Re: [AFMUG] WISP in need

[Butch Evans]

I wanted to let you all know that those who chose to help this friend
out are greatly appreciated.  He extends his thank you as well. 
Between the help here and the assistance from other sources (mostly his
church), he was able to get food to last a short while and pay his 
mortgage (his church paid that, I think) as well as take care of other
bills.  He is looking for other employment, as he cannot continue in
his old line of work (he was a lineman).  His unemployment will help
him get to that point.  Just know that I thank you for your generosity.

On Sun, 2018-07-15 at 22:27 -0600, Butch Evans wrote:
> Not sure how to answer that.  His wisp is about break even right now,
> but he lost his other job, which was paying his bills (result of the
> injury).  I really can't go into any further detail.  I am certain
> he'd
> appreciate any help anyone offers.  His WISP is growing and he will
> be
> able to continue that, maybe.  
> 
> On Sat, 2018-07-14 at 10:23 -0600, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
> > What kind of magnitude are we talking here?
> > Does the guy need $100 or $1000 or $1 or ?
> > 
> > I spent all my available dough plus some at Richie Brothers this
> > week.  Can 
> > always squeeze out a few shekels.
> > 
> > But if the guy needs $10K or more, a $20 donation is pretty
> > pointless.
> > 
> > -Original Message- 
> > From: Butch Evans
> > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2018 8:51 AM
> > To: af@af.afmug.com
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WISP in need
> > 
> > Thank you, Colin.
> > 
> > On Fri, 2018-07-13 at 23:43 -0500, Colin Stanners wrote:
> > > Good point Adam.
> > > 
> > > The big difference between a stranger on the street (usually a
> > > scam)
> > > and this request is Butch's name on it, and the community that
> > > has
> > > built up around the AFMUG mailinglist (and related WISPA etc).
> > > While
> > > I don't recall having worked directly with Butch, I've seen and
> > > heard
> > > enough good things about him from other WISPs over the years to
> > > put
> > > trust into his name, and I don't recall seeing him send other
> > > requests like this, which means that it is important.
> > > 
> > > WISPs generally have low profit margins (much of the WISP
> > > business
> > > consists of "we find creative ways to serve areas that aren't
> > > profitable enough for big companies to bother to cover") and most
> > > of
> > > us aren't rich or doing carefree / relaxed work, but there's a
> > > difference between that "tiring but normal" WISP life and someone
> > > who
> > > is on the verge of losing one or more of their business / house /
> > > sanity. So I am sending some money.
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Adam Moffett  > > m>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I know there were a lot of snarky comments so I thought it
> > > > worth
> > > > a
> > > > rational one.  The root of the problem with this cry for help
> > > > is
> > > > that nobody's going to donate if they don't know what it's for.
> > > > 
> > > > It's like when a stranger asks you for money on the street; is
> > > > he
> > > > really looking for food or a bottle of whiskey?  I tend to
> > > > assume
> > > > whiskey.
> > > > 
> > > > Did this guy suffer a natural disaster, or does he suffer from
> > > > having a weak business model and being uncompetitive?  I can
> > > > understand wanting to stay private, but I doubt he's getting
> > > > much
> > > > help based on this request.  I also appreciate that you
> > > > wouldn't
> > > > help this person if you felt he didn't deserve help, but that
> > > > doesn't do anything to assuage the fears of people on a mailing
> > > > list who are all strangers.  With nothing else to go on we'll
> > > > have
> > > > to fall back on assumptions, and they'll be the same
> > > > assumptions
> > > > anybody makes about the guy bumming for money on the street.
> > > > 
> > > > -Adam
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 7/13/2018 12:34 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
> > > > > I have been made aware of a WISP that has some financial
> > > > > needs.
> > > > > I
> > > > > have
> > > > > been asked to keep his name private. If you are willing to
> > > > > help
> > > > > -
> > > > > ANYTHING helps - send paypal to but...@butchevans.com and in
> > > > > the
> > > > > notes
> > > > > comment "WISP Helper" (or similar). I will see that he gets
> > > > > 100%
> > > > > of
> > > > > what you send. Paypal costs me 3% or so, but I will cover
> > > > > that
> > > > > part,
> > > > > too. Thank you!
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Butch Evans
> > Training and Support for WISPs
> > 702-537-0979
> > http://store.wispgear.net/
> > http://www.butchevans.com/
> > 
> > -- 
> > AF mailing list
> > AF@af.afmug.com
> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Butch Evans
> Training and Support for WISPs
> 702-537-0979
> http://store.wispgear.net/
> http://www.butchevans.com/
> 
-- 
Butch Evans
Training and Support for WISPs
702-537-0979
http://store.wispgear.net/

[AFMUG] lightwight tablet recomendations for troubleshooting

[Brandon Yuchasz]

So looking for a lightweight tablet with good battery life that I can use
for basic troubleshooting. 

Want something less then 2lbs.

Windows 10, keyboard and touchpad, wifi, run winbox, chrome, firefox,
teamviewer ect..

Love to keep the cost under 600.

 

Any good recommendations that you guys are actually using for this type of
work?

 

Thanks everyone.

 

Brandon

 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Mathew Howard]

I wouldn't be too sure that was real noise... we had similar issues with
our first B11 link (it even showed a ton of noise on the spectrum
analyzer), and ended up having to replace the radios. After replacing those
first crummy made-in-California radios, with the newer, superior Chinese
version it worked fine.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:35 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

> In San Mateo and Santa Clara valley there are a _LOT_ of 11 GHz paths
> criss-crossing all over the place. Like it or not, the noise floor is not
> as quiet as you might expect. We first tried the B11 on a link from the
> mountain SW of San Mateo shooting to kind of central San Mateo. It was
> abysmal. Would not get close to full modulation, and only half duplex;
> which is a bigger deal than some think. It also dropped the connection to
> almost nothing intermittently. We replaced it with an AF11x, and while it's
> not quite getting full modulation, it is darn close. And it stays up, and
> it runs full dux.
>
> 'nuff said. We don't use B11s anymore.
>
>
> bp
> 
>
> On 7/17/2018 7:41 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
>> On 7/16/18 9:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
>>
>>> They also seem to be a lot better in higher noise environments.
>>>
>>
>> Um, how are you seeing "higher noise" in a licensed band?
>>
>>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] The Looming Tower

[Jason McKemie]

I'd say mostly based on fact.

On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, CBB - Jay Fuller 
wrote:

>
> Watching this on Chucks recommendation.. about halfway through it.
>
> Do we think this is even partially based in fact?
>
> Yes we have heard that the CIA and the FBI did not talk prior to 911...
> but the way they acted as portrayed in this mini-series is unbelievable.
>
> Sent from my smartphone
>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] The Looming Tower

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

Watching this on Chucks recommendation.. about halfway through it.

Do we think this is even partially based in fact?

Yes we have heard that the CIA and the FBI did not talk prior to 911... but the 
way they acted as portrayed in this mini-series is unbelievable.

Sent from my smartphone

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT camper toilets

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

I've been doing some research on this for a campervan build I'm considering
(still haven't decided yet).

We ended up buying for experimental purposes a thetford curve.   It's what
everyone would call a porta potty.   It works well (used it in a rented van
over the memorial day weekend).   To empty you just pull the bowl part off
the top, and then take the bottom part to an appropriate dump station.

All a cassette toilet is is a porta potty arranged such that the tank can
be removed through a hole in the side of the vehicle.   If you look at
demos on youtube of emptying the thetford curve and also those of emptying
a cassette toilet they're virtually identical.   It's more of a form factor
thing.Oh, and some of the casette toilets seem to have a larger seat.

If we end up building a campervan, we'll likely just stick with the curve
on a pull-out drawer/shelf somewhere.   I like the idea of being able to
take the whole thing out and wash it, as opposed to a fixed thing you have
to clean in the cramped space of the van.



On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> I am outfitting a new fiber splice trailer.  This one will have a toilet.
> I know next to nothing about camper toilets.  Not much room for a holding
> tank.
> Been googling cassette toilets.  They seem like they might be a good
> solution.
>
> Deed advice.
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>


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

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Bill Prince]

In San Mateo and Santa Clara valley there are a _LOT_ of 11 GHz paths 
criss-crossing all over the place. Like it or not, the noise floor is 
not as quiet as you might expect. We first tried the B11 on a link from 
the mountain SW of San Mateo shooting to kind of central San Mateo. It 
was abysmal. Would not get close to full modulation, and only half 
duplex; which is a bigger deal than some think. It also dropped the 
connection to almost nothing intermittently. We replaced it with an 
AF11x, and while it's not quite getting full modulation, it is darn 
close. And it stays up, and it runs full dux.


'nuff said. We don't use B11s anymore.


bp


On 7/17/2018 7:41 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:

On 7/16/18 9:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:

They also seem to be a lot better in higher noise environments.


Um, how are you seeing "higher noise" in a licensed band?




