Re: [AFMUG] AF24 issues after switching to PowerInjector

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Is there a possibility of a surge event?   Is there a surge suppressor
inline?

It seems suspicious that the db difference is for the traditional power
pins...   which is why I asked about the jumpers.

You could try grounding the shield since ubnt seems to like that for some
reason.

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> Have you added the additional jumpers needed to power all 4 pairs?
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Kurt Fankhauser  > wrote:
>
>> I have had an AF24 up for over a year now with no issues while running
>> the factory supplied POE. I switched the AF24's all at the site over to a
>> single PacketFlux PowerInjector and just in 2 weeks time the AF24 has
>> locked up once and needed hard power cycled and this latest problem it
>> seems to have issues on the SNR on the Ethernet pairs. (see attached
>> photo). Now I rebooted it from the GUI and it came back perfect without
>> showing Ethernet problems but just wondering what is going on here. I have
>> 2 other AF24's running from the same PowerInjector and they are not having
>> any issues. Only other thing that I am thinking might need done is
>> grounding the lug on the PowerInjector labeled "shield" as right now there
>> is no way for the outer jacket of Ethernet cable to ground itself. Don't
>> know if that could be causing this or not.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Suggestion.. Look at the Users guide from ubnt.com website for the AF11X. 

AF11x can work on a number of configurations.. 
Channels width of 5mhz to 56(80mhz)mhz 
SISO horizontal or vertical only channels 
MIMO both polarities (horizontal + Vertical), this configuration needs the 
additional diplexer. 
( any combination of above ! ). 

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 

> From: "Chuck McCown" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 6:12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

> Yeah, not too worried about the dupler/diplexer cost. If licensing is the 
> same,
> why not.
> From: Jon Langeler
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:11 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x
> I like using both polarities to maximize Rx sensitivity. Coordination is the
> same cost. Duplexers are also not that much more.

> Jon Langeler
> Michwave Technologies, Inc.

> On Aug 15, 2017, at 5:59 PM, Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote:

>> Max channel bandwidth is 56mhz, but you should easily be able to get 250Mbps 
>> out
>> of a 40mhz channel... I'm not sure there's much point in going in narrower 
>> than
>> that. Actually, doing SISO at a 56mhz channel might make more sense, that
>> should get around 275mbps at 256qam (and a bit more if the link will do
>> 1024qam, obviously), but then you'd only need a one polarity, so it may save 
>> a
>> bit on coordination, and you wouldn't need to buy the extra duplexers.
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown < ch...@wbmfg.com > wrote:

>>> What is a common channel BW? 40 MHz? I suppose it depends on congestion. I 
>>> only
>>> need about 250 Mbps so lower order modulation may be desirable and perhaps
>>> narrower channels too.
>>> From: Jeremy
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:54 AM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x
>>> Of course, the exact configuration is based on your license and which
>>> frequencies it is supposed to operate on. The above configuration is just an
>>> example.
>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Jeremy < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote:

 They are like that, but 3x bigger. On top, the lid comes off and the 
 duplexers
 go beneath the cover. If your link is 'High' then you will want 'High'
 duplexers for both sides of the link (x4 total - two extra to purchase) - 
 they
 will go in a configuration like 1-3-3-1 on one side and 3-1-1-3 on the 
 other
 side.
 On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > 
 wrote:

> They come with 1 duplexer (setup for SISO) - you need to buy the second 
> one
> separately to do MIMO. You do need to figure out what frequencies you're 
> going
> to be using before you buy the radios, since there are two different 
> duplexers,
> depending on which half of the band you're in.
> You need one frequency pair on both polarities (for MIMO).
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Chuck McCown < ch...@wbmfg.com > wrote:

>> Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for 
>> duplexers?
>> Not quite sure how to buy or license. I guess you have to have two pairs 
>> of
>> frequencies? Or at the very least, both polarizations on the same 
>> frequency?
>> Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going 
>> to cost.

Re: [AFMUG] AF24 issues after switching to PowerInjector

[chuck]

FTTFTTFFTF
(The answers to a biology quiz in High School)

From: Josh Reynolds 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:50 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF24 issues after switching to PowerInjector

Up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, t568a, t568b, t568a, t568b, 
select, start!

On Aug 15, 2017 5:46 PM, "Kurt Fankhauser"  wrote:

  Yes that was the first thing I did, the jumpers all alternate like 
up/down/up/down/up or its reverse of that, I forget

  On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) 
 wrote:

Have you added the additional jumpers needed to power all 4 pairs?


On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Kurt Fankhauser  
wrote:

  I have had an AF24 up for over a year now with no issues while running 
the factory supplied POE. I switched the AF24's all at the site over to a 
single PacketFlux PowerInjector and just in 2 weeks time the AF24 has locked up 
once and needed hard power cycled and this latest problem it seems to have 
issues on the SNR on the Ethernet pairs. (see attached photo). Now I rebooted 
it from the GUI and it came back perfect without showing Ethernet problems but 
just wondering what is going on here. I have 2 other AF24's running from the 
same PowerInjector and they are not having any issues. Only other thing that I 
am thinking might need done is grounding the lug on the PowerInjector labeled 
"shield" as right now there is no way for the outer jacket of Ethernet cable to 
ground itself. Don't know if that could be causing this or not.



-- 

  Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.

  Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
  forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com

 

Re: [AFMUG] AF24 issues after switching to PowerInjector

[Josh Reynolds]

Up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, t568a, t568b, t568a, t568b,
select, start!

On Aug 15, 2017 5:46 PM, "Kurt Fankhauser"  wrote:

Yes that was the first thing I did, the jumpers all alternate like
up/down/up/down/up or its reverse of that, I forget

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> Have you added the additional jumpers needed to power all 4 pairs?
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Kurt Fankhauser  > wrote:
>
>> I have had an AF24 up for over a year now with no issues while running
>> the factory supplied POE. I switched the AF24's all at the site over to a
>> single PacketFlux PowerInjector and just in 2 weeks time the AF24 has
>> locked up once and needed hard power cycled and this latest problem it
>> seems to have issues on the SNR on the Ethernet pairs. (see attached
>> photo). Now I rebooted it from the GUI and it came back perfect without
>> showing Ethernet problems but just wondering what is going on here. I have
>> 2 other AF24's running from the same PowerInjector and they are not having
>> any issues. Only other thing that I am thinking might need done is
>> grounding the lug on the PowerInjector labeled "shield" as right now there
>> is no way for the outer jacket of Ethernet cable to ground itself. Don't
>> know if that could be causing this or not.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF24 issues after switching to PowerInjector

[Kurt Fankhauser]

Yes that was the first thing I did, the jumpers all alternate like
up/down/up/down/up or its reverse of that, I forget

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> Have you added the additional jumpers needed to power all 4 pairs?
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Kurt Fankhauser  > wrote:
>
>> I have had an AF24 up for over a year now with no issues while running
>> the factory supplied POE. I switched the AF24's all at the site over to a
>> single PacketFlux PowerInjector and just in 2 weeks time the AF24 has
>> locked up once and needed hard power cycled and this latest problem it
>> seems to have issues on the SNR on the Ethernet pairs. (see attached
>> photo). Now I rebooted it from the GUI and it came back perfect without
>> showing Ethernet problems but just wondering what is going on here. I have
>> 2 other AF24's running from the same PowerInjector and they are not having
>> any issues. Only other thing that I am thinking might need done is
>> grounding the lug on the PowerInjector labeled "shield" as right now there
>> is no way for the outer jacket of Ethernet cable to ground itself. Don't
>> know if that could be causing this or not.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF24 issues after switching to PowerInjector

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Have you added the additional jumpers needed to power all 4 pairs?

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Kurt Fankhauser 
wrote:

> I have had an AF24 up for over a year now with no issues while running the
> factory supplied POE. I switched the AF24's all at the site over to a
> single PacketFlux PowerInjector and just in 2 weeks time the AF24 has
> locked up once and needed hard power cycled and this latest problem it
> seems to have issues on the SNR on the Ethernet pairs. (see attached
> photo). Now I rebooted it from the GUI and it came back perfect without
> showing Ethernet problems but just wondering what is going on here. I have
> 2 other AF24's running from the same PowerInjector and they are not having
> any issues. Only other thing that I am thinking might need done is
> grounding the lug on the PowerInjector labeled "shield" as right now there
> is no way for the outer jacket of Ethernet cable to ground itself. Don't
> know if that could be causing this or not.
>



-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, true. I couldn't remember if adding the second polarity changed the
licensing cost or not... if it doesn't then, it's well worth it, unless the
channels aren't available.

