from:"Kade Sullivan"

Can't say enough good things about Last Mile Gear.  Those guys have helped
us out countless times.  Tre makes my orders much easier than they should
be.

Probably the only vendor I actually take calls from lol.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 Tre does that a lot it seems, made my job the other week easy peasy =)


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

 On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Rex-List Account via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:

 Just wanted to give a public shout out for Tre and all the gang

 at Last Mile Gear. If you have never used them you really should.

 Great products and Excellent service! Tre bailed me out of a jam

 again this morning.



 Thanks Tre!



 Rex

 ME Broadband

Re: [AFMUG] 90 Degree 3.6GHZ Sector

I asked KP for an explanation of the differences between them a few months
ago.  He said he'd contact his engineer but I never heard back.  When you
look at the antenna profile, at first glance it looks like the KP antenna
is better.  But once you look closer, it looks like each polarity is just
more offset from the other compared to the cambium, which makes the
overlapped profile look better.  It doesnt look any better to me on paper
after closer examination, even though supposedly it's rated better.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 I expect it's like Mike Tyson vs an infant.

 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373
 On Dec 12, 2014 4:04 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 Has anyone compared the KP 90 degree 3.6GHZ sector with the Cambium
 for use with 450?

Re: [AFMUG] 90 Degree 3.6GHZ Sector

The -3 vs -6 is exactly what I was refering to.  When you look closely at
the antenna pattern of the KP antenna, it just looks like they pushed each
polarity farther away from each other in relation to the cambium antenna.
This makes the lobes come out a bit farther and spec out as -3 instead of
-6.  If you look at each polarity individually, they are more like the -6
cambium sector.  This is why I feel like in the real world, there is no
advantage.  I am no RF engineer though, so this is just what I could
determine by looking at the patterns overlapped.



On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

   You’re talking about the “Gen II”, right?  That’s the 450 compatible
 one.  I have only compared spec sheets.  Looks like 90 degrees is at 3 dB
 points, while Cambium is more like 5-6 dB.  No null fill.  2 degrees
 downtilt.  No bracket to hold AP papoose style.  Otherwise similar specwise.

 KPP also lists a 120 degree sector, the spec sheet is a disaster though.
 Numbers say 2.4 GHz, pattern is ugly, F/B ratio is bad, not sure if it’s
 bad editing or what.  The numbers and patterns on the 90 look good though,
 except for no null fill, and make sure tower guy knows there is already 2
 degrees downtilt, it’s a pretty narrow vertical beam so you don’t want to
 double up on downtilt.

 I have only used the Cambium sector, other than the N connectors are in a
 mildly annoying location, I like them.

 Neither antenna is cheap.


  *From:* Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com
 *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 3:06 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 90 Degree 3.6GHZ Sector


 I expect it's like Mike Tyson vs an infant.

 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373
 On Dec 12, 2014 4:04 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 Has anyone compared the KP 90 degree 3.6GHZ sector with the Cambium
 for use with 450?

Re: [AFMUG] 90 Degree 3.6GHZ Sector

We had to blow up the patterns and overlay them in order to really see, as
you said it's not dramatic at all.

Glad to see someone agrees with my amateur assessment :D

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

   I see what you’re talking about.  It’s not dramatic, but I would think
 the best thing would be for the two polarizations to have almost identical
 patterns.

 Not sure what to make of the gain vs freq graph which shows more like 15
 dBi rather than 16.5 dBi.

 I think we all suspect that with most antennas, the specs are more
 “typical” than guaranteed, except for certain high end brands.  That might
 be the deciding difference, unless someone has actual side-by-side field
 results, I believe the Cambium antennas are per spec.  Not saying the KPP
 ones aren’t.  But like people have said about the 900 sectors, you probably
 lose a dB or two compared to MTI or Til-tek.  That said, the last 900
 sector I bought was a KPP, it is half the size of the other monsters.  But
 in this case, the Cambium sector with the bracket to hold the 450 AP
 probably wins out in the mechanical department.


  *From:* Kade Sullivan via Af af@afmug.com
 *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 3:58 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 90 Degree 3.6GHZ Sector

  The -3 vs -6 is exactly what I was refering to.  When you look closely
 at the antenna pattern of the KP antenna, it just looks like they pushed
 each polarity farther away from each other in relation to the cambium
 antenna.  This makes the lobes come out a bit farther and spec out as -3
 instead of -6.  If you look at each polarity individually, they are more
 like the -6 cambium sector.  This is why I feel like in the real world,
 there is no advantage.  I am no RF engineer though, so this is just what I
 could determine by looking at the patterns overlapped.