--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Mathew Howard]

I thought that was the case - 1x80FD should just be half the capacity of
the full 2x80, the rest of the options stay the same. I'm not really sure
why you'd want to use a fixed ration in FD mode... in TDD, you would need
to use a fixed ratio if you wanted to sync multiple links, but there's not
really any point in that if you're running on separate tx and rx channels.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
wrote:

> Tim,
>
> Actually even in the 1x80FDD mode, the radio will do traffic split other
> than 50/50, which kind of makes it a unique animal.
>
> one of the reason we did not feel the need to switch out the B11 for AF11x
> on the 1x80, cause due to traffic split, the B11's performance was coming
> very close to what the AF11x would do on the 56mhz channel duplex.
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Tim Hardy" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 8:04:57 PM
>
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>
> I’ll look but there’s nothing other than 50/50 with the 1x80 FDD option.
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:27 PM Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> I think those rates are what you'd get with a 50/50 traffic split - if
>> it's running in flexible mode, you should be able to get close to double
>> that in one direction... but it's been awhile since I've played with
>> settings on a B11, so I could be wrong.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Something is off in your Mimosa #  see picture attached..
>>>
>>> Respectfully,
>>>
>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>>> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>>>
>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>>>
>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *From: *"Tim Hardy" 
>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:32:32 PM
>>>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>>>
>>> I realize that these are theoretical values supplied by the manufacturer
>>> and attaining these is another matter entirely.  But, I thought it might
>>> help to see a comparison of supplied specs.
>>>
>>> Manufacturers are supposed to provide the “air-rate” that does not
>>> include header compression, overhead bits, etc. but from what I remember it
>>> was not possible to get this from either UBNT or Mimosa.  So, the claims of
>>> throughput are all over the place and its not easy to compare radios based
>>> on manufacturer supplied data.  If you look at an Aviat spec sheet, you
>>> will see an Airlink capacity and a Max Ethernet Capacity based on 64 byte
>>> frames, physical layer, with DAC GE3.  Mimosa supplied data is confusing as
>>> all data that I saw before I retired last October was listed in full duplex
>>> and considered everything on a path.  For example, they publish 1472 Mbps
>>> for the 2X80 radio but this takes an astonishing 8 chains to accomplish
>>> vs.UBNT’s 4 chains for the full duplex rate.  I won't even go into the
>>> havoc that the TDD radios create for efficient use of the spectrum -
>>> especially in bands where 98% of the installed base is FDD.  That would
>>> take too long and its not the point of this post.
>>> Not knowing what assumptions were used for either radio, I did a
>>> comparison of their 80 MHz channel plan radio configurations (using their
>>> listed data)and this is what I found:
>>>
>>> To accurately compare radio to radio, one must compare the Mimosa TD-FD
>>> (based on 2-streams or chains) values to UBNTs Mimo (based on 2-streams or
>>> chains) values and the data rates listed below are assumed each direction.
>>>
>>> 80 MHz channel plan radio
>>>
>>> UBNT - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path
>>>
>>> 1024 QAM 688 Mbps -52.5 dBm 10-6 BER
>>> 256 QAM 550 Mbps -60.5 dBm 10-6 BER
>>> QPSK 138 Mbps -81.5 dBm 10-6 BER
>>>
>>> Mimosa - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path
>>>
>>> 256 QAM 368 Mbps -64.5 dBm 10-6 BER
>>> QPSK 83 Mbps -82 dBm 10-6 BER
>>>
>>> The Mimosa radio catches up to UBNT when 2X80 is used and the throughput
>>> values listed here double.  I also listed the radio thresholds as there was
>>> some talk about difficulty holding the higher modulation in the UBNT
>>> radio.  Hopefully, this shows why since the B11 would have a minimum of 12
>>> db additional fade margin (difference between 256 QAM and 1024 QAM) right
>>> off the bat - plus the Mimosa radio runs at about 24 dBm vs 18-19 dBm for
>>> UBNT at the highest modulation.
>>>
>>> Thought I’d add SAF Lumina just for grins.  The 80 MHz channel plan
>>> radio has a 56 MHz occupied bandwidth.
>>>
>>> SAF Lumina - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the
>>> path
>>>
>>> 256 QAM 732 Mbps -63.5 dBm 10-6 BER
>>> 4 QAM 134 

Re: [AFMUG] OT camper toilets

[Chuck McCown]

When you have a 144 or 288 and are parked on the side of a busy road, sometimes 
you really need a toilet.  Especially if your are a few miles away from one.  

From: Mark Radabaugh 
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 6:42 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT camper toilets

How long are you planning on locking a splicer in that trailer for? 

These are simple and cheap enough at $110  
https://www.campingworld.com/porta-potti-portable-toilets-365  that you can 
either empty them and reuse or just throw the whole thing away if you want.

After a couple of hours of splicing I need to talk a walk anyway and water a 
tree…

Mark



  On Jul 17, 2018, at 8:28 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  I am outfitting a new fiber splice trailer.  This one will have a toilet.  
  I know next to nothing about camper toilets.  Not much room for a holding 
tank.
  Been googling cassette toilets.  They seem like they might be a good solution.

  Deed advice.
  -- 
  AF mailing list
  AF@af.afmug.com
  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com





-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT camper toilets

[Mark Radabaugh]

How long are you planning on locking a splicer in that trailer for?

These are simple and cheap enough at $110  
https://www.campingworld.com/porta-potti-portable-toilets-365 
  that you can 
either empty them and reuse or just throw the whole thing away if you want.

After a couple of hours of splicing I need to talk a walk anyway and water a 
tree…

Mark


> On Jul 17, 2018, at 8:28 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> 
> I am outfitting a new fiber splice trailer.  This one will have a toilet. 
> I know next to nothing about camper toilets.  Not much room for a holding 
> tank.
> Been googling cassette toilets.  They seem like they might be a good solution.
>  
> Deed advice.   
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] OT and while on the subject

[Chuck McCown]

Anyone bought an active core alignment splicer lately that they really like?-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Tim, 

Actually even in the 1x80FDD mode, the radio will do traffic split other than 
50/50, which kind of makes it a unique animal. 

one of the reason we did not feel the need to switch out the B11 for AF11x on 
the 1x80, cause due to traffic split, the B11's performance was coming very 
close to what the AF11x would do on the 56mhz channel duplex. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
http://www.snappytelecom.net 

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

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

> From: "Tim Hardy" 
> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 8:04:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

> I’ll look but there’s nothing other than 50/50 with the 1x80 FDD option.

> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:27 PM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote:

>> I think those rates are what you'd get with a 50/50 traffic split - if it's
>> running in flexible mode, you should be able to get close to double that in 
>> one
>> direction... but it's been awhile since I've played with settings on a B11, 
>> so
>> I could be wrong.

>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net >
>> wrote:

>>> Something is off in your Mimosa #  see picture attached..

>>> Respectfully,

>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>>> http://www.snappytelecom.net

>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

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

 From: "Tim Hardy" < thardy...@gmail.com >
 To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com >
 Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:32:32 PM

 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

 I realize that these are theoretical values supplied by the manufacturer 
 and
 attaining these is another matter entirely. But, I thought it might help 
 to see
 a comparison of supplied specs.

 Manufacturers are supposed to provide the “air-rate” that does not include
 header compression, overhead bits, etc. but from what I remember it was not
 possible to get this from either UBNT or Mimosa. So, the claims of 
 throughput
 are all over the place and its not easy to compare radios based on 
 manufacturer
 supplied data. If you look at an Aviat spec sheet, you will see an Airlink
 capacity and a Max Ethernet Capacity based on 64 byte frames, physical 
 layer,
 with DAC GE3. Mimosa supplied data is confusing as all data that I saw 
 before I
 retired last October was listed in full duplex and considered everything 
 on a
 path. For example, they publish 1472 Mbps for the 2X80 radio but this 
 takes an
 astonishing 8 chains to accomplish vs.UBNT’s 4 chains for the full duplex 
 rate.
 I won't even go into the havoc that the TDD radios create for efficient 
 use of
 the spectrum - especially in bands where 98% of the installed base is FDD. 
 That
 would take too long and its not the point of this post.
 Not knowing what assumptions were used for either radio, I did a 
 comparison of
 their 80 MHz channel plan radio configurations (using their listed data)and
 this is what I found:

 To accurately compare radio to radio, one must compare the Mimosa TD-FD 
 (based
 on 2-streams or chains) values to UBNTs Mimo (based on 2-streams or chains)
 values and the data rates listed below are assumed each direction.

 80 MHz channel plan radio

 UBNT - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path

 1024 QAM 688 Mbps -52.5 dBm 10-6 BER
 256 QAM 550 Mbps -60.5 dBm 10-6 BER
 QPSK 138 Mbps -81.5 dBm 10-6 BER

 Mimosa - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path

 256 QAM 368 Mbps -64.5 dBm 10-6 BER
 QPSK 83 Mbps -82 dBm 10-6 BER

 The Mimosa radio catches up to UBNT when 2X80 is used and the throughput 
 values
 listed here double. I also listed the radio thresholds as there was some 
 talk
 about difficulty holding the higher modulation in the UBNT radio. 
 Hopefully,
 this shows why since the B11 would have a minimum of 12 db additional fade
 margin (difference between 256 QAM and 1024 QAM) right off the bat - plus 
 the
 Mimosa radio runs at about 24 dBm vs 18-19 dBm for UBNT at the highest
 modulation.

 Thought I’d add SAF Lumina just for grins. The 80 MHz channel plan radio 
 has a
 56 MHz occupied bandwidth.

 SAF Lumina - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the 
 path

 256 QAM 732 Mbps -63.5 dBm 10-6 BER
 4 QAM 134 Mbps -87.0 dBm 10-6 BER

> On Jul 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Jeremy < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote:

> AFAIK The Trango Lynx secret sauce was header compression, and those 
> numbers
> vary based on your average packet size. Lets of small packets = less 
> overall
> throughput / larger packets = larger overall throughput capability.

> 

[AFMUG] OT camper toilets

[Chuck McCown]

I am outfitting a new fiber splice trailer.  This one will have a toilet.  
I know next to nothing about camper toilets.  Not much room for a holding tank.
Been googling cassette toilets.  They seem like they might be a good solution.

Deed advice.-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Tim Hardy]

Sometimes that’s all that is available - otherwise why would they have the 
option?


