Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Reasonable network management in Alaska could have a different measure than Chicago, given costs. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:36:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, /subject to reasonable network management//./ A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, /subject to reasonable network management.// / source: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf Your honor/insert title, in our Acceptable Use Policy that each customer signs, in accordance with the rules laid down by the FCC, we very clearly detail any and all network management practices that we use while stating the reason for such practices. As we run a fixed-wireless network, P2P transmissions have a very detrimental effect on wireless networking equipment - it affects all users on that node (and often other nodes) and impacts our ability to provide consistent service that individuals and businesses pay for. We have very little recourse in the matter. We can either block this singular type of traffic - not the content, but the delivery method - in accordance with the /reasonable network management/ clauses laid down in the FCC's rulings, or we can allow a singular user to impact the ability of several dozen or several hundred people. It is our belief that the FCC would not be so heavy handed and shortsighted as to force providers to allow a very specific type at the detriment of so many. We encourage the manufacturers of fixed wireless equipment to harden and redesign their equipment when and where necessary to allow us to unblock this singular type of traffic, so that we may open this back up. In addition, we have had no complaints over _X_ years due to this traffic limitation [obviously until this time]. Had an individual or business questioned our AUP or called to complain, we could have suggested they tunnel their P2P traffic over any one of a number of proxy or VPN services available for free or for a small fee on the internet. This would allow them access to the content they requested, still via P2P clients, without having a negative impact on other subscribers. ... just a brief snippet :P Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 02:05 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: It actually looks like I was totally wrong, you haven’t been able to do it since this FCC Declaratory Ruling in 2008: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284286A1.pdf *From:* Hass, Douglas A. mailto:d...@franczek.com *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:54 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I disagree that you could split hairs that way. Blocking a method has the effect of blocking content, which is all that someone needs to show. El jun. 10, 2015 4:52 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com escribió: You're a lawyer now? :) For the record, blocking a delivery method != blocking content. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 12:02 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: You are not allowed to block legal content. Period. If you rate limit it, you could perhaps claim it is reasonable network management, but “no throttling” is another of the 3 bright line rules. Remember one of the 2 or 3 actual cases of “bad behavior” cited for justifying all this was Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent back in something like 2007, and they weren’t even outright blocking it. As far as being sued, a customer could file a complaint with the FCC, rather than pursuing civil damages, likely that is the way they would go since all they have to do is fill in a form on the FCC website. My guess is the FCC will be much more interested in pursuing complaints from the likes of Netflix, Cogent and Level3 against the likes of Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner. Unless you piss off John Oliver. So it might just be like the BBB, they just send you the complaint and let you figure out what to do with it. That reminds me, I need to check if we are supposed to be registering a contact to receive Open Internet Order complaints, that kind of rings a bell, but maybe I’m confusing it with having a DC registered agent for CPNI complaints if you file Form 499. The other factor on your side is the customer might not want to complain to the FCC
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
To have a chance of surviving the reasonable network management test (and keep in mind it is likely not a court that you would be trying to persuade), it looks to me like using DPI to block an application (FCC already in their 2008 ruling against Comcast characterized Bit Torrent as an application) would be on shaky ground. Better to limit some technical parameter like number of open TCP connections, with some backup as to why the technical characteristics are harmful to your network. Other than the bandwidth used, I'm not sure why BT is so harmful to Josh's network. Maybe he is using NAT and a BT customer consumes too many entries in his router's conntrack table. If it's just the amount of sustained bandwidth used, the FCC told Comcast they should instead use other means like data caps or bandwidth limits, as long as they were transparent about it. -Original Message- From: Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 9:35 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Reasonable network management in Alaska could have a different measure than Chicago, given costs. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:36:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, /subject to reasonable network management//./ A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, /subject to reasonable network management.// / source: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf Your honor/insert title, in our Acceptable Use Policy that each customer signs, in accordance with the rules laid down by the FCC, we very clearly detail any and all network management practices that we use while stating the reason for such practices. As we run a fixed-wireless network, P2P transmissions have a very detrimental effect on wireless networking equipment - it affects all users on that node (and often other nodes) and impacts our ability to provide consistent service that individuals and businesses pay for. We have very little recourse in the matter. We can either block this singular type of traffic - not the content, but the delivery method - in accordance with the /reasonable network management/ clauses laid down in the FCC's rulings, or we can allow a singular user to impact the ability of several dozen or several hundred people. It is our belief that the FCC would not be so heavy handed and shortsighted as to force providers to allow a very specific type at the detriment of so many. We encourage the manufacturers of fixed wireless equipment to harden and redesign their equipment when and where necessary to allow us to unblock this singular type of traffic, so that we may open this back up. In addition, we have had no complaints over _X_ years due to this traffic limitation [obviously until this time]. Had an individual or business questioned our AUP or called to complain, we could have suggested they tunnel their P2P traffic over any one of a number of proxy or VPN services available for free or for a small fee on the internet. This would allow them access to the content they requested, still via P2P clients, without having a negative impact on other subscribers. ... just a brief snippet :P Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 02:05 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: It actually looks like I was totally wrong, you haven’t been able to do it since this FCC Declaratory Ruling in 2008: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284286A1.pdf *From:* Hass, Douglas A. mailto:d...@franczek.com *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:54 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I disagree that you could split hairs that way. Blocking a method has the effect of blocking content, which is all that someone needs to show. El jun. 10, 2015 4:52 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com escribió: You're a lawyer now? :) For the record, blocking a delivery method != blocking content. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 12:02 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: You are not allowed to block legal content. Period. If you rate limit it, you could perhaps claim it is reasonable network management, but “no throttling” is another of the 3 bright line rules. Remember one of the 2 or 3 actual cases of “bad behavior” cited for justifying all this was Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Yes, shotguns with slugs are involved! DA BEARS ;) On Jun 12, 2015 6:35 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: Reasonable network management in Alaska could have a different measure than Chicago, given costs. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:36:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, /subject to reasonable network management//./ A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, /subject to reasonable network management.// / source: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf Your honor/insert title, in our Acceptable Use Policy that each customer signs, in accordance with the rules laid down by the FCC, we very clearly detail any and all network management practices that we use while stating the reason for such practices. As we run a fixed-wireless network, P2P transmissions have a very detrimental effect on wireless networking equipment - it affects all users on that node (and often other nodes) and impacts our ability to provide consistent service that individuals and businesses pay for. We have very little recourse in the matter. We can either block this singular type of traffic - not the content, but the delivery method - in accordance with the /reasonable network management/ clauses laid down in the FCC's rulings, or we can allow a singular user to impact the ability of several dozen or several hundred people. It is our belief that the FCC would not be so heavy handed and shortsighted as to force providers to allow a very specific type at the detriment of so many. We encourage the manufacturers of fixed wireless equipment to harden and redesign their equipment when and where necessary to allow us to unblock this singular type of traffic, so that we may open this back up. In addition, we have had no complaints over _X_ years due to this traffic limitation [obviously until this time]. Had an individual or business questioned our AUP or called to complain, we could have suggested they tunnel their P2P traffic over any one of a number of proxy or VPN services available for free or for a small fee on the internet. This would allow them access to the content they requested, still via P2P clients, without having a negative impact on other subscribers. ... just a brief snippet :P Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 02:05 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: It actually looks like I was totally wrong, you haven’t been able to do it since this FCC Declaratory Ruling in 2008: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284286A1.pdf *From:* Hass, Douglas A. mailto:d...@franczek.com *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:54 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I disagree that you could split hairs that way. Blocking a method has the effect of blocking content, which is all that someone needs to show. El jun. 10, 2015 4:52 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com escribió: You're a lawyer now? :) For the record, blocking a delivery method != blocking content. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 12:02 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: You are not allowed to block legal content. Period. If you rate limit it, you could perhaps claim it is reasonable network management, but “no throttling” is another of the 3 bright line rules. Remember one of the 2 or 3 actual cases of “bad behavior” cited for justifying all this was Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent back in something like 2007, and they weren’t even outright blocking it. As far as being sued, a customer could file a complaint with the FCC, rather than pursuing civil damages, likely that is the way they would go since all they have to do is fill in a form on the FCC website. My guess is the FCC will be much more interested in pursuing complaints from the likes of Netflix, Cogent and Level3 against the likes of Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner. Unless you piss off John Oliver. So it might just be like the BBB, they just send you the complaint and let you figure out what to do with it. That reminds me, I need to check if we are supposed to be registering a contact to receive
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Rory, you mention VPN. But, a lot of VPNs aren’t torrents, and a lot of
torrents aren’t VPNs, right ?
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:56 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
We use Barracuda Web Filters. If a customer needs a VPN, they just need to let
us know and we will open it up. However, we won’t open it up for VPN to Russia
to download movies.
Rory
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 9:13 PM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically,
And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the
distribution method?
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios drop to
10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch the modulation
levels when that happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU load goes up.
Rory
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no way an XM radio can
do 20+.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince
part15...@gmail.commailto:part15...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what role it may be
playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1 day snapshot of one in SM role.
[cid:image001.png@01D0A355.68949520]
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to graph it way back
(maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate. This is definitely all XM gear.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340tel:937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343tel:937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway
r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
I would have to se your data, mine does not support that.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Luthman
j...@imaginenetworksllc.commailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340tel:937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343tel:937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway
r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity in ptmp
mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects modulation levels. I
haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the threshold is just higher and
probably justifies 30mhz but it's going to be close.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net
Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into
acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are also
running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could be
wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want 30mhz
channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com
Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea what you
are talking about right now.
What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and ubiquiti. In
particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in terms of efficiency.
This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories on PPS
you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into this discussion.
On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway
r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if you
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have to
deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote:
Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL
https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb
https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions
https://twitter.com/ICSIL
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix
https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange
https://twitter.com/mdwestix
--
*From: *Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically,
And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the
distribution method?
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
*Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios drop to
10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch the
modulation levels when that happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU
load goes up.
Rory
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no way an XM
radio can do 20+.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what role it may
be playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1 day snapshot of one in
SM role.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to graph it
way back (maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate. This is definitely
all XM gear.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net
wrote:
I would have to se your data, mine does not support that.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net
wrote:
To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity in
ptmp mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects modulation
levels. I haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the threshold is just
higher and probably justifies 30mhz but it's going to be close.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net
Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into
acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are also
running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could
be wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want
30mhz channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com
Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea what
you are talking about right now.
What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and ubiquiti.
In particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in terms of
efficiency.
This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories on
PPS you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into this
discussion.
On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically,
And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the
distribution method?
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios drop to
10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch the modulation
levels when that happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU load goes up.
Rory
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no way an XM radio can
do 20+.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what role it may be
playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1 day snapshot of one in SM role.
bp part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to graph it way back
(maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate. This is definitely all XM gear.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
I would have to se your data, mine does not support that.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
blockquote
To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity in ptmp
mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects modulation levels. I
haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the threshold is just higher and
probably justifies 30mhz but it's going to be close.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net
Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into
acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are also running
polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could be wasting
spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want 30mhz channels.
Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com
Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea what you
are talking about right now.
What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and ubiquiti. In
particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in terms of efficiency.
This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories on PPS
you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into this discussion.
On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if you aren't
hitting the limits of the physical layer in 20MHz, why do it?
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com
Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I can assure you that on radios connected in a ptp config or small ptmp, that
you will see more throughput on the 30mhz channel given
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no less
than 3 Communications Lawyers
Josh Reynolds
CIO, SPITwSPOTS
www.spitwspots.com
On 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
And you can legally do it until this Friday.
*From:* Josh Reynolds mailto:j...@spitwspots.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for
over 6 years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and
its in our AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint
because of it.
On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would
have to deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net
mailto:af...@ics-il.net wrote:
Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
https://www.facebook.com/mdwestixhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchangehttps://twitter.com/mdwestix
*From: *Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net
*To: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically,
And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use
torrents as the distribution method?
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
*Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM
radios drop to 10Mbps or less (another reason we kill
torrents). If you watch the modulation levels when that
happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU load goes up.
Rory
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no
way an XM radio can do 20+.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince
part15...@gmail.com mailto:part15...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what
role it may be playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1
day snapshot of one in SM role.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used
to graph it way back (maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it
deviate. This is definitely all XM gear.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway
r...@triadwireless.net mailto:r...@triadwireless.net
wrote:
I would have to se your data, mine does not support that.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so
please excuse shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01
or less?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway
r...@triadwireless.net mailto:r...@triadwireless.net
wrote:
To prove my point further, if you do throughput
testing with Ubiquity
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
You can be sued for any reason at any time. You're not clear. You'll
probably win and I expect you would. Think hot coffee litigation.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Jun 10, 2015 3:46 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote:
I'll say this again: After consulting with no less than 3 legal firms who
specialize in communications/fcc law, we are in the clear. I'm not going to
get into a debate about the legality of this because (A) I'm not a lawyer
and (B) neither are you. We have been told that subscribers agree to the
restrictions on our network when they sign a contract. The language is the
same used for commercial services.