 On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

   You’re talking about the “Gen II”, right?  That’s the 450 compatible
 one.  I have only compared spec sheets.  Looks like 90 degrees is at 3 dB
 points, while Cambium is more like 5-6 dB.  No null fill.  2 degrees
 downtilt.  No bracket to hold AP papoose style.  Otherwise similar specwise.

 KPP also lists a 120 degree sector, the spec sheet is a disaster though.
 Numbers say 2.4 GHz, pattern is ugly, F/B ratio is bad, not sure if it’s
 bad editing or what.  The numbers and patterns on the 90 look good though,
 except for no null fill, and make sure tower guy knows there is already 2
 degrees downtilt, it’s a pretty narrow vertical beam so you don’t want to
 double up on downtilt.

 I have only used the Cambium sector, other than the N connectors are in a
 mildly annoying location, I like them.

 Neither antenna is cheap.


  *From:* Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com
 *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 3:06 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 90 Degree 3.6GHZ Sector


 I expect it's like Mike Tyson vs an infant.

 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373
 On Dec 12, 2014 4:04 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 Has anyone compared the KP 90 degree 3.6GHZ sector with the Cambium
 for use with 450?

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Tools

Out of curiosity, what do you use to manage your software upgrades?
Everything seems easy enough to manage with a 3rd party management platform.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Tushar Patel via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 If history is any guide, (BAM, Prizm ) and not continue to support. After
 poring close to $30k in  prizm, cambium wanted us to buy new license for
 all AP's and backhal again for wireless manager. I could not believe it.

 You are better off not wasting your time and money into their management
 platform.

 We won wireless manager in something and still did not install it. When we
 did install it, we were not impressed. Don't waste your time and money.

 Tushar


 On Dec 12, 2014, at 2:33 PM, SmarterBroadband via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 I assume Wireless manager is still a pay for product?



 Anyone using Wireless Advisor?  Is it worth installing?



 Thanks



 Adam

Re: [AFMUG] EoIP over fiber - high latency?

2014-12-11 Thread Kade Sullivan via Af

So looks like this may be a reason not to use UBNT stuff for our backup
links.  Looks like the highest I can set the MTU is 1515 on a couple units
and 1524 on another.  Neither capable of 1528 or more.

I'll have to find some brand new hardware and see if it can go higher.

How big of a performance hit are we talking here?  Potentially requiring
double the pps to move the same amount of large packets?  I could that
potentially being a pretty big problem.


On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Shayne Lebrun via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 To my understanding, it works like this:



 Say you take an IP packet coming into ether1, and it’s full MTU; 1500
 bytes.



 Now, you want to bridge ether1 to an EoIP tunnel.  EoI is GRE, and there’s
 a 28 byte overhead for the GRE encapsulation.  Now you have a 1528 byte
 packet.



 Unless every device between that router and the EoIP endpoint has layer2
 MTUs of at least 1528 bytes, you’re going to transmit two packets to move
 that one original packet.  One packet will have something like 1472 bytes
 of the original packet, plus GRE overhead for 1500, and one will have the
 remaining 28 bytes of the original packet, plus 28 GRE overhead, so,
 something like 56 bytes.



 This introduces the obvious slowdowns, as well as not so obvious ones,
 like maybe you have a device in the middle that’s not so good at PPS.  Or
 that queues up small packets into one big air frame, and therefore you’re
 waiting for reassembly on the far end.



 Now, if you’re going from a 1500 byte LAN across a 9000 byte fiber
 connection, you’ll not notice this.  If you’re going to a satellite office
 behind DSL with PPPoE, or a cable modem, or whatever, you’re going to
 notice.





 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Kade Sullivan via
 Af
 *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 5:17 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EoIP over fiber - high latency?



 Could you elaborate on this?  We have a couple EOIP links across other
 networks and have never adjusted the MTU anywhere.  I just pulled up the
 EOIP interfaces on each router and they are all set for 1500.  Should we be
 increasing this number as a best practice when building EOIP Tunnels?



 On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Shayne Lebrun via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:

 Bear in mind that unless you’ve increased your MTU from end to end, or
 dropped the MTU on your two devices that the EoIP are bridging, you’re
 going to get packet fragmentation.



 Otherwise, what RouterOS version?



 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Erich Kaiser via
 Af
 *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:25 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* [AFMUG] EoIP over fiber - high latency?



 So I have an EoIP tunnel setup over two fiber connections for a customer,
 I am seeing high latency over the tunnel any idea? MTU Issue?  Using
 RB1100AHx2 on both ends.

Re: [AFMUG] EoIP over fiber - high latency?

