Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[Ken Hohhof]

When using it as a demarc for a small business, we mounted it to the wall and 
labeled it “ISP Demarc” with ISP name on Eth1 and customer name on Eth2.  
Similar to a SmartJack shelf or an IAD.  People look at a 751 and think it’s a 
jack or a modem, not a router anyway.  We also put a sticker on it “Property of 
”.

The problem is computer consultants, in fact I just got off the phone with one 
having a hissy fit because we replaced a Frontier DSL modem with a managed 
RB2011 and he insists on being able to make changes.  I told him the customer 
is welcome to have you put in a router/firewall for them and then you can 
manage it, but not our managed router.  It also drives guys installing things 
like security cameras and POS terminals crazy they can’t just bring up a web 
GUI on 192.168.1.1 and guess the password.  We turn off all IP services except 
Winbox.

To the computer consultants, it can be a real turf issue.  I don’t see why.  
The customer can pay them to install and manage a router, that’s money in their 
pocket.  In some cases I think the subtext is they are getting kickbacks for 
recommending ISPs and don’t like the customer ordering service directly from 
one of the ISPs that doesn’t kick back a commission or recurring revenue.  I 
sometimes wonder if even the telcos do this, otherwise I can’t figure out why 
some of the computer guys recommend Frontier.


From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 1:51 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

In my previous life, we liked the 450G with the plain unlabeled case from 
Baltic Networks and wall mount brackets.  It seemed people were less likely to 
play around with a black box mounted on the wall than with a desktop router.


On 10/26/2015 12:58 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

  We have used the RB750G or RB750 for a business demarc device.  Often with a 
routed /29 on the customer side (business IT guys are trained to ask for 5 
public IPs whether they need them or not).

  I think the hEX and hEX Lite are the replacements for those.


  From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
  Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 11:49 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

  We bridge to the router. The 2011 are all big. I only need a couple ports at 
most available to the customer on the business side in most cases as they have 
their own firewall, I would just like the CPE router (not CPE radio) to be able 
to be a part of our L3 network when the need arises. this is more a demarc 
device on those business customers, for managed routers on our contract support 
customers we do Fortigate UTMs. I dont mind two devices to keep the separation 
between church and state. Contract services is a component that could leave our 
jurisdiction and I dont want to have taken liberties on the ISP network that 
would conflict with a third party IT taking over 

  An example business customer im dealing with right now is a bank. they have 3 
branches on our network A B C and two off our network D and E. We are their 
contract IT also.

  A B and C have us as their primary provider, A is their main branch. D have a 
cable connection with a DSL backup as well as a PtP t1 to A. E has cable/dsl as 
well. A B and C are all on our PmP wireless network for all intents and 
purposes (we have them on pmp solutions until saturation then move them to 
PtP), and we are turning up a 3rd party ptp fiber circuit between A and our NOC 
(they use our IP space). Our wireless having more capacity than the fiber 
contract.

  Their main branch, A gets to our noc via a licensed hop then an air fiber, 
each of those have backup 5ghz link. There is also an alt path on our network 
from the licensed link via another licensed link to our second provider (no bgp 
at present) and i am putting in an EOIP tunnel from provider 2 back to provider 
1 to be able to keep their IP space in play(it is what it is). So in essence 
they have three paths to egress with multiple redundancies.

  I am planning on MPLS between their three on network sites, hence the need 
for demarcation between us and their fortigates. 

  If I can do this with a 50 dollar router that we keep on hand for residential 
CPE as well, that makes me happy. 


  Is this convoluted enough?




  On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

We use RB951G-2HnD.  Yes it costs a few bucks more, but it’s worth it to 
stock one router, and it has been very reliable.  If we were going through 
boatloads of them, I guess we might look at stocking more models to save a few 
bucks.

For businesses that need more wired ports, or installations where we think 
we need external antennas, we use RB2011UiAS-2HnD-N.  We also have a few CRS125 
models out there, like as a demarc for multiple tenants.

I am debating whether to look at the new Cambium models, mainly to get an 
802.11ac product, but integrating the POE and ATA functions would simplify 
wiring for residential customers.  Just not sure 

Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

Thats what I want, footprintish of a smartjack

Trying to even find these mikrotiks is beginning to frustrate me, the same
model number appears to be different products both in form and spec between
vendors. The cheapest our purchaser has been quoted from our normal vendors
on RB951G-2HND is 90 bucks


I wonder if you could do something like this metarouter thing for unused
ports on a demarc unit that just redirects all traffic on those ports to a
rickroll