Yes, the restriction applies to all torrent traffic.
Josh Reynolds
CIO, SPITwSPOTSwww.spitwspots.com
On 06/10/2015 11:37 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
IMO your only concern should be getting sued. Anyone that's torrenting
stuff probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer to do that.
Do you do any CIR connections for businesses? Do you block them?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337 3
Troy, OH 45373
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com
wrote:
And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no less
than 3 Communications Lawyers
Josh Reynolds
CIO, SPITwSPOTSwww.spitwspots.com
On 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
And you can legally do it until this Friday.
*From:* Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for over 6
years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and its in our
AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint because of it.
On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com
mhoward...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have to
deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote:
Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL
https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb
https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions
https://twitter.com/ICSIL
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix
https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange
https://twitter.com/mdwestix
--
*From: *Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically,
And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the
distribution method?
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
*Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios drop
to 10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch the
modulation levels when that happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU
load goes up.
Rory
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no way an XM
radio can do 20+.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what role it may
be playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1 day snapshot of one in
SM role.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to graph it
way back (maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate. This is definitely
all XM gear.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net
wrote:
I would have to se your data, mine does not support that.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
You are not allowed to block legal content. Period. If you rate limit it, you could perhaps claim it is reasonable network management, but “no throttling” is another of the 3 bright line rules. Remember one of the 2 or 3 actual cases of “bad behavior” cited for justifying all this was Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent back in something like 2007, and they weren’t even outright blocking it. As far as being sued, a customer could file a complaint with the FCC, rather than pursuing civil damages, likely that is the way they would go since all they have to do is fill in a form on the FCC website. My guess is the FCC will be much more interested in pursuing complaints from the likes of Netflix, Cogent and Level3 against the likes of Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner. Unless you piss off John Oliver. So it might just be like the BBB, they just send you the complaint and let you figure out what to do with it. That reminds me, I need to check if we are supposed to be registering a contact to receive Open Internet Order complaints, that kind of rings a bell, but maybe I’m confusing it with having a DC registered agent for CPNI complaints if you file Form 499. The other factor on your side is the customer might not want to complain to the FCC if their reasons for using Bit Torrent are not exactly legal or moral. And customers wanting to torrent legitimate content, like maybe Linux ISOs, will probably just use another method and not have a cow over it. From: Josh Reynolds Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:46 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'll say this again: After consulting with no less than 3 legal firms who specialize in communications/fcc law, we are in the clear. I'm not going to get into a debate about the legality of this because (A) I'm not a lawyer and (B) neither are you. We have been told that subscribers agree to the restrictions on our network when they sign a contract. The language is the same used for commercial services. Yes, the restriction applies to all torrent traffic. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comOn 06/10/2015 11:37 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: IMO your only concern should be getting sued. Anyone that's torrenting stuff probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer to do that. Do you do any CIR connections for businesses? Do you block them? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 3 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote: And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no less than 3 Communications Lawyers Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comOn 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: And you can legally do it until this Friday. From: Josh Reynolds Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for over 6 years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and its in our AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint because of it. On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have to deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com -- From: Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically, And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the distribution method? From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios drop to 10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch the modulation levels when that happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU load goes up. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no way an XM radio can do 20+. Josh Luthman
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
IMO your only concern should be getting sued. Anyone that's torrenting
stuff probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer to do that.
Do you do any CIR connections for businesses? Do you block them?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote:
And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no less
than 3 Communications Lawyers
Josh Reynolds
CIO, SPITwSPOTSwww.spitwspots.com
On 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
And you can legally do it until this Friday.
*From:* Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for over 6
years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and its in our
AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint because of it.
On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com
mhoward...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have to
deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote:
Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL
https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb
https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions
https://twitter.com/ICSIL
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix
https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange
https://twitter.com/mdwestix
--
*From: *Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically,
And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the
distribution method?
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
*Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios drop to
10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch the
modulation levels when that happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU
load goes up.
Rory
*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no way an XM
radio can do 20+.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what role it may
be playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1 day snapshot of one in
SM role.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to graph it
way back (maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate. This is definitely
all XM gear.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net
wrote:
I would have to se your data, mine does not support that.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net
wrote:
To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity in
ptmp mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects modulation
levels. I haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the threshold is just
higher and probably justifies 30mhz but it's going to be close.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net
Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into
acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I wonder if I can put a clause in the TOS saying all disputes will be decided
by Judge Judy.
From: Josh Reynolds
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:59 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
No one is ever exempt from being sued, even if they have a may not sue
clause. That is irrelevant to if what we are doing is legal or not, which our
lawyers tell us it is.
Josh Reynolds
CIO, SPITwSPOTS
www.spitwspots.comOn 06/10/2015 11:51 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
You can be sued for any reason at any time. You're not clear. You'll
probably win and I expect you would. Think hot coffee litigation.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Jun 10, 2015 3:46 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote:
I'll say this again: After consulting with no less than 3 legal firms who
specialize in communications/fcc law, we are in the clear. I'm not going to get
into a debate about the legality of this because (A) I'm not a lawyer and (B)
neither are you. We have been told that subscribers agree to the restrictions
on our network when they sign a contract. The language is the same used for
commercial services.
Yes, the restriction applies to all torrent traffic.
Josh Reynolds
CIO, SPITwSPOTS
www.spitwspots.comOn 06/10/2015 11:37 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
IMO your only concern should be getting sued. Anyone that's torrenting
stuff probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer to do that.
Do you do any CIR connections for businesses? Do you block them?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337 3
Troy, OH 45373
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com
wrote:
And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no less
than 3 Communications Lawyers
Josh Reynolds
CIO, SPITwSPOTS
www.spitwspots.comOn 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
And you can legally do it until this Friday.
From: Josh Reynolds
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for
over 6 years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and its in our
AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint because of it.
On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com
wrote:
Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would
have to deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net
wrote:
Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
--
From: Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically,
And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents
as the distribution method?
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM
radios drop to 10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch
the modulation levels when that happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU
load goes up.
Rory
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no way
an XM radio can do 20+.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what role
it may be playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1 day snapshot of one
in SM role.
bppart15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to
graph it way back (maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for over 6 years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and its in our AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint because of it.
On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote:Agreed. I dont even want to think about how many calls we would have to deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter.On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett afmug@ics-il.net wrote:Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
From: Paul McCall paulm@pdmnet.netTo: af@afmug.comSent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PMSubject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically,
And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the distribution method?
From: Af [mailto:af-bounces@afmug.com]
On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios drop to 10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch the modulation levels
when that happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU load goes up.
Rory
From: Af [mailto:af-bounces@afmug.com]
On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
PS in the run queue? That certainly isnt load, theres no way an XM radio can do 20.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince part15sbs@gmail.com wrote:
Im with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what role it may be playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1 day snapshot of one in SM role.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to graph it way back (maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate. This is definitely all XM gear.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway rory@triadwireless.net wrote:
I would have to se your data, mine does not support that.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Luthman josh@imaginenetworksllc.com
Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway rory@triadwireless.net wrote:
To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity in ptmp mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects modulation levels. I havent tested xw radios yet but I believe the threshold is just higher and probably
justifies 30mhz but its going to be close.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Rory Conaway rory@triadwireless.net
Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are also running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could be wasting spectrum.
If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want 30mhz channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Reynolds josh@spitwspots.com
Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea what you are talking about right now.
What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and ubiquiti. In particular, why UBNT 40mhz isnt any better than 30mhz in terms of efficiency.
This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories on PPS you may have, other than those you have tried to inject
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I'll say this again: After consulting with no less than 3 legal firms
who specialize in communications/fcc law, we are in the clear. I'm not
going to get into a debate about the legality of this because (A) I'm
not a lawyer and (B) neither are you. We have been told that subscribers
agree to the restrictions on our network when they sign a contract. The
language is the same used for commercial services.
Yes, the restriction applies to all torrent traffic.
Josh Reynolds
CIO, SPITwSPOTS
www.spitwspots.com
On 06/10/2015 11:37 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
IMO your only concern should be getting sued. Anyone that's torrenting
stuff probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer to do that.
Do you do any CIR connections for businesses? Do you block them?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337 3
Troy, OH 45373
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com
mailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote:
And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no
less than 3 Communications Lawyers
Josh Reynolds
CIO, SPITwSPOTS
www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com
On 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
And you can legally do it until this Friday.
*From:* Josh Reynolds mailto:j...@spitwspots.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure
for over 6 years using various DPI and behavioral detection
systems, and its in our AUP. We have never lost a customer or
even had a complaint because of it.
On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com
mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we
would have to deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for
that matter.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett
af...@ics-il.net mailto:af...@ics-il.net wrote:
Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
https://www.facebook.com/mdwestixhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchangehttps://twitter.com/mdwestix
*From: *Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net
mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net
*To: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically,
And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use
torrents as the distribution method?
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
*Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen
XM radios drop to 10Mbps or less (another reason we kill
torrents). If you watch the modulation levels when that
happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU load goes up.
Rory
*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's
no way an XM radio can do 20+.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince
part15...@gmail.com mailto:part15...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and
what role it may be playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This
is just a 1 day snapshot of one in SM role.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I
used to graph it way back (maybe 5.3 days?) and I
never saw it deviate. This is definitely all XM gear
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If you explain to the customer that you have 7 years of records that you can bring to the legal fight of all the websites he connected to, I’m guessing nobody will want to continue that fight. We didn’t talk to 3 lawyers but the 2 we did talk to both worked for Microsoft at some point and they agree, if it’s in the contract and the customer agrees to it, good luck suing. Ours is bolstered by the fact we provide a premium security service that requires blocking and we have 3 other competitors they can go to if they want. We don’t have a monopoly. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 1:02 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz You are not allowed to block legal content. Period. If you rate limit it, you could perhaps claim it is reasonable network management, but “no throttling” is another of the 3 bright line rules. Remember one of the 2 or 3 actual cases of “bad behavior” cited for justifying all this was Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent back in something like 2007, and they weren’t even outright blocking it. As far as being sued, a customer could file a complaint with the FCC, rather than pursuing civil damages, likely that is the way they would go since all they have to do is fill in a form on the FCC website. My guess is the FCC will be much more interested in pursuing complaints from the likes of Netflix, Cogent and Level3 against the likes of Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner. Unless you piss off John Oliver. So it might just be like the BBB, they just send you the complaint and let you figure out what to do with it. That reminds me, I need to check if we are supposed to be registering a contact to receive Open Internet Order complaints, that kind of rings a bell, but maybe I’m confusing it with having a DC registered agent for CPNI complaints if you file Form 499. The other factor on your side is the customer might not want to complain to the FCC if their reasons for using Bit Torrent are not exactly legal or moral. And customers wanting to torrent legitimate content, like maybe Linux ISOs, will probably just use another method and not have a cow over it. From: Josh Reynoldsmailto:j...@spitwspots.com Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:46 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'll say this again: After consulting with no less than 3 legal firms who specialize in communications/fcc law, we are in the clear. I'm not going to get into a debate about the legality of this because (A) I'm not a lawyer and (B) neither are you. We have been told that subscribers agree to the restrictions on our network when they sign a contract. The language is the same used for commercial services. Yes, the restriction applies to all torrent traffic. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 11:37 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: IMO your only concern should be getting sued. Anyone that's torrenting stuff probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer to do that. Do you do any CIR connections for businesses? Do you block them? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 3 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no less than 3 Communications Lawyers Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: And you can legally do it until this Friday. From: Josh Reynoldsmailto:j...@spitwspots.com Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for over 6 years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and its in our AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint because of it. On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have to deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.netmailto:af...@ics-il.net wrote: Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]https://twitter.com/ICSIL Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix[http://www.ics-il.com/images
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
No one is ever exempt from being sued, even if they have a may not sue clause. That is irrelevant to if what we are doing is legal or not, which our lawyers tell us it is. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 11:51 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: You can be sued for any reason at any time. You're not clear. You'll probably win and I expect you would. Think hot coffee litigation. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 10, 2015 3:46 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com mailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: I'll say this again: After consulting with no less than 3 legal firms who specialize in communications/fcc law, we are in the clear. I'm not going to get into a debate about the legality of this because (A) I'm not a lawyer and (B) neither are you. We have been told that subscribers agree to the restrictions on our network when they sign a contract. The language is the same used for commercial services. Yes, the restriction applies to all torrent traffic. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 11:37 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: IMO your only concern should be getting sued. Anyone that's torrenting stuff probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer to do that. Do you do any CIR connections for businesses? Do you block them? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 3 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com mailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no less than 3 Communications Lawyers Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: And you can legally do it until this Friday. *From:* Josh Reynolds mailto:j...@spitwspots.com *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for over 6 years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and its in our AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint because of it. On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have to deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net mailto:af...@ics-il.net wrote: Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com https://www.facebook.com/mdwestixhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchangehttps://twitter.com/mdwestix *From: *Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net *To: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent: *Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically, And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the distribution method? *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Rory Conaway *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios drop to 10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch the modulation levels when that happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU load goes up. Rory *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
And you can legally do it until this Friday.