2014-12-11 Thread Kade Sullivan via Af

Good to know. I have some  brand new ones sitting around that I could swap
in.  Thanks
On Dec 11, 2014 8:39 AM, Mike Hammett via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 You have old, old units. The new ones do 2024 or better. Still Rocket Ms.
 They changed that 2 - 3 years ago.



 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com

 --
 *From: *Kade Sullivan via Af af@afmug.com
 *To: *af@afmug.com
 *Sent: *Thursday, December 11, 2014 8:35:41 AM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] EoIP over fiber - high latency?

 So looks like this may be a reason not to use UBNT stuff for our backup
 links.  Looks like the highest I can set the MTU is 1515 on a couple units
 and 1524 on another.  Neither capable of 1528 or more.

 I'll have to find some brand new hardware and see if it can go higher.

 How big of a performance hit are we talking here?  Potentially requiring
 double the pps to move the same amount of large packets?  I could that
 potentially being a pretty big problem.


 On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Shayne Lebrun via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:

 To my understanding, it works like this:



 Say you take an IP packet coming into ether1, and it’s full MTU; 1500
 bytes.



 Now, you want to bridge ether1 to an EoIP tunnel.  EoI is GRE, and
 there’s a 28 byte overhead for the GRE encapsulation.  Now you have a 1528
 byte packet.



 Unless every device between that router and the EoIP endpoint has layer2
 MTUs of at least 1528 bytes, you’re going to transmit two packets to move
 that one original packet.  One packet will have something like 1472 bytes
 of the original packet, plus GRE overhead for 1500, and one will have the
 remaining 28 bytes of the original packet, plus 28 GRE overhead, so,
 something like 56 bytes.



 This introduces the obvious slowdowns, as well as not so obvious ones,
 like maybe you have a device in the middle that’s not so good at PPS.  Or
 that queues up small packets into one big air frame, and therefore you’re
 waiting for reassembly on the far end.



 Now, if you’re going from a 1500 byte LAN across a 9000 byte fiber
 connection, you’ll not notice this.  If you’re going to a satellite office
 behind DSL with PPPoE, or a cable modem, or whatever, you’re going to
 notice.





 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Kade Sullivan
 via Af
 *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 5:17 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EoIP over fiber - high latency?



 Could you elaborate on this?  We have a couple EOIP links across other
 networks and have never adjusted the MTU anywhere.  I just pulled up the
 EOIP interfaces on each router and they are all set for 1500.  Should we be
 increasing this number as a best practice when building EOIP Tunnels?



 On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Shayne Lebrun via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:

 Bear in mind that unless you’ve increased your MTU from end to end, or
 dropped the MTU on your two devices that the EoIP are bridging, you’re
 going to get packet fragmentation.



 Otherwise, what RouterOS version?



 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Erich Kaiser via
 Af
 *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:25 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* [AFMUG] EoIP over fiber - high latency?



 So I have an EoIP tunnel setup over two fiber connections for a customer,
 I am seeing high latency over the tunnel any idea? MTU Issue?  Using
 RB1100AHx2 on both ends.

Re: [AFMUG] EoIP over fiber - high latency?

2014-12-10 Thread Kade Sullivan via Af

Could you elaborate on this?  We have a couple EOIP links across other
networks and have never adjusted the MTU anywhere.  I just pulled up the
EOIP interfaces on each router and they are all set for 1500.  Should we be
increasing this number as a best practice when building EOIP Tunnels?

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Shayne Lebrun via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 Bear in mind that unless you’ve increased your MTU from end to end, or
 dropped the MTU on your two devices that the EoIP are bridging, you’re
 going to get packet fragmentation.



 Otherwise, what RouterOS version?



 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Erich Kaiser via
 Af
 *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:25 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* [AFMUG] EoIP over fiber - high latency?



 So I have an EoIP tunnel setup over two fiber connections for a customer,
 I am seeing high latency over the tunnel any idea? MTU Issue?  Using
 RB1100AHx2 on both ends.

Re: [AFMUG] EoIP over fiber - high latency?

2014-12-10 Thread Kade Sullivan via Af

Sorry if I was unclear.  I was asking for clarification as to how high to
set the MTU, and if there was a best practice MTU to use going forward,
as we tend to use EOIP tunnels every now and then.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Mike Hammett via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 You can't take a 1500 byte packet, add EoIP overhead and still be within
 1500.



 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com

 --
 *From: *Kade Sullivan via Af af@afmug.com
 *To: *af@afmug.com
 *Sent: *Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:16:51 PM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] EoIP over fiber - high latency?


 Could you elaborate on this?  We have a couple EOIP links across other
 networks and have never adjusted the MTU anywhere.  I just pulled up the
 EOIP interfaces on each router and they are all set for 1500.  Should we be
 increasing this number as a best practice when building EOIP Tunnels?