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Yeah, not too worried about the dupler/diplexer cost.  If licensing is the
> same, why not.
>
> *From:* Jon Langeler
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:11 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x
>
> I like using both polarities to maximize Rx sensitivity. Coordination is
> the same cost. Duplexers are also not that much more.
>
> Jon Langeler
> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2017, at 5:59 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>
> Max channel bandwidth is 56mhz, but you should easily be able to get
> 250Mbps out of a 40mhz channel... I'm not sure there's much point in going
> in narrower than that. Actually, doing SISO at a 56mhz channel might make
> more sense, that should get around 275mbps at 256qam (and a bit more if the
> link will do 1024qam, obviously), but then you'd only need a one polarity,
> so it may save a bit on coordination, and you wouldn't need to buy the
> extra duplexers.
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> What is a common channel BW?  40 MHz?  I suppose it depends on
>> congestion.  I only need about 250 Mbps so lower order modulation may be
>> desirable and perhaps narrower channels too.
>>
>> *From:* Jeremy
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:54 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x
>>
>> Of course, the exact configuration is based on your license and which
>> frequencies it is supposed to operate on.  The above configuration is just
>> an example.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Jeremy  wrote:
>>
>>> They are like that, but 3x bigger.  On top, the lid comes off and the
>>> duplexers go beneath the cover.  If your link is 'High' then you will want
>>> 'High' duplexers for both sides of the link (x4 total - two extra to
>>> purchase) - they will go in a configuration like 1-3-3-1 on one side and
>>> 3-1-1-3 on the other side.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 They come with 1 duplexer (setup for SISO) - you need to buy the second
 one separately to do MIMO. You do need to figure out what frequencies
 you're going to be using before you buy the radios, since there are two
 different duplexers, depending on which half of the band you're in.
 You need one frequency pair on both polarities (for MIMO).

 On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for
> duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to 
> have
> two pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both polarizations on the
> same frequency?
>
> Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going
> to cost.
>


>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Chuck McCown]

Yeah, not too worried about the dupler/diplexer cost.  If licensing is the 
same, why not.  

From: Jon Langeler 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:11 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

I like using both polarities to maximize Rx sensitivity. Coordination is the 
same cost. Duplexers are also not that much more.


Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.


On Aug 15, 2017, at 5:59 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:


  Max channel bandwidth is 56mhz, but you should easily be able to get 250Mbps 
out of a 40mhz channel... I'm not sure there's much point in going in narrower 
than that. Actually, doing SISO at a 56mhz channel might make more sense, that 
should get around 275mbps at 256qam (and a bit more if the link will do 
1024qam, obviously), but then you'd only need a one polarity, so it may save a 
bit on coordination, and you wouldn't need to buy the extra duplexers.


  On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

What is a common channel BW?  40 MHz?  I suppose it depends on congestion.  
I only need about 250 Mbps so lower order modulation may be desirable and 
perhaps narrower channels too.  

From: Jeremy 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

Of course, the exact configuration is based on your license and which 
frequencies it is supposed to operate on.  The above configuration is just an 
example.

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Jeremy  wrote:

  They are like that, but 3x bigger.  On top, the lid comes off and the 
duplexers go beneath the cover.  If your link is 'High' then you will want 
'High' duplexers for both sides of the link (x4 total - two extra to purchase) 
- they will go in a configuration like 1-3-3-1 on one side and 3-1-1-3 on the 
other side.

  On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Mathew Howard  
wrote:

They come with 1 duplexer (setup for SISO) - you need to buy the second 
one separately to do MIMO. You do need to figure out what frequencies you're 
going to be using before you buy the radios, since there are two different 
duplexers, depending on which half of the band you're in.

You need one frequency pair on both polarities (for MIMO).


On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for 
duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to have two 
pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both polarizations on the same 
frequency?

  Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is 
going to cost.  

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Jon Langeler]

I like using both polarities to maximize Rx sensitivity. Coordination is the 
same cost. Duplexers are also not that much more.

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.


> On Aug 15, 2017, at 5:59 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
> 
> Max channel bandwidth is 56mhz, but you should easily be able to get 250Mbps 
> out of a 40mhz channel... I'm not sure there's much point in going in 
> narrower than that. Actually, doing SISO at a 56mhz channel might make more 
> sense, that should get around 275mbps at 256qam (and a bit more if the link 
> will do 1024qam, obviously), but then you'd only need a one polarity, so it 
> may save a bit on coordination, and you wouldn't need to buy the extra 
> duplexers.
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>> What is a common channel BW?  40 MHz?  I suppose it depends on congestion.  
>> I only need about 250 Mbps so lower order modulation may be desirable and 
>> perhaps narrower channels too. 
>>  
>> From: Jeremy
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:54 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x
>>  
>> Of course, the exact configuration is based on your license and which 
>> frequencies it is supposed to operate on.  The above configuration is just 
>> an example.
>>  
>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Jeremy  wrote:
>>> They are like that, but 3x bigger.  On top, the lid comes off and the 
>>> duplexers go beneath the cover.  If your link is 'High' then you will want 
>>> 'High' duplexers for both sides of the link (x4 total - two extra to 
>>> purchase) - they will go in a configuration like 1-3-3-1 on one side and 
>>> 3-1-1-3 on the other side.
>>>  
 On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Mathew Howard  
 wrote:
>>> 
 They come with 1 duplexer (setup for SISO) - you need to buy the second 
 one separately to do MIMO. You do need to figure out what frequencies 
 you're going to be using before you buy the radios, since there are two 
 different duplexers, depending on which half of the band you're in.
 You need one frequency pair on both polarities (for MIMO).
  
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for 
> duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to 
> have two pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both polarizations 
> on the same frequency?
>  
> Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going to 
> cost. 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Chuck McCown]

Be interesting to see what kind of channels will be available if I build this 
network.  Got something 11 paths.  

From: Mathew Howard 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 3:59 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

Max channel bandwidth is 56mhz, but you should easily be able to get 250Mbps 
out of a 40mhz channel... I'm not sure there's much point in going in narrower 
than that. Actually, doing SISO at a 56mhz channel might make more sense, that 
should get around 275mbps at 256qam (and a bit more if the link will do 
1024qam, obviously), but then you'd only need a one polarity, so it may save a 
bit on coordination, and you wouldn't need to buy the extra duplexers.


On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  What is a common channel BW?  40 MHz?  I suppose it depends on congestion.  I 
only need about 250 Mbps so lower order modulation may be desirable and perhaps 
narrower channels too.  

  From: Jeremy 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:54 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

  Of course, the exact configuration is based on your license and which 
frequencies it is supposed to operate on.  The above configuration is just an 
example.

  On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Jeremy  wrote:

They are like that, but 3x bigger.  On top, the lid comes off and the 
duplexers go beneath the cover.  If your link is 'High' then you will want 
'High' duplexers for both sides of the link (x4 total - two extra to purchase) 
- they will go in a configuration like 1-3-3-1 on one side and 3-1-1-3 on the 
other side.

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Mathew Howard  
wrote:

  They come with 1 duplexer (setup for SISO) - you need to buy the second 
one separately to do MIMO. You do need to figure out what frequencies you're 
going to be using before you buy the radios, since there are two different 
duplexers, depending on which half of the band you're in.

  You need one frequency pair on both polarities (for MIMO).


  On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for 
duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to have two 
pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both polarizations on the same 
frequency?

Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going 
to cost.  

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Mathew Howard]

Max channel bandwidth is 56mhz, but you should easily be able to get
250Mbps out of a 40mhz channel... I'm not sure there's much point in going
in narrower than that. Actually, doing SISO at a 56mhz channel might make
more sense, that should get around 275mbps at 256qam (and a bit more if the
link will do 1024qam, obviously), but then you'd only need a one polarity,
so it may save a bit on coordination, and you wouldn't need to buy the
extra duplexers.

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> What is a common channel BW?  40 MHz?  I suppose it depends on
> congestion.  I only need about 250 Mbps so lower order modulation may be
> desirable and perhaps narrower channels too.
>
> *From:* Jeremy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:54 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x
>
> Of course, the exact configuration is based on your license and which
> frequencies it is supposed to operate on.  The above configuration is just
> an example.
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Jeremy  wrote:
>
>> They are like that, but 3x bigger.  On top, the lid comes off and the
>> duplexers go beneath the cover.  If your link is 'High' then you will want
>> 'High' duplexers for both sides of the link (x4 total - two extra to
>> purchase) - they will go in a configuration like 1-3-3-1 on one side and
>> 3-1-1-3 on the other side.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> They come with 1 duplexer (setup for SISO) - you need to buy the second
>>> one separately to do MIMO. You do need to figure out what frequencies
>>> you're going to be using before you buy the radios, since there are two
>>> different duplexers, depending on which half of the band you're in.
>>> You need one frequency pair on both polarities (for MIMO).
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>>
 Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for
 duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to have
 two pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both polarizations on the
 same frequency?

 Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going
 to cost.

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

[Adam Moffett]

An old growth forest pixel in NY seems equal to a solid wooden wall.
I imagine a forest pixel in Utah is a different thing.


-- Original Message --
From: "Adam Moffett" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 8/15/2017 4:19:39 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

The lcv is just colored pixels.   You have to go to Options -> 
Elevation data -> Land cover to set a height and density.  There are 
default values, but they may or may not be sane.


Every time I make a map, I review the landcover heights and maybe 
adjust.  For example, if I'm looking at an area that's predominately 
old growth forest I might set forest heights to 30m and density to 
400%.  In other areas I might say 21m or 25m height and less density.




-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 8/15/2017 4:09:48 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

I also have never had a problem with elevations showing up, but 
landcover sure did not want to.
Do I have to set heights and densities if I downloaded the lcv files?  
I was hopeful that was automatic as I have no clue as to heights.


From:Adam Moffett
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 1:59 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

I routinely make maps wider than my display...never noticed anything 
like that.


Don't forget to set your heights and densities.


-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 8/15/2017 3:54:25 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

Interesting, if you have your map view wider in pixels than your 
display, the land cover data will not show.
I made my map smaller because the legend was not fully visible.  Once 
I hit 1850 pixels wide, then the thing lit up with all kinds of 
colors.


