not likely the channel
it will stay on. If they power cycle it it will do that auto and pick a new
channel.

On Jul 28, 2017 9:16 PM, "Josh Luthman"  wrote:

Oh no that's definitely the case...


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Jay Weekley 
wrote:

> No. There is a nearby ATT router that is being picked up by one of our APS
> and causing interference.  At least that's my theory.
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> Are you saying one of the three sectors is actually a wireless router?
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Jay Weekley 
> wrote:
>
>> It's actually for an existing sector.  There is a nearby wireless router
>> that is out of our control that is on the same channel as the AP in
>> question.
>>
>> George Skorup wrote:
>>
>>> Run a frame calculator. 20 vs 10 vs 5MHz with the same settings do not
>>> line up. In the ePMP world, I think the only thing you can do is mess with
>>> the max range a bit since all you get is 30/70, 50/50 and 75/25 TDD ratios.
>>> And obviously you need to be on the same frame duration. If you're running
>>> the 20MHz sectors at 2.5ms for timing with PMP100, then another sector on
>>> 5MHz/5ms isn't gonna play nice.
>>>
>>> I really pisses me off that I can't do 2.5ms framing on 5 and 10MHz.
>>>
>>> On 7/28/2017 1:17 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>
 I don't think channel size changes the rules of sync - you need a 5 MHz
 guard band, time them, face different directions.

 If the three APs are each on 120* you should have no problem, though I
 don't believe any of the sectors have good enough ftb to frequency refuse
 (assuming the 5 MHz is the same space as 20 MHz).

 If the three APs are using different frequency space with a 5 MHz guard
 band you're fine.


 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373

 On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Jay Weekley <
 par...@cyberbroadband.net > wrote:

 Are there any sync problems associated with running APs with
 different channel widths with EPMP?  For example, if I have a
 tower with 3 access points and 2 are set for 20 MHz wide channels
 and one is set for a 5 MHZ wide channel will that cause problems?



>>>
>>> >> rce=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>Virus-free.
>>> www.avg.com >> rce=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>>>
>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> 
> <#m_5968073062938460201_m_7188115016625119220_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

[David Milholen]

Boom! Drop the mic



On 7/29/2017 11:22 AM, Matt Mangriotis wrote:


We love ALL of our children!

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini
*Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2017 2:04 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

Ouch! Lol

*From: *Af > on 
behalf of Josh Luthman >
*Reply-To: *"af@afmug.com " >

*Date: *Friday, July 28, 2017 at 2:22 PM
*To: *"af@afmug.com " >

*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

EPMP team showing the PMP450 guys how it's done *flex*


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

/*Gino A. Villarini*/

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
> wrote:


First one will look a lot like the Force 180.  List is $299.  Full
band, full speed.

Second one will look like the Force 200 (scheduled for October). 
List is $349 IIRC.


Jeff Broadwick

ConVergence Technologies, Inc.

312-205-2519  Office

574-220-7826  Cell

jbroadw...@converge-tech.com 


On Jul 28, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Gino A. Villarini > wrote:

What is the 450b?

On 7/28/17, 12:55 PM, "Af on behalf of Matt Mangriotis"
 on behalf
of matt.mangrio...@cambiumnetworks.com
>
wrote:

>Joe - I just answered your forum post... but might as well
repeat and add
>to it here too.
>
>You guys are right in that the combination of the two factors
are what
>matters to the modulation that the radio will achieve.  You
have to be
>above a certain absolute power level (RSL), but ALSO have
enough distance
>(SNR) above the noise to decipher the bits.  That is, even if
you're
>receiving the intended signal at -55, but have noise at -70,
the 15 dB
>separation (i.e. SNR) isn't enough to allow for 256QAM
modulation.
>
>Regarding sensitivity levels, the easiest place for me to
find these is
>in the Link Capacity Planner Tool:
>https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/capacityplanner/


>
>You can input the radios you're using and it'll spit those out.
>
>During final product testing, we've determined that the 450b is
>equivalent to the 450i SM in these specifications, so until
that tool
>gets updated with official numbers (which may vary slightly),
I would use
>that.
>
>Hope this helps,
>Matt
>
>