 On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Shayne Lebrun via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:

 Bear in mind that unless you’ve increased your MTU from end to end, or
 dropped the MTU on your two devices that the EoIP are bridging, you’re
 going to get packet fragmentation.



 Otherwise, what RouterOS version?



 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Erich Kaiser via
 Af
 *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:25 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* [AFMUG] EoIP over fiber - high latency?



 So I have an EoIP tunnel setup over two fiber connections for a customer,
 I am seeing high latency over the tunnel any idea? MTU Issue?  Using
 RB1100AHx2 on both ends.

Re: [AFMUG] Force 110 assembly - anyone else having problems?

2014-12-09 Thread Kade Sullivan via Af

Maybe try another one out of the 4 pack and see if it's the same way?
Maybe you just got lucky with the first one...

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Alan West via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 Does not work for me. I tried it that way, could only get one of the four
 tabs to lock. The tolerances are way tight on this unit. It took all my
 might to get the feedhorn in the hole of the dish (putting the horn in
 first), and it will not bottom out like it is supposed to so the tabs can
 reach their holes. This is a major disappointment for me.


   On Monday, December 8, 2014 11:09 PM, Mathew Howard via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:


   I've only put one together so far, but the feedhorn went in fine... it
 took a bit of pressure, but nowhere near breaking anything.

  --
 *From:* Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of George Skorup (Cyber
 Broadcasting) via Af [af@afmug.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 10:58 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Force 110 assembly - anyone else having problems?

   That's what I thought at first, I'ma gonna break somethin...

 I stuck the feedhorn in first. Put the back bracket and mount on. Put the
 four allen-head screw in hand tight. Put some pressure on the front of the
 feedhorn and push on the back of the bracket at each of the four locking
 tab points. They click in place. Tighten the four allen screws. Put the
 front reflector on, mount the radio, etc. Fairly easy after the first one.

 On 12/8/2014 10:35 PM, Alan West via Af wrote:

  Just got my four pack in. Opened the box, all nicely packed. Started my
 first assembly. Got the bracket put on the dish. No problems. Now I get to
 the feedhorn push in. Yah right. This thing will not just click in place
 like the video shows. There is no way this feed horn I have will push far
 enough for the tabs to go into the holes for themI would probably break
 something. Seriously, I put the Force 100 together faster, and you know how
 bad it is...I hope the other three are not like this or they will go back
 to the supplier.

Re: [AFMUG] Cold weather gloves

2014-12-03 Thread Kade Sullivan via Af

A trick our tower climbers taught me is to wear a pair of the thick latex
5mm+ gloves underneath a set of lighter, tighter stretchy winter gloves.
This allows you to retain much more dexterity without sacrificing much
warmth.  Ever since using this trick, i RARELY get cold fingers.  I can
typically make a set of the rubber gloves last a couple days of taking them
on and off.  You can pick up a 500 pack for pretty cheap.  They are usually
a sweet black or purple color.  Very stylish.  It goes against everything
I've been taught as far as winter clothes and breath-ability, but it
actually works.  Your hands will be sweaty, but warm.  You also will be
able to hold bolts and nuts.  The other added benefit is that if you have
to remove your gloves to do something like put an ethernet end on, you just
leave the rubbers on and slip your outter glove off.  Your hand doesnt get
cold near as fast because it's blocked from the wind somewhat.

I have since told a couple friends that work out in the cold all day long
doing construction, and they now buy those gloves by the case.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Jaime Solorza via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 I have used Ironclad for years.  For climbing I use the Box Handlers

 Jaime Solorza
 On Dec 2, 2014 8:12 PM, Jay Weekley via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 Now that we're approaching Winter in the great white North Alabama and
 Christmas is near I need some good cold weather gloves. Normally, the
 coldest we work in is the 20's (Fahrenheit) and I really would like to find
 something that allows me to work with small tools with reasonable dexterity
 but keep my hands warm. Any suggestions? Am I being unrealistic?

Re: [AFMUG] Cold weather gloves

2014-12-03 Thread Kade Sullivan via Af

Wow those are 14mm. Very thick. Those would work great. Honestly have
never used nitrate gloves that thick. They may actually be tough to take
on and off because of the thickness and lack of stretch compared to the
lighter gloves.