From:Chuck McCown
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 1:34 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

OK, finally found a place to get landcover data.
http://rmd.neoknet.com/Landcover/

All the other links seem to not work.

I got the files I needed manually extracted into the proper folder.
It would download them but not save them.  Perhaps because they were 
zip files not the native file.


In any event, nothing looks different.  If I do a path profile it 
shows some little trees, which don’t look as tall or as thick as I 
think they should be.
The map and pictures etc have not changed.  Should the map look 
different?


Did I go through all that just to have stuff on the profile that I 
don’t trust?

Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

[Adam Moffett]

The lcv is just colored pixels.   You have to go to Options -> Elevation 
data -> Land cover to set a height and density.  There are default 
values, but they may or may not be sane.


Every time I make a map, I review the landcover heights and maybe 
adjust.  For example, if I'm looking at an area that's predominately old 
growth forest I might set forest heights to 30m and density to 400%.  In 
other areas I might say 21m or 25m height and less density.




-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 8/15/2017 4:09:48 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

I also have never had a problem with elevations showing up, but 
landcover sure did not want to.
Do I have to set heights and densities if I downloaded the lcv files?  
I was hopeful that was automatic as I have no clue as to heights.


From:Adam Moffett
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 1:59 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

I routinely make maps wider than my display...never noticed anything 
like that.


Don't forget to set your heights and densities.


-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 8/15/2017 3:54:25 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

Interesting, if you have your map view wider in pixels than your 
display, the land cover data will not show.
I made my map smaller because the legend was not fully visible.  Once 
I hit 1850 pixels wide, then the thing lit up with all kinds of 
colors.


From:Chuck McCown
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 1:34 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

OK, finally found a place to get landcover data.
http://rmd.neoknet.com/Landcover/

All the other links seem to not work.

I got the files I needed manually extracted into the proper folder.
It would download them but not save them.  Perhaps because they were 
zip files not the native file.


In any event, nothing looks different.  If I do a path profile it 
shows some little trees, which don’t look as tall or as thick as I 
think they should be.
The map and pictures etc have not changed.  Should the map look 
different?


Did I go through all that just to have stuff on the profile that I 
don’t trust?

Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

[Chuck McCown]

Now that pisses me off.  It is now working irrespective of map size.  Guess it 
had to get used to the idea of landcover.  
Thanks.  

From: castarritt . 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 2:09 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

I also use maps a lot larger than my display resolution.  I bet your RM didn't 
incorporate the land cover data until it drew a new map.  I would try drawing 
it again at the size you want.

 Virus-free. www.avast.com  


On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

  I routinely make maps wider than my display...never noticed anything like 
that.

  Don't forget to set your heights and densities.


  -- Original Message --
  From: "Chuck McCown" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: 8/15/2017 3:54:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

Interesting, if you have your map view wider in pixels than your display, 
the land cover data will not show.  
I made my map smaller because the legend was not fully visible.  Once I hit 
1850 pixels wide, then the thing lit up with all kinds of colors.  

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 1:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

OK, finally found a place to get landcover data.  
http://rmd.neoknet.com/Landcover/

All the other links seem to not work.

I got the files I needed manually extracted into the proper folder.
It would download them but not save them.  Perhaps because they were zip 
files not the native file.

In any event, nothing looks different.  If I do a path profile it shows 
some little trees, which don’t look as tall or as thick as I think they should 
be.
The map and pictures etc have not changed.  Should the map look different?  

Did I go through all that just to have stuff on the profile that I don’t 
trust?

Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

[Chuck McCown]

I also have never had a problem with elevations showing up, but landcover sure 
did not want to.  
Do I have to set heights and densities if I downloaded the lcv files?  I was 
hopeful that was automatic as I have no clue as to heights.  

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 1:59 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

I routinely make maps wider than my display...never noticed anything like that.

Don't forget to set your heights and densities.


-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 8/15/2017 3:54:25 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

  Interesting, if you have your map view wider in pixels than your display, the 
land cover data will not show.  
  I made my map smaller because the legend was not fully visible.  Once I hit 
1850 pixels wide, then the thing lit up with all kinds of colors.  

  From: Chuck McCown 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 1:34 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

  OK, finally found a place to get landcover data.  
  http://rmd.neoknet.com/Landcover/

  All the other links seem to not work.

  I got the files I needed manually extracted into the proper folder.
  It would download them but not save them.  Perhaps because they were zip 
files not the native file.

  In any event, nothing looks different.  If I do a path profile it shows some 
little trees, which don’t look as tall or as thick as I think they should be.
  The map and pictures etc have not changed.  Should the map look different?  

  Did I go through all that just to have stuff on the profile that I don’t 
trust?

Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

[castarritt .]

I also use maps a lot larger than my display resolution.  I bet your RM
didn't incorporate the land cover data until it drew a new map.  I would
try drawing it again at the size you want.


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

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

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> I routinely make maps wider than my display...never noticed anything like
> that.
>
> Don't forget to set your heights and densities.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Chuck McCown" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 8/15/2017 3:54:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question
>
> Interesting, if you have your map view wider in pixels than your display,
> the land cover data will not show.
> I made my map smaller because the legend was not fully visible.  Once I
> hit 1850 pixels wide, then the thing lit up with all kinds of colors.
>
> *From:* Chuck McCown
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 1:34 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] OT RM Question
>
> OK, finally found a place to get landcover data.
> http://rmd.neoknet.com/Landcover/
>
> All the other links seem to not work.
>
> I got the files I needed manually extracted into the proper folder.
> It would download them but not save them.  Perhaps because they were zip
> files not the native file.
>
> In any event, nothing looks different.  If I do a path profile it shows
> some little trees, which don’t look as tall or as thick as I think they
> should be.
> The map and pictures etc have not changed.  Should the map look
> different?
>
> Did I go through all that just to have stuff on the profile that I don’t
> trust?
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

[Adam Moffett]

I routinely make maps wider than my display...never noticed anything 
like that.


Don't forget to set your heights and densities.


-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 8/15/2017 3:54:25 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

Interesting, if you have your map view wider in pixels than your 
display, the land cover data will not show.
I made my map smaller because the legend was not fully visible.  Once I 
hit 1850 pixels wide, then the thing lit up with all kinds of colors.


From:Chuck McCown
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 1:34 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

OK, finally found a place to get landcover data.
http://rmd.neoknet.com/Landcover/

All the other links seem to not work.

I got the files I needed manually extracted into the proper folder.
It would download them but not save them.  Perhaps because they were 
zip files not the native file.


In any event, nothing looks different.  If I do a path profile it shows 
some little trees, which don’t look as tall or as thick as I think they 
should be.
The map and pictures etc have not changed.  Should the map look 
different?


Did I go through all that just to have stuff on the profile that I 
don’t trust?

Re: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

[Chuck McCown]

Interesting, if you have your map view wider in pixels than your display, the 
land cover data will not show.  
I made my map smaller because the legend was not fully visible.  Once I hit 
1850 pixels wide, then the thing lit up with all kinds of colors.  

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 1:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] OT RM Question

OK, finally found a place to get landcover data.  
http://rmd.neoknet.com/Landcover/

All the other links seem to not work.

I got the files I needed manually extracted into the proper folder.
It would download them but not save them.  Perhaps because they were zip files 
not the native file.

In any event, nothing looks different.  If I do a path profile it shows some 
little trees, which don’t look as tall or as thick as I think they should be.
The map and pictures etc have not changed.  Should the map look different?  

Did I go through all that just to have stuff on the profile that I don’t trust?

[AFMUG] OT RM Question

[Chuck McCown]

OK, finally found a place to get landcover data.  
http://rmd.neoknet.com/Landcover/

All the other links seem to not work.

I got the files I needed manually extracted into the proper folder.
It would download them but not save them.  Perhaps because they were zip files 
not the native file.

In any event, nothing looks different.  If I do a path profile it shows some 
little trees, which don’t look as tall or as thick as I think they should be.
The map and pictures etc have not changed.  Should the map look different?  

Did I go through all that just to have stuff on the profile that I don’t trust?

Re: [AFMUG] 450M SFPs

[Sean Heskett]

Yeah check the release notes but I think  15.1 was the first version to
support SFP.

15.1.1 is the latest

-Sean


On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:35 AM Carl Peterson 
wrote:

> "SFP kits (part numbers C65L008A and C65L009A) are required for
> SFP port connectivity. SFP port is not supported in system release 15.0/
> 15.0.0.1."
>
> Perhaps also not in 15.0.1
>
> I'll try new firmware.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Carl Peterson  > wrote:
>
>> Got the SFP kit and entitlement.  Created the license and applied it, but
>> I can't find anything in the config about the SFP port or any way to tell
>> it to use the SFP port.  Am I just being stupid and missing something?
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Carl Peterson > > wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Mark,
>>>
>>> Was wondering about that gland, it looks a lot like the glands that come
>>> with Siklu radios which are too big.  I've ordered the 450M kit and I'll
>>> see how it fits and test out BiDa.  I'm planning on adding an Isolated
>>> DC-DC +48V bus at the site at least for now unless someone else wants to
>>> test them out for awhile on -48.  Kind of a PITA though.  Wish everyone
>>> would just support + and - 48DC on a DC terminal, at least on gear costing
>>> multiple Ks.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>>
 Carl,

 I apologize, I was working on a 820C project earlier and for some
 reason I misread this as a discussion of 820’s and not 450M.