From: Josh Reynolds
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for over 6 years
using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and its in our AUP. We have
never lost a customer or even had a complaint because of it.
On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have to deal
with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote:
Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
From: Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically,
And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the
distribution method?
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios drop to
10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch the modulation
levels when that happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU load goes up.
Rory
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no way an XM radio
can do 20+.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what role it may be
playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1 day snapshot of one in SM role.
bppart15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to graph it
way back (maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate. This is definitely all
XM gear.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net
wrote:
I would have to se your data, mine does not support that.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net
wrote:
To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity
in ptmp mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects modulation levels.
I haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the threshold is just higher and
probably justifies 30mhz but it's going to be close.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net
Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take
into acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are also
running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could be
wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want 30mhz
channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com
Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I think we are having
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
IMHO it’s another matter when someone calls wanting tech support for problems
that only occur with their VPN to Europe. And BTW, they usually end up saying
the packet loss or slowness or whatever turned out to be the fault of their VPN
provider. (Please, let it not be Hola)
Similarly, when someone using BT with hundreds of TCP connections open has
saturated their upstream bandwidth or exceeded the conntrack table in their 8
year old router and is complaining their Internet is slow.
Not blocking is one thing, providing tech support for it is another.
From: Mathew Howard
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 7:56 AM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have to deal
with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote:
Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
--
From: Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically,
And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the
distribution method?
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios drop to
10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch the modulation
levels when that happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU load goes up.
Rory
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no way an XM radio
can do 20+.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what role it may be
playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1 day snapshot of one in SM role.
bppart15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to graph it way
back (maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate. This is definitely all XM
gear.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
I would have to se your data, mine does not support that.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity in
ptmp mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects modulation levels. I
haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the threshold is just higher and
probably justifies 30mhz but it's going to be close.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net
Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into
acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are also
running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could be
wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want 30mhz
channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com
Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
You need to be a lawyer now to have an opinion? But apparently not to have an attitude. From: Josh Reynolds Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:41 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz You're a lawyer now? :) For the record, blocking a delivery method != blocking content. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comOn 06/10/2015 12:02 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: You are not allowed to block legal content. Period. If you rate limit it, you could perhaps claim it is reasonable network management, but “no throttling” is another of the 3 bright line rules. Remember one of the 2 or 3 actual cases of “bad behavior” cited for justifying all this was Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent back in something like 2007, and they weren’t even outright blocking it. As far as being sued, a customer could file a complaint with the FCC, rather than pursuing civil damages, likely that is the way they would go since all they have to do is fill in a form on the FCC website. My guess is the FCC will be much more interested in pursuing complaints from the likes of Netflix, Cogent and Level3 against the likes of Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner. Unless you piss off John Oliver. So it might just be like the BBB, they just send you the complaint and let you figure out what to do with it. That reminds me, I need to check if we are supposed to be registering a contact to receive Open Internet Order complaints, that kind of rings a bell, but maybe I’m confusing it with having a DC registered agent for CPNI complaints if you file Form 499. The other factor on your side is the customer might not want to complain to the FCC if their reasons for using Bit Torrent are not exactly legal or moral. And customers wanting to torrent legitimate content, like maybe Linux ISOs, will probably just use another method and not have a cow over it. From: Josh Reynolds Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:46 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'll say this again: After consulting with no less than 3 legal firms who specialize in communications/fcc law, we are in the clear. I'm not going to get into a debate about the legality of this because (A) I'm not a lawyer and (B) neither are you. We have been told that subscribers agree to the restrictions on our network when they sign a contract. The language is the same used for commercial services. Yes, the restriction applies to all torrent traffic. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comOn 06/10/2015 11:37 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: IMO your only concern should be getting sued. Anyone that's torrenting stuff probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer to do that. Do you do any CIR connections for businesses? Do you block them? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 3 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote: And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no less than 3 Communications Lawyers Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comOn 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: And you can legally do it until this Friday. From: Josh Reynolds Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for over 6 years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and its in our AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint because of it. On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have to deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net wrote: Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com From: Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically, And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the distribution method? From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios drop to 10Mbps or less (another reason we
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, /subject to reasonable network management//./ A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, /subject to reasonable network management.// / source: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf Your honor/insert title, in our Acceptable Use Policy that each customer signs, in accordance with the rules laid down by the FCC, we very clearly detail any and all network management practices that we use while stating the reason for such practices. As we run a fixed-wireless network, P2P transmissions have a very detrimental effect on wireless networking equipment - it affects all users on that node (and often other nodes) and impacts our ability to provide consistent service that individuals and businesses pay for. We have very little recourse in the matter. We can either block this singular type of traffic - not the content, but the delivery method - in accordance with the /reasonable network management/ clauses laid down in the FCC's rulings, or we can allow a singular user to impact the ability of several dozen or several hundred people. It is our belief that the FCC would not be so heavy handed and shortsighted as to force providers to allow a very specific type at the detriment of so many. We encourage the manufacturers of fixed wireless equipment to harden and redesign their equipment when and where necessary to allow us to unblock this singular type of traffic, so that we may open this back up. In addition, we have had no complaints over _X_ years due to this traffic limitation [obviously until this time]. Had an individual or business questioned our AUP or called to complain, we could have suggested they tunnel their P2P traffic over any one of a number of proxy or VPN services available for free or for a small fee on the internet. This would allow them access to the content they requested, still via P2P clients, without having a negative impact on other subscribers. ... just a brief snippet :P Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 02:05 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: It actually looks like I was totally wrong, you haven’t been able to do it since this FCC Declaratory Ruling in 2008: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284286A1.pdf *From:* Hass, Douglas A. mailto:d...@franczek.com *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:54 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I disagree that you could split hairs that way. Blocking a method has the effect of blocking content, which is all that someone needs to show. El jun. 10, 2015 4:52 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com escribió: You're a lawyer now? :) For the record, blocking a delivery method != blocking content. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 12:02 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: You are not allowed to block legal content. Period. If you rate limit it, you could perhaps claim it is reasonable network management, but “no throttling” is another of the 3 bright line rules. Remember one of the 2 or 3 actual cases of “bad behavior” cited for justifying all this was Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent back in something like 2007, and they weren’t even outright blocking it. As far as being sued, a customer could file a complaint with the FCC, rather than pursuing civil damages, likely that is the way they would go since all they have to do is fill in a form on the FCC website. My guess is the FCC will be much more interested in pursuing complaints from the likes of Netflix, Cogent and Level3 against the likes of Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner. Unless you piss off John Oliver. So it might just be like the BBB, they just send you the complaint and let you figure out what to do with it. That reminds me, I need to check if we are supposed to be registering a contact to receive Open Internet Order complaints, that kind of rings a bell, but maybe I’m confusing it with having a DC registered agent for CPNI complaints if you file Form 499. The other factor on your side is the customer might not want to complain to the FCC if their reasons for using Bit Torrent are not exactly legal or moral. And customers wanting to torrent legitimate content, like maybe Linux ISOs, will probably just use another method and not have a cow over it. From: Josh Reynoldsmailto:j...@spitwspots.com Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:46 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'll say this again: After consulting with no less than 3
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
You're a lawyer now? :) For the record, blocking a delivery method != blocking content. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 12:02 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: You are not allowed to block legal content. Period. If you rate limit it, you could perhaps claim it is reasonable network management, but “no throttling” is another of the 3 bright line rules. Remember one of the 2 or 3 actual cases of “bad behavior” cited for justifying all this was Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent back in something like 2007, and they weren’t even outright blocking it. As far as being sued, a customer could file a complaint with the FCC, rather than pursuing civil damages, likely that is the way they would go since all they have to do is fill in a form on the FCC website. My guess is the FCC will be much more interested in pursuing complaints from the likes of Netflix, Cogent and Level3 against the likes of Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner. Unless you piss off John Oliver. So it might just be like the BBB, they just send you the complaint and let you figure out what to do with it. That reminds me, I need to check if we are supposed to be registering a contact to receive Open Internet Order complaints, that kind of rings a bell, but maybe I’m confusing it with having a DC registered agent for CPNI complaints if you file Form 499. The other factor on your side is the customer might not want to complain to the FCC if their reasons for using Bit Torrent are not exactly legal or moral. And customers wanting to torrent legitimate content, like maybe Linux ISOs, will probably just use another method and not have a cow over it. *From:* Josh Reynolds mailto:j...@spitwspots.com *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:46 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'll say this again: After consulting with no less than 3 legal firms who specialize in communications/fcc law, we are in the clear. I'm not going to get into a debate about the legality of this because (A) I'm not a lawyer and (B) neither are you. We have been told that subscribers agree to the restrictions on our network when they sign a contract. The language is the same used for commercial services. Yes, the restriction applies to all torrent traffic. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 11:37 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: IMO your only concern should be getting sued. Anyone that's torrenting stuff probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer to do that. Do you do any CIR connections for businesses? Do you block them? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 3 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com mailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no less than 3 Communications Lawyers Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: And you can legally do it until this Friday. *From:* Josh Reynolds mailto:j...@spitwspots.com *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM *To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for over 6 years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and its in our AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint because of it. On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have to deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net mailto:af...@ics-il.net wrote: Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com https://www.facebook.com/mdwestixhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchangehttps://twitter.com/mdwestix *From: *Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net *To: *af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com *Sent: *Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically, And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the distribution method
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
That is much stronger and more likely to succeed then your last (admittedly shorthand) argument that blocking a delivery method is not the same as blocking content. :-) El jun. 10, 2015 5:44 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com escribió: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. source: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf Your honor/insert title, in our Acceptable Use Policy that each customer signs, in accordance with the rules laid down by the FCC, we very clearly detail any and all network management practices that we use while stating the reason for such practices. As we run a fixed-wireless network, P2P transmissions have a very detrimental effect on wireless networking equipment - it affects all users on that node (and often other nodes) and impacts our ability to provide consistent service that individuals and businesses pay for. We have very little recourse in the matter. We can either block this singular type of traffic - not the content, but the delivery method - in accordance with the reasonable network management clauses laid down in the FCC's rulings, or we can allow a singular user to impact the ability of several dozen or several hundred people. It is our belief that the FCC would not be so heavy handed and shortsighted as to force providers to allow a very specific type at the detriment of so many. We encourage the manufacturers of fixed wireless equipment to harden and redesign their equipment when and where necessary to allow us to unblock this singular type of traffic, so that we may open this back up. In addition, we have had no complaints over _X_ years due to this traffic limitation [obviously until this time]. Had an individual or business questioned our AUP or called to complain, we could have suggested they tunnel their P2P traffic over any one of a number of proxy or VPN services available for free or for a small fee on the internet. This would allow them access to the content they requested, still via P2P clients, without having a negative impact on other subscribers. ... just a brief snippet :P Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 02:05 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: It actually looks like I was totally wrong, you haven’t been able to do it since this FCC Declaratory Ruling in 2008: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284286A1.pdf From: Hass, Douglas A.mailto:d...@franczek.com Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:54 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I disagree that you could split hairs that way. Blocking a method has the effect of blocking content, which is all that someone needs to show. El jun. 10, 2015 4:52 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com escribió: You're a lawyer now? :) For the record, blocking a delivery method != blocking content. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 12:02 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: You are not allowed to block legal content. Period. If you rate limit it, you could perhaps claim it is reasonable network management, but “no throttling” is another of the 3 bright line rules. Remember one of the 2 or 3 actual cases of “bad behavior” cited for justifying all this was Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent back in something like 2007, and they weren’t even outright blocking it. As far as being sued, a customer could file a complaint with the FCC, rather than pursuing civil damages, likely that is the way they would go since all they have to do is fill in a form on the FCC website. My guess is the FCC will be much more interested in pursuing complaints from the likes of Netflix, Cogent and Level3 against the likes of Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner. Unless you piss off John Oliver. So it might just be like the BBB, they just send you the complaint and let you figure out what to do with it. That reminds me, I need to check if we are supposed to be registering a contact to receive Open Internet Order complaints, that kind of rings a bell, but maybe I’m confusing it with having a DC registered agent for CPNI complaints if you file Form 499. The other factor on your side is the customer might not want to complain to the FCC if their reasons for using Bit Torrent are not exactly legal or moral. And customers wanting to torrent legitimate content, like maybe Linux ISOs, will probably just use another