> On Jul 17, 2018, at 8:24 PM, Rory Conaway  wrote:
> 
> Why use the FDD option?  It’s still better to use the 2x80 mode and let it 
> dynamically adjust where the priority is. 
>  
> Rory
>  
> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com ] On 
> Behalf Of Tim Hardy
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:05 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>  
> I’ll look but there’s nothing other than 50/50 with the 1x80 FDD option.
>  
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:27 PM Mathew Howard  > wrote:
> I think those rates are what you'd get with a 50/50 traffic split - if it's 
> running in flexible mode, you should be able to get close to double that in 
> one direction... but it's been awhile since I've played with settings on a 
> B11, so I could be wrong.
>  
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Faisal Imtiaz  > wrote:
>  
> Something is off in your Mimosa #  see picture attached..
>  
> Respectfully,
>  
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> http://www.snappytelecom.net 
> 
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 
> 
>  
> From: "Tim Hardy" mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>>
> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  >
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:32:32 PM
> 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
> I realize that these are theoretical values supplied by the manufacturer and 
> attaining these is another matter entirely.  But, I thought it might help to 
> see a comparison of supplied specs.
>  
> Manufacturers are supposed to provide the “air-rate” that does not include 
> header compression, overhead bits, etc. but from what I remember it was not 
> possible to get this from either UBNT or Mimosa.  So, the claims of 
> throughput are all over the place and its not easy to compare radios based on 
> manufacturer supplied data.  If you look at an Aviat spec sheet, you will see 
> an Airlink capacity and a Max Ethernet Capacity based on 64 byte frames, 
> physical layer, with DAC GE3.  Mimosa supplied data is confusing as all data 
> that I saw before I retired last October was listed in full duplex and 
> considered everything on a path.  For example, they publish 1472 Mbps for the 
> 2X80 radio but this takes an astonishing 8 chains to accomplish vs.UBNT’s 4 
> chains for the full duplex rate.  I won't even go into the havoc that the TDD 
> radios create for efficient use of the spectrum - especially in bands where 
> 98% of the installed base is FDD.  That would take too long and its not the 
> point of this post.
>  
> Not knowing what assumptions were used for either radio, I did a comparison 
> of their 80 MHz channel plan radio configurations (using their listed 
> data)and this is what I found:
>  
> To accurately compare radio to radio, one must compare the Mimosa TD-FD 
> (based on 2-streams or chains) values to UBNTs Mimo (based on 2-streams or 
> chains) values and the data rates listed below are assumed each direction.
>  
> 80 MHz channel plan radio
>  
> UBNT - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path
>  
> 1024 QAM 688 Mbps -52.5 dBm 10-6 BER
> 256 QAM 550 Mbps -60.5 dBm 10-6 BER
> QPSK 138 Mbps -81.5 dBm 10-6 BER
>  
> Mimosa - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path
>  
> 256 QAM 368 Mbps -64.5 dBm 10-6 BER
> QPSK 83 Mbps -82 dBm 10-6 BER
>  
> The Mimosa radio catches up to UBNT when 2X80 is used and the throughput 
> values listed here double.  I also listed the radio thresholds as there was 
> some talk about difficulty holding the higher modulation in the UBNT radio.  
> Hopefully, this shows why since the B11 would have a minimum of 12 db 
> additional fade margin (difference between 256 QAM and 1024 QAM) right off 
> the bat - plus the Mimosa radio runs at about 24 dBm vs 18-19 dBm for UBNT at 
> the highest modulation.
>  
> Thought I’d add SAF Lumina just for grins.  The 80 MHz channel plan radio has 
> a 56 MHz occupied bandwidth.
>  
> SAF Lumina - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path
>  
> 256 QAM 732 Mbps -63.5 dBm 10-6 BER
> 4 QAM 134 Mbps -87.0 dBm 10-6 BER
>  
> On Jul 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Jeremy  > wrote:
>  
> AFAIK The Trango Lynx secret sauce was header compression, and those numbers 
> vary based on your average packet size.  Lets of small packets = less overall 
> throughput / larger packets = larger overall throughput capability. 
>  
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Eric Kuhnke  > wrote:
> ubnt does not publish the specific FEC coding types and percentages for the 
> AF11's modulations. What it's doing under the hood is kind of opaque...
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Tue, Jul 17, 

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Rory Conaway]

Why use the FDD option?  It’s still better to use the 2x80 mode and let it 
dynamically adjust where the priority is.

Rory

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tim Hardy
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:05 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

I’ll look but there’s nothing other than 50/50 with the 1x80 FDD option.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:27 PM Mathew Howard 
mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think those rates are what you'd get with a 50/50 traffic split - if it's 
running in flexible mode, you should be able to get close to double that in one 
direction... but it's been awhile since I've played with settings on a B11, so 
I could be wrong.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote:

Something is off in your Mimosa #  see picture attached..

Respectfully,

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
http://www.snappytelecom.net

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

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


From: "Tim Hardy" mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>>
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:32:32 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
I realize that these are theoretical values supplied by the manufacturer and 
attaining these is another matter entirely.  But, I thought it might help to 
see a comparison of supplied specs.

Manufacturers are supposed to provide the “air-rate” that does not include 
header compression, overhead bits, etc. but from what I remember it was not 
possible to get this from either UBNT or Mimosa.  So, the claims of throughput 
are all over the place and its not easy to compare radios based on manufacturer 
supplied data.  If you look at an Aviat spec sheet, you will see an Airlink 
capacity and a Max Ethernet Capacity based on 64 byte frames, physical layer, 
with DAC GE3.  Mimosa supplied data is confusing as all data that I saw before 
I retired last October was listed in full duplex and considered everything on a 
path.  For example, they publish 1472 Mbps for the 2X80 radio but this takes an 
astonishing 8 chains to accomplish vs.UBNT’s 4 chains for the full duplex rate. 
 I won't even go into the havoc that the TDD radios create for efficient use of 
the spectrum - especially in bands where 98% of the installed base is FDD.  
That would take too long and its not the point of this post.

Not knowing what assumptions were used for either radio, I did a comparison of 
their 80 MHz channel plan radio configurations (using their listed data)and 
this is what I found:

To accurately compare radio to radio, one must compare the Mimosa TD-FD (based 
on 2-streams or chains) values to UBNTs Mimo (based on 2-streams or chains) 
values and the data rates listed below are assumed each direction.

80 MHz channel plan radio

UBNT - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path

1024 QAM 688 Mbps -52.5 dBm 10-6 BER
256 QAM 550 Mbps -60.5 dBm 10-6 BER
QPSK 138 Mbps -81.5 dBm 10-6 BER

Mimosa - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path

256 QAM 368 Mbps -64.5 dBm 10-6 BER
QPSK 83 Mbps -82 dBm 10-6 BER

The Mimosa radio catches up to UBNT when 2X80 is used and the throughput values 
listed here double.  I also listed the radio thresholds as there was some talk 
about difficulty holding the higher modulation in the UBNT radio.  Hopefully, 
this shows why since the B11 would have a minimum of 12 db additional fade 
margin (difference between 256 QAM and 1024 QAM) right off the bat - plus the 
Mimosa radio runs at about 24 dBm vs 18-19 dBm for UBNT at the highest 
modulation.

Thought I’d add SAF Lumina just for grins.  The 80 MHz channel plan radio has a 
56 MHz occupied bandwidth.

SAF Lumina - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path

256 QAM 732 Mbps -63.5 dBm 10-6 BER
4 QAM 134 Mbps -87.0 dBm 10-6 BER

On Jul 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Jeremy 
mailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

AFAIK The Trango Lynx secret sauce was header compression, and those numbers 
vary based on your average packet size.  Lets of small packets = less overall 
throughput / larger packets = larger overall throughput capability.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
ubnt does not publish the specific FEC coding types and percentages for the 
AF11's modulations. What it's doing under the hood is kind of opaque...





On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Adam Moffett 
mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:
This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data sheets:

A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields 486mbps Full 
Duplex at 1024QAM.
An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full Duplex.

What's the deal?  Lower cyclic prefix on AF11?

-Adam


On 7/17/2018 2:28 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
With limited spectrum, it's an accurate 

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Tim Hardy]

I’ll look but there’s nothing other than 50/50 with the 1x80 FDD option.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:27 PM Mathew Howard  wrote:

> I think those rates are what you'd get with a 50/50 traffic split - if
> it's running in flexible mode, you should be able to get close to double
> that in one direction... but it's been awhile since I've played with
> settings on a B11, so I could be wrong.
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Something is off in your Mimosa #  see picture attached..
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>>
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>>
>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>
>> --
>>
>> *From: *"Tim Hardy" 
>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:32:32 PM
>>
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>>
>> I realize that these are theoretical values supplied by the manufacturer
>> and attaining these is another matter entirely.  But, I thought it might
>> help to see a comparison of supplied specs.
>>
>> Manufacturers are supposed to provide the “air-rate” that does not
>> include header compression, overhead bits, etc. but from what I remember it
>> was not possible to get this from either UBNT or Mimosa.  So, the claims of
>> throughput are all over the place and its not easy to compare radios based
>> on manufacturer supplied data.  If you look at an Aviat spec sheet, you
>> will see an Airlink capacity and a Max Ethernet Capacity based on 64 byte
>> frames, physical layer, with DAC GE3.  Mimosa supplied data is confusing as
>> all data that I saw before I retired last October was listed in full duplex
>> and considered everything on a path.  For example, they publish 1472 Mbps
>> for the 2X80 radio but this takes an astonishing 8 chains to accomplish
>> vs.UBNT’s 4 chains for the full duplex rate.  I won't even go into the
>> havoc that the TDD radios create for efficient use of the spectrum -
>> especially in bands where 98% of the installed base is FDD.  That would
>> take too long and its not the point of this post.
>>
>> Not knowing what assumptions were used for either radio, I did a
>> comparison of their 80 MHz channel plan radio configurations (using their
>> listed data)and this is what I found:
>>
>> To accurately compare radio to radio, one must compare the Mimosa TD-FD
>> (based on 2-streams or chains) values to UBNTs Mimo (based on 2-streams or
>> chains) values and the data rates listed below are assumed each direction.
>>
>> 80 MHz channel plan radio
>>
>> UBNT - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path
>>
>> 1024 QAM 688 Mbps -52.5 dBm 10-6 BER
>> 256 QAM 550 Mbps -60.5 dBm 10-6 BER
>> QPSK 138 Mbps -81.5 dBm 10-6 BER
>>
>> Mimosa - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path
>>
>> 256 QAM 368 Mbps -64.5 dBm 10-6 BER
>> QPSK 83 Mbps -82 dBm 10-6 BER
>>
>> The Mimosa radio catches up to UBNT when 2X80 is used and the throughput
>> values listed here double.  I also listed the radio thresholds as there was
>> some talk about difficulty holding the higher modulation in the UBNT
>> radio.  Hopefully, this shows why since the B11 would have a minimum of 12
>> db additional fade margin (difference between 256 QAM and 1024 QAM) right
>> off the bat - plus the Mimosa radio runs at about 24 dBm vs 18-19 dBm for
>> UBNT at the highest modulation.
>>
>> Thought I’d add SAF Lumina just for grins.  The 80 MHz channel plan radio
>> has a 56 MHz occupied bandwidth.
>>
>> SAF Lumina - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the
>> path
>>
>> 256 QAM 732 Mbps -63.5 dBm 10-6 BER
>> 4 QAM 134 Mbps -87.0 dBm 10-6 BER
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Jeremy  wrote:
>>
>> AFAIK The Trango Lynx secret sauce was header compression, and those
>> numbers vary based on your average packet size.  Lets of small packets =
>> less overall throughput / larger packets = larger overall throughput
>> capability.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ubnt does not publish the specific FEC coding types and percentages for
>>> the AF11's modulations. What it's doing under the hood is kind of opaque...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Adam Moffett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data
 sheets:

 A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields
 486mbps Full Duplex at 1024QAM.
 An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full
 Duplex.