 The glands I called out earlier are probably not going to fit in the
 450m.   I don’t have a 450M I can try it in at the moment.  We are supposed
 to be getting 4 in tomorrow and I can try it and let you know if it fits.

 We have powered the 450m with both +48V and -48V DC supplies through a
 CMM5

 And since we are talking about a 450m and not a 820c, I have not tried
 a BiDi SFP yet.

 Sorry for the misinformation.   To many voices in the head :-)

 Mark


 On Aug 3, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Carl Peterson 
 wrote:

 Matt,

 While I have your attention, I have two more 450M questions.

 1) What are the supported POE pinouts?

 2) Off chance, but it it ground agnostic, i.e isolated ground?

 It is nice to see an SFP port but I really would have LOVED to see and
 SFP and -48VDC or +/-48VDC like most Siklu gear.

 On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Gino A. Villarini 
 wrote:

> In this day and age…
>
> From: Af  on behalf of Mike Hammett <
> af...@ics-il.net>
> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Date: Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:34 PM
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450M SFPs
>
> A license key to use the SFP port? Seriously?
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> *Gino A. Villarini*
> President
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Matt Mangriotis" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, August 3, 2017 10:20:32 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] 450M SFPs
>
> Carl –
>
>
> 1)  Not sure on this… I have asked engineering about support for
> BIDA module (not BIDI?), and will post an answer when I get one…
>
> 2)  Yes, there is an “extended” gland that comes with the kit.
> The kit consists of three parts: the SFP module itself, the extended 
> gland,
> and the entitlement key to apply the license to the radio.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Carl Peterson
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 3, 2017 9:17 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] 450M SFPs
>
>
> 1) I know you need to buy cambiums SFPs to get the license to unlock
> the SFP port on the 450M, but once the license is applied, is there any
> limitation as to what SFPs you can run?  Would much prefer to use BIDA so
> we can just run 

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Josh Reynolds]

airlink.ubnt.com

Click on "AirFiber fx" line on the right side in the middle, then 11 GHz.
Rest is self explanatory.

On Aug 15, 2017 1:59 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

> Link does not work.
>
> *From:* Josh Reynolds
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 12:56 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x
>
> https://airline.ubnt.com is pretty damn good these days. Should help you
> figure out what you need easily.
>
> It does require you to log in with your account.
>
> On Aug 15, 2017 1:34 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>
>> What is a common channel BW?  40 MHz?  I suppose it depends on
>> congestion.  I only need about 250 Mbps so lower order modulation may be
>> desirable and perhaps narrower channels too.
>>
>> *From:* Jeremy
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:54 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x
>>
>> Of course, the exact configuration is based on your license and which
>> frequencies it is supposed to operate on.  The above configuration is just
>> an example.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Jeremy  wrote:
>>
>>> They are like that, but 3x bigger.  On top, the lid comes off and the
>>> duplexers go beneath the cover.  If your link is 'High' then you will want
>>> 'High' duplexers for both sides of the link (x4 total - two extra to
>>> purchase) - they will go in a configuration like 1-3-3-1 on one side and
>>> 3-1-1-3 on the other side.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 They come with 1 duplexer (setup for SISO) - you need to buy the second
 one separately to do MIMO. You do need to figure out what frequencies
 you're going to be using before you buy the radios, since there are two
 different duplexers, depending on which half of the band you're in.
 You need one frequency pair on both polarities (for MIMO).

 On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for
> duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to 
> have
> two pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both polarizations on the
> same frequency?
>
> Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going
> to cost.
>


>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Chuck McCown]

Link does not work.  

From: Josh Reynolds 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 12:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

https://airline.ubnt.com is pretty damn good these days. Should help you figure 
out what you need easily. 

It does require you to log in with your account.

On Aug 15, 2017 1:34 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

  What is a common channel BW?  40 MHz?  I suppose it depends on congestion.  I 
only need about 250 Mbps so lower order modulation may be desirable and perhaps 
narrower channels too.  

  From: Jeremy 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:54 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

  Of course, the exact configuration is based on your license and which 
frequencies it is supposed to operate on.  The above configuration is just an 
example.

  On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Jeremy  wrote:

They are like that, but 3x bigger.  On top, the lid comes off and the 
duplexers go beneath the cover.  If your link is 'High' then you will want 
'High' duplexers for both sides of the link (x4 total - two extra to purchase) 
- they will go in a configuration like 1-3-3-1 on one side and 3-1-1-3 on the 
other side.

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Mathew Howard  
wrote:

  They come with 1 duplexer (setup for SISO) - you need to buy the second 
one separately to do MIMO. You do need to figure out what frequencies you're 
going to be using before you buy the radios, since there are two different 
duplexers, depending on which half of the band you're in.

  You need one frequency pair on both polarities (for MIMO).


  On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for 
duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to have two 
pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both polarizations on the same 
frequency?

Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going 
to cost.  

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Chuck McCown]

I will give it a look.  Been working through radio mobile so far.  

From: Josh Reynolds 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 12:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

https://airline.ubnt.com is pretty damn good these days. Should help you figure 
out what you need easily. 

It does require you to log in with your account.

On Aug 15, 2017 1:34 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

  What is a common channel BW?  40 MHz?  I suppose it depends on congestion.  I 
only need about 250 Mbps so lower order modulation may be desirable and perhaps 
narrower channels too.  

  From: Jeremy 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:54 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

  Of course, the exact configuration is based on your license and which 
frequencies it is supposed to operate on.  The above configuration is just an 
example.

  On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Jeremy  wrote:

They are like that, but 3x bigger.  On top, the lid comes off and the 
duplexers go beneath the cover.  If your link is 'High' then you will want 
'High' duplexers for both sides of the link (x4 total - two extra to purchase) 
- they will go in a configuration like 1-3-3-1 on one side and 3-1-1-3 on the 
other side.

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Mathew Howard  
wrote:

  They come with 1 duplexer (setup for SISO) - you need to buy the second 
one separately to do MIMO. You do need to figure out what frequencies you're 
going to be using before you buy the radios, since there are two different 
duplexers, depending on which half of the band you're in.

  You need one frequency pair on both polarities (for MIMO).


  On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for 
duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to have two 
pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both polarizations on the same 
frequency?

Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going 
to cost.  

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Josh Reynolds]

https://airline.ubnt.com is pretty damn good these days. Should help you
figure out what you need easily.

It does require you to log in with your account.

On Aug 15, 2017 1:34 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

> What is a common channel BW?  40 MHz?  I suppose it depends on
> congestion.  I only need about 250 Mbps so lower order modulation may be
> desirable and perhaps narrower channels too.
>
> *From:* Jeremy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:54 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x
>
> Of course, the exact configuration is based on your license and which
> frequencies it is supposed to operate on.  The above configuration is just
> an example.
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Jeremy  wrote:
>
>> They are like that, but 3x bigger.  On top, the lid comes off and the
>> duplexers go beneath the cover.  If your link is 'High' then you will want
>> 'High' duplexers for both sides of the link (x4 total - two extra to
>> purchase) - they will go in a configuration like 1-3-3-1 on one side and
>> 3-1-1-3 on the other side.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> They come with 1 duplexer (setup for SISO) - you need to buy the second
>>> one separately to do MIMO. You do need to figure out what frequencies
>>> you're going to be using before you buy the radios, since there are two
>>> different duplexers, depending on which half of the band you're in.
>>> You need one frequency pair on both polarities (for MIMO).
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>>
 Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for
 duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to have
 two pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both polarizations on the
 same frequency?

 Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going
 to cost.

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Chuck McCown]

What is a common channel BW?  40 MHz?  I suppose it depends on congestion.  I 
only need about 250 Mbps so lower order modulation may be desirable and perhaps 
narrower channels too.  

From: Jeremy 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

Of course, the exact configuration is based on your license and which 
frequencies it is supposed to operate on.  The above configuration is just an 
example.

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Jeremy  wrote:

  They are like that, but 3x bigger.  On top, the lid comes off and the 
duplexers go beneath the cover.  If your link is 'High' then you will want 
'High' duplexers for both sides of the link (x4 total - two extra to purchase) 
- they will go in a configuration like 1-3-3-1 on one side and 3-1-1-3 on the 
other side.

  On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Mathew Howard  wrote:

They come with 1 duplexer (setup for SISO) - you need to buy the second one 
separately to do MIMO. You do need to figure out what frequencies you're going 
to be using before you buy the radios, since there are two different duplexers, 
depending on which half of the band you're in.

You need one frequency pair on both polarities (for MIMO).


On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for 
duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to have two 
pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both polarizations on the same 
frequency?

  Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going to 
cost.  

Re: [AFMUG] 450M SFPs

[Carl Peterson]

"SFP kits (part numbers C65L008A and C65L009A) are required for SFP
port connectivity. SFP port is not supported in system release 15.0/15.0.0.1
."

Perhaps also not in 15.0.1

I'll try new firmware.