These are what I typically use.

http://www.amazon.com/SAS-Safety-66518-Powder-Free-Disposable/dp/B002XXO60M/ref=sr_1_1?s=hiie=UTF8qid=1417640394sr=1-1keywords=SAS+Safety+66518+Raven+Powder-Free+Disposable+Black+Nitrile+6+Mil+Gloves%2C+Large%2C+100+Gloves+by+Weight

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

Like this, Kade?

http://www.amazon.com/SAS-Safety-6603-Thickster-Textured/dp/B0002STTW0

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

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Kade Sullivan via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

A trick our tower climbers taught me is to wear a pair of the thick latex
5mm+ gloves underneath a set of lighter, tighter stretchy winter gloves.
This allows you to retain much more dexterity without sacrificing much
warmth. Ever since using this trick, i RARELY get cold fingers. I can
typically make a set of the rubber gloves last a couple days of taking them
on and off. You can pick up a 500 pack for pretty cheap. They are usually
a sweet black or purple color. Very stylish. It goes against everything
I've been taught as far as winter clothes and breath-ability, but it
actually works. Your hands will be sweaty, but warm. You also will be
able to hold bolts and nuts. The other added benefit is that if you have
to remove your gloves to do something like put an ethernet end on, you just
leave the rubbers on and slip your outter glove off. Your hand doesnt get
cold near as fast because it's blocked from the wind somewhat.

I have since told a couple friends that work out in the cold all day long
doing construction, and they now buy those gloves by the case.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Jaime Solorza via Af af@afmug.com
wrote:

I have used Ironclad for years. For climbing I use the Box Handlers

Jaime Solorza
On Dec 2, 2014 8:12 PM, Jay Weekley via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

Now that we're approaching Winter in the great white North Alabama and
Christmas is near I need some good cold weather gloves. Normally, the
coldest we work in is the 20's (Fahrenheit) and I really would like to find
something that allows me to work with small tools with reasonable dexterity
but keep my hands warm. Any suggestions? Am I being unrealistic?

Re: [AFMUG] Cold weather gloves

2014-12-03 Thread Kade Sullivan via Af

those should work.  Apparently doesn't work for everyone :D

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Matt via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

  A trick our tower climbers taught me is to wear a pair of the thick latex
  5mm+ gloves underneath a set of lighter, tighter stretchy winter gloves.
  This allows you to retain much more dexterity without sacrificing much
  warmth.  Ever since using this trick, i RARELY get cold fingers.  I can
  typically make a set of the rubber gloves last a couple days of taking
 them
  on and off.  You can pick up a 500 pack for pretty cheap.  They are
 usually
  a sweet black or purple color.  Very stylish.  It goes against everything
  I've been taught as far as winter clothes and breath-ability, but it
  actually works.  Your hands will be sweaty, but warm.  You also will be
 able
  to hold bolts and nuts.  The other added benefit is that if you have to
  remove your gloves to do something like put an ethernet end on, you just
  leave the rubbers on and slip your outter glove off.  Your hand doesnt
 get
  cold near as fast because it's blocked from the wind somewhat.
 
  I have since told a couple friends that work out in the cold all day long
  doing construction, and they now buy those gloves by the case.

 Heard this from you or someone in past.  Tried these under regular gloves.

 http://www.amazon.com/SafeTouch-Nitrile-Gloves-Latex-Powder/dp/B0019QXACO

 They really did not seem to help much at all for me.  When I took my
 regular gloves off and just had the Nitrile ones on my hands did not
 seem to stay any warmer.  Are these a wrong choice?

Re: [AFMUG] wireless installer app

2014-10-21 Thread Kade Sullivan via Af

I'm sure going to give it a shot.  Yesterday I was talking to one of the
guys about how nice it would be to have an augmented reality app to look
through the camera and see where the tower is through trees or obstructions.

Then you go and post this :D

I'll report back

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:03 PM, timothy steele via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 anyone using the wireless installer app by deliberant? I can't get it to
 import my KMZ

 https://www.deliberant.com/installer-app

Re: [AFMUG] OT Booyah, I still believe

1 gram of fuel produced 1.5 MEGAWATTS of power over 32 days?  Am I reading
that right?

Holy shit!

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com wrote:


 http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline

[AFMUG] How to deal with constant customer internet saturation.

So it's becoming a reoccurring nightmare for me.  I get a customer calling
in saying their internet is slow.  It ends up being their upstream or
downstream or both are totally maxed out for hours on end.  Unfortunately,
my responsibility does not stop there.

We have been going the route of installing Mikrotik's in the customer home,
which helps us identify the problem.  But what do we do from there?

I feel like the overall bandwidth isnt the ENTIRE problem.  With more
intelligent usage, more people can use it simultaneously.  Of course,
giving them more speed would help, but I feel like it's a bandaid around
the big picture, which is the fact that nothing plays nice with anything
else.

Are there any mikrotik guru's here that could figure something out that we
could preload on all these mikrotik routers that would help minimize this
issue?

In my mind, I feel like the solution lies in the prioritization of each
connection, without putting a hard limit on any one device.  I just can't
seem to figure out the proper implementation.