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
It actually looks like I was totally wrong, you haven’t been able to do it since this FCC Declaratory Ruling in 2008: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284286A1.pdf From: Hass, Douglas A. Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:54 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I disagree that you could split hairs that way. Blocking a method has the effect of blocking content, which is all that someone needs to show. El jun. 10, 2015 4:52 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com escribió: You're a lawyer now? :) For the record, blocking a delivery method != blocking content. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 12:02 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: You are not allowed to block legal content. Period. If you rate limit it, you could perhaps claim it is reasonable network management, but “no throttling” is another of the 3 bright line rules. Remember one of the 2 or 3 actual cases of “bad behavior” cited for justifying all this was Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent back in something like 2007, and they weren’t even outright blocking it. As far as being sued, a customer could file a complaint with the FCC, rather than pursuing civil damages, likely that is the way they would go since all they have to do is fill in a form on the FCC website. My guess is the FCC will be much more interested in pursuing complaints from the likes of Netflix, Cogent and Level3 against the likes of Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner. Unless you piss off John Oliver. So it might just be like the BBB, they just send you the complaint and let you figure out what to do with it. That reminds me, I need to check if we are supposed to be registering a contact to receive Open Internet Order complaints, that kind of rings a bell, but maybe I’m confusing it with having a DC registered agent for CPNI complaints if you file Form 499. The other factor on your side is the customer might not want to complain to the FCC if their reasons for using Bit Torrent are not exactly legal or moral. And customers wanting to torrent legitimate content, like maybe Linux ISOs, will probably just use another method and not have a cow over it. From: Josh Reynoldsmailto:j...@spitwspots.com Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:46 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'll say this again: After consulting with no less than 3 legal firms who specialize in communications/fcc law, we are in the clear. I'm not going to get into a debate about the legality of this because (A) I'm not a lawyer and (B) neither are you. We have been told that subscribers agree to the restrictions on our network when they sign a contract. The language is the same used for commercial services. Yes, the restriction applies to all torrent traffic. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 11:37 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: IMO your only concern should be getting sued. Anyone that's torrenting stuff probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer to do that. Do you do any CIR connections for businesses? Do you block them? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 3 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no less than 3 Communications Lawyers Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: And you can legally do it until this Friday. From: Josh Reynoldsmailto:j...@spitwspots.com Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for over 6 years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and its in our AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint because of it. On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have to deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.netmailto:af...@ics-il.net wrote: Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]https://twitter.com/ICSIL Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I disagree that you could split hairs that way. Blocking a method has the effect of blocking content, which is all that someone needs to show. El jun. 10, 2015 4:52 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com escribió: You're a lawyer now? :) For the record, blocking a delivery method != blocking content. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 12:02 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: You are not allowed to block legal content. Period. If you rate limit it, you could perhaps claim it is reasonable network management, but “no throttling” is another of the 3 bright line rules. Remember one of the 2 or 3 actual cases of “bad behavior” cited for justifying all this was Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent back in something like 2007, and they weren’t even outright blocking it. As far as being sued, a customer could file a complaint with the FCC, rather than pursuing civil damages, likely that is the way they would go since all they have to do is fill in a form on the FCC website. My guess is the FCC will be much more interested in pursuing complaints from the likes of Netflix, Cogent and Level3 against the likes of Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner. Unless you piss off John Oliver. So it might just be like the BBB, they just send you the complaint and let you figure out what to do with it. That reminds me, I need to check if we are supposed to be registering a contact to receive Open Internet Order complaints, that kind of rings a bell, but maybe I’m confusing it with having a DC registered agent for CPNI complaints if you file Form 499. The other factor on your side is the customer might not want to complain to the FCC if their reasons for using Bit Torrent are not exactly legal or moral. And customers wanting to torrent legitimate content, like maybe Linux ISOs, will probably just use another method and not have a cow over it. From: Josh Reynoldsmailto:j...@spitwspots.com Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:46 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'll say this again: After consulting with no less than 3 legal firms who specialize in communications/fcc law, we are in the clear. I'm not going to get into a debate about the legality of this because (A) I'm not a lawyer and (B) neither are you. We have been told that subscribers agree to the restrictions on our network when they sign a contract. The language is the same used for commercial services. Yes, the restriction applies to all torrent traffic. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 11:37 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: IMO your only concern should be getting sued. Anyone that's torrenting stuff probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer to do that. Do you do any CIR connections for businesses? Do you block them? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 3 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no less than 3 Communications Lawyers Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: And you can legally do it until this Friday. From: Josh Reynoldsmailto:j...@spitwspots.com Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for over 6 years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and its in our AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint because of it. On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have to deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.netmailto:af...@ics-il.net wrote: Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]https://twitter.com/ICSIL Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]https://twitter.com/mdwestix From: Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
DO YOU have a 7 year record of the websites that customers are going to ? From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:53 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz If you explain to the customer that you have 7 years of records that you can bring to the legal fight of all the websites he connected to, I’m guessing nobody will want to continue that fight. We didn’t talk to 3 lawyers but the 2 we did talk to both worked for Microsoft at some point and they agree, if it’s in the contract and the customer agrees to it, good luck suing. Ours is bolstered by the fact we provide a premium security service that requires blocking and we have 3 other competitors they can go to if they want. We don’t have a monopoly. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 1:02 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz You are not allowed to block legal content. Period. If you rate limit it, you could perhaps claim it is reasonable network management, but “no throttling” is another of the 3 bright line rules. Remember one of the 2 or 3 actual cases of “bad behavior” cited for justifying all this was Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent back in something like 2007, and they weren’t even outright blocking it. As far as being sued, a customer could file a complaint with the FCC, rather than pursuing civil damages, likely that is the way they would go since all they have to do is fill in a form on the FCC website. My guess is the FCC will be much more interested in pursuing complaints from the likes of Netflix, Cogent and Level3 against the likes of Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner. Unless you piss off John Oliver. So it might just be like the BBB, they just send you the complaint and let you figure out what to do with it. That reminds me, I need to check if we are supposed to be registering a contact to receive Open Internet Order complaints, that kind of rings a bell, but maybe I’m confusing it with having a DC registered agent for CPNI complaints if you file Form 499. The other factor on your side is the customer might not want to complain to the FCC if their reasons for using Bit Torrent are not exactly legal or moral. And customers wanting to torrent legitimate content, like maybe Linux ISOs, will probably just use another method and not have a cow over it. From: Josh Reynoldsmailto:j...@spitwspots.com Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:46 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'll say this again: After consulting with no less than 3 legal firms who specialize in communications/fcc law, we are in the clear. I'm not going to get into a debate about the legality of this because (A) I'm not a lawyer and (B) neither are you. We have been told that subscribers agree to the restrictions on our network when they sign a contract. The language is the same used for commercial services. Yes, the restriction applies to all torrent traffic. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 11:37 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: IMO your only concern should be getting sued. Anyone that's torrenting stuff probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer to do that. Do you do any CIR connections for businesses? Do you block them? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 3 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no less than 3 Communications Lawyers Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: And you can legally do it until this Friday. From: Josh Reynoldsmailto:j...@spitwspots.com Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for over 6 years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and its in our AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint because of it. On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have to deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.netmailto:af...@ics-il.net wrote: Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Yep. Our authentication server just writes them out to logs. Have to pull some old servers off the shelf but they are accessible. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 1:58 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz DO YOU have a 7 year record of the websites that customers are going to ? From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:53 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz If you explain to the customer that you have 7 years of records that you can bring to the legal fight of all the websites he connected to, I’m guessing nobody will want to continue that fight. We didn’t talk to 3 lawyers but the 2 we did talk to both worked for Microsoft at some point and they agree, if it’s in the contract and the customer agrees to it, good luck suing. Ours is bolstered by the fact we provide a premium security service that requires blocking and we have 3 other competitors they can go to if they want. We don’t have a monopoly. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 1:02 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz You are not allowed to block legal content. Period. If you rate limit it, you could perhaps claim it is reasonable network management, but “no throttling” is another of the 3 bright line rules. Remember one of the 2 or 3 actual cases of “bad behavior” cited for justifying all this was Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent back in something like 2007, and they weren’t even outright blocking it. As far as being sued, a customer could file a complaint with the FCC, rather than pursuing civil damages, likely that is the way they would go since all they have to do is fill in a form on the FCC website. My guess is the FCC will be much more interested in pursuing complaints from the likes of Netflix, Cogent and Level3 against the likes of Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner. Unless you piss off John Oliver. So it might just be like the BBB, they just send you the complaint and let you figure out what to do with it. That reminds me, I need to check if we are supposed to be registering a contact to receive Open Internet Order complaints, that kind of rings a bell, but maybe I’m confusing it with having a DC registered agent for CPNI complaints if you file Form 499. The other factor on your side is the customer might not want to complain to the FCC if their reasons for using Bit Torrent are not exactly legal or moral. And customers wanting to torrent legitimate content, like maybe Linux ISOs, will probably just use another method and not have a cow over it. From: Josh Reynoldsmailto:j...@spitwspots.com Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:46 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'll say this again: After consulting with no less than 3 legal firms who specialize in communications/fcc law, we are in the clear. I'm not going to get into a debate about the legality of this because (A) I'm not a lawyer and (B) neither are you. We have been told that subscribers agree to the restrictions on our network when they sign a contract. The language is the same used for commercial services. Yes, the restriction applies to all torrent traffic. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 11:37 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: IMO your only concern should be getting sued. Anyone that's torrenting stuff probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer to do that. Do you do any CIR connections for businesses? Do you block them? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 3 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no less than 3 Communications Lawyers Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: And you can legally do it until this Friday. From: Josh Reynoldsmailto:j...@spitwspots.com Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for over 6 years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and its in our AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint because of it. On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have to deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.netmailto:af...@ics-il.net wrote: Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice. - Mike Hammett
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Like I said, it was shaped by 3 different legal teams :) Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 02:58 PM, Hass, Douglas A. wrote: That is much stronger and more likely to succeed then your last (admittedly shorthand) argument that blocking a delivery method is not the same as blocking content. :-) El jun. 10, 2015 5:44 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com escribió: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. source: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf Your honor/insert title, in our Acceptable Use Policy that each customer signs, in accordance with the rules laid down by the FCC, we very clearly detail any and all network management practices that we use while stating the reason for such practices. As we run a fixed-wireless network, P2P transmissions have a very detrimental effect on wireless networking equipment - it affects all users on that node (and often other nodes) and impacts our ability to provide consistent service that individuals and businesses pay for. We have very little recourse in the matter. We can either block this singular type of traffic - not the content, but the delivery method - in accordance with the reasonable network management clauses laid down in the FCC's rulings, or we can allow a singular user to impact the ability of several dozen or several hundred people. It is our belief that the FCC would not be so heavy handed and shortsighted as to force providers to allow a very specific type at the detriment of so many. We encourage the manufacturers of fixed wireless equipment to harden and redesign their equipment when and where necessary to allow us to unblock this singular type of traffic, so that we may open this back up. In addition, we have had no complaints over _X_ years due to this traffic limitation [obviously until this time]. Had an individual or business questioned our AUP or called to complain, we could have suggested they tunnel their P2P traffic over any one of a number of proxy or VPN services available for free or for a small fee on the internet. This would allow them access to the content they requested, still via P2P clients, without having a negative impact on other subscribers. ... just a brief snippet :P Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 02:05 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: It actually looks like I was totally wrong, you haven’t been able to do it since this FCC Declaratory Ruling in 2008: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284286A1.pdf From: Hass, Douglas A.mailto:d...@franczek.com Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:54 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I disagree that you could split hairs that way. Blocking a method has the effect of blocking content, which is all that someone needs to show. El jun. 10, 2015 4:52 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com escribió: You're a lawyer now? :) For the record, blocking a delivery method != blocking content. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com %3E%3Chttp://www.spitwspots.com%3E On 06/10/2015 12:02 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: You are not allowed to block legal content. Period. If you rate limit it, you could perhaps claim it is reasonable network management, but “no throttling” is another of the 3 bright line rules. Remember one of the 2 or 3 actual cases of “bad behavior” cited for justifying all this was Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent back in something like 2007, and they weren’t even outright blocking it. As far as being sued, a customer could file a complaint with the FCC, rather than pursuing civil damages, likely that is the way they would go since all they have to do is fill in a form on the FCC website. My guess is the FCC will be much more interested in pursuing complaints from the likes of Netflix, Cogent and Level3 against the likes of Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner. Unless you piss off John Oliver. So it might just be like the BBB, they just send you the complaint and let you figure out what to do with it. That reminds me, I need to check if we are supposed to be registering a contact to receive Open Internet Order complaints, that kind of rings a bell, but maybe I’m confusing it with having a DC registered agent for CPNI complaints if you file Form 499