On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Carl Peterson 
wrote:

> Got the SFP kit and entitlement.  Created the license and applied it, but
> I can't find anything in the config about the SFP port or any way to tell
> it to use the SFP port.  Am I just being stupid and missing something?
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Carl Peterson 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Mark,
>>
>> Was wondering about that gland, it looks a lot like the glands that come
>> with Siklu radios which are too big.  I've ordered the 450M kit and I'll
>> see how it fits and test out BiDa.  I'm planning on adding an Isolated
>> DC-DC +48V bus at the site at least for now unless someone else wants to
>> test them out for awhile on -48.  Kind of a PITA though.  Wish everyone
>> would just support + and - 48DC on a DC terminal, at least on gear costing
>> multiple Ks.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>
>>> Carl,
>>>
>>> I apologize, I was working on a 820C project earlier and for some reason
>>> I misread this as a discussion of 820’s and not 450M.
>>>
>>> The glands I called out earlier are probably not going to fit in the
>>> 450m.   I don’t have a 450M I can try it in at the moment.  We are supposed
>>> to be getting 4 in tomorrow and I can try it and let you know if it fits.
>>>
>>> We have powered the 450m with both +48V and -48V DC supplies through a
>>> CMM5
>>>
>>> And since we are talking about a 450m and not a 820c, I have not tried a
>>> BiDi SFP yet.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the misinformation.   To many voices in the head :-)
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 3, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Carl Peterson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> While I have your attention, I have two more 450M questions.
>>>
>>> 1) What are the supported POE pinouts?
>>>
>>> 2) Off chance, but it it ground agnostic, i.e isolated ground?
>>>
>>> It is nice to see an SFP port but I really would have LOVED to see and
>>> SFP and -48VDC or +/-48VDC like most Siklu gear.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Gino A. Villarini 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 In this day and age…

 From: Af  on behalf of Mike Hammett <
 af...@ics-il.net>
 Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
 Date: Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:34 PM
 To: "af@afmug.com" 
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450M SFPs

 A license key to use the SFP port? Seriously?



 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions 
 
 
 
 
 Midwest Internet Exchange 
 
 
 
 The Brothers WISP 
 


 



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

 
 --
 *From: *"Matt Mangriotis" 
 *To: *af@afmug.com
 *Sent: *Thursday, August 3, 2017 10:20:32 AM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] 450M SFPs

 Carl –


 1)  Not sure on this… I have asked engineering about support for
 BIDA module (not BIDI?), and will post an answer when I get one…

 2)  Yes, there is an “extended” gland that comes with the kit.
 The kit consists of three parts: the SFP module itself, the extended gland,
 and the entitlement key to apply the license to the radio.


 Matt



 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
 Behalf Of *Carl Peterson
 *Sent:* Thursday, August 3, 2017 9:17 AM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* [AFMUG] 450M SFPs


 1) I know you need to buy cambiums SFPs to get the license to unlock
 the SFP port on the 450M, but once the license is applied, is there any
 limitation as to what SFPs you can run?  Would much prefer to use BIDA so
 we can just run clearshield simlex with SC SOCs on it and so we don't have
 to waste fiber.  Has anyone tested other SFPs in it and have any not
 worked?


 2) The SFP cage is flush with the exterior of the case and has very
 little space in the antenna side of the cage so you can't screw the cambium
 gland in whith an SFP installed.  Does the 

Re: [AFMUG] 450M SFPs

[Carl Peterson]

Got the SFP kit and entitlement.  Created the license and applied it, but I
can't find anything in the config about the SFP port or any way to tell it
to use the SFP port.  Am I just being stupid and missing something?

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Carl Peterson 
wrote:

> Thanks Mark,
>
> Was wondering about that gland, it looks a lot like the glands that come
> with Siklu radios which are too big.  I've ordered the 450M kit and I'll
> see how it fits and test out BiDa.  I'm planning on adding an Isolated
> DC-DC +48V bus at the site at least for now unless someone else wants to
> test them out for awhile on -48.  Kind of a PITA though.  Wish everyone
> would just support + and - 48DC on a DC terminal, at least on gear costing
> multiple Ks.
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
>> Carl,
>>
>> I apologize, I was working on a 820C project earlier and for some reason
>> I misread this as a discussion of 820’s and not 450M.
>>
>> The glands I called out earlier are probably not going to fit in the
>> 450m.   I don’t have a 450M I can try it in at the moment.  We are supposed
>> to be getting 4 in tomorrow and I can try it and let you know if it fits.
>>
>> We have powered the 450m with both +48V and -48V DC supplies through a
>> CMM5
>>
>> And since we are talking about a 450m and not a 820c, I have not tried a
>> BiDi SFP yet.
>>
>> Sorry for the misinformation.   To many voices in the head :-)
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On Aug 3, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Carl Peterson 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Matt,
>>
>> While I have your attention, I have two more 450M questions.
>>
>> 1) What are the supported POE pinouts?
>>
>> 2) Off chance, but it it ground agnostic, i.e isolated ground?
>>
>> It is nice to see an SFP port but I really would have LOVED to see and
>> SFP and -48VDC or +/-48VDC like most Siklu gear.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Gino A. Villarini 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In this day and age…
>>>
>>> From: Af  on behalf of Mike Hammett <
>>> af...@ics-il.net>
>>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>>> Date: Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:34 PM
>>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450M SFPs
>>>
>>> A license key to use the SFP port? Seriously?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>> President
>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Matt Mangriotis" 
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Thursday, August 3, 2017 10:20:32 AM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] 450M SFPs
>>>
>>> Carl –
>>>
>>>
>>> 1)  Not sure on this… I have asked engineering about support for
>>> BIDA module (not BIDI?), and will post an answer when I get one…
>>>
>>> 2)  Yes, there is an “extended” gland that comes with the kit.  The
>>> kit consists of three parts: the SFP module itself, the extended gland, and
>>> the entitlement key to apply the license to the radio.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
>>> Behalf Of *Carl Peterson
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 3, 2017 9:17 AM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] 450M SFPs
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) I know you need to buy cambiums SFPs to get the license to unlock the
>>> SFP port on the 450M, but once the license is applied, is there any
>>> limitation as to what SFPs you can run?  Would much prefer to use BIDA so
>>> we can just run clearshield simlex with SC SOCs on it and so we don't have
>>> to waste fiber.  Has anyone tested other SFPs in it and have any not
>>> worked?
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) The SFP cage is flush with the exterior of the case and has very
>>> little space in the antenna side of the cage so you can't screw the cambium
>>> gland in whith an SFP installed.  Does the SFP kit come with a special
>>> gland with room for the SFP and connector?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Carl Peterson
>>
>> *PORT NETWORKS*
>>
>> 401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553
>>
>> Baltimore, MD 21202
>>
>> (410) 637-3707
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Carl Peterson
>
> *PORT NETWORKS*
>
> 401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553
>
> Baltimore, MD 21202
>
> (410) 637-3707
>



-- 

Carl Peterson

*PORT NETWORKS*

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Jeremy]

Of course, the exact configuration is based on your license and which
frequencies it is supposed to operate on.  The above configuration is just
an example.

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Jeremy  wrote:

> They are like that, but 3x bigger.  On top, the lid comes off and the
> duplexers go beneath the cover.  If your link is 'High' then you will want
> 'High' duplexers for both sides of the link (x4 total - two extra to
> purchase) - they will go in a configuration like 1-3-3-1 on one side and
> 3-1-1-3 on the other side.
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> They come with 1 duplexer (setup for SISO) - you need to buy the second
>> one separately to do MIMO. You do need to figure out what frequencies
>> you're going to be using before you buy the radios, since there are two
>> different duplexers, depending on which half of the band you're in.
>> You need one frequency pair on both polarities (for MIMO).
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>>> Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for
>>> duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to have
>>> two pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both polarizations on the
>>> same frequency?
>>>
>>> Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going
>>> to cost.
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Jeremy]

They are like that, but 3x bigger.  On top, the lid comes off and the
duplexers go beneath the cover.  If your link is 'High' then you will want
'High' duplexers for both sides of the link (x4 total - two extra to
purchase) - they will go in a configuration like 1-3-3-1 on one side and
3-1-1-3 on the other side.

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Mathew Howard 
wrote:

> They come with 1 duplexer (setup for SISO) - you need to buy the second
> one separately to do MIMO. You do need to figure out what frequencies
> you're going to be using before you buy the radios, since there are two
> different duplexers, depending on which half of the band you're in.
> You need one frequency pair on both polarities (for MIMO).
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for
>> duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to have
>> two pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both polarizations on the
>> same frequency?
>>
>> Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going to
>> cost.
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Mathew Howard]

They come with 1 duplexer (setup for SISO) - you need to buy the second one
separately to do MIMO. You do need to figure out what frequencies you're
going to be using before you buy the radios, since there are two different
duplexers, depending on which half of the band you're in.
You need one frequency pair on both polarities (for MIMO).

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for
> duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to have
> two pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both polarizations on the
> same frequency?
>
> Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going to
> cost.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure reminder?

[Josh Reynolds]

I haven't heard any complaints honestly. They seem to be selling well. If
there was a big problem, it would be all over the forum.