Are any of you seeing this reoccurring nightmare?

Re: [AFMUG] How to deal with constant customer internet saturation.

This is exactly what I had envisioned in my mind. I can not thank you
enough.
On Oct 13, 2014 3:33 PM, Adam Moffett via Af af@afmug.com wrote:


 Have you tried PCQ with lower priority on connections that have moved more
 data?  See below.  That's saying any connection that has moved less than
 50,000,000 bytes gets priority 7, while any connection moving more than
 that gets the default priority 8.

 Before I did this, if I ran a torrent at my house I would get a crummy
 speed test and people in the house would complain about web pages being
 slow.  After doing this, the first thing I did was start up a torrent and
 let it run for awhile, then do a speed test.  You could see the throughput
 in uTorrent drop while the speedtest went full throttle.  So email and
 light web browsing (and speed tests) can hum along while a torrent or video
 stream is hosing the connection.  I'm running this at the router at the
 tower by the way.

 It's something like this:
 /ip firewall mangle
 add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting new-connection-mark=\
 tcp-connection protocol=tcp
 add action=mark-packet chain=prerouting comment=short connection-bytes=\
 0-5000 connection-mark=tcp-connection
 new-packet-mark=short-download \
 passthrough=no protocol=tcp
 add action=mark-packet chain=prerouting comment=long connection-mark=\
 tcp-connection new-packet-mark=long-download passthrough=no
 protocol=tcp
 add action=mark-packet chain=prerouting comment=short udp
 connection-bytes=\
 0-5000 new-packet-mark=short-download passthrough=no protocol=udp
 add action=mark-packet chain=prerouting comment=long udp
 new-packet-mark=\
 long-download passthrough=no protocol=udp

 /queue type
 add kind=pcq name=PCQ short Download pcq-classifier=src-address,dst-address
 \
 pcq-dst-address6-mask=64 pcq-limit=5k pcq-src-address6-mask=64 \
 pcq-total-limit=4
 add kind=pcq name=PCQ long download pcq-classifier=src-address,dst-address
 \
 pcq-dst-address6-mask=64 pcq-src-address6-mask=64 pcq-total-limit=4

 /queue tree
 add name=queue1 parent=global queue=default
 add name=queue8 packet-mark=short-download parent=queue1 priority=7
 queue=PCQ short Download
 add name=queue9 packet-mark=long-download parent=queue1 queue=PCQ long
 download

 I believe in the definition of the PCQ queue type you could also limit the
 speed of each connection.
 A Torrent client could still hose this.I'm not normally trying to get
 more than one torrent at a time, so for my house it works great, but if you
 have lots of torrents running and they each open many connections, it could
 take quite awhile before the individual connections move enough data to hit
 50meg.

 I was thinking I would alter it with 3 or four stages of connection length
 with gradually decreasing priority levels.  I just haven't gotten around to
 it.

  So it's becoming a reoccurring nightmare for me.  I get a customer
 calling in saying their internet is slow.  It ends up being their upstream
 or downstream or both are totally maxed out for hours on end.
 Unfortunately, my responsibility does not stop there.

 We have been going the route of installing Mikrotik's in the customer
 home, which helps us identify the problem.  But what do we do from there?

 I feel like the overall bandwidth isnt the ENTIRE problem.  With more
 intelligent usage, more people can use it simultaneously.  Of course,
 giving them more speed would help, but I feel like it's a bandaid around
 the big picture, which is the fact that nothing plays nice with anything
 else.

 Are there any mikrotik guru's here that could figure something out that
 we could preload on all these mikrotik routers that would help minimize
 this issue?

 In my mind, I feel like the solution lies in the prioritization of each
 connection, without putting a hard limit on any one device.  I just can't
 seem to figure out the proper implementation.

 Are any of you seeing this reoccurring nightmare?

Re: [AFMUG] How to deal with constant customer internet saturation.

Did not know this.   great info
On Oct 13, 2014 4:02 PM, Bill Prince via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

  Non advantage SMs will burst the same speed as advantage SMs.  The
 throughput limits only apply after the burst is exhausted.

 bp

 On 10/13/2014 1:55 PM, Kade Sullivan via Af wrote:

 1536 sustained down
 8 burst
 Max burst around 7 Meg since they are non advantage SMs
 On Oct 13, 2014 3:39 PM, Jerry Richardson via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

  What are your settings for burst/sustained?



 What is the max available speed the customer could see?



 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Kade Sullivan
 via Af
 *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 12:47 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* [AFMUG] How to deal with constant customer internet
 saturation.