 What's the deal?  Lower cyclic prefix on AF11?

 -Adam



 On 7/17/2018 2:28 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

 With limited spectrum, it's an accurate statement. On a single
 polarity, 56mhz channel an AF-11 will get slightly less throughput than
 something like an old SAF Lumina (and the AF11 is using 1024QAM 

Re: [AFMUG] cheap small, low power Windows 10 mini pc with high uptime?

[TJ Burbank]

Isn't Windows 10 and High Uptime an oxymoron?

-TJ

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 6:58 PM Bill Prince  wrote:

> I've heard good things about the Intel Micro Stick. Less than $200.
>
> https://www.pcmag.com/roundup/358859/the-best-windows-micro-desktops
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 7/16/2018 5:49 PM, Justin Marshall wrote:
>
> Anyone know of a cheap small, low power mini pc  that will run Windows 10
> with high uptime?
>
>
>
> I’ve tried 2 different brands so far with the Z83 chipset and the both
> randomly lock up.
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Mathew Howard]

I think those rates are what you'd get with a 50/50 traffic split - if it's
running in flexible mode, you should be able to get close to double that in
one direction... but it's been awhile since I've played with settings on a
B11, so I could be wrong.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
wrote:

>
> Something is off in your Mimosa #  see picture attached..
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Tim Hardy" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:32:32 PM
>
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>
> I realize that these are theoretical values supplied by the manufacturer
> and attaining these is another matter entirely.  But, I thought it might
> help to see a comparison of supplied specs.
>
> Manufacturers are supposed to provide the “air-rate” that does not include
> header compression, overhead bits, etc. but from what I remember it was not
> possible to get this from either UBNT or Mimosa.  So, the claims of
> throughput are all over the place and its not easy to compare radios based
> on manufacturer supplied data.  If you look at an Aviat spec sheet, you
> will see an Airlink capacity and a Max Ethernet Capacity based on 64 byte
> frames, physical layer, with DAC GE3.  Mimosa supplied data is confusing as
> all data that I saw before I retired last October was listed in full duplex
> and considered everything on a path.  For example, they publish 1472 Mbps
> for the 2X80 radio but this takes an astonishing 8 chains to accomplish
> vs.UBNT’s 4 chains for the full duplex rate.  I won't even go into the
> havoc that the TDD radios create for efficient use of the spectrum -
> especially in bands where 98% of the installed base is FDD.  That would
> take too long and its not the point of this post.
>
> Not knowing what assumptions were used for either radio, I did a
> comparison of their 80 MHz channel plan radio configurations (using their
> listed data)and this is what I found:
>
> To accurately compare radio to radio, one must compare the Mimosa TD-FD
> (based on 2-streams or chains) values to UBNTs Mimo (based on 2-streams or
> chains) values and the data rates listed below are assumed each direction.
>
> 80 MHz channel plan radio
>
> UBNT - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path
>
> 1024 QAM 688 Mbps -52.5 dBm 10-6 BER
> 256 QAM 550 Mbps -60.5 dBm 10-6 BER
> QPSK 138 Mbps -81.5 dBm 10-6 BER
>
> Mimosa - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path
>
> 256 QAM 368 Mbps -64.5 dBm 10-6 BER
> QPSK 83 Mbps -82 dBm 10-6 BER
>
> The Mimosa radio catches up to UBNT when 2X80 is used and the throughput
> values listed here double.  I also listed the radio thresholds as there was
> some talk about difficulty holding the higher modulation in the UBNT
> radio.  Hopefully, this shows why since the B11 would have a minimum of 12
> db additional fade margin (difference between 256 QAM and 1024 QAM) right
> off the bat - plus the Mimosa radio runs at about 24 dBm vs 18-19 dBm for
> UBNT at the highest modulation.
>
> Thought I’d add SAF Lumina just for grins.  The 80 MHz channel plan radio
> has a 56 MHz occupied bandwidth.
>
> SAF Lumina - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the
> path
>
> 256 QAM 732 Mbps -63.5 dBm 10-6 BER
> 4 QAM 134 Mbps -87.0 dBm 10-6 BER
>
> On Jul 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Jeremy  wrote:
>
> AFAIK The Trango Lynx secret sauce was header compression, and those
> numbers vary based on your average packet size.  Lets of small packets =
> less overall throughput / larger packets = larger overall throughput
> capability.
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
> wrote:
>
>> ubnt does not publish the specific FEC coding types and percentages for
>> the AF11's modulations. What it's doing under the hood is kind of opaque...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Adam Moffett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data
>>> sheets:
>>>
>>> A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields 486mbps
>>> Full Duplex at 1024QAM.
>>> An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full
>>> Duplex.
>>>
>>> What's the deal?  Lower cyclic prefix on AF11?
>>>
>>> -Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/17/2018 2:28 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>
>>> With limited spectrum, it's an accurate statement. On a single polarity,
>>> 56mhz channel an AF-11 will get slightly less throughput than something
>>> like an old SAF Lumina (and the AF11 is using 1024QAM vs 256QAM, to get not
>>> even as much capacity, which means it needs a higher link budget). However,
>>> if spectrum isn't a problem, you need to spend a lot more money to get
>>> similar throughput to either of these radios with anything else.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Tim Hardy]

I realize that these are theoretical values supplied by the manufacturer and 
attaining these is another matter entirely.  But, I thought it might help to 
see a comparison of supplied specs.

Manufacturers are supposed to provide the “air-rate” that does not include 
header compression, overhead bits, etc. but from what I remember it was not 
possible to get this from either UBNT or Mimosa.  So, the claims of throughput 
are all over the place and its not easy to compare radios based on manufacturer 
supplied data.  If you look at an Aviat spec sheet, you will see an Airlink 
capacity and a Max Ethernet Capacity based on 64 byte frames, physical layer, 
with DAC GE3.  Mimosa supplied data is confusing as all data that I saw before 
I retired last October was listed in full duplex and considered everything on a 
path.  For example, they publish 1472 Mbps for the 2X80 radio but this takes an 
astonishing 8 chains to accomplish vs.UBNT’s 4 chains for the full duplex rate. 
 I won't even go into the havoc that the TDD radios create for efficient use of 
the spectrum - especially in bands where 98% of the installed base is FDD.  
That would take too long and its not the point of this post.

Not knowing what assumptions were used for either radio, I did a comparison of 
their 80 MHz channel plan radio configurations (using their listed data)and 
this is what I found:

To accurately compare radio to radio, one must compare the Mimosa TD-FD (based 
on 2-streams or chains) values to UBNTs Mimo (based on 2-streams or chains) 
values and the data rates listed below are assumed each direction.

80 MHz channel plan radio

UBNT - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path

1024 QAM688 Mbps-52.5 dBm 10-6 BER
256 QAM 550 Mbps-60.5 dBm 10-6 BER
QPSK138 Mbps-81.5 dBm 10-6 BER

Mimosa - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path

256 QAM 368 Mbps-64.5 dBm 10-6 BER
QPSK83 Mbps -82 dBm 10-6 BER

The Mimosa radio catches up to UBNT when 2X80 is used and the throughput values 
listed here double.  I also listed the radio thresholds as there was some talk 
about difficulty holding the higher modulation in the UBNT radio.  Hopefully, 
this shows why since the B11 would have a minimum of 12 db additional fade 
margin (difference between 256 QAM and 1024 QAM) right off the bat - plus the 
Mimosa radio runs at about 24 dBm vs 18-19 dBm for UBNT at the highest 
modulation.

Thought I’d add SAF Lumina just for grins.  The 80 MHz channel plan radio has a 
56 MHz occupied bandwidth.

SAF Lumina - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path

256 QAM 732 Mbps-63.5 dBm 10-6 BER
4 QAM   134 Mbps-87.0 dBm 10-6 BER

> On Jul 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Jeremy  wrote:
> 
> AFAIK The Trango Lynx secret sauce was header compression, and those numbers 
> vary based on your average packet size.  Lets of small packets = less overall 
> throughput / larger packets = larger overall throughput capability. 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Eric Kuhnke  > wrote:
> ubnt does not publish the specific FEC coding types and percentages for the 
> AF11's modulations. What it's doing under the hood is kind of opaque...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Adam Moffett  > wrote:
> This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data sheets:
> 
> A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields 486mbps Full 
> Duplex at 1024QAM.
> An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full Duplex.
> 
> What's the deal?  Lower cyclic prefix on AF11? 
> 
> -Adam
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/17/2018 2:28 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>> With limited spectrum, it's an accurate statement. On a single polarity, 
>> 56mhz channel an AF-11 will get slightly less throughput than something like 
>> an old SAF Lumina (and the AF11 is using 1024QAM vs 256QAM, to get not even 
>> as much capacity, which means it needs a higher link budget). However, if 
>> spectrum isn't a problem, you need to spend a lot more money to get similar 
>> throughput to either of these radios with anything else.
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Faisal Imtiaz > > wrote:
>> >>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional 
>> >>> 256 QAM radio.
>> 
>> One should take that with a grain of salt !
>> In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement.
>> How is pans out in reality is questionable !
>> 
>> :)
>> 
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> http://www.snappytelecom.net 
>> 
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>> 
>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Mike Hammett" 

Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

[Dave]

My power router v4 is still on 6.27 because of some hardware driver 
issue for support of sfp modules.
Last time I made the move to upgrade to 6.40 all of my sfp ports started 
flapping and would not stabilize no matter what I tried.
Ive been watching the change logs and it seems there were some driver 
upgrades between 6.39 -6.42


I have ordered all new sfp modules in hopes of correcting this on the 
next upgrade.



On 07/17/2018 08:43 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:


Correct, need to get those updated.

*Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer *

Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”

*Link Technologies, Inc*-- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services

*Office*: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net 



Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com

*From:*AF  *On Behalf Of *Nick W
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:45 AM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

Based on those versions you listed, it sounds like the Winbox 
vulnerability described here: 
https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=133533


Password complexity isn't really the issue since they could connect 
and download the unencrypted user database file. Firewall off Winbox 
and/or upgrade. Run 6.40.8+ for bugfix or 6.42.1+ for current.


On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:01 PM Nate Burke > wrote:


I just happened to be looking through the Logs of a couple Mikrotiks
that I didn't have Winbox Firewalled off From the outside world.
Someone
from the outside world logged into winbox today.  I had what I
'thought'
were strong passwords on them.  The only active service on the
router is
the Winbox Service.

The only changes that were made was they enabled the 'socks'
server, and
added input firewall rule for the socks port.  They were in and
out of
the router in a matter of seconds, so it looks like it was scripted
somehow.

I'm going through now and changing passwords and verifying all
routers
are locked from the outside.  On the routers that I've found this on,
all the logins were sourced from this same IP Address. So far the
affected routers I've found were running versions 6.39-6.41.3

Might be a good time to check your logs and access controls.


jul/15 02:29:14 system,info,account user admin logged in from
194.40.240.254 via winbox
jul/15 02:29:17 system,info,account user admin logged in from
194.40.240.254 via telnet
jul/15 02:29:18 system,info socks config changed by admin
jul/15 02:29:18 system,info filter rule added by admin
jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
194.40.240.254 via winbox
jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
194.40.240.254 via telnet




-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com





--
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

[Sam Morris]

Abuse email address for that ip glengineer...@wilsonnc.org

On 07/17/2018 02:51 PM, Nate Burke wrote:
FWIW, 216.152.5.42 has been hammering my network scanning for the winbox 
port for over 24 hours.  Ok, Hammering as in 10 packets per second.


On 7/17/2018 1:24 PM, Philip Rankin wrote:

I had same thing. Same IP addr

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:01 PM Nate Burke > wrote:


I just happened to be looking through the Logs of a couple Mikrotiks
that I didn't have Winbox Firewalled off From the outside world.
Someone
from the outside world logged into winbox today.  I had what I
'thought'
were strong passwords on them.  The only active service on the
router is
the Winbox Service.

The only changes that were made was they enabled the 'socks'
server, and
added input firewall rule for the socks port.  They were in and
out of
the router in a matter of seconds, so it looks like it was scripted
somehow.

I'm going through now and changing passwords and verifying all
routers
are locked from the outside.  On the routers that I've found this on,
all the logins were sourced from this same IP Address.  So far the
affected routers I've found were running versions 6.39-6.41.3

Might be a good time to check your logs and access controls.


jul/15 02:29:14 system,info,account user admin logged in from
194.40.240.254 via winbox
jul/15 02:29:17 system,info,account user admin logged in from
194.40.240.254 via telnet
jul/15 02:29:18 system,info socks config changed by admin
jul/15 02:29:18 system,info filter rule added by admin
jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
194.40.240.254 via winbox
jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
194.40.240.254 via telnet




-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

--
   Phil

Philip J. Rankin, CEO
Wireless Telecommunications, Corp.
A division of;
Mobilcom Wireless Services
PO Box 24
Pittsburg, KS  66762
620-231-8188








--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

[Dave]

yep its evil.. Like mama says its the devil


On 07/17/2018 08:38 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Definitely need 6.42+ there are two major exploits you're open to.


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

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:44 AM, Nick W > wrote:


Based on those versions you listed, it sounds like the Winbox
vulnerability described
here:https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=133533


Password complexity isn't really the issue since they could
connect and download the unencrypted user database file. Firewall
off Winbox and/or upgrade. Run 6.40.8+ for bugfix or 6.42.1+ for
current.



On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:01 PM Nate Burke mailto:n...@blastcomm.com>> wrote:

I just happened to be looking through the Logs of a couple
Mikrotiks
that I didn't have Winbox Firewalled off From the outside
world. Someone
from the outside world logged into winbox today. I had what I
'thought'
were strong passwords on them.  The only active service on the
router is
the Winbox Service.

The only changes that were made was they enabled the 'socks'
server, and
added input firewall rule for the socks port. They were in and
out of
the router in a matter of seconds, so it looks like it was
scripted
somehow.

I'm going through now and changing passwords and verifying all
routers
are locked from the outside.  On the routers that I've found
this on,
all the logins were sourced from this same IP Address.  So far
the
affected routers I've found were running versions 6.39-6.41.3

Might be a good time to check your logs and access controls.


jul/15 02:29:14 system,info,account user admin logged in from
194.40.240.254 via winbox
jul/15 02:29:17 system,info,account user admin logged in from
194.40.240.254 via telnet
jul/15 02:29:18 system,info socks config changed by admin
jul/15 02:29:18 system,info filter rule added by admin
jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
194.40.240.254 via winbox
jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
194.40.240.254 via telnet




-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com







--
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

[Nate Burke]

FWIW, 216.152.5.42 has been hammering my network scanning for the winbox 
port for over 24 hours.  Ok, Hammering as in 10 packets per second.


On 7/17/2018 1:24 PM, Philip Rankin wrote:

I had same thing. Same IP addr

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:01 PM Nate Burke > wrote:


I just happened to be looking through the Logs of a couple Mikrotiks
that I didn't have Winbox Firewalled off From the outside world.
Someone
from the outside world logged into winbox today.  I had what I
'thought'
were strong passwords on them.  The only active service on the
router is
the Winbox Service.

The only changes that were made was they enabled the 'socks'
server, and
added input firewall rule for the socks port.  They were in and
out of
the router in a matter of seconds, so it looks like it was scripted
somehow.

I'm going through now and changing passwords and verifying all
routers
are locked from the outside.  On the routers that I've found this on,
all the logins were sourced from this same IP Address.  So far the
affected routers I've found were running versions 6.39-6.41.3

Might be a good time to check your logs and access controls.


jul/15 02:29:14 system,info,account user admin logged in from
194.40.240.254 via winbox
jul/15 02:29:17 system,info,account user admin logged in from
194.40.240.254 via telnet
jul/15 02:29:18 system,info socks config changed by admin
jul/15 02:29:18 system,info filter rule added by admin
jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
194.40.240.254 via winbox
jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
194.40.240.254 via telnet




-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

--
   Phil

Philip J. Rankin, CEO
Wireless Telecommunications, Corp.
A division of;
Mobilcom Wireless Services
PO Box 24
Pittsburg, KS  66762
620-231-8188




-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Mike Hammett]

Right, but Adam mentioned speeds excluding compression. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jeremy"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:25:10 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 


AFAIK The Trango Lynx secret sauce was header compression, and those numbers 
vary based on your average packet size. Lets of small packets = less overall 
throughput / larger packets = larger overall throughput capability. 


On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Eric Kuhnke < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > wrote: 




ubnt does not publish the specific FEC coding types and percentages for the 
AF11's modulations. What it's doing under the hood is kind of opaque... 












On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Adam Moffett < dmmoff...@gmail.com > wrote: 



This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data sheets: 

A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields 486mbps Full 
Duplex at 1024QAM. 
An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full Duplex. 

What's the deal? Lower cyclic prefix on AF11? 

-Adam 





On 7/17/2018 2:28 PM, Mathew Howard wrote: 



With limited spectrum, it's an accurate statement. On a single polarity, 56mhz 
channel an AF-11 will get slightly less throughput than something like an old 
SAF Lumina (and the AF11 is using 1024QAM vs 256QAM, to get not even as much 
capacity, which means it needs a higher link budget). However, if spectrum 
isn't a problem, you need to spend a lot more money to get similar throughput 
to either of these radios with anything else. 



On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net > 
wrote: 





>>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional 
>>> 256 QAM radio. 



One should take that with a grain of salt ! 

In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement. 

How is pans out in reality is questionable ! 



:) 



Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
http://www.snappytelecom.net 

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

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





From: "Mike Hammett" < af...@ics-il.net > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 






I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz spectrum 
in my area. 



Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional 256 
QAM radio. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Jason McKemie" < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 

More dependable, predictable, etc. 

I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that radio, I 
like just about everything else on the AF11. 

I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the B11 with 
the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. I'd like to 
hear if you've had a different experience. 

On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Define "better". 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Jason McKemie" < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < Af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 


Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some guidance 
as to which has worked better? 
-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 




-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 




-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 



-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 










-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 





-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 





-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Jeremy]

AFAIK The Trango Lynx secret sauce was header compression, and those
numbers vary based on your average packet size.  Lets of small packets =
less overall throughput / larger packets = larger overall throughput
capability.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

> ubnt does not publish the specific FEC coding types and percentages for
> the AF11's modulations. What it's doing under the hood is kind of opaque...
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
>
>> This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data
>> sheets:
>>
>> A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields 486mbps
>> Full Duplex at 1024QAM.
>> An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full
>> Duplex.
>>
>> What's the deal?  Lower cyclic prefix on AF11?
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/17/2018 2:28 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> With limited spectrum, it's an accurate statement. On a single polarity,
>> 56mhz channel an AF-11 will get slightly less throughput than something
>> like an old SAF Lumina (and the AF11 is using 1024QAM vs 256QAM, to get not
>> even as much capacity, which means it needs a higher link budget). However,
>> if spectrum isn't a problem, you need to spend a lot more money to get
>> similar throughput to either of these radios with anything else.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> >>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old
>>> traditional 256 QAM radio.
>>>
>>> One should take that with a grain of salt !
>>> In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement.
>>> How is pans out in reality is questionable !
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>>> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>>>
>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>>>
>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *From: *"Mike Hammett" 
>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>>>
>>> I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz
>>> spectrum in my area.
>>>
>>>
>>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional
>>> 256 QAM radio.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM
>>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>>>
>>> More dependable, predictable, etc.
>>> I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that
>>> radio, I like just about everything else on the AF11.
>>>
>>> I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the
>>> B11 with the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around.
>>> I'd like to hear if you've had a different experience.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>>
 Define "better".



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


 
 --
 *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
 *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
 *Sent: *Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM
 *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

 Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some
 guidance as to which has worked better?