/*Gino A. Villarini*/

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

-Original Message-
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Joe Falaschi
>Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 11:49 AM
>To: af@afmug.com 
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications
>
>Sure it would.  We have some links reporting a SNR above
32db, enough to
>get 8x but are weaker than -56 signals.  So both matter.
>
>Joe
>
>
>
>> On Jul 28, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Chris Wright
> wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't SNR play a bigger role than general signal level?
What good is
>>-67.8dBm if the noise floor is -75dBm?
>>
>> Chris Wright
>> Network Administrator
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Joe
Falaschi
>> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 9:28 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com 
>> Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications
>>
>> We�re looking at some questions of why certain links are at
certain
>>modulations (uplink is better than downlink).  It�s
explained by the
>>spec sheet of the current equipment and RX sensitivity.
   

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

[Mike Hammett]

I don't think the PMP team really ever understood form factors. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Gino A. Villarini"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 2:04:25 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications 


Ouch! Lol 


From: Af < af-boun...@afmug.com > on behalf of Josh Luthman < 
j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > 
Reply-To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com > 
Date: Friday, July 28, 2017 at 2:22 PM 
To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com > 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications 





EPMP team showing the PMP450 guys how it's done *flex* 






Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 





Gino A. Villarini 
President 
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists < jeffl...@att.net > 
wrote: 




First one will look a lot like the Force 180. List is $299. Full band, full 
speed. 


Second one will look like the Force 200 (scheduled for October). List is $349 
IIRC. 

Jeff Broadwick 
ConVergence Technologies , Inc. 
312-205-2519 Office 
574-220-7826 Cell 
jbroadw...@converge-tech.com 



On Jul 28, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Gino A. Villarini < g...@aeronetpr.com > wrote: 







What is the 450b? 

On 7/28/17, 12:55 PM, "Af on behalf of Matt Mangriotis" 
< af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of matt.mangrio...@cambiumnetworks.com > 
wrote: 

>Joe - I just answered your forum post... but might as well repeat and add 
>to it here too. 
> 
>You guys are right in that the combination of the two factors are what 
>matters to the modulation that the radio will achieve. You have to be 
>above a certain absolute power level (RSL), but ALSO have enough distance 
>(SNR) above the noise to decipher the bits. That is, even if you're 
>receiving the intended signal at -55, but have noise at -70, the 15 dB 
>separation (i.e. SNR) isn't enough to allow for 256QAM modulation. 
> 
>Regarding sensitivity levels, the easiest place for me to find these is 
>in the Link Capacity Planner Tool: 
> https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/capacityplanner/ 
> 
>You can input the radios you're using and it'll spit those out. 
> 
>During final product testing, we've determined that the 450b is 
>equivalent to the 450i SM in these specifications, so until that tool 
>gets updated with official numbers (which may vary slightly), I would use 
>that. 
> 
>Hope this helps, 
>Matt 
> 
> 



Gino A. Villarini 
President 
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 



-Original Message- 
>From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Joe Falaschi 
>Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 11:49 AM 
>To: af@afmug.com 
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications 
> 
>Sure it would. We have some links reporting a SNR above 32db, enough to 
>get 8x but are weaker than -56 signals. So both matter. 
> 
>Joe 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 28, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Chris Wright < ch...@velociter.net > wrote: 
>> 
>> Wouldn't SNR play a bigger role than general signal level? What good is 
>>-67.8dBm if the noise floor is -75dBm? 
>> 
>> Chris Wright 
>> Network Administrator 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message- 
>> From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Joe Falaschi 
>> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 9:28 AM 
>> To: af@afmug.com 
>> Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications 
>> 
>> We¹re looking at some questions of why certain links are at certain 
>>modulations (uplink is better than downlink). It¹s explained by the 
>>spec sheet of the current equipment and RX sensitivity. Basically the 
>>450M AP can do more with less signal than the CPE can. Specs below. In 
>>any case we were then wondering what the new 450b RX sensitivity would 
>>be. There is a spec sheet on the Cambium website but this isn¹t listed. 
>> Anyone have this information? 
>> 
>> 450M AP RX sensitivity 
>> 1x = - 93.5 dBm 
>> 2x = -88.6 dBm 
>> 4x = -81.5 dBm 
>> 6x = -75.9.0 dBm 
>> 8x = -67.8 dBm 
>> 
>> 450SM RX sensitivity 
>> 1x = -84 dBm 
>> 2x = -80.5 dBm 
>> 4x = -74 dBm 
>> 6x = -66.9 dBm 
>> 8x = -56 dBm 
>> 
>> 450i SM RX sensitivity 
>> 1x = -85.9 dBm 
>> 2x = -81.5 dBm 
>> 4x = -75.8 dBm 
>> 6x = -69.3 dBm 
>> 8x = -61.6 dBm 
>> 
>> Joe Falaschi 
>> e-vergent 
>> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