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I will attending Cambium training next week. I am taking notes from this discussion. Jaime Solorza On Jun 9, 2015 8:07 PM, Dan Sullivan daniel.sulli...@cambiumnetworks.com wrote: Hi Craig, What you describe sounds like an UL interference problem to me, although you did indicate that you ran eDetect and did not see any interferers. Here is what I would try. If you are still setting up your sectors and the channel plan is still flexible, I would run ACS on each sector to find out the best channel(s) for each sector on a tower. ACS provides a measurement of every kind of noise / interferer seen (e.g. 802.11 based, Canopy, etc.). Once this is done, I would then select pick an ABAB configuration which optimizes the findings from ACS where the A and B channels are spaced at least 5 MHz apart. For example, using 2412 and 2437 provides 5 MHz guard band (i.e. 2422-2427). 5 MHz of guard band is all that is required when you run in TDD Sync. eDetect can now be run on each sector in order to detect 802.11 UL interferers. It will not detect other types of interferers. I would run eDetect in local mode as all spare time is spent looking for interferers. These steps should allow you to pick the best two channels for an ABAB configuration to solve your UL performance issues if it is due to interference. With regard to UL RSSI, when using the Subscriber Module Target Receive Level (TRL) on the AP in TDD Sync mode, this should be set around -60 dBm on the AP. This field defines the RSSI that the AP will hear from each SM. Each SM will change its transmit power so that the exact UL RSSI value as defined by the SM TRL is realized for the SM at the AP. If you set the value higher than this, then the back side sector AP will start hearing the SMs from this AP. This is because the front to back ratio of the sector antenna is 30-35 dB. If the SM TRL is -60 dBm, then the noise floor due to the backside sector is somewhere between -95 to -90 dBm. If the SM TRL is raised to -50 dBm, then the noise floor due to the backside sector is raised to between -85 to -80 dBm. The overall CINR is no different in either case and additional energy is added to the environment. ePMP has optimized its sector antennas with front to back ratio. I recommend using these sector antennas. If you use different sector antennas, choosing high gain antennas that have poorer front to back will actually hurt you. Say you choose a sector antenna that gives say 2 dB better gain, but the front to back suffers by 5-8 dB on average. Then the CINR will be decreased to 22-30 dB best case and the highest MCS may not be achieved on both the UL and the DL due to interference from your back sector. In the US and everywhere except for ETSI, the ePMP does not support CCA in TDD mode. It does not wait to transmit based on environmental noise. Therefore, if throughput and MCS is decreased at high RSSI for a site, this is most likely due to interferers occurring at the same time and raising the noise floor. With regard to 10, 20, or 40 MHz channels, what I would do is look at the noise level using ACS for each channel size. If you have really clean spectrum, you could use 40 MHz, but if not you might find cleaner 20 or 10 MHz channels that favor their use. In general the channel bandwidths perform comparably in similar noise environments (of course doubling the channel bandwidth doubles the noise floor). I hope this helps. Dan Sullivan ePMP Software Manager Cambium Networks Cambium Networks Community Forum http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/ *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Reynolds *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 3:41 PM *To:* af@afmug.com *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz None of our radios have high PPS load. Matter of fact, average packet size on our network is 1.3k. PPS per radio is very low. FWIW, there are no file sharers on our network. If they exist, their connection is encapsulated over VPN. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com On 06/08/2015 11:16 AM, Rory Conaway wrote: The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros �processors that are also running polling. � Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could be wasting spectrum. �If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want 30mhz channels. �Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea what you are talking about
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Thank you Dan I have tried to work with support but my schedule and Vijay's are not very compatible. I spend most every day hanging on towers and driving so being in front of my computer to work on this stuff is only good for me late at night. I have KP sectors 90 degree with a 28dbi F/B radio. I've always been happy with KP stuff and since I dont have any SM's connected to the afflicted AP's on the opposite (Back facing) sector that uses the same channel I dont think this is the problem. My noise floor is somewhat higher than I would like and going to a 10mhz channel on the two AP's that have customers seems to have helped. I think I will go back to ACS in 10mhz and see how it performs. My problem with ACS is that the AP's auto choose close to the same channel around the entire cluster. We are considering adding a 5ghz omni on each tower to make use of where 2.4 just seems to have too much noise but I would like to save that spectrum for BH links where possible. I will follow up with you and let you know results. Thanks Craig - Original Message - From: Dan Sullivan daniel.sulli...@cambiumnetworks.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 9:06:53 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Hi Craig, What you describe sounds like an UL interference problem to me, although you did indicate that you ran eDetect and did not see any interferers. Here is what I would try. If you are still setting up your sectors and the channel plan is still flexible, I would run ACS on each sector to find out the best channel(s) for each sector on a tower. ACS provides a measurement of every kind of noise / interferer seen (e.g. 802.11 based, Canopy, etc.). Once this is done, I would then select pick an ABAB configuration which optimizes the findings from ACS where the A and B channels are spaced at least 5 MHz apart. For example, using 2412 and 2437 provides 5 MHz guard band (i.e. 2422-2427). 5 MHz of guard band is all that is required when you run in TDD Sync. eDetect can now be run on each sector in order to detect 802.11 UL interferers. It will not detect other types of interferers. I would run eDetect in local mode as all spare time is spent looking for interferers. These steps should allow you to pick the best two channels for an ABAB configuration to solve your UL performance issues if it is due to interference. With regard to UL RSSI, when using the Subscriber Module Target Receive Level (TRL) on the AP in TDD Sync mode, this should be set around -60 dBm on the AP. This field defines the RSSI that the AP will hear from each SM. Each SM will change its transmit power so that the exact UL RSSI value as defined by the SM TRL is realized for the SM at the AP. If you set the value higher than this, then the back side sector AP will start hearing the SMs from this AP. This is because the front to back ratio of the sector antenna is 30-35 dB. If the SM TRL is -60 dBm, then the noise floor due to the backside sector is somewhere between -95 to -90 dBm. If the SM TRL is raised to -50 dBm, then the noise floor due to the backside sector is raised to between -85 to -80 dBm. The overall CINR is no different in either case and additional energy is added to the environment. ePMP has optimized its sector antennas with front to back ratio. I recommend using these sector antennas. If you use different sector antennas, choosing high gain antennas that have poorer front to back will actually hurt you. Say you choose a sector antenna that gives say 2 dB better gain, but the front to back suffers by 5-8 dB on average. Then the CINR will be decreased to 22-30 dB best case and the highest MCS may not be achieved on both the UL and the DL due to interference from your back sector. In the US and everywhere except for ETSI, the ePMP does not support CCA in TDD mode. It does not wait to transmit based on environmental noise. Therefore, if throughput and MCS is decreased at high RSSI for a site, this is most likely due to interferers occurring at the same time and raising the noise floor. With regard to 10, 20, or 40 MHz channels, what I would do is look at the noise level using ACS for each channel size. If you have really clean spectrum, you could use 40 MHz, but if not you might find cleaner 20 or 10 MHz channels that favor their use. In general the channel bandwidths perform comparably in similar noise environments (of course doubling the channel bandwidth doubles the noise floor). I hope this helps. Dan Sullivan ePMP Software Manager Cambium Networks Cambium Networks Community Forum From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:41 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz None of our radios have high PPS load. Matter of fact, average packet size on our network is 1.3k. PPS per radio is very low. FWIW, there are no file
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Hi Craig, What you describe sounds like an UL interference problem to me, although you did indicate that you ran eDetect and did not see any interferers. Here is what I would try. If you are still setting up your sectors and the channel plan is still flexible, I would run ACS on each sector to find out the best channel(s) for each sector on a tower. ACS provides a measurement of every kind of noise / interferer seen (e.g. 802.11 based, Canopy, etc.). Once this is done, I would then select pick an ABAB configuration which optimizes the findings from ACS where the A and B channels are spaced at least 5 MHz apart. For example, using 2412 and 2437 provides 5 MHz guard band (i.e. 2422-2427). 5 MHz of guard band is all that is required when you run in TDD Sync. eDetect can now be run on each sector in order to detect 802.11 UL interferers. It will not detect other types of interferers. I would run eDetect in local mode as all spare time is spent looking for interferers. These steps should allow you to pick the best two channels for an ABAB configuration to solve your UL performance issues if it is due to interference. With regard to UL RSSI, when using the Subscriber Module Target Receive Level (TRL) on the AP in TDD Sync mode, this should be set around -60 dBm on the AP. This field defines the RSSI that the AP will hear from each SM. Each SM will change its transmit power so that the exact UL RSSI value as defined by the SM TRL is realized for the SM at the AP. If you set the value higher than this, then the back side sector AP will start hearing the SMs from this AP. This is because the front to back ratio of the sector antenna is 30-35 dB. If the SM TRL is -60 dBm, then the noise floor due to the backside sector is somewhere between -95 to -90 dBm. If the SM TRL is raised to -50 dBm, then the noise floor due to the backside sector is raised to between -85 to -80 dBm. The overall CINR is no different in either case and additional energy is added to the environment. ePMP has optimized its sector antennas with front to back ratio. I recommend using these sector antennas. If you use different sector antennas, choosing high gain antennas that have poorer front to back will actually hurt you. Say you choose a sector antenna that gives say 2 dB better gain, but the front to back suffers by 5-8 dB on average. Then the CINR will be decreased to 22-30 dB best case and the highest MCS may not be achieved on both the UL and the DL due to interference from your back sector. In the US and everywhere except for ETSI, the ePMP does not support CCA in TDD mode. It does not wait to transmit based on environmental noise. Therefore, if throughput and MCS is decreased at high RSSI for a site, this is most likely due to interferers occurring at the same time and raising the noise floor. With regard to 10, 20, or 40 MHz channels, what I would do is look at the noise level using ACS for each channel size. If you have really clean spectrum, you could use 40 MHz, but if not you might find cleaner 20 or 10 MHz channels that favor their use. In general the channel bandwidths perform comparably in similar noise environments (of course doubling the channel bandwidth doubles the noise floor). I hope this helps. Dan Sullivan ePMP Software Manager Cambium Networks Cambium Networks Community Forumhttp://community.cambiumnetworks.com/ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:41 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz None of our radios have high PPS load. Matter of fact, average packet size on our network is 1.3k. PPS per radio is very low. FWIW, there are no file sharers on our network. If they exist, their connection is encapsulated over VPN. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.comhttp://www.spitwspots.com On 06/08/2015 11:16 AM, Rory Conaway wrote: The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros �processors that are also running polling. � Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could be wasting spectrum. �If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want 30mhz channels. �Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea what you are talking about right now. What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and ubiquiti. In particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in terms of efficiency. This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically,
And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the
distribution method?
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios drop to
10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch the modulation
levels when that happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU load goes up.
Rory
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no way an XM radio can
do 20+.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince
part15...@gmail.commailto:part15...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what role it may be
playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1 day snapshot of one in SM role.
[cid:image001.png@01D0A312.2892EA00]
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to graph it way back
(maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate. This is definitely all XM gear.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340tel:937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343tel:937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway
r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
I would have to se your data, mine does not support that.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Luthman
j...@imaginenetworksllc.commailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340tel:937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343tel:937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway
r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity in ptmp
mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects modulation levels. I
haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the threshold is just higher and
probably justifies 30mhz but it's going to be close.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net
Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into
acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are also
running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could be
wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want 30mhz
channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com
Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea what you
are talking about right now.
What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and ubiquiti. In
particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in terms of efficiency.
This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories on PPS
you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into this discussion.
On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway
r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if you aren't
hitting the limits of the physical layer in 20MHz, why do it?
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com
Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I can assure you that on radios connected in a ptp config or small ptmp, that
you will see more throughput on the 30mhz channel given a noise floor of -97
and signals in the mid -50s, even with nothing connected on the other side of
the radios.
Its
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
We use Barracuda Web Filters. If a customer needs a VPN, they just need to let
us know and we will open it up. However, we won’t open it up for VPN to Russia
to download movies.
Rory
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 9:13 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically,
And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the
distribution method?
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios drop to
10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch the modulation
levels when that happens, you will also see them drop as the CPU load goes up.
Rory
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no way an XM radio can
do 20+.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince
part15...@gmail.commailto:part15...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what role it may be
playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1 day snapshot of one in SM role.
[cid:image001.png@01D0A2FF.19266050]
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to graph it way back
(maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate. This is definitely all XM gear.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340tel:937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343tel:937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway
r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
I would have to se your data, mine does not support that.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Luthman
j...@imaginenetworksllc.commailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340tel:937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343tel:937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway
r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity in ptmp
mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects modulation levels. I
haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the threshold is just higher and
probably justifies 30mhz but it's going to be close.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net
Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into
acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are also
running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could be
wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want 30mhz
channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com
Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea what you
are talking about right now.
What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and ubiquiti. In
particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in terms of efficiency.
This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories on PPS
you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into this discussion.
On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway
r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if you aren't
hitting the limits of the physical layer in 20MHz, why do it?