On Aug 15, 2017 10:13 AM,  wrote:

> Dont sound like I should mount this to a tower …
>
>
>
> The package with SFP+/DC in and this housing looks good but if it is not
> stable it is not usable. Maybe they need some time to get it sorted out.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *Josh Luthman
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 15. August 2017 16:56
> *An:* af@afmug.com
> *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure
> reminder?
>
>
>
> Mine failed to boot after a few days/weeks/months.
>
>
>
> I've read that people lost bandwidth through them, not sure how, but
> simply doing an iperf through your switch should meet those needs.
>
>
>
> Run a few office PCs through your switch and see if that works for a few
> days.
>
>
>
>
> 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 Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:36 AM,  wrote:
>
> What about their new Edgeswitches. EP-S16 looks great for tower
> deployment. Is it stable/performant and able to power e.g. SAF Integra?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *Josh Reynolds
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 15. August 2017 16:17
> *An:* af@afmug.com
> *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure
> reminder?
>
>
>
> I don't think I ever saw a 5 port failure.
>
>
>
> The 8 port models were very different, and did NOT like brownouts. The
> power system for them internally was poorly designed.
>
>
>
> Not the best SoC they could have picked either.
>
>
>
> That said, it was their first 2 switches out of the gate.
>
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2017 8:03 AM, "Paul Stewart"  wrote:
>
> We tested this extensively and experienced a lot of random issues with
> their switches …. Random forwarding issues was one but the larger issue was
> simply hardware failure.  Inherited some of them through acquirement (a
> few) and then also in our wireless network they were the original “goto”
> switch and pretty much all replaced now last I heard (again due to hardware
> failures)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:56 AM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, that is a huge issue with them. It started the Great WISP Buffer
> Debate of $YEAR of which nothing ever came. One of the longest threads in
> UBNT Forum History.
>
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2017 6:51 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
>
> Some were related to inadequate buffer sizes causing mixing 100 meg and 1
> gig interfaces to have issues.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
> *To: *"af" 
> *Sent: *Monday, August 14, 2017 4:13:54 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding
> failurereminder?
>
>
>
> The old archived emails I've found on the toughswitch problem was random
> packetloss.   But I remember someone had figured out more details, just
> don't remember what they were and haven't found an email which contains the
> discussion.  I vaguely think it might have been load or pps related, but
> before what you'd think was full load.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
>
> Fill up the bridge table and see how it responds, for one.
>
>
>
> Not forwarding though, sounds like a chipset bug you'd need to catch.
>
>
>
> On Aug 14, 2017 3:39 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
> Let me phrase this differently:  I am evaluating a new switch platform
> that I am skeptical of.   I want to construct a test that the toughswitch
> would fail (but a properly operating switch should pass) to ensure that
> this platform hasn't made a similar error.
>
>
>
> If there are other known bad platforms I would like to include those in
> this test suite as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Josh Luthman <
> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>
> Symptom of Toughswitch is you installed one in the network.  Get rid of it.
>
>
>
> Use a PowerBox or Netonix.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
> Direct: 

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Nate Burke]

That is not the correct picture, that picture looks like an unlicensed 
AFx radio.


On 8/15/2017 10:55 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Does this photo show an AF-11X?  I have a different product in my lab 
sent to me from UBNT.

http://www.wlanmall.com/ubiquiti-airfiber-11x-backhaul-radio-11ghz-1-2gbps-low-band-af-11fx-l/
*From:* Chuck McCown
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 9:52 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* [AFMUG] AF-11x
Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for 
duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to 
have two pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both 
polarizations on the same frequency?
Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going 
to cost.

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Nate Burke]

You buy the radio which is the same hardware for all 11ghz, then the 
Diplexers for your licensed frequency, High or low.  1 Diplexer per end 
for a SISO link, 1 polarity.  2 Diplexers per end for a MIMO link, Dual 
Polarity.  In the radio firmware you do not select different frequencies 
for the different polarities, just weather it is SISO or MIMO.


The Top of the radio has 4 SMA Connectors on it.  The diplexer spans 2 
SMA Connectors and gives you a N Connector to attach to the antenna.


Hope this helps a little.

On 8/15/2017 10:52 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for 
duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to 
have two pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both 
polarizations on the same frequency?
Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going 
to cost.

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Jim Bouse [Brazos WiFi]]

They can do SISO or MIMO
They come with 1 duplexer (gives you SISO).
You need to buy the other duplexer to get MIMO.

Make sure you buy the right duplexer for your frequency range.  The radio 
doesn't care.  The duplexer does.


Jim Bouse
Owner
Mobile IT Pro - Brazos WiFi
979-985-5912
j...@brazoswifi.com

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:53 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11x

Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for 
duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to have two 
pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both polarizations on the same 
frequency?

Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going to cost.

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11x

[Chuck McCown]

Does this photo show an AF-11X?  I have a different product in my lab sent to 
me from UBNT.
http://www.wlanmall.com/ubiquiti-airfiber-11x-backhaul-radio-11ghz-1-2gbps-low-band-af-11fx-l/

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 9:52 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11x

Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for 
duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to have two 
pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both polarizations on the same 
frequency?

Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going to cost. 
 

[AFMUG] AF-11x

[Chuck McCown]

Do they all come with two N connectors or do you have to pay more for 
duplexers?  Not quite sure how to buy or license.  I guess you have to have two 
pairs of frequencies?  Or at the very least, both polarizations on the same 
frequency?

Trying to collect some budgetary estimates on what my project is going to cost. 
 

Re: [AFMUG] Dealing with a lease violation (5ghz)

[Justin Wilson]

Depends on the wording of the lease.  This is why attorneys exist.  LOL.  I had 
a grain leg owner years ago build a new, taller leg right next to the one I was 
and rent space to a competitor.  My lease did not specify the wording of 
“tower” enough so I was advised was all legit. From that point on all my leases 
had more verbage about such things.


Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

www.mtin.net
www.midwest-ix.com

> On Jun 28, 2017, at 2:52 PM, Mitch Koep  wrote:
> 
> And your question is?
> 
> 
> On 6/27/2017 11:05 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>> I am not asking about any FCC Part X rules, I know this isn't an FCC issue 
>> under any circumstances.
>> 
>> We have leases with all our POP landlords, in the lease we own the site 
>> spectrum, with the exception of very few locations we don't collocate, just 
>> not worth the hassle.
>> 
>> I come rolling up on a site today, 100 feet from our POP is a new POP, not 
>> us, cause though I used to enjoy spooning some powder with baking soda, I 
>> don't smoke crack, POP#2 isn't ours, even though its on the same property, 
>> Id recall a full EPMP and backhaul deployment.
>> 
>> I'm an honest operator, very honest, like the first time UBT sent us new 
>> stickers for spectrum I made sure we actually put them out (be honest, 
>> pretty much NOBODY did that) I turn down power where we don't need it. I do 
>> my best to make sure we are compliant. I fought bosses to remove non 
>> compliant stuff I put up before I knew better. For the most part, I'm a good 
>> fucking neighbor, ask anybody abutting me. (with the exception of one 
>> location I collocate where I'm a dick, but a legal dick)
>> 
>> So you can understand my dismay, being the pillar of the spectrum community 
>> Ive tried to be (also found out today I inadvertently fucked a fellow wisp 
>> on a bad choice I made with no follow up, I owned it with him and will be 
>> working on fixing that as of tomorrow)
>> 
>> I approach everything with combat boots, assuming a battle. I'm guessing 
>> when it gets in the database this backhaul is going to be UBNT 11ghz, or 
>> some other nonsense (probably affiliated with the over wind loaded tower 3/4 
>> miles away with 3, yes 3, UBNT 5ghz peanut shaped airfibers within 8 feet of 
>> one another (one link, one side points to the sky the other side points to 
>> the dirt)
>> 
>> The question I have is about lease rules, and contract law, which the bulk 
>> of you old timers has dealt with. If the other operator (if its who I 
>> suspect it is, they use fuckery, like the UBNT demo mode, or whatever its 
>> called and other such garbage to even operate overpowered in DFS channels) 
>> doesn't want to play ball, as in "shut that shit off" will we be able to 
>> fight it?
>> 
>> I know what went down, and how it went down, and I suspect I know who it is. 
>> The usual, guy approaches a site owner, offers unrealistic unicorn farts, 
>> unicorn farts always win, spectrum gets fucked.
>> 
>> We do 5 year auto renewing leases, with 2 year breakouts. (you guys would 
>> likely cream your jeans seeing our lease, and though Ive asked, no I cant 
>> share it publicly, and yes, it was drawn up by an attorney) we get full 
>> control of the 5, 6, 11, 3, 2, 900mhz, etc spectrum (I don't have a lease 
>> handy to see the specific wording) per the site.
>> 
>> I know we wouldn't have a horse in the race with the FCC, but with this 
>> boiling down to contract law, whats to stop us from A. willful interference 
>> (assuming out power doesn't get cut) and B. a cease and desist from a court 
>> for the other ISP, pending the 2 year termination?
>> 
>> I'm handing this to the boss to handle, because my communication will start 
>> with "listen here motherfucker" and I don't see that as conducive to a 
>> positive outcome. I had my boy with me when I came to the site today because 
>> I was just getting accurate AGLs for bringing in a licensed backhaul. If he 
>> hadn't been with me, I probably would have yanked their ghetto enclosure off 
>> the wall and shot their antennas.
>> 
>> Ill tell you what, I'm about to start acting like a lot of these yahoos and 
>> saying fuck the FCC, fuck good stewardship of the spectrum, and fuck general 
>> good manners.
>> 
>> TBH I'm not sure if I'm asking advice here or just venting. probably both. 
>> but FYI, I'm so pissed off right now, if you have an ex old lady who needs 
>> disappeared, I'm your freaking guy
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure reminder?