[Matt Mangriotis]

We love ALL of our children!

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 2:04 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

Ouch! Lol

From: Af > on behalf of Josh 
Luthman >
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>
Date: Friday, July 28, 2017 at 2:22 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications

EPMP team showing the PMP450 guys how it's done *flex*


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373




Gino A. Villarini

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968


[cid:image001.png@01D3085C.F22104E0]
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
> wrote:
First one will look a lot like the Force 180.  List is $299.  Full band, full 
speed.

Second one will look like the Force 200 (scheduled for October).  List is $349 
IIRC.

Jeff Broadwick
ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
312-205-2519 Office
574-220-7826 Cell
jbroadw...@converge-tech.com

On Jul 28, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Gino A. Villarini 
> wrote:
What is the 450b?

On 7/28/17, 12:55 PM, "Af on behalf of Matt Mangriotis"
 on behalf of 
matt.mangrio...@cambiumnetworks.com>
wrote:

>Joe - I just answered your forum post... but might as well repeat and add
>to it here too.
>
>You guys are right in that the combination of the two factors are what
>matters to the modulation that the radio will achieve.  You have to be
>above a certain absolute power level (RSL), but ALSO have enough distance
>(SNR) above the noise to decipher the bits.  That is, even if you're
>receiving the intended signal at -55, but have noise at -70, the 15 dB
>separation (i.e. SNR) isn't enough to allow for 256QAM modulation.
>
>Regarding sensitivity levels, the easiest place for me to find these is
>in the Link Capacity Planner Tool:
>https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/capacityplanner/
>
>You can input the radios you're using and it'll spit those out.
>
>During final product testing, we've determined that the 450b is
>equivalent to the 450i SM in these specifications, so until that tool
>gets updated with official numbers (which may vary slightly), I would use
>that.
>
>Hope this helps,
>Matt
>
>



Gino A. Villarini

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968


[cid:image001.png@01D3085C.F22104E0]
-Original Message-
>From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Joe Falaschi
>Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 11:49 AM
>To: af@afmug.com
>Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications
>
>Sure it would.  We have some links reporting a SNR above 32db, enough to
>get 8x but are weaker than -56 signals.  So both matter.
>
>Joe
>
>
>
>> On Jul 28, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Chris Wright 
>> > wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't SNR play a bigger role than general signal level? What good is
>>-67.8dBm if the noise floor is -75dBm?
>>
>> Chris Wright
>> Network Administrator
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Joe Falaschi
>> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 9:28 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium 450b specifications
>>
>> We¹re looking at some questions of why certain links are at certain
>>modulations (uplink is better than downlink).  It¹s explained by the
>>spec sheet of the current equipment and RX sensitivity.  Basically the
>>450M AP can do more with less signal than the CPE can.  Specs below.  In
>>any case we were then wondering what the new 450b RX sensitivity would
>>be.  There is a spec sheet on the Cambium website but this isn¹t listed.
>> Anyone have this information?
>>
>> 450M AP RX sensitivity
>> 1x = - 93.5 dBm
>> 2x = -88.6 dBm
>> 4x = -81.5 dBm
>> 6x = -75.9.0 dBm
>> 8x = -67.8 dBm
>>
>> 450SM RX sensitivity
>> 1x = -84 dBm
>> 2x = -80.5 dBm
>> 4x = -74 dBm
>> 6x = -66.9 dBm
>> 8x = -56 dBm
>>
>> 450i SM RX sensitivity
>> 1x = -85.9 dBm
>> 2x = -81.5 dBm
>> 4x = -75.8 dBm
>> 6x = -69.3 dBm
>> 8x = -61.6 dBm
>>
>> Joe Falaschi
>> e-vergent
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Is there such a thing as a AC Capacitor?