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I would have to se your data, mine does not support that. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote: To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity in ptmp mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects modulation levels. I haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the threshold is just higher and probably justifies 30mhz but it's going to be close. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are also running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could be wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want 30mhz channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea what you are talking about right now. What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and ubiquiti. In particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in terms of efficiency. This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories on PPS you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into this discussion. On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote: Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if you aren't hitting the limits of the physical layer in 20MHz, why do it? Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I can assure you that on radios connected in a ptp config or small ptmp, that you will see more throughput on the 30mhz channel given a noise floor of -97 and signals in the mid -50s, even with nothing connected on the other side of the radios. Its an efficiency issue. On Jun 8, 2015 8:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.commailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I kind of does, the way I understood it, that bottleneck limited you from really being able to do anything beyond what a 30mhz channel could support. Now that I think about it, I have seen 40mhz perform better than 30mhz... but yes, that was because of RF problems, and neither one was doing anything close to what it would with a good link. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel efficiency per say. On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote: The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In the real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with eveything g taken into account. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out of some on this list ;) On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.commailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to graph it way back (maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate. This is definitely all XM gear. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: I would have to se your data, mine does not support that. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity in ptmp mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects modulation levels. I haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the threshold is just higher and probably justifies 30mhz but it's going to be close. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are also running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could be wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want 30mhz channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea what you are talking about right now. What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and ubiquiti. In particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in terms of efficiency. This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories on PPS you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into this discussion. On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if you aren't hitting the limits of the physical layer in 20MHz, why do it? Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I can assure you that on radios connected in a ptp config or small ptmp, that you will see more throughput on the 30mhz channel given a noise floor of -97 and signals in the mid -50s, even with nothing connected on the other side of the radios. Its an efficiency issue. On Jun 8, 2015 8:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I kind of does, the way I understood it, that bottleneck limited you from really being able to do anything beyond what a 30mhz channel could support. Now that I think about it, I have seen 40mhz perform better than 30mhz... but yes, that was because of RF problems, and neither one was doing anything close to what it would with a good link. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote: That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel efficiency per say. On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In the real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with eveything g taken into account. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out of some on this list ;) On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didn't
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea what you are talking about right now. What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and ubiquiti. In particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in terms of efficiency. This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories on PPS you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into this discussion. On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if you arent hitting the limits of the physical layer in 20MHz, why do it? Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds josh@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I can assure you that on radios connected in a ptp config or small ptmp, that you will see more throughput on the 30mhz channel given a noise floor of -97 and signals in the mid -50s, even with nothing connected on the other side of the radios. Its an efficiency issue. On Jun 8, 2015 8:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward841@gmail.com wrote: I kind of does, the way I understood it, that bottleneck limited you from really being able to do anything beyond what a 30mhz channel could support. Now that I think about it, I have seen 40mhz perform better than 30mhz... but yes, that was because of RF problems, and neither one was doing anything close to what it would with a good link. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Josh Reynolds josh@spitwspots.com wrote: That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel efficiency per say. On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway rory@triadwireless.net wrote: The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In the real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with eveything g taken into account. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds josh@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out of some on this list ;) On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmith2@gmail.com wrote: I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didnt have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman josh@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds josh@spitwspots.com wrote: I dont know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, its really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward841@gmail.com wrote: Ive never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but Im not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I havent really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun slebrun@muskoka.com wrote: I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works better than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Im not that familiar with the ePMPs yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are also running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could be wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want 30mhz channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea what you are talking about right now. What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and ubiquiti. In particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in terms of efficiency. This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories on PPS you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into this discussion. On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if you aren't hitting the limits of the physical layer in 20MHz, why do it? Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I can assure you that on radios connected in a ptp config or small ptmp, that you will see more throughput on the 30mhz channel given a noise floor of -97 and signals in the mid -50s, even with nothing connected on the other side of the radios. Its an efficiency issue. On Jun 8, 2015 8:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I kind of does, the way I understood it, that bottleneck limited you from really being able to do anything beyond what a 30mhz channel could support. Now that I think about it, I have seen 40mhz perform better than 30mhz... but yes, that was because of RF problems, and neither one was doing anything close to what it would with a good link. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel efficiency per say. On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote: The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In the real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with eveything g taken into account. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out of some on this list ;) On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.commailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.commailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: I don't know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.commailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I've never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but I'm not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I haven't really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun sleb...@muskoka.commailto:sleb...@muskoka.com wrote: I seem to recall that with the M series, at least
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no way an XM radio
can do 20+.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what role it may
be playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1 day snapshot of one in
SM role.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to graph it way
back (maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate. This is definitely all
XM gear.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net
wrote:
I would have to se your data, mine does not support that.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse
shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net
wrote:
To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity
in ptmp mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects modulation
levels. I haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the threshold is just
higher and probably justifies 30mhz but it's going to be close.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please
excuse shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net
Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take
into acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are
also running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you
could be wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you
want 30mhz channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point.
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please
excuse shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com
Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea
what you are talking about right now.
What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and
ubiquiti. In particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in
terms of efficiency.
This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories
on PPS you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into this
discussion.
On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if
you aren't hitting the limits of the physical layer in 20MHz, why do it?
Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please
excuse shortcuts or typos.
Rory Conaway
Triad Wireless
Original message
From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com
Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I can assure you that on radios connected in a ptp config or small
ptmp, that you will see more throughput on the 30mhz channel given a noise
floor of -97 and signals in the mid -50s, even with nothing connected on
the other side of the radios.
Its an efficiency issue.
On Jun 8, 2015 8:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote:
I kind of does, the way I understood it, that bottleneck limited you
from really being able to do anything beyond what a 30mhz channel could
support.
Now that I think about it, I have seen 40mhz perform better than
30mhz... but yes, that was because of RF problems, and neither one was
doing anything close to what it would with a good link.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com
wrote:
That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this
discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel
efficiency per say.
On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote:
The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot
of small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In
the real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with eveything g
taken into account.
Sent from fromm phone where I type
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity in ptmp mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects modulation levels. I haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the threshold is just higher and probably justifies 30mhz but it's going to be close. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are also running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could be wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want 30mhz channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea what you are talking about right now. What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and ubiquiti. In particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in terms of efficiency. This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories on PPS you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into this discussion. On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if you aren't hitting the limits of the physical layer in 20MHz, why do it? Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I can assure you that on radios connected in a ptp config or small ptmp, that you will see more throughput on the 30mhz channel given a noise floor of -97 and signals in the mid -50s, even with nothing connected on the other side of the radios. Its an efficiency issue. On Jun 8, 2015 8:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I kind of does, the way I understood it, that bottleneck limited you from really being able to do anything beyond what a 30mhz channel could support. Now that I think about it, I have seen 40mhz perform better than 30mhz... but yes, that was because of RF problems, and neither one was doing anything close to what it would with a good link. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel efficiency per say. On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote: The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In the real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with eveything g taken into account. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out of some on this list ;) On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.commailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.commailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: I don't know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.commailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I've never seeing much difference in performance
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if you aren't hitting the limits of the physical layer in 20MHz, why do it? Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I can assure you that on radios connected in a ptp config or small ptmp, that you will see more throughput on the 30mhz channel given a noise floor of -97 and signals in the mid -50s, even with nothing connected on the other side of the radios. Its an efficiency issue. On Jun 8, 2015 8:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I kind of does, the way I understood it, that bottleneck limited you from really being able to do anything beyond what a 30mhz channel could support. Now that I think about it, I have seen 40mhz perform better than 30mhz... but yes, that was because of RF problems, and neither one was doing anything close to what it would with a good link. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel efficiency per say. On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote: The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In the real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with eveything g taken into account. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out of some on this list ;) On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.commailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.commailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: I don't know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.commailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I've never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but I'm not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I haven't really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun sleb...@muskoka.commailto:sleb...@muskoka.com wrote: I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works 'better' than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.commailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and don't handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I don't have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity in ptmp mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects modulation levels. I haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the threshold is just higher and probably justifies 30mhz but it's going to be close. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are also running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could be wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want 30mhz channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea what you are talking about right now. What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and ubiquiti. In particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in terms of efficiency. This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories on PPS you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into this discussion. On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if you aren't hitting the limits of the physical layer in 20MHz, why do it? Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I can assure you that on radios connected in a ptp config or small ptmp, that you will see more throughput on the 30mhz channel given a noise floor of -97 and signals in the mid -50s, even with nothing connected on the other side of the radios. Its an efficiency issue. On Jun 8, 2015 8:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I kind of does, the way I understood it, that bottleneck limited you from really being able to do anything beyond what a 30mhz channel could support. Now that I think about it, I have seen 40mhz perform better than 30mhz... but yes, that was because of RF problems, and neither one was doing anything close to what it would with a good link. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote: That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel efficiency per say. On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In the real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with eveything g taken into account. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out of some on this list ;) On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote: I don't know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
None of our radios have high PPS load. Matter of fact, average packet size on our network is 1.3k. PPS per radio is very low. FWIW, there are no file sharers on our network. If they exist, their connection is encapsulated over VPN. Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com On 06/08/2015 11:16 AM, Rory Conaway wrote: The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take into acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that are also running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy and you could be wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, why do you want 30mhz channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you understand my point. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea what you are talking about right now. What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and ubiquiti. In particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in terms of efficiency. This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories on PPS you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into this discussion. On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if you aren't hitting the limits of the physical layer in 20MHz, why do it? Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I can assure you that on radios connected in a ptp config or small ptmp, that you will see more throughput on the 30mhz channel given a noise floor of -97 and signals in the mid -50s, even with nothing connected on the other side of the radios. Its an efficiency issue. On Jun 8, 2015 8:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I kind of does, the way I understood it, that bottleneck limited you from really being able to do anything beyond what a 30mhz channel could support. Now that I think about it, I have seen 40mhz perform better than 30mhz... but yes, that was because of RF problems, and neither one was doing anything close to what it would with a good link. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com mailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel efficiency per say. On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net mailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote: The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In the real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with eveything g taken into account. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com mailto:j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out of some on this list ;) On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com mailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works 'better' than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and don't handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I don't have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but that's non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
That doesn't make much sense since the wlan and eth ports are bridged. The cpu isn't involved unless you're routing/NATing the two interfaces. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote: I don't know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I've never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but I'm not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I haven't really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun sleb...@muskoka.com wrote: I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works 'better' than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and don't handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I don't have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but that's non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I've never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but I'm not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I haven't really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun sleb...@muskoka.com wrote: I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works 'better' than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and don't handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I don't have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but that's non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote: I don't know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I've never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but I'm not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I haven't really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun sleb...@muskoka.com wrote: I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works 'better' than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and don't handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I don't have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but that's non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote: I don't know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I've never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but I'm not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I haven't really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun sleb...@muskoka.com wrote: I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works 'better' than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and don't handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I don't have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but that's non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