[ste]

Dont sound like I should mount this to a tower …

 

The package with SFP+/DC in and this housing looks good but if it is not stable 
it is not usable. Maybe they need some time to get it sorted out.

 

 

Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Josh Luthman
Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. August 2017 16:56
An: af@afmug.com
Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure reminder?

 

Mine failed to boot after a few days/weeks/months.

 

I've read that people lost bandwidth through them, not sure how, but simply 
doing an iperf through your switch should meet those needs.

 

Run a few office PCs through your switch and see if that works for a few days.




 

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

 

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:36 AM,  > 
wrote:

What about their new Edgeswitches. EP-S16 looks great for tower deployment. Is 
it stable/performant and able to power e.g. SAF Integra?

 

 

 

Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com  ] Im Auftrag 
von Josh Reynolds
Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. August 2017 16:17
An: af@afmug.com  
Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure reminder?

 

I don't think I ever saw a 5 port failure. 

 

The 8 port models were very different, and did NOT like brownouts. The power 
system for them internally was poorly designed.

 

Not the best SoC they could have picked either.

 

That said, it was their first 2 switches out of the gate.

 

On Aug 15, 2017 8:03 AM, "Paul Stewart"  > wrote:

We tested this extensively and experienced a lot of random issues with their 
switches …. Random forwarding issues was one but the larger issue was simply 
hardware failure.  Inherited some of them through acquirement (a few) and then 
also in our wireless network they were the original “goto” switch and pretty 
much all replaced now last I heard (again due to hardware failures)

 

 

On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:56 AM, Josh Reynolds  > wrote:

 

Yes, that is a huge issue with them. It started the Great WISP Buffer Debate of 
$YEAR of which nothing ever came. One of the longest threads in UBNT Forum 
History.

 

On Aug 15, 2017 6:51 AM, "Mike Hammett"  > wrote:

Some were related to inadequate buffer sizes causing mixing 100 meg and 1 gig 
interfaces to have issues.



-
Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
   
  
  
 
  Midwest Internet Exchange
   
  
 
  The Brothers WISP
   
 





  _  


From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)"  >
To: "af"  >
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:13:54 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure
reminder?

 

The old archived emails I've found on the toughswitch problem was random 
packetloss.   But I remember someone had figured out more details, just don't 
remember what they were and haven't found an email which contains the 
discussion.  I vaguely think it might have been load or pps related, but before 
what you'd think was full load.

 

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Josh Reynolds  > wrote:

Fill up the bridge table and see how it responds, for one.

 

Not forwarding though, sounds like a chipset bug you'd need to catch.

 

On Aug 14, 2017 3:39 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
 > wrote:

Let me phrase this differently:  I am evaluating a new switch platform that I 
am skeptical of.   I want to construct a test that the toughswitch would fail 
(but a properly operating switch should pass) to ensure that this platform 
hasn't made a similar error.

 

If there are other known bad platforms I would like to include those in this 
test suite as well.

 

 

 

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:

Symptom of Toughswitch is you installed one in the network.  Get rid of it.

 

Use a PowerBox or Netonix.

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

 

On Aug 14, 2017 1:18 PM, "Forrest Christian (List 

Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure reminder?

[Josh Luthman]

Mine failed to boot after a few days/weeks/months.

I've read that people lost bandwidth through them, not sure how, but simply
doing an iperf through your switch should meet those needs.

Run a few office PCs through your switch and see if that works for a few
days.


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

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:36 AM,  wrote:

> What about their new Edgeswitches. EP-S16 looks great for tower
> deployment. Is it stable/performant and able to power e.g. SAF Integra?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *Josh Reynolds
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 15. August 2017 16:17
> *An:* af@afmug.com
> *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure
> reminder?
>
>
>
> I don't think I ever saw a 5 port failure.
>
>
>
> The 8 port models were very different, and did NOT like brownouts. The
> power system for them internally was poorly designed.
>
>
>
> Not the best SoC they could have picked either.
>
>
>
> That said, it was their first 2 switches out of the gate.
>
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2017 8:03 AM, "Paul Stewart"  wrote:
>
> We tested this extensively and experienced a lot of random issues with
> their switches …. Random forwarding issues was one but the larger issue was
> simply hardware failure.  Inherited some of them through acquirement (a
> few) and then also in our wireless network they were the original “goto”
> switch and pretty much all replaced now last I heard (again due to hardware
> failures)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:56 AM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, that is a huge issue with them. It started the Great WISP Buffer
> Debate of $YEAR of which nothing ever came. One of the longest threads in
> UBNT Forum History.
>
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2017 6:51 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
>
> Some were related to inadequate buffer sizes causing mixing 100 meg and 1
> gig interfaces to have issues.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
> *To: *"af" 
> *Sent: *Monday, August 14, 2017 4:13:54 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding
> failurereminder?
>
>
>
> The old archived emails I've found on the toughswitch problem was random
> packetloss.   But I remember someone had figured out more details, just
> don't remember what they were and haven't found an email which contains the
> discussion.  I vaguely think it might have been load or pps related, but
> before what you'd think was full load.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
>
> Fill up the bridge table and see how it responds, for one.
>
>
>
> Not forwarding though, sounds like a chipset bug you'd need to catch.
>
>
>
> On Aug 14, 2017 3:39 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
> Let me phrase this differently:  I am evaluating a new switch platform
> that I am skeptical of.   I want to construct a test that the toughswitch
> would fail (but a properly operating switch should pass) to ensure that
> this platform hasn't made a similar error.
>
>
>
> If there are other known bad platforms I would like to include those in
> this test suite as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Josh Luthman <
> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>
> Symptom of Toughswitch is you installed one in the network.  Get rid of it.
>
>
>
> Use a PowerBox or Netonix.
>
> 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 Aug 14, 2017 1:18 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
> Could someone who is familiar with the problem with a the packet
> forwarding problems that were seen with a toughswitch remind me about the
> details of the symptoms/cause?
>
>
>
> I also remember similar problems with certain other switches.
>
>
>
> I am evaluating a couple of switches and want to make sure I can validate
> that this problem doesn't occur.
>
>
> --
>
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>
> Tel: 406-449-3345 <(406)%20449-3345> | Address: 3577 Countryside Road,
> Helena, MT 59602
>
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure reminder?

[ste]

What about their new Edgeswitches. EP-S16 looks great for tower deployment. Is 
it stable/performant and able to power e.g. SAF Integra?

 

 

 

Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Josh Reynolds
Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. August 2017 16:17
An: af@afmug.com
Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure reminder?

 

I don't think I ever saw a 5 port failure. 

 

The 8 port models were very different, and did NOT like brownouts. The power 
system for them internally was poorly designed.

 

Not the best SoC they could have picked either.

 

That said, it was their first 2 switches out of the gate.

 

On Aug 15, 2017 8:03 AM, "Paul Stewart"  > wrote:

We tested this extensively and experienced a lot of random issues with their 
switches …. Random forwarding issues was one but the larger issue was simply 
hardware failure.  Inherited some of them through acquirement (a few) and then 
also in our wireless network they were the original “goto” switch and pretty 
much all replaced now last I heard (again due to hardware failures)

 

 

On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:56 AM, Josh Reynolds  > wrote:

 

Yes, that is a huge issue with them. It started the Great WISP Buffer Debate of 
$YEAR of which nothing ever came. One of the longest threads in UBNT Forum 
History.

 

On Aug 15, 2017 6:51 AM, "Mike Hammett"  > wrote:

Some were related to inadequate buffer sizes causing mixing 100 meg and 1 gig 
interfaces to have issues.



-
Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
   
  
  
 
  Midwest Internet Exchange
   
  
 
  The Brothers WISP
   
 





  _  


From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)"  >
To: "af"  >
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:13:54 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure
reminder?

 

The old archived emails I've found on the toughswitch problem was random 
packetloss.   But I remember someone had figured out more details, just don't 
remember what they were and haven't found an email which contains the 
discussion.  I vaguely think it might have been load or pps related, but before 
what you'd think was full load.

 

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Josh Reynolds  > wrote:

Fill up the bridge table and see how it responds, for one.

 

Not forwarding though, sounds like a chipset bug you'd need to catch.

 

On Aug 14, 2017 3:39 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
 > wrote:

Let me phrase this differently:  I am evaluating a new switch platform that I 
am skeptical of.   I want to construct a test that the toughswitch would fail 
(but a properly operating switch should pass) to ensure that this platform 
hasn't made a similar error.

 

If there are other known bad platforms I would like to include those in this 
test suite as well.

 

 

 

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:

Symptom of Toughswitch is you installed one in the network.  Get rid of it.

 

Use a PowerBox or Netonix.

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

 

On Aug 14, 2017 1:18 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
 > wrote:

Could someone who is familiar with the problem with a the packet forwarding 
problems that were seen with a toughswitch remind me about the details of the 
symptoms/cause?

 

I also remember similar problems with certain other switches.

 

I am evaluating a couple of switches and want to make sure I can validate that 
this problem doesn't occur.



-- 


Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602

  forre...@imach.com |   
http://www.packetflux.com

       
 

     

[AFMUG] OT Eclipse Weather

[Chuck McCown]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/08/14/total-solar-eclipse-weather-forecast-as-of-aug-14/?utm_term=.9cb937d8fba4

Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure reminder?