[Josh Reynolds]

We used these with as many batteries as we needed, figured out a good
charge rate with temp controlled charging (monitors battery temp), and
walked away.

No 24v or 48v or -48v or 12v or 56v to worry about. Drop the batteries in
and inverter and walk away. If you need a gen start they have those too.

Good for very high power if you wanted your plant to have like a 150A
charge rate :P

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> So what's the advantage of something like this vs an Eltek system. The
> price is up there.
>
> On Friday, July 28, 2017, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
>
>> Damnit, wrong link on the monitor... here's the ethernet one:
>> http://www.magnum-dimensions.com/magweb-monitoring-kit-ethernet
>>
>> They also have a wireless one
>>
>> Sorry for threadspam.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Josh Reynolds 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Almost forgot... for bigger sites
>>> http://www.magnum-dimensions.com/renewable-energy-products/i
>>> nterconnection-system-equipment
>>>
>>>
>>> ​
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Josh Reynolds 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3
 Daps=magnum+inverter

 http://www.magnum-dimensions.com/mobile-power-products/inver
 ter-chargers?field_output_waveform_value_selective%5B%5D=1
 ield_output_power_watts_value%5Bmin%5D=200_output_powe
 r_watts_value%5Bmax%5D=15000_output_frequency_value_
 selective%5B%5D=2_output_voltage_value_selective%5B%5D=1


 On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Jason McKemie <
 j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> Where do you source these?
>
> On Friday, July 28, 2017, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
>
>> We use Magnum Power pure sine wave on-line UPSs with AGM batts. Yeah
>> we lose in the conversion, but we also don't have to fumble around with a
>> couple of various DC voltages.
>>
>> Love them. Made in the US too.
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2017 4:20 AM, "Gino A. Villarini" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Our issues is exclusively with AF24’s and APC SU750’s.  On a
>>> Switching event the AF24 lock up about 50% of the time.  We have been
>>> changing the APC750 with the newer APC SUA750 and the problem vanishes…
>>>  believe me we have trie everything, grounding, changing UBNT POE, Surge
>>> Suppressors, you name it.
>>>
>>> 2 things have only worked:
>>>
>>> Newer APC models with any POE
>>> Powering the the AF24 with a dc-dc converter connected to the site
>>> batteries and into a McCown DC injector
>>>
>>> From: Af  on behalf of Colin Stanners <
>>> cstann...@gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>>> Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 9:53 PM
>>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Is there such a thing as a AC Capacitor?
>>>
>>> I forgot to mention:
>>> -if it's a non-sinewave UPS, it could be that the powersupply is
>>> designed to expect sinewave AC.
>>> -are you certain that it's not a grounding issue or other stray
>>> voltage between the circuits?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>> President
>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Colin Stanners >> > wrote:
>>>
 Gino, can you say which gear? Most UPSes switch pretty much
 "instantly" (less than one AC cycle, which lasts 16ms) so a PSU that
 wouldn't last one AC cycle must have very questionable engineering. Or
 assuming that you use APC UPSes, you can change the sensitivity 
 setting to
 switch quicker:  http://www.apc.com/us/en/faqs/FA156514/

 On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Gino A. Villarini <
 g...@aeronetpr.com> wrote:

> Got some  gear that hangs when UPS switches from AC power to
> Batts… needs something to power AC for microseconds
>
>
>
> *Gino A. Villarini*
> President
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>
>

>>>

>>>
>>