*sigh* on like a tiny handful of airmax products, of which none except XW Titanium has DFS or lower band, and that product has such a broken ethernet chip set that even UBNT basically tells you to "lock it to 100FD or use 10/100 auto". On Jun 8, 2015 7:24 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds josh@spitwspots.com wrote:I dont know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, its really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward841@gmail.com wrote:Ive never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but Im not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I havent really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP.On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun slebrun@muskoka.com wrote:I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works better than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Im not that familiar with the ePMPs yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and dont handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. Im starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I dont have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but thats non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? Im used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SMs. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesnt apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Takes 2x as long due to latency, you are running rf operations on two channels instead of one.. SoftIRQ is also involved. On Jun 8, 2015 7:34 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:That doesnt make much sense since the wlan and eth ports are bridged. The cpu isnt involved unless youre routing/NATing the two interfaces.Josh LuthmanOffice: 937-552-2340Direct: 937-552-23431100 Wayne StSuite 1337Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmith2@gmail.com wrote:I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didnt have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better.On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman josh@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds josh@spitwspots.com wrote:I dont know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, its really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward841@gmail.com wrote:Ive never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but Im not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I havent really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP.On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun slebrun@muskoka.com wrote:I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works better than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Im not that familiar with the ePMPs yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and dont handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. Im starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I dont have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but thats non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? Im used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SMs. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesnt apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I can assure you that on radios connected in a ptp config or small ptmp, that you will see more throughput on the 30mhz channel given a noise floor of -97 and signals in the mid -50s, even with nothing connected on the other side of the radios. Its an efficiency issue. On Jun 8, 2015 8:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote:I kind of does, the way I understood it, that bottleneck limited you from really being able to do anything beyond what a 30mhz channel could support.Now that I think about it, I have seen 40mhz perform better than 30mhz... but yes, that was because of RF problems, and neither one was doing anything close to what it would with a good link.On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Josh Reynolds josh@spitwspots.com wrote:That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel efficiency per say. On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway rory@triadwireless.net wrote: The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In the real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with eveything g taken into account. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds josh@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out of some on this list ;) On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmith2@gmail.com wrote: I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didnt have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman josh@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds josh@spitwspots.com wrote: I dont know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, its really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward841@gmail.com wrote: Ive never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but Im not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I havent really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun slebrun@muskoka.com wrote: I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works better than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Im not that familiar with the ePMPs yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and dont handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. Im starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I dont have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but thats non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out of some on this list ;) On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote:I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didnt have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better.On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman josh@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds josh@spitwspots.com wrote:I dont know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, its really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward841@gmail.com wrote:Ive never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but Im not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I havent really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP.On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun slebrun@muskoka.com wrote:I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works better than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Im not that familiar with the ePMPs yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and dont handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. Im starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I dont have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but thats non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? Im used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SMs. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesnt apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In the real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with eveything g taken into account. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out of some on this list ;) On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.commailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: I don't know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.commailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I've never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but I'm not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I haven't really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun sleb...@muskoka.commailto:sleb...@muskoka.com wrote: I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works 'better' than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.commailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and don't handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I don't have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but that's non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.commailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel efficiency per say. On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In the real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with eveything g taken into account. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds josh@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out of some on this list ;) On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmith2@gmail.com wrote: I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didnt have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman josh@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds josh@spitwspots.com wrote: I dont know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, its really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward841@gmail.com wrote: Ive never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but Im not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I havent really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun slebrun@muskoka.com wrote: I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works better than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Im not that familiar with the ePMPs yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and dont handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. Im starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I dont have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but thats non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-bounces@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
My point is that the theoretical sets pot is 20 to 30mhz depending on the application. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com Date: 06/08/2015 12:13 PM (GMT-05:00) To: af af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I kind of does, the way I understood it, that bottleneck limited you from really being able to do anything beyond what a 30mhz channel could support. Now that I think about it, I have seen 40mhz perform better than 30mhz... but yes, that was because of RF problems, and neither one was doing anything close to what it would with a good link. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel efficiency per say. On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.netmailto:r...@triadwireless.net wrote: The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In the real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with eveything g taken into account. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out of some on this list ;) On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.commailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.commailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340tel:937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343tel:937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: I don't know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.commailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I've never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but I'm not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I haven't really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun sleb...@muskoka.commailto:sleb...@muskoka.com wrote: I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works 'better' than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.commailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and don't handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I don't have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but that's non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.commailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I don't know. I have had one M5 link that definitely performed better on 40MHz over 30MHz, but that link has been upgraded to licensed now. I just regurgitate the BS that they feed me on the forums. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: That doesn't make much sense since the wlan and eth ports are bridged. The cpu isn't involved unless you're routing/NATing the two interfaces. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote: I don't know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I've never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but I'm not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I haven't really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun sleb...@muskoka.com wrote: I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works 'better' than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and don't handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I don't have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but that's non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
That's probably because of RF problems. Radio or environment. Not the ETH port. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:49 AM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know. I have had one M5 link that definitely performed better on 40MHz over 30MHz, but that link has been upgraded to licensed now. I just regurgitate the BS that they feed me on the forums. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: That doesn't make much sense since the wlan and eth ports are bridged. The cpu isn't involved unless you're routing/NATing the two interfaces. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote: I don't know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I've never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but I'm not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I haven't really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun sleb...@muskoka.com wrote: I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works 'better' than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and don't handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I don't have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but that's non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I kind of does, the way I understood it, that bottleneck limited you from really being able to do anything beyond what a 30mhz channel could support. Now that I think about it, I have seen 40mhz perform better than 30mhz... but yes, that was because of RF problems, and neither one was doing anything close to what it would with a good link. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote: That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel efficiency per say. On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway r...@triadwireless.net wrote: The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In the real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with eveything g taken into account. Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please excuse shortcuts or typos. Rory Conaway Triad Wireless Original message From: Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out of some on this list ;) On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy jeremysmi...@gmail.com wrote: I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M series, that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz actually work better. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote: I don't know how epmp does it. For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a fat 20mhz channel in the atheros chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also marred by the lack of gigabit port. On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I've never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... but I'm not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a faster processor and on a software level they are very different. So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. I haven't really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun sleb...@muskoka.com wrote: I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel works 'better' than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and don't handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I don't have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but that's non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Is this out in the country, or near a town? 2.4 has become as bad as 900 for me in some areas because every house has WiFi with 40 MHz channels and MIMO. Typically it's the upstream that's most affected. -Original Message- From: Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 10:47 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz I have put in a support ticket with Cambium. thanks Craig - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 10:37:56 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Wow, something is really off...looking at the two sets of radios showing very similar ratios, but very different MCS and capacity... I would suggest to engage (unless you already have) Cambium Tech Support for them to dig a bit deeper into it. FYI, Command line / ssh can give you a much more in-depth parameter readings, would be interesting to compare these for the first two SM's and similarly the last two SM's listed in the screen shot. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Craig House cr...@totalhighspeed.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 10:11:18 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Attached is the screen shot of the AP that has the most customers on it. In the location where the disconnecte button is I have manually typed the SM power level that I just read from the SM - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:42:52 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Quick question for you.. When you say the uplink is bad for cpe's with strong signals -50 etc... I guess the -50 is what the CPE is seeing the AP at ? What about the AP seeing the CPE at ? Is it possibly that your AP's are off in down-tilt/up-tilt ? That can also explain uplink issues.. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Craig House cr...@totalhighspeed.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 9:31:25 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz AP's were set to -60 but were having uplink issues with wireless link tests as bad as .1MB or at best .5MB uplink Once I changed them to -45 Target recieve level the uplink throughput went up to between 2MB and 8MB now. FYI the AP's we have customers on have no registred Subs on the sector opposite them on the towers at this time so it cant be F/B sector receive beign too strong and causing interference. Craig - Original Message - From: George Skorup geo...@cbcast.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:20:40 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz What do you have the APs SM Rx target level set to? If it's default at -40, that's a problem. I set FSK to -60, ePMP and 450 get -57 (-60 per polarity). Seems to work well. Absolutely required for frequency reuse with close/hot SMs. Since you said you have some customers receiving at -50, their uplinks are probably really hot, which means more than enough to interfere with adjacent/back sectors. It's different with the 450, no guard bands required, better filtering. Well, there's some oddities like the 3GHz 450 that has adjacent channel support, which limits the SM's max Tx power so that no guard band is required. On 6/6/2015 7:19 PM, Craig House wrote: We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
That sounds like the tower is receiving noise that the clients can't hear. -Original Message- From: Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 7:19 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a percentage of total capacity and don't handle a lot of users well (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz now so I don't have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with some customers on 10MHz channels but that's non-peak times. In peak times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. Rory -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
We have 2 of the towers that we have not installed anyone on yet and several sectors that have no one on them yet. the ones that do point toward heavily populated areas. I just dont want to undo installations of 16 2.4 EPMP access points to install something else if there is a way to make it work. - Original Message - From: Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 7:28:44 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz That sounds like the tower is receiving noise that the clients can't hear. -Original Message- From: Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 7:19 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
What do you have the APs SM Rx target level set to? If it's default at -40, that's a problem. I set FSK to -60, ePMP and 450 get -57 (-60 per polarity). Seems to work well. Absolutely required for frequency reuse with close/hot SMs. Since you said you have some customers receiving at -50, their uplinks are probably really hot, which means more than enough to interfere with adjacent/back sectors. It's different with the 450, no guard bands required, better filtering. Well, there's some oddities like the 3GHz 450 that has adjacent channel support, which limits the SM's max Tx power so that no guard band is required. On 6/6/2015 7:19 PM, Craig House wrote: We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? Craig
[AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Pretty sure we have achieved 60 meg with epmp and 20 MHz Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone - Reply message - From: Glen Waldrop gwl...@cngwireless.net To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Date: Sat, Jun 6, 2015 7:28 PM That sounds like the tower is receiving noise that the clients can't hear. -Original Message- From: Craig House Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 7:19 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
AP's were set to -60 but were having uplink issues with wireless link tests as bad as .1MB or at best .5MB uplink Once I changed them to -45 Target recieve level the uplink throughput went up to between 2MB and 8MB now. FYI the AP's we have customers on have no registred Subs on the sector opposite them on the towers at this time so it cant be F/B sector receive beign too strong and causing interference. Craig - Original Message - From: George Skorup geo...@cbcast.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:20:40 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz What do you have the APs SM Rx target level set to? If it's default at -40, that's a problem. I set FSK to -60, ePMP and 450 get -57 (-60 per polarity). Seems to work well. Absolutely required for frequency reuse with close/hot SMs. Since you said you have some customers receiving at -50, their uplinks are probably really hot, which means more than enough to interfere with adjacent/back sectors. It's different with the 450, no guard bands required, better filtering. Well, there's some oddities like the 3GHz 450 that has adjacent channel support, which limits the SM's max Tx power so that no guard band is required. On 6/6/2015 7:19 PM, Craig House wrote: We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I have seen times when 10MHz gets better throughput than 20MHz. It all
depends on the ambient noise. We recently changed one subnet from 20MHz
to 10MHz, and throughput and SNR both got better.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 6/6/2015 7:50 PM, Craig House wrote:
Yeah I have ran Edetect Mostly it sees nothing and doesn't tell me much if it
does. I agree the front end sucks but it is tolerable if it was stable and had
decent uplink speeds. Other than that it seems ok and I know that it is not a
fully developed product like the FSK was and even FSK was still getting
software fixes 10 years into its life. All though it was pretty mature long
before that and the fixes were minor in so far as what I need from them. I
keep thinking it is something in the way I have them configured and I dont want
to go to 10Mhz channel and give up the extra bandwidth per AP if they can be
made stable on 20Mhz
Craig
- Original Message -
From: George Skorup geo...@cbcast.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 9:44:33 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Yeah, I've seen the estimated downlink RSSI fairly inaccurate.
The only thing I can think of as to why the SMs with good uplink power
level have crappy uplink throughput is may they're too hot? I'm not
sure. That's really weird. You'd probably be better off getting Cambium
involved next week.
All I can say is that it's still wifi based. The front end sucks. And if
you have other 802.11 frames flying, CSMA is going to get in the way.
That's why 10MHz channel width helps, there's a lot less beacons and
frames to be seen. Speaking of, have you ran the eDetect tool?
On 6/6/2015 9:11 PM, Craig House wrote:
Attached is the screen shot of the AP that has the most customers on it. In
the location where the disconnecte button is I have manually typed the SM power
level that I just read from the SM
- Original Message -
From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:42:52 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Quick question for you..
When you say the uplink is bad for cpe's with strong signals -50 etc...
I guess the -50 is what the CPE is seeing the AP at ?
What about the AP seeing the CPE at ?
Is it possibly that your AP's are off in down-tilt/up-tilt ? That can also
explain uplink issues..
:)
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
- Original Message -
From: Craig House cr...@totalhighspeed.net
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 9:31:25 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
AP's were set to -60 but were having uplink issues with wireless link tests
as bad as .1MB or at best .5MB uplink Once I changed them to -45 Target
recieve level the uplink throughput went up to between 2MB and 8MB now. FYI
the AP's we have customers on have no registred Subs on the sector opposite
them on the towers at this time so it cant be F/B sector receive beign too
strong and causing interference.
Craig
- Original Message -
From: George Skorup geo...@cbcast.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:20:40 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
What do you have the APs SM Rx target level set to? If it's default at
-40, that's a problem. I set FSK to -60, ePMP and 450 get -57 (-60 per
polarity). Seems to work well. Absolutely required for frequency reuse
with close/hot SMs. Since you said you have some customers receiving at
-50, their uplinks are probably really hot, which means more than enough
to interfere with adjacent/back sectors. It's different with the 450, no
guard bands required, better filtering. Well, there's some oddities like
the 3GHz 450 that has adjacent channel support, which limits the SM's
max Tx power so that no guard band is required.