 --
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> 

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Eric Kuhnke]

ubnt does not publish the specific FEC coding types and percentages for the
AF11's modulations. What it's doing under the hood is kind of opaque...





On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data
> sheets:
>
> A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields 486mbps
> Full Duplex at 1024QAM.
> An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full
> Duplex.
>
> What's the deal?  Lower cyclic prefix on AF11?
>
> -Adam
>
>
>
> On 7/17/2018 2:28 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> With limited spectrum, it's an accurate statement. On a single polarity,
> 56mhz channel an AF-11 will get slightly less throughput than something
> like an old SAF Lumina (and the AF11 is using 1024QAM vs 256QAM, to get not
> even as much capacity, which means it needs a higher link budget). However,
> if spectrum isn't a problem, you need to spend a lot more money to get
> similar throughput to either of these radios with anything else.
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
> wrote:
>
>> >>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old
>> traditional 256 QAM radio.
>>
>> One should take that with a grain of salt !
>> In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement.
>> How is pans out in reality is questionable !
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>>
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>>
>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>
>> --
>>
>> *From: *"Mike Hammett" 
>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>>
>> I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz
>> spectrum in my area.
>>
>>
>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional
>> 256 QAM radio.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM
>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>>
>> More dependable, predictable, etc.
>> I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that
>> radio, I like just about everything else on the AF11.
>>
>> I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the B11
>> with the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. I'd
>> like to hear if you've had a different experience.
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>> Define "better".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>>> *Sent: *Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM
>>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>>>
>>> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some
>>> guidance as to which has worked better?
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Mathew Howard]

We've been through that before... I don't remember what the explanation
was, but yeah, something with the way Ubiquiti does things makes it much
less spectrally efficient than most other licensed radios (the B11 being
the exception).

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:59 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data
> sheets:
>
> A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields 486mbps
> Full Duplex at 1024QAM.
> An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full
> Duplex.
>
> What's the deal?  Lower cyclic prefix on AF11?
>
> -Adam
>
>
>
> On 7/17/2018 2:28 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> With limited spectrum, it's an accurate statement. On a single polarity,
> 56mhz channel an AF-11 will get slightly less throughput than something
> like an old SAF Lumina (and the AF11 is using 1024QAM vs 256QAM, to get not
> even as much capacity, which means it needs a higher link budget). However,
> if spectrum isn't a problem, you need to spend a lot more money to get
> similar throughput to either of these radios with anything else.
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
> wrote:
>
>> >>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old
>> traditional 256 QAM radio.
>>
>> One should take that with a grain of salt !
>> In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement.
>> How is pans out in reality is questionable !
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>>
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>>
>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>
>> --
>>
>> *From: *"Mike Hammett" 
>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>>
>> I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz
>> spectrum in my area.
>>
>>
>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional
>> 256 QAM radio.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM
>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>>
>> More dependable, predictable, etc.
>> I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that
>> radio, I like just about everything else on the AF11.
>>
>> I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the B11
>> with the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. I'd
>> like to hear if you've had a different experience.
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>> Define "better".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>>> *Sent: *Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM
>>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>>>
>>> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some
>>> guidance as to which has worked better?
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Adam Moffett]

This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data 
sheets:


A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields 486mbps 
Full Duplex at 1024QAM.
An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full 
Duplex.


What's the deal?  Lower cyclic prefix on AF11?

-Adam


On 7/17/2018 2:28 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
With limited spectrum, it's an accurate statement. On a single 
polarity, 56mhz channel an AF-11 will get slightly less throughput 
than something like an old SAF Lumina (and the AF11 is using 1024QAM 
vs 256QAM, to get not even as much capacity, which means it needs a 
higher link budget). However, if spectrum isn't a problem, you need to 
spend a lot more money to get similar throughput to either of these 
radios with anything else.


On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote:


>>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old 
traditional 256 QAM radio.

One should take that with a grain of salt !
In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement.
How is pans out in reality is questionable !

:)

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
http://www.snappytelecom.net

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

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



*From: *"Mike Hammett" mailto:af...@ics-il.net>>
*To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little
11 GHz spectrum in my area.


Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old
traditional 256 QAM radio.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Jason McKemie" mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>>
*To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

More dependable, predictable, etc.
I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP
on that radio, I like just about everything else on the AF11.

I've just read about several instances where people have
replaced the B11 with the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one
the opposite way around. I'd like to hear if you've had a
different experience.

On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote:

Define "better".



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 






*From: *"Jason McKemie" mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>>
*To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:Af@af.afmug.com>>
*Sent: *Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

Does anyone have experience with both of these that can
provide some guidance as to which has worked better?

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Mathew Howard]

With limited spectrum, it's an accurate statement. On a single polarity,
56mhz channel an AF-11 will get slightly less throughput than something
like an old SAF Lumina (and the AF11 is using 1024QAM vs 256QAM, to get not
even as much capacity, which means it needs a higher link budget). However,
if spectrum isn't a problem, you need to spend a lot more money to get
similar throughput to either of these radios with anything else.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
wrote:

> >>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old
> traditional 256 QAM radio.
>
> One should take that with a grain of salt !
> In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement.
> How is pans out in reality is questionable !
>
> :)
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Mike Hammett" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>
> I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz
> spectrum in my area.
>
>
> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional
> 256 QAM radio.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>
> More dependable, predictable, etc.
> I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that
> radio, I like just about everything else on the AF11.
>
> I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the B11
> with the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. I'd
> like to hear if you've had a different experience.
>
> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> Define "better".
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> *Sent: *Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM
>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>>
>> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some
>> guidance as to which has worked better?
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

[Philip Rankin]

I had same thing. Same IP addr

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:01 PM Nate Burke  wrote:

> I just happened to be looking through the Logs of a couple Mikrotiks
> that I didn't have Winbox Firewalled off From the outside world. Someone
> from the outside world logged into winbox today.  I had what I 'thought'
> were strong passwords on them.  The only active service on the router is
> the Winbox Service.
>
> The only changes that were made was they enabled the 'socks' server, and
> added input firewall rule for the socks port.  They were in and out of
> the router in a matter of seconds, so it looks like it was scripted
> somehow.
>
> I'm going through now and changing passwords and verifying all routers
> are locked from the outside.  On the routers that I've found this on,
> all the logins were sourced from this same IP Address.  So far the
> affected routers I've found were running versions 6.39-6.41.3
>
> Might be a good time to check your logs and access controls.
>
>
> jul/15 02:29:14 system,info,account user admin logged in from
> 194.40.240.254 via winbox
> jul/15 02:29:17 system,info,account user admin logged in from
> 194.40.240.254 via telnet
> jul/15 02:29:18 system,info socks config changed by admin
> jul/15 02:29:18 system,info filter rule added by admin
> jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
> 194.40.240.254 via winbox
> jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
> 194.40.240.254 via telnet
>
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
   Phil

Philip J. Rankin, CEO
Wireless Telecommunications, Corp.
A division of;
Mobilcom Wireless Services
PO Box 24
Pittsburg, KS  66762
620-231-8188
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Mike Hammett]

As always, YMMV, but neither platform has better efficiency than previous-gen 
traditional platforms. Traditional platforms have always delivered what the 
spec sheet says and thus far, they can't compare. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Faisal Imtiaz"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:00:53 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 



>>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional 
>>> 256 QAM radio. 



One should take that with a grain of salt ! 

In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement. 

How is pans out in reality is questionable ! 



:) 



Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
http://www.snappytelecom.net 

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

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

- Original Message -



From: "Mike Hammett"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 






I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz spectrum 
in my area. 

Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional 256 
QAM radio. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jason McKemie"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 

More dependable, predictable, etc. 

I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that radio, I 
like just about everything else on the AF11. 

I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the B11 with 
the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. I'd like to 
hear if you've had a different experience. 

On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Define "better". 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Jason McKemie" < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < Af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 


Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some guidance 
as to which has worked better? 
-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 




-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 


-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 



-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Faisal Imtiaz]

>>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional 
>>> 256 QAM radio. 

One should take that with a grain of salt ! 
In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement. 
How is pans out in reality is questionable ! 

:) 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
http://www.snappytelecom.net 

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

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

> From: "Mike Hammett" 
> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

> I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz spectrum 
> in
> my area.

> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional 256 
> QAM
> radio.

> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions

> Midwest Internet Exchange

> The Brothers WISP

> From: "Jason McKemie" 
> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM
> Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

> More dependable, predictable, etc.
> I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that radio, 
> I
> like just about everything else on the AF11.

> I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the B11 with
> the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. I'd like to
> hear if you've had a different experience.

> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote:

>> Define "better".

>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions

>> Midwest Internet Exchange

>> The Brothers WISP

>> From: "Jason McKemie" < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com >
>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < Af@af.afmug.com >
>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

>> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some 
>> guidance as
>> to which has worked better?

>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Mike Hammett]

I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz spectrum 
in my area. 

Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional 256 
QAM radio. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jason McKemie"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 

More dependable, predictable, etc. 


I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that radio, I 
like just about everything else on the AF11. 


I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the B11 with 
the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. I'd like to 
hear if you've had a different experience. 

On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Define "better". 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Jason McKemie" < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < Af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 


Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some guidance 
as to which has worked better? 
-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 




-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

[Dennis Burgess]

Originally it was web, then WinBox then API, all is fixed in the current 
versions. Both bugfix and production.But you must upgrade.



Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270  Website: 
http://www.linktechs.net
Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com

From: AF  On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 11:27 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

So does the problem actually come from having the API service exposed to the 
internet, not winbox (i.e. if you have winbox exposed to the internet, but API 
is disabled, you should be fine)?

I think I have API disabled on all of our Mikrotiks that are exposed to the 
internet, and all the other services are blocked, so we should be safe on 
anything that's still running old firmware anyway.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Dennis Burgess 
mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>> wrote:
DO NOT USE API without a SSL.  :)  


Now client sends username and password in first message.
Password is sent in plain text.
in case of error, reply contains =message=error message.
In case of successful login client can start to issue commands.


Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition"
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net
Create Wireless Coverage's with 
www.towercoverage.com

-Original Message-
From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of 
Justin Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:47 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

What's new in 6.43rc44 (2018-Jul-11 07:45):

MAJOR CHANGES IN v6.43:
--
!) api - changed authentication process 
(https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:API#Initial_login);




Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

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

> On Jul 16, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Nate Burke 
> mailto:n...@blastcomm.com>> wrote:
>
> I just happened to be looking through the Logs of a couple Mikrotiks that I 
> didn't have Winbox Firewalled off From the outside world. Someone from the 
> outside world logged into winbox today.  I had what I 'thought' were strong 
> passwords on them.  The only active service on the router is the Winbox 
> Service.
>
> The only changes that were made was they enabled the 'socks' server, and 
> added input firewall rule for the socks port.  They were in and out of the 
> router in a matter of seconds, so it looks like it was scripted somehow.
>
> I'm going through now and changing passwords and verifying all routers are 
> locked from the outside.  On the routers that I've found this on, all the 
> logins were sourced from this same IP Address.  So far the affected routers 
> I've found were running versions 6.39-6.41.3
>
> Might be a good time to check your logs and access controls.
>
>
> jul/15 02:29:14 system,info,account user admin logged in from 194.40.240.254 
> via winbox
> jul/15 02:29:17 system,info,account user admin logged in from 194.40.240.254 
> via telnet
> jul/15 02:29:18 system,info socks config changed by admin
> jul/15 02:29:18 system,info filter rule added by admin
> jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from 194.40.240.254 
> via winbox
> jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from 194.40.240.254 
> via telnet
>
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>


--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

[Mathew Howard]

So does the problem actually come from having the API service exposed to
the internet, not winbox (i.e. if you have winbox exposed to the internet,
but API is disabled, you should be fine)?

I think I have API disabled on all of our Mikrotiks that are exposed to the
internet, and all the other services are blocked, so we should be safe on
anything that's still running old firmware anyway.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Dennis Burgess 
wrote:

> DO NOT USE API without a SSL.  :)  
>
>
> Now client sends username and password in first message.
> Password is sent in plain text.
> in case of error, reply contains =message=error message.
> In case of successful login client can start to issue commands.
>
>
> Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
> Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition"
> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
> Office: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net
> Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Justin Wilson
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:47 AM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes
>
> What's new in 6.43rc44 (2018-Jul-11 07:45):
>
> MAJOR CHANGES IN v6.43:
> --
> !) api - changed authentication process (https://wiki.mikrotik.com/
> wiki/Manual:API#Initial_login);
>
>
>
>
> Justin Wilson
> j...@mtin.net
>
> www.mtin.net
> www.midwest-ix.com
>
> > On Jul 16, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Nate Burke  wrote:
> >
> > I just happened to be looking through the Logs of a couple Mikrotiks
> that I didn't have Winbox Firewalled off From the outside world. Someone
> from the outside world logged into winbox today.  I had what I 'thought'
> were strong passwords on them.  The only active service on the router is
> the Winbox Service.
> >
> > The only changes that were made was they enabled the 'socks' server, and
> added input firewall rule for the socks port.  They were in and out of the
> router in a matter of seconds, so it looks like it was scripted somehow.
> >
> > I'm going through now and changing passwords and verifying all routers
> are locked from the outside.  On the routers that I've found this on, all
> the logins were sourced from this same IP Address.  So far the affected
> routers I've found were running versions 6.39-6.41.3
> >
> > Might be a good time to check your logs and access controls.
> >
> >
> > jul/15 02:29:14 system,info,account user admin logged in from
> 194.40.240.254 via winbox
> > jul/15 02:29:17 system,info,account user admin logged in from
> 194.40.240.254 via telnet
> > jul/15 02:29:18 system,info socks config changed by admin
> > jul/15 02:29:18 system,info filter rule added by admin
> > jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
> 194.40.240.254 via winbox
> > jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
> 194.40.240.254 via telnet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > AF mailing list
> > AF@af.afmug.com
> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> >
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, you can just set it to 50/50 and pretend it's full duplex (although
you really don't want to do that unless you're using sync, since it'll make
the latency go way up), but there's also the mode where it transmits and
receives on different channels, which should act a bit more like an FDD
radio, but it's still actually half duplex.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> It's not Full Duplex, it's just a 50/50 ratio of half duplex.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Dennis Burgess" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:00:47 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>
> I believe the B11 has a Full duplex mode of operation.  Its 750/750 or
> something like that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer *
>
> Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
>
> *Link Technologies, Inc* -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>
> *Office*: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net
>
> Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince
> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 11:13 PM
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>
>
>
> AF11x by a long shot. They run full duplex for one. They also seem to be a
> lot better in higher noise environments. We don't have any B11s any more.
>
>
>
> bp
>
> 
>
>
>
> On 7/16/2018 6:02 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
>
> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some
> guidance as to which has worked better?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

[Dennis Burgess]

DO NOT USE API without a SSL.  :)    


Now client sends username and password in first message.
Password is sent in plain text.
in case of error, reply contains =message=error message.
In case of successful login client can start to issue commands.


Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer 
Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition" 
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services 
Office: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net 
Create Wireless Coverage's with www.towercoverage.com 


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Justin Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:47 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

What's new in 6.43rc44 (2018-Jul-11 07:45):

MAJOR CHANGES IN v6.43:
--
!) api - changed authentication process 
(https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:API#Initial_login);




Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

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

> On Jul 16, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Nate Burke  wrote:
> 
> I just happened to be looking through the Logs of a couple Mikrotiks that I 
> didn't have Winbox Firewalled off From the outside world. Someone from the 
> outside world logged into winbox today.  I had what I 'thought' were strong 
> passwords on them.  The only active service on the router is the Winbox 
> Service.
> 
> The only changes that were made was they enabled the 'socks' server, and 
> added input firewall rule for the socks port.  They were in and out of the 
> router in a matter of seconds, so it looks like it was scripted somehow.
> 
> I'm going through now and changing passwords and verifying all routers are 
> locked from the outside.  On the routers that I've found this on, all the 
> logins were sourced from this same IP Address.  So far the affected routers 
> I've found were running versions 6.39-6.41.3
> 
> Might be a good time to check your logs and access controls.
> 
> 
> jul/15 02:29:14 system,info,account user admin logged in from 194.40.240.254 
> via winbox
> jul/15 02:29:17 system,info,account user admin logged in from 194.40.240.254 
> via telnet
> jul/15 02:29:18 system,info socks config changed by admin
> jul/15 02:29:18 system,info filter rule added by admin
> jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from 194.40.240.254 
> via winbox
> jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from 194.40.240.254 
> via telnet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> 


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

[Justin Wilson]

What's new in 6.43rc44 (2018-Jul-11 07:45):

MAJOR CHANGES IN v6.43:
--
!) api - changed authentication process 
(https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:API#Initial_login);




Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

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

> On Jul 16, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Nate Burke  wrote:
> 
> I just happened to be looking through the Logs of a couple Mikrotiks that I 
> didn't have Winbox Firewalled off From the outside world. Someone from the 
> outside world logged into winbox today.  I had what I 'thought' were strong 
> passwords on them.  The only active service on the router is the Winbox 
> Service.
> 
> The only changes that were made was they enabled the 'socks' server, and 
> added input firewall rule for the socks port.  They were in and out of the 
> router in a matter of seconds, so it looks like it was scripted somehow.
> 
> I'm going through now and changing passwords and verifying all routers are 
> locked from the outside.  On the routers that I've found this on, all the 
> logins were sourced from this same IP Address.  So far the affected routers 
> I've found were running versions 6.39-6.41.3
> 
> Might be a good time to check your logs and access controls.
> 
> 
> jul/15 02:29:14 system,info,account user admin logged in from 194.40.240.254 
> via winbox
> jul/15 02:29:17 system,info,account user admin logged in from 194.40.240.254 
> via telnet
> jul/15 02:29:18 system,info socks config changed by admin
> jul/15 02:29:18 system,info filter rule added by admin
> jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from 194.40.240.254 
> via winbox
> jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from 194.40.240.254 
> via telnet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> 


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Long PTP link with epmp.

[Sam Lambie]

Thank you Faisal. I appreciate the info!

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 8:42 AM Faisal Imtiaz 
wrote:

> Keep in mind the following rules of physics !...
>
> 802.11n  = 802.11n , 20mhz channel = 20mhz channel.
>
> Rocket M (5ghz)  and Epmp 1000 (5ghz) are both the same class of product,
> so for a given link, for the sake of a paper exercise, one would expect
> very similar results.
> Yes it can be argued that one can possibly eek out something better.. so
> let's give it a +/- 10-20% difference between same class of product from
> different mfg (just to avoid a flame thread).
>
> Now, if you were to replace 802.11n with a 802.11ac product, then your
> results can be very different  (key word .. 'can')...
> What does this 'Can' depend on ?   it is your SNR, for the particular link.
>
> To cut a long story short... if on your link you are able to achieve a SNR
> of higher than 25, then you will see a HUGE difference in performance gain
> by replacing 802.11n radio with a 802.11ac radio. Now if your SNR
> is 20 or below.. then you might not see much performance gain.
>
> Having said that Yes there are other things that can be done to impact
> the SNR increase the gain... (bigger dishes).. or reduce the noise floor
> (shielding, better antenna etc).
>
> in 802.11ac radios..
> you have lots of good choices...
> From Ubnt.  Rocket AC lite is not to shabbily priced.
>
> from Mimosa  you have C5c   (you need to download the PTP firmware
> from their portal site, to put them in PTP mode.. )
>
> You can also go with some more expensive radios such as Gen2 AC  or
> B5c etc.
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> http://www.snappytelecom.net
>
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Sam Lambie" 
> *To: *af@af.afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, July 5, 2018 2:23:19 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Long PTP link with epmp.
>
> I found the planning tool and it looks good to me. How do you like the
> Mimosa c5c's as a backhaul?
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:41 AM Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
>
>> There are several options that will be an improvement over the Force
>> 200’s for this.  The Mimosa C5c can hit as much as 500Mbps or more
>> depending on the quality of the link for $130 per radio.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Sam Lambie
>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 5, 2018 10:13 AM
>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Long PTP link with epmp.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am looking at being cheap while going long today. We currently have a
>> 32 mile 5ghz rocket link with a 29dbi antenna and a the 34dbi antenna on
>> each end. We get about 20 mbps fdd out of the link and I am looking at the
>> epmp 1000 connectorized gear to replace it for slightly better performance.
>> I think according to linkplanner with the Force 200's I would get at least
>> 45 mbps out of the link.
>>
>> Has anyone done a link close to this long?
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>> *Sam Lambie*
>> Taosnet Wireless Tech.
>> 575-758-7598 Office
>> www.Taosnet.com 
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> *Sam Lambie*
> Taosnet Wireless Tech.
> 575-758-7598 Office
> www.Taosnet.com 
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>


-- 
-- 
*Sam Lambie*
Taosnet Wireless Tech.
575-758-7598 Office
www.Taosnet.com 
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Mathew Howard]

They have a mode that works pretty much the same as a full duplex radio,
but it's still not a true full duplex radio... and it's going to lose a lot
of capacity, since it can only use a single 80mhz channel in each direction
that way. I suspect that it's not going to get any more capacity than an
AF11 in that mode (if it can even do as much).