 So it's becoming a reoccurring nightmare for me.  I get a customer
 calling in saying their internet is slow.  It ends up being their upstream
 or downstream or both are totally maxed out for hours on end.
 Unfortunately, my responsibility does not stop there.



 We have been going the route of installing Mikrotik's in the customer
 home, which helps us identify the problem.  But what do we do from there?



 I feel like the overall bandwidth isnt the ENTIRE problem.  With more
 intelligent usage, more people can use it simultaneously.  Of course,
 giving them more speed would help, but I feel like it's a bandaid around
 the big picture, which is the fact that nothing plays nice with anything
 else.



 Are there any mikrotik guru's here that could figure something out that
 we could preload on all these mikrotik routers that would help minimize
 this issue?



 In my mind, I feel like the solution lies in the prioritization of each
 connection, without putting a hard limit on any one device.  I just can't
 seem to figure out the proper implementation.



 Are any of you seeing this reoccurring nightmare?

Re: [AFMUG] Introducing a new revenue opportunity for WISPs.

We've been deploying this and it's been as solid as it gets.  We were
against it from the start, but after evaluating it, we love it.

Out of the 35 or so we have installed, I've had to return to less than 5 of
them, and it's been after a very high winds storm to realign a couple
reflectors.  Since then they have redesigned the dish and I have not had to
go back to any install since.

I was right there with you guys and hated sat internet, but after using
this, it's pretty amazing.  Every install I get 20 meg on the speed tests,
and the ping is pretty stable.  Around 500ms, but the jitter is not very
bad.  They have voip that supposedly works pretty well.  Not great for
gamers, but works great for people that just want to browse the web, check
email, use ebay, ect.

It's been a blessing for us.  I pretty much dont install 900mhz customers
anymore.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:50 PM, TJ Trout via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 Exede is a whole new beast, like 20mbps per sub and the sat capacity is
 like 10TB or something crazy

 On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:

   Last time I checked, they were out of capacity in rural areas.

  *From:* Chris Wright via Af af@afmug.com
 *Sent:* Friday, October 10, 2014 1:35 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Introducing a new revenue opportunity for WISPs.


 Our converted-from-satellite-internet customers are extremely vocal about
 their disdain for satellite internet. A deal like this may bring in an
 extra few bucks; headaches, doubly so.



 Chris Wright

 Velociter Wireless http://www.velociter.net/



 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Ernst via Af
 *Sent:* Friday, October 10, 2014 12:21 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* [AFMUG] Introducing a new revenue opportunity for WISPs.



 [image: Exede and Convergence header- Helping WISPs cash in on
 unservicable customers]
 Introducing a Brand New Exede Reseller Program Created
 Specifically for WISPs

 Convergence Technologies and Exede are excited to announce a new
 partnership with a unique sales program designed specifically for WISPs.
 Learn how this program opens up new profit opportunities for WISPs by
 turning unserviceable customers into profitable new customers while also
 reducing gaps in coverage.

 ✓

 Never say No to an unserviceable customer

 ✓

 You own the customer

 ✓

 Attractive service plans, margins, and pricing

 ✓

 Easy installation

 ✓

 Training provided

 ✓

 Increase revenue and profits

 *Say goodbye to lost sales and profits. Say hello to the new ConVergence
 / Exede WISP reseller program.*

 Please join us at the booth for a live demonstration and detailed
 brochures to take home.

 *Convergence Technologies would like to offer you a promotion code for a
 $50.00 discount on Full Conference Passes to attend the show. The discount
 code is CTI204*

 *Please feel free to call us at 844.251.3583 844.251.3583 if you have
 any questions about this exciting opportunity*

 *Come see us at WISPAPALOOZA 2014!*

 [image: WISPAPALOOZA 2014 logo]

 [image: Exede Internet Logo]

 Visit us at Booth 306

 [image: Convergence Logo]

 Visit us at Booth 401





 *Jeff Ernst*
 Director of Sales and Marketing

 [image: ConVergence Technologies, Inc.] http://www.converge-tech.com/





 Where Best of Class Technologies ConVerge



 ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
 7956 Madison Street

 Burr Ridge, IL 60527



 *tel*

 312.205.2503



 jer...@converge-tech.com

Re: [AFMUG] Introducing a new revenue opportunity for WISPs.

I've had exactly zero complaints from any customer.  We had a couple that
had issues with the data cap , but after a little extra customer training,
they have been fine ever since.

We stress the data cap and make sure they understand it.  We also secure
their wifi even if they live in the country, so that guests cant just jump
on and help themselves.  We stress the importance of treating it like their
water or power.

Customer training is what will ensure a successful deployment.

I would highly recommend checking this out.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Kade Sullivan k...@mutel.com wrote:

 We've been deploying this and it's been as solid as it gets.  We were
 against it from the start, but after evaluating it, we love it.