On 6/6/2015 7:19 PM, Craig House wrote:
We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those
towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are
configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended
up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back
designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have
tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer
stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of
hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink
quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I
went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the
wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause
of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not
have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50
signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the
ones that have
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Yeah, I've seen the estimated downlink RSSI fairly inaccurate. The only thing I can think of as to why the SMs with good uplink power level have crappy uplink throughput is may they're too hot? I'm not sure. That's really weird. You'd probably be better off getting Cambium involved next week. All I can say is that it's still wifi based. The front end sucks. And if you have other 802.11 frames flying, CSMA is going to get in the way. That's why 10MHz channel width helps, there's a lot less beacons and frames to be seen. Speaking of, have you ran the eDetect tool? On 6/6/2015 9:11 PM, Craig House wrote: Attached is the screen shot of the AP that has the most customers on it. In the location where the disconnecte button is I have manually typed the SM power level that I just read from the SM - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:42:52 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Quick question for you.. When you say the uplink is bad for cpe's with strong signals -50 etc... I guess the -50 is what the CPE is seeing the AP at ? What about the AP seeing the CPE at ? Is it possibly that your AP's are off in down-tilt/up-tilt ? That can also explain uplink issues.. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Craig House cr...@totalhighspeed.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 9:31:25 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz AP's were set to -60 but were having uplink issues with wireless link tests as bad as .1MB or at best .5MB uplink Once I changed them to -45 Target recieve level the uplink throughput went up to between 2MB and 8MB now. FYI the AP's we have customers on have no registred Subs on the sector opposite them on the towers at this time so it cant be F/B sector receive beign too strong and causing interference. Craig - Original Message - From: George Skorup geo...@cbcast.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:20:40 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz What do you have the APs SM Rx target level set to? If it's default at -40, that's a problem. I set FSK to -60, ePMP and 450 get -57 (-60 per polarity). Seems to work well. Absolutely required for frequency reuse with close/hot SMs. Since you said you have some customers receiving at -50, their uplinks are probably really hot, which means more than enough to interfere with adjacent/back sectors. It's different with the 450, no guard bands required, better filtering. Well, there's some oddities like the 3GHz 450 that has adjacent channel support, which limits the SM's max Tx power so that no guard band is required. On 6/6/2015 7:19 PM, Craig House wrote: We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Yeah I have ran Edetect Mostly it sees nothing and doesn't tell me much if it does. I agree the front end sucks but it is tolerable if it was stable and had decent uplink speeds. Other than that it seems ok and I know that it is not a fully developed product like the FSK was and even FSK was still getting software fixes 10 years into its life. All though it was pretty mature long before that and the fixes were minor in so far as what I need from them. I keep thinking it is something in the way I have them configured and I dont want to go to 10Mhz channel and give up the extra bandwidth per AP if they can be made stable on 20Mhz Craig - Original Message - From: George Skorup geo...@cbcast.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 9:44:33 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Yeah, I've seen the estimated downlink RSSI fairly inaccurate. The only thing I can think of as to why the SMs with good uplink power level have crappy uplink throughput is may they're too hot? I'm not sure. That's really weird. You'd probably be better off getting Cambium involved next week. All I can say is that it's still wifi based. The front end sucks. And if you have other 802.11 frames flying, CSMA is going to get in the way. That's why 10MHz channel width helps, there's a lot less beacons and frames to be seen. Speaking of, have you ran the eDetect tool? On 6/6/2015 9:11 PM, Craig House wrote: Attached is the screen shot of the AP that has the most customers on it. In the location where the disconnecte button is I have manually typed the SM power level that I just read from the SM - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:42:52 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Quick question for you.. When you say the uplink is bad for cpe's with strong signals -50 etc... I guess the -50 is what the CPE is seeing the AP at ? What about the AP seeing the CPE at ? Is it possibly that your AP's are off in down-tilt/up-tilt ? That can also explain uplink issues.. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Craig House cr...@totalhighspeed.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 9:31:25 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz AP's were set to -60 but were having uplink issues with wireless link tests as bad as .1MB or at best .5MB uplink Once I changed them to -45 Target recieve level the uplink throughput went up to between 2MB and 8MB now. FYI the AP's we have customers on have no registred Subs on the sector opposite them on the towers at this time so it cant be F/B sector receive beign too strong and causing interference. Craig - Original Message - From: George Skorup geo...@cbcast.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:20:40 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz What do you have the APs SM Rx target level set to? If it's default at -40, that's a problem. I set FSK to -60, ePMP and 450 get -57 (-60 per polarity). Seems to work well. Absolutely required for frequency reuse with close/hot SMs. Since you said you have some customers receiving at -50, their uplinks are probably really hot, which means more than enough to interfere with adjacent/back sectors. It's different with the 450, no guard bands required, better filtering. Well, there's some oddities like the 3GHz 450 that has adjacent channel support, which limits the SM's max Tx power so that no guard band is required. On 6/6/2015 7:19 PM, Craig House wrote: We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Wow, something is really off...looking at the two sets of radios showing very similar ratios, but very different MCS and capacity... I would suggest to engage (unless you already have) Cambium Tech Support for them to dig a bit deeper into it. FYI, Command line / ssh can give you a much more in-depth parameter readings, would be interesting to compare these for the first two SM's and similarly the last two SM's listed in the screen shot. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Craig House cr...@totalhighspeed.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 10:11:18 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Attached is the screen shot of the AP that has the most customers on it. In the location where the disconnecte button is I have manually typed the SM power level that I just read from the SM - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:42:52 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Quick question for you.. When you say the uplink is bad for cpe's with strong signals -50 etc... I guess the -50 is what the CPE is seeing the AP at ? What about the AP seeing the CPE at ? Is it possibly that your AP's are off in down-tilt/up-tilt ? That can also explain uplink issues.. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Craig House cr...@totalhighspeed.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 9:31:25 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz AP's were set to -60 but were having uplink issues with wireless link tests as bad as .1MB or at best .5MB uplink Once I changed them to -45 Target recieve level the uplink throughput went up to between 2MB and 8MB now. FYI the AP's we have customers on have no registred Subs on the sector opposite them on the towers at this time so it cant be F/B sector receive beign too strong and causing interference. Craig - Original Message - From: George Skorup geo...@cbcast.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:20:40 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz What do you have the APs SM Rx target level set to? If it's default at -40, that's a problem. I set FSK to -60, ePMP and 450 get -57 (-60 per polarity). Seems to work well. Absolutely required for frequency reuse with close/hot SMs. Since you said you have some customers receiving at -50, their uplinks are probably really hot, which means more than enough to interfere with adjacent/back sectors. It's different with the 450, no guard bands required, better filtering. Well, there's some oddities like the 3GHz 450 that has adjacent channel support, which limits the SM's max Tx power so that no guard band is required. On 6/6/2015 7:19 PM, Craig House wrote: We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I have put in a support ticket with Cambium. thanks Craig - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 10:37:56 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Wow, something is really off...looking at the two sets of radios showing very similar ratios, but very different MCS and capacity... I would suggest to engage (unless you already have) Cambium Tech Support for them to dig a bit deeper into it. FYI, Command line / ssh can give you a much more in-depth parameter readings, would be interesting to compare these for the first two SM's and similarly the last two SM's listed in the screen shot. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Craig House cr...@totalhighspeed.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 10:11:18 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Attached is the screen shot of the AP that has the most customers on it. In the location where the disconnecte button is I have manually typed the SM power level that I just read from the SM - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:42:52 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Quick question for you.. When you say the uplink is bad for cpe's with strong signals -50 etc... I guess the -50 is what the CPE is seeing the AP at ? What about the AP seeing the CPE at ? Is it possibly that your AP's are off in down-tilt/up-tilt ? That can also explain uplink issues.. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Craig House cr...@totalhighspeed.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 9:31:25 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz AP's were set to -60 but were having uplink issues with wireless link tests as bad as .1MB or at best .5MB uplink Once I changed them to -45 Target recieve level the uplink throughput went up to between 2MB and 8MB now. FYI the AP's we have customers on have no registred Subs on the sector opposite them on the towers at this time so it cant be F/B sector receive beign too strong and causing interference. Craig - Original Message - From: George Skorup geo...@cbcast.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:20:40 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz What do you have the APs SM Rx target level set to? If it's default at -40, that's a problem. I set FSK to -60, ePMP and 450 get -57 (-60 per polarity). Seems to work well. Absolutely required for frequency reuse with close/hot SMs. Since you said you have some customers receiving at -50, their uplinks are probably really hot, which means more than enough to interfere with adjacent/back sectors. It's different with the 450, no guard bands required, better filtering. Well, there's some oddities like the 3GHz 450 that has adjacent channel support, which limits the SM's max Tx power so that no guard band is required. On 6/6/2015 7:19 PM, Craig House wrote: We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Quick question for you.. When you say the uplink is bad for cpe's with strong signals -50 etc... I guess the -50 is what the CPE is seeing the AP at ? What about the AP seeing the CPE at ? Is it possibly that your AP's are off in down-tilt/up-tilt ? That can also explain uplink issues.. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Craig House cr...@totalhighspeed.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 9:31:25 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz AP's were set to -60 but were having uplink issues with wireless link tests as bad as .1MB or at best .5MB uplink Once I changed them to -45 Target recieve level the uplink throughput went up to between 2MB and 8MB now. FYI the AP's we have customers on have no registred Subs on the sector opposite them on the towers at this time so it cant be F/B sector receive beign too strong and causing interference. Craig - Original Message - From: George Skorup geo...@cbcast.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:20:40 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz What do you have the APs SM Rx target level set to? If it's default at -40, that's a problem. I set FSK to -60, ePMP and 450 get -57 (-60 per polarity). Seems to work well. Absolutely required for frequency reuse with close/hot SMs. Since you said you have some customers receiving at -50, their uplinks are probably really hot, which means more than enough to interfere with adjacent/back sectors. It's different with the 450, no guard bands required, better filtering. Well, there's some oddities like the 3GHz 450 that has adjacent channel support, which limits the SM's max Tx power so that no guard band is required. On 6/6/2015 7:19 PM, Craig House wrote: We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Attached is the screen shot of the AP that has the most customers on it. In the location where the disconnecte button is I have manually typed the SM power level that I just read from the SM - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:42:52 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz Quick question for you.. When you say the uplink is bad for cpe's with strong signals -50 etc... I guess the -50 is what the CPE is seeing the AP at ? What about the AP seeing the CPE at ? Is it possibly that your AP's are off in down-tilt/up-tilt ? That can also explain uplink issues.. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Craig House cr...@totalhighspeed.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 9:31:25 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz AP's were set to -60 but were having uplink issues with wireless link tests as bad as .1MB or at best .5MB uplink Once I changed them to -45 Target recieve level the uplink throughput went up to between 2MB and 8MB now. FYI the AP's we have customers on have no registred Subs on the sector opposite them on the towers at this time so it cant be F/B sector receive beign too strong and causing interference. Craig - Original Message - From: George Skorup geo...@cbcast.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:20:40 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz What do you have the APs SM Rx target level set to? If it's default at -40, that's a problem. I set FSK to -60, ePMP and 450 get -57 (-60 per polarity). Seems to work well. Absolutely required for frequency reuse with close/hot SMs. Since you said you have some customers receiving at -50, their uplinks are probably really hot, which means more than enough to interfere with adjacent/back sectors. It's different with the 450, no guard bands required, better filtering. Well, there's some oddities like the 3GHz 450 that has adjacent channel support, which limits the SM's max Tx power so that no guard band is required. On 6/6/2015 7:19 PM, Craig House wrote: We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all on the same channel? I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? Craig
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Ok Well I suppose I can try 10mhz on all AP's. I think I will see what
Cambium support can offer for 20mhz first but I thought maybe someone had a
easy suggestion.
Craig
- Original Message -
From: Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 10:00:13 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
I have seen times when 10MHz gets better throughput than 20MHz. It all
depends on the ambient noise. We recently changed one subnet from 20MHz
to 10MHz, and throughput and SNR both got better.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 6/6/2015 7:50 PM, Craig House wrote:
Yeah I have ran Edetect Mostly it sees nothing and doesn't tell me much if
it does. I agree the front end sucks but it is tolerable if it was stable
and had decent uplink speeds. Other than that it seems ok and I know that it
is not a fully developed product like the FSK was and even FSK was still
getting software fixes 10 years into its life. All though it was pretty
mature long before that and the fixes were minor in so far as what I need
from them. I keep thinking it is something in the way I have them configured
and I dont want to go to 10Mhz channel and give up the extra bandwidth per AP
if they can be made stable on 20Mhz
Craig
- Original Message -
From: George Skorup geo...@cbcast.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 9:44:33 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Yeah, I've seen the estimated downlink RSSI fairly inaccurate.
The only thing I can think of as to why the SMs with good uplink power
level have crappy uplink throughput is may they're too hot? I'm not
sure. That's really weird. You'd probably be better off getting Cambium
involved next week.
All I can say is that it's still wifi based. The front end sucks. And if
you have other 802.11 frames flying, CSMA is going to get in the way.
That's why 10MHz channel width helps, there's a lot less beacons and
frames to be seen. Speaking of, have you ran the eDetect tool?
On 6/6/2015 9:11 PM, Craig House wrote:
Attached is the screen shot of the AP that has the most customers on it. In
the location where the disconnecte button is I have manually typed the SM
power level that I just read from the SM
- Original Message -
From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:42:52 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
Quick question for you..
When you say the uplink is bad for cpe's with strong signals -50 etc...
I guess the -50 is what the CPE is seeing the AP at ?
What about the AP seeing the CPE at ?
Is it possibly that your AP's are off in down-tilt/up-tilt ? That can also
explain uplink issues..
:)
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
- Original Message -
From: Craig House cr...@totalhighspeed.net
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 9:31:25 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
AP's were set to -60 but were having uplink issues with wireless link tests
as bad as .1MB or at best .5MB uplink Once I changed them to -45 Target
recieve level the uplink throughput went up to between 2MB and 8MB now. FYI
the AP's we have customers on have no registred Subs on the sector opposite
them on the towers at this time so it cant be F/B sector receive beign too
strong and causing interference.
Craig
- Original Message -
From: George Skorup geo...@cbcast.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:20:40 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz
What do you have the APs SM Rx target level set to? If it's default at
-40, that's a problem. I set FSK to -60, ePMP and 450 get -57 (-60 per
polarity). Seems to work well. Absolutely required for frequency reuse
with close/hot SMs. Since you said you have some customers receiving at
-50, their uplinks are probably really hot, which means more than enough
to interfere with adjacent/back sectors. It's different with the 450, no
guard bands required, better filtering. Well, there's some oddities like
the 3GHz 450 that has adjacent channel support, which limits the SM's
max Tx power so that no guard band is required.
On 6/6/2015 7:19 PM, Craig House wrote:
We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those
towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are
configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all ended
up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front back
designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I have
tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer
stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind of
hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the uplink
quality will vary wildly from 100