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Dennis Burgess 
wrote:

> I believe the B11 has a Full duplex mode of operation.  Its 750/750 or
> something like that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer *
>
> Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
>
> *Link Technologies, Inc* -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>
> *Office*: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net
>
> Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince
> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 11:13 PM
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>
>
>
> AF11x by a long shot. They run full duplex for one. They also seem to be a
> lot better in higher noise environments. We don't have any B11s any more.
>
>
>
> bp
>
> 
>
>
>
> On 7/16/2018 6:02 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
>
> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some
> guidance as to which has worked better?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Dennis Burgess]

I believe the B11 has a Full duplex mode of operation.  Its 750/750 or 
something like that.



Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270  Website: 
http://www.linktechs.net
Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com

From: AF  On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 11:13 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11


AF11x by a long shot. They run full duplex for one. They also seem to be a lot 
better in higher noise environments. We don't have any B11s any more.



bp




On 7/16/2018 6:02 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some guidance 
as to which has worked better?



-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Mathew Howard]

Well, for you, I assume working "better" would be the one with an SFP port
:)

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:43 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Define "better".
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>
> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some
> guidance as to which has worked better?
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Mike Hammett]

Define "better". 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jason McKemie"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 


Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some guidance 
as to which has worked better? 
-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11

[Seth Mattinen]

On 7/16/18 9:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote:

They also seem to be a lot better in higher noise environments.


Um, how are you seeing "higher noise" in a licensed band?

--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

[Mike Hammett]

Old versions of ROS had an exploit where remotely, the attacker could fetch the 
plaintext passwords. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Nate Burke"  
To: "Animal Farm"  
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 9:57:25 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes 

I just happened to be looking through the Logs of a couple Mikrotiks 
that I didn't have Winbox Firewalled off From the outside world. Someone 
from the outside world logged into winbox today. I had what I 'thought' 
were strong passwords on them. The only active service on the router is 
the Winbox Service. 

The only changes that were made was they enabled the 'socks' server, and 
added input firewall rule for the socks port. They were in and out of 
the router in a matter of seconds, so it looks like it was scripted 
somehow. 

I'm going through now and changing passwords and verifying all routers 
are locked from the outside. On the routers that I've found this on, 
all the logins were sourced from this same IP Address. So far the 
affected routers I've found were running versions 6.39-6.41.3 

Might be a good time to check your logs and access controls. 


jul/15 02:29:14 system,info,account user admin logged in from 
194.40.240.254 via winbox 
jul/15 02:29:17 system,info,account user admin logged in from 
194.40.240.254 via telnet 
jul/15 02:29:18 system,info socks config changed by admin 
jul/15 02:29:18 system,info filter rule added by admin 
jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from 
194.40.240.254 via winbox 
jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from 
194.40.240.254 via telnet 




-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

[Dennis Burgess]

Correct, need to get those updated.



Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270  Website: 
http://www.linktechs.net
Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com

From: AF  On Behalf Of Nick W
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:45 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

Based on those versions you listed, it sounds like the Winbox vulnerability 
described here: https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=133533

Password complexity isn't really the issue since they could connect and 
download the unencrypted user database file. Firewall off Winbox and/or 
upgrade. Run 6.40.8+ for bugfix or 6.42.1+ for current.


On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:01 PM Nate Burke 
mailto:n...@blastcomm.com>> wrote:
I just happened to be looking through the Logs of a couple Mikrotiks
that I didn't have Winbox Firewalled off From the outside world. Someone
from the outside world logged into winbox today.  I had what I 'thought'
were strong passwords on them.  The only active service on the router is
the Winbox Service.

The only changes that were made was they enabled the 'socks' server, and
added input firewall rule for the socks port.  They were in and out of
the router in a matter of seconds, so it looks like it was scripted
somehow.

I'm going through now and changing passwords and verifying all routers
are locked from the outside.  On the routers that I've found this on,
all the logins were sourced from this same IP Address.  So far the
affected routers I've found were running versions 6.39-6.41.3

Might be a good time to check your logs and access controls.


jul/15 02:29:14 system,info,account user admin logged in from
194.40.240.254 via winbox
jul/15 02:29:17 system,info,account user admin logged in from
194.40.240.254 via telnet
jul/15 02:29:18 system,info socks config changed by admin
jul/15 02:29:18 system,info filter rule added by admin
jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
194.40.240.254 via winbox
jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
194.40.240.254 via telnet




--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

[Josh Luthman]

Definitely need 6.42+ there are two major exploits you're open to.


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

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:44 AM, Nick W  wrote:

> Based on those versions you listed, it sounds like the Winbox
> vulnerability described here: https://forum.mikrotik.
> com/viewtopic.php?t=133533
>
> Password complexity isn't really the issue since they could connect and
> download the unencrypted user database file. Firewall off Winbox and/or
> upgrade. Run 6.40.8+ for bugfix or 6.42.1+ for current.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:01 PM Nate Burke  wrote:
>
>> I just happened to be looking through the Logs of a couple Mikrotiks
>> that I didn't have Winbox Firewalled off From the outside world. Someone
>> from the outside world logged into winbox today.  I had what I 'thought'
>> were strong passwords on them.  The only active service on the router is
>> the Winbox Service.
>>
>> The only changes that were made was they enabled the 'socks' server, and
>> added input firewall rule for the socks port.  They were in and out of
>> the router in a matter of seconds, so it looks like it was scripted
>> somehow.
>>
>> I'm going through now and changing passwords and verifying all routers
>> are locked from the outside.  On the routers that I've found this on,
>> all the logins were sourced from this same IP Address.  So far the
>> affected routers I've found were running versions 6.39-6.41.3
>>
>> Might be a good time to check your logs and access controls.
>>
>>
>> jul/15 02:29:14 system,info,account user admin logged in from
>> 194.40.240.254 via winbox
>> jul/15 02:29:17 system,info,account user admin logged in from
>> 194.40.240.254 via telnet
>> jul/15 02:29:18 system,info socks config changed by admin
>> jul/15 02:29:18 system,info filter rule added by admin
>> jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
>> 194.40.240.254 via winbox
>> jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
>> 194.40.240.254 via telnet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

[Nick W]

 Based on those versions you listed, it sounds like the Winbox
vulnerability described here:
https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=133533

Password complexity isn't really the issue since they could connect and
download the unencrypted user database file. Firewall off Winbox and/or
upgrade. Run 6.40.8+ for bugfix or 6.42.1+ for current.



On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:01 PM Nate Burke  wrote:

> I just happened to be looking through the Logs of a couple Mikrotiks
> that I didn't have Winbox Firewalled off From the outside world. Someone
> from the outside world logged into winbox today.  I had what I 'thought'
> were strong passwords on them.  The only active service on the router is
> the Winbox Service.
>
> The only changes that were made was they enabled the 'socks' server, and
> added input firewall rule for the socks port.  They were in and out of
> the router in a matter of seconds, so it looks like it was scripted
> somehow.
>
> I'm going through now and changing passwords and verifying all routers
> are locked from the outside.  On the routers that I've found this on,
> all the logins were sourced from this same IP Address.  So far the
> affected routers I've found were running versions 6.39-6.41.3
>
> Might be a good time to check your logs and access controls.
>
>
> jul/15 02:29:14 system,info,account user admin logged in from
> 194.40.240.254 via winbox
> jul/15 02:29:17 system,info,account user admin logged in from
> 194.40.240.254 via telnet
> jul/15 02:29:18 system,info socks config changed by admin
> jul/15 02:29:18 system,info filter rule added by admin
> jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
> 194.40.240.254 via winbox
> jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from
> 194.40.240.254 via telnet
>
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

unfortunately, i am seeing this too.

  - Original Message - 
  From: Adam Moffett 
  To: af@af.afmug.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:11 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unauthorized Mikrotik winbox Login made changes


  Ex employee? Password compromised by phishing?

  I'd hope there isn't another vulnerability.

  On 7/16/2018 10:57 PM, Nate Burke wrote:
  > I just happened to be looking through the Logs of a couple Mikrotiks 
  > that I didn't have Winbox Firewalled off From the outside world. 
  > Someone from the outside world logged into winbox today. I had what I 
  > 'thought' were strong passwords on them. The only active service on 
  > the router is the Winbox Service.
  >
  > The only changes that were made was they enabled the 'socks' server, 
  > and added input firewall rule for the socks port. They were in and 
  > out of the router in a matter of seconds, so it looks like it was 
  > scripted somehow.
  >
  > I'm going through now and changing passwords and verifying all routers 
  > are locked from the outside. On the routers that I've found this on, 
  > all the logins were sourced from this same IP Address. So far the 
  > affected routers I've found were running versions 6.39-6.41.3
  >
  > Might be a good time to check your logs and access controls.
  >
  >
  > jul/15 02:29:14 system,info,account user admin logged in from 
  > 194.40.240.254 via winbox
  > jul/15 02:29:17 system,info,account user admin logged in from 
  > 194.40.240.254 via telnet
  > jul/15 02:29:18 system,info socks config changed by admin
  > jul/15 02:29:18 system,info filter rule added by admin
  > jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from 
  > 194.40.240.254 via winbox
  > jul/15 02:29:19 system,info,account user admin logged out from 
  > 194.40.240.254 via telnet
  >
  >
  >
  >


  -- 
  AF mailing list
  AF@af.afmug.com
  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com