 Out of the 35 or so we have installed, I've had to return to less than 5
 of them, and it's been after a very high winds storm to realign a couple
 reflectors.  Since then they have redesigned the dish and I have not had to
 go back to any install since.

 I was right there with you guys and hated sat internet, but after using
 this, it's pretty amazing.  Every install I get 20 meg on the speed tests,
 and the ping is pretty stable.  Around 500ms, but the jitter is not very
 bad.  They have voip that supposedly works pretty well.  Not great for
 gamers, but works great for people that just want to browse the web, check
 email, use ebay, ect.

 It's been a blessing for us.  I pretty much dont install 900mhz customers
 anymore.

 On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:50 PM, TJ Trout via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 Exede is a whole new beast, like 20mbps per sub and the sat capacity is
 like 10TB or something crazy

 On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Chuck McCown via Af af@afmug.com
 wrote:

   Last time I checked, they were out of capacity in rural areas.

  *From:* Chris Wright via Af af@afmug.com
 *Sent:* Friday, October 10, 2014 1:35 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Introducing a new revenue opportunity for WISPs.


 Our converted-from-satellite-internet customers are extremely vocal
 about their disdain for satellite internet. A deal like this may bring in
 an extra few bucks; headaches, doubly so.



 Chris Wright

 Velociter Wireless http://www.velociter.net/



 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Ernst via
 Af
 *Sent:* Friday, October 10, 2014 12:21 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* [AFMUG] Introducing a new revenue opportunity for WISPs.



 [image: Exede and Convergence header- Helping WISPs cash in on
 unservicable customers]
 Introducing a Brand New Exede Reseller Program Created
 Specifically for WISPs

 Convergence Technologies and Exede are excited to announce a new
 partnership with a unique sales program designed specifically for WISPs.
 Learn how this program opens up new profit opportunities for WISPs by
 turning unserviceable customers into profitable new customers while also
 reducing gaps in coverage.

 ✓

 Never say No to an unserviceable customer

 ✓

 You own the customer

 ✓

 Attractive service plans, margins, and pricing

 ✓

 Easy installation

 ✓

 Training provided

 ✓

 Increase revenue and profits

 *Say goodbye to lost sales and profits. Say hello to the new ConVergence
 / Exede WISP reseller program.*

 Please join us at the booth for a live demonstration and detailed
 brochures to take home.

 *Convergence Technologies would like to offer you a promotion code for a
 $50.00 discount on Full Conference Passes to attend the show. The discount
 code is CTI204*

 *Please feel free to call us at 844.251.3583 844.251.3583 if you have
 any questions about this exciting opportunity*

 *Come see us at WISPAPALOOZA 2014!*

 [image: WISPAPALOOZA 2014 logo]

 [image: Exede Internet Logo]

 Visit us at Booth 306

 [image: Convergence Logo]

 Visit us at Booth 401





 *Jeff Ernst*
 Director of Sales and Marketing

 [image: ConVergence Technologies, Inc.] http://www.converge-tech.com/





 Where Best of Class Technologies ConVerge



 ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
 7956 Madison Street

 Burr Ridge, IL 60527



 *tel*

 312.205.2503



 jer...@converge-tech.com

Re: [AFMUG] Microwave Backhaul Ethernet Grommets - Feedback Wanted

If it means the difference between being able to pass an RJ45 connector
through it or not, I would say plastic all the way.

If I had to chose between 2 radio vendors with similar price/performance,
that feature would tip me one way or the other.  I absolutely despise
grommets that wont pass the connector.




On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Charles Wu via Af af@afmug.com wrote:

 Trying to figure out some Ethernet grommets and since you guys would be
 the ones directly using/installing these, thought I’d ask for input rather
 than just trying to guess what’s best for everyone – trying to decide metal
 vs. plastic



 Metal

 -  Cannot put Ethernet cable through (need to crimp connector
 AFTER cable has gone through)

 -  Expensive ($30+ / grommet) – when we’re trying to be
 competitive against Trango/SAF/etc with an all-outdoor microwave backhaul,
 every dollar counts (especially if we’re talking up to 4 connectors)

 -  Feels more **rugged**





 Plastic:

 -  Can put Ethernet cable through with the end on

 -  Cheap ($0.50/grommet) – can throw a bunch of these in with
 every radio without increasing the price, and could send them out to
 customers without charging them if a customer needed things

 -  Doesn’t **look/feel** as industrial / rugged as the metal
 grommet



 All suggestions / comments / thoughts are welcome



 Plastic







 Metal

Re: [AFMUG] Introducing a new revenue opportunity for WISPs.