[Josh Reynolds]

I don't think I ever saw a 5 port failure.

The 8 port models were very different, and did NOT like brownouts. The
power system for them internally was poorly designed.

Not the best SoC they could have picked either.

That said, it was their first 2 switches out of the gate.

On Aug 15, 2017 8:03 AM, "Paul Stewart"  wrote:

> We tested this extensively and experienced a lot of random issues with
> their switches …. Random forwarding issues was one but the larger issue was
> simply hardware failure.  Inherited some of them through acquirement (a
> few) and then also in our wireless network they were the original “goto”
> switch and pretty much all replaced now last I heard (again due to hardware
> failures)
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:56 AM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
>
> Yes, that is a huge issue with them. It started the Great WISP Buffer
> Debate of $YEAR of which nothing ever came. One of the longest threads in
> UBNT Forum History.
>
> On Aug 15, 2017 6:51 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
>
>> Some were related to inadequate buffer sizes causing mixing 100 meg and 1
>> gig interfaces to have issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
>> *To: *"af" 
>> *Sent: *Monday, August 14, 2017 4:13:54 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding
>> failurereminder?
>>
>>
>> The old archived emails I've found on the toughswitch problem was random
>> packetloss.   But I remember someone had figured out more details, just
>> don't remember what they were and haven't found an email which contains the
>> discussion.  I vaguely think it might have been load or pps related, but
>> before what you'd think was full load.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Josh Reynolds 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Fill up the bridge table and see how it responds, for one.
>>>
>>> Not forwarding though, sounds like a chipset bug you'd need to catch.
>>>
>>> On Aug 14, 2017 3:39 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
>>> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Let me phrase this differently:  I am evaluating a new switch platform
>>> that I am skeptical of.   I want to construct a test that the toughswitch
>>> would fail (but a properly operating switch should pass) to ensure that
>>> this platform hasn't made a similar error.
>>>
>>> If there are other known bad platforms I would like to include those in
>>> this test suite as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Josh Luthman <
>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>
 Symptom of Toughswitch is you installed one in the network.  Get rid of
 it.

 Use a PowerBox or Netonix.

 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 Aug 14, 2017 1:18 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
 li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> Could someone who is familiar with the problem with a the packet
> forwarding problems that were seen with a toughswitch remind me about the
> details of the symptoms/cause?
>
> I also remember similar problems with certain other switches.
>
> I am evaluating a couple of switches and want to make sure I can
> validate that this problem doesn't occur.
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
> 
>   
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>>> 
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>> 

Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure reminder?

[Paul Stewart]

We tested this extensively and experienced a lot of random issues with their 
switches …. Random forwarding issues was one but the larger issue was simply 
hardware failure.  Inherited some of them through acquirement (a few) and then 
also in our wireless network they were the original “goto” switch and pretty 
much all replaced now last I heard (again due to hardware failures)


> On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:56 AM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
> 
> Yes, that is a huge issue with them. It started the Great WISP Buffer Debate 
> of $YEAR of which nothing ever came. One of the longest threads in UBNT Forum 
> History.
> 
> On Aug 15, 2017 6:51 AM, "Mike Hammett"  > wrote:
> Some were related to inadequate buffer sizes causing mixing 100 meg and 1 gig 
> interfaces to have issues.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>   
>  
>  
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>   
>  
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)"  >
> To: "af" >
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:13:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure
> reminder?
> 
> 
> The old archived emails I've found on the toughswitch problem was random 
> packetloss.   But I remember someone had figured out more details, just don't 
> remember what they were and haven't found an email which contains the 
> discussion.  I vaguely think it might have been load or pps related, but 
> before what you'd think was full load.
> 
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Josh Reynolds  > wrote:
> Fill up the bridge table and see how it responds, for one.
> 
> Not forwarding though, sounds like a chipset bug you'd need to catch.
> 
> On Aug 14, 2017 3:39 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
> > wrote:
> Let me phrase this differently:  I am evaluating a new switch platform that I 
> am skeptical of.   I want to construct a test that the toughswitch would fail 
> (but a properly operating switch should pass) to ensure that this platform 
> hasn't made a similar error.
> 
> If there are other known bad platforms I would like to include those in this 
> test suite as well.
>  
>  
> 
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:
> Symptom of Toughswitch is you installed one in the network.  Get rid of it.
> 
> Use a PowerBox or Netonix.
> 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340 
> Direct: 937-552-2343 
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
> On Aug 14, 2017 1:18 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
> > wrote:
> Could someone who is familiar with the problem with a the packet forwarding 
> problems that were seen with a toughswitch remind me about the details of the 
> symptoms/cause?
> 
> I also remember similar problems with certain other switches.
> 
> I am evaluating a couple of switches and want to make sure I can validate 
> that this problem doesn't occur.
> 
> -- 
> Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.
> Tel: 406-449-3345 <> | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com  | http://www.packetflux.com 
> 
>      
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.
> Tel: 406-449-3345 <> | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com  | http://www.packetflux.com 
> 
>      
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.
> Tel: 406-449-3345 <> | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com  | http://www.packetflux.com 
> 
>      
> 
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Fiber Trade Shows

[Mike Hammett]

WISPA 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 10:23:57 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fiber Trade Shows 


How about Animal Farm - Fiber Edition? 
You know you want to Chuck. 




-- Original Message -- 
From: "Adam Moffett" < dmmoff...@gmail.com > 
To: "af@afmug.com" < af@afmug.com > 
Sent: 8/14/2017 10:58:33 AM 
Subject: [AFMUG] Fiber Trade Shows 




If I want to get hands-on with some splicers, enclosures , splitters, cables, 
and what-not; which trade show should I go to? 


NFOC 2017 is very close to me and is next month. Is it worth the time? 

Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure reminder?

[Josh Reynolds]

Yes, that is a huge issue with them. It started the Great WISP Buffer
Debate of $YEAR of which nothing ever came. One of the longest threads in
UBNT Forum History.

On Aug 15, 2017 6:51 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> Some were related to inadequate buffer sizes causing mixing 100 meg and 1
> gig interfaces to have issues.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
> *To: *"af" 
> *Sent: *Monday, August 14, 2017 4:13:54 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding
> failurereminder?
>
>
> The old archived emails I've found on the toughswitch problem was random
> packetloss.   But I remember someone had figured out more details, just
> don't remember what they were and haven't found an email which contains the
> discussion.  I vaguely think it might have been load or pps related, but
> before what you'd think was full load.
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
>
>> Fill up the bridge table and see how it responds, for one.
>>
>> Not forwarding though, sounds like a chipset bug you'd need to catch.
>>
>> On Aug 14, 2017 3:39 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
>> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>>
>> Let me phrase this differently:  I am evaluating a new switch platform
>> that I am skeptical of.   I want to construct a test that the toughswitch
>> would fail (but a properly operating switch should pass) to ensure that
>> this platform hasn't made a similar error.
>>
>> If there are other known bad platforms I would like to include those in
>> this test suite as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Josh Luthman <
>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Symptom of Toughswitch is you installed one in the network.  Get rid of
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Use a PowerBox or Netonix.
>>>
>>> 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 Aug 14, 2017 1:18 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
>>> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>>>
 Could someone who is familiar with the problem with a the packet
 forwarding problems that were seen with a toughswitch remind me about the
 details of the symptoms/cause?

 I also remember similar problems with certain other switches.

 I am evaluating a couple of switches and want to make sure I can
 validate that this problem doesn't occur.

 --
 *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
 Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
 forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
 
   


>>
>>
>> --
>> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>   
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure reminder?

[Mike Hammett]

Some were related to inadequate buffer sizes causing mixing 100 meg and 1 gig 
interfaces to have issues. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:13:54 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Toughswitch/low cost ethernet forwarding failure reminder? 





The old archived emails I've found on the toughswitch problem was random 
packetloss. But I remember someone had figured out more details, just don't 
remember what they were and haven't found an email which contains the 
discussion. I vaguely think it might have been load or pps related, but before 
what you'd think was full load. 


On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Josh Reynolds < j...@kyneticwifi.com > wrote: 



Fill up the bridge table and see how it responds, for one. 


Not forwarding though, sounds like a chipset bug you'd need to catch. 


On Aug 14, 2017 3:39 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" < 
li...@packetflux.com > wrote: 




Let me phrase this differently: I am evaluating a new switch platform that I am 
skeptical of. I want to construct a test that the toughswitch would fail (but a 
properly operating switch should pass) to ensure that this platform hasn't made 
a similar error. 


If there are other known bad platforms I would like to include those in this 
test suite as well. 





On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Josh Luthman < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > 
wrote: 






Symptom of Toughswitch is you installed one in the network. Get rid of it. 


Use a PowerBox or Netonix. 


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





On Aug 14, 2017 1:18 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" < 
li...@packetflux.com > wrote: 





Could someone who is familiar with the problem with a the packet forwarding 
problems that were seen with a toughswitch remind me about the details of the 
symptoms/cause? 


I also remember similar problems with certain other switches. 


I am evaluating a couple of switches and want to make sure I can validate that 
this problem doesn't occur. 


-- 





Forrest Christian CEO , PacketFlux Technologies, Inc. 

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com 













-- 





Forrest Christian CEO , PacketFlux Technologies, Inc. 

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com 











-- 





Forrest Christian CEO , PacketFlux Technologies, Inc. 

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com