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> When using it as a demarc for a small business, we mounted it to the wall
> and labeled it “ISP Demarc” with ISP name on Eth1 and customer name on
> Eth2.  Similar to a SmartJack shelf or an IAD.  People look at a 751 and
> think it’s a jack or a modem, not a router anyway.  We also put a sticker
> on it “Property of ”.
>
> The problem is computer consultants, in fact I just got off the phone with
> one having a hissy fit because we replaced a Frontier DSL modem with a
> managed RB2011 and he insists on being able to make changes.  I told him
> the customer is welcome to have you put in a router/firewall for them and
> then you can manage it, but not our managed router.  It also drives guys
> installing things like security cameras and POS terminals crazy they can’t
> just bring up a web GUI on 192.168.1.1 and guess the password.  We turn off
> all IP services except Winbox.
>
> To the computer consultants, it can be a real turf issue.  I don’t see
> why.  The customer can pay them to install and manage a router, that’s
> money in their pocket.  In some cases I think the subtext is they are
> getting kickbacks for recommending ISPs and don’t like the customer
> ordering service directly from one of the ISPs that doesn’t kick back a
> commission or recurring revenue.  I sometimes wonder if even the telcos do
> this, otherwise I can’t figure out why some of the computer guys recommend
> Frontier.
>
>
> *From:* Adam Moffett 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 1:51 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik
>
> In my previous life, we liked the 450G with the plain unlabeled case from
> Baltic Networks and wall mount brackets.  It seemed people were less likely
> to play around with a black box mounted on the wall than with a desktop
> router.
>
> On 10/26/2015 12:58 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> We have used the RB750G or RB750 for a business demarc device.  Often with
> a routed /29 on the customer side (business IT guys are trained to ask for
> 5 public IPs whether they need them or not).
>
> I think the hEX and hEX Lite are the replacements for those.
>
>
> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 11:49 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik
>
> We bridge to the router. The 2011 are all big. I only need a couple ports
> at most available to the customer on the business side in most cases as
> they have their own firewall, I would just like the CPE router (not CPE
> radio) to be able to be a part of our L3 network when the need arises. this
> is more a demarc device on those business customers, for managed routers on
> our contract support customers we do Fortigate UTMs. I dont mind two
> devices to keep the separation between church and state. Contract services
> is a component that could leave our jurisdiction and I dont want to have
> taken liberties on the ISP network that would conflict with a third party
> IT taking over
>
> An example business customer im dealing with right now is a bank. they
> have 3 branches on our network A B C and two off our network D and E. We
> are their contract IT also.
>
> A B and C have us as their primary provider, A is their main branch. D
> have a cable connection with a DSL backup as well as a PtP t1 to A. E has
> cable/dsl as well. A B and C are all on our PmP wireless network for all
> intents and purposes (we have them on pmp solutions until saturation then
> move them to PtP), and we are turning up a 3rd party ptp fiber circuit
> between A and our NOC (they use our IP space). Our wireless having more
> capacity than the fiber contract.
>
> Their main branch, A gets to our noc via a licensed hop then an air fiber,
> each of those have backup 5ghz link. There is also an alt path on our
> network from the licensed link via another licensed link to our second
> provider (no bgp at present) and i am putting in an EOIP tunnel from
> provider 2 back to provider 1 to be able to keep their IP space in play(it
> is what it is). So in essence they have three paths to egress with multiple
> redundancies.
>
> I am planning on MPLS between their three on network sites, hence the need
> for demarcation between us and their fortigates.
>
> If I can do this with a 50 dollar router that we keep on hand for
> residential CPE as well, that makes me happy.
>
>
> Is this convoluted enough?
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Ken Hohhof < 

Re: [AFMUG] New Speedtest.net server for us

[Travis Johnson]

I'm only getting 38.4kbps by 38.4kbps... may need to upgrade my modem.

Travis

On 10/26/2015 3:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:

I 'moved' our speedtest.net server to our 10Gbps network.
It's actually on a 1U rack server now instead of a VM at the datacenter.

I can get about 2500Mbps by 7800Mbps locally from it.

Can any of you get over 1Gbps to it?

http://avative.speedtest.net/

Re: [AFMUG] What do you climbers think of this video?

[Chuck McCown]

I thought so too.  That is a cake walk.  Free climbing around a bunch of 
junk on a tower, now that is a bit more exciting.  Of course nobody does 
that anymore...


-Original Message- 
From: Peter Kranz

Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 4:24 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] What do you climbers think of this video?

Well honestly not scary at all. they actually have a deck to walk on and 
extensive safety gear.


Now if you got rid of the walking deck, added wind, water, and some hard to 
reach pipes that you had to clip onto one after another, then it would be 
more interesting.


Then carry a bunch of tools and try to perform various tasks involving bolts 
and wrenches.


Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 2:15 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] What do you climbers think of this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2JbZX33qMo

Gave me white knuckles watching them do it.  I know I'd get used to it but I 
still have a hard time watching others do it.  Hat is off to you climbers


... signed

A desk jockey..

Re: [AFMUG] larger SyncInjector?

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

The 12 port one is still in the works,  but with the changes with the 450i
and some mechanical issues I had,  it ended up delayed far longer than I
had hoped.
On Oct 24, 2015 10:41 AM, "Ken Hohhof"  wrote:

> I was not at Wispapalooza, but do I remember discussion awhile back of a
> larger SyncInjector - like maybe 8 ports in one unit?  Or am I dreaming?  I
> don't see anything on the Packetflux website.
>
> Does anyone know if this is indeed on the roadmap, and if so, how far down
> the road?  And would this be DIN rail or rackmount?
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] larger SyncInjector?

[Ken Hohhof]

Any idea what form factor, or is it too early to say?

From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 6:03 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] larger SyncInjector?

The 12 port one is still in the works,  but with the changes with the 450i and 
some mechanical issues I had,  it ended up delayed far longer than I had hoped. 

On Oct 24, 2015 10:41 AM, "Ken Hohhof"  wrote:

  I was not at Wispapalooza, but do I remember discussion awhile back of a 
larger SyncInjector - like maybe 8 ports in one unit?  Or am I dreaming?  I 
don't see anything on the Packetflux website.

  Does anyone know if this is indeed on the roadmap, and if so, how far down 
the road?  And would this be DIN rail or rackmount? 

Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?

[Joshaven Mailing Lists]

If you are isolating the ground system then be sure to also isolate the power 
system.  If the best path to ground is through the power then surges are going 
to try to jump from the tower through your cables to your connection to the 
power grid.


Sincerely,
Joshaven Potter
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, UACA
Google Hangouts: yourt...@gmail.com
Cell & SMS: 1-517-607-9370
supp...@joshaven.com



> On Oct 26, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Gino Villarini  wrote:
> 
> It seems that keeping up with proper grounding its a huge undertaking! is 
> there a easier way? Isolate all gear with SC40 PVC mounts?
> 
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Chuck McCown  > wrote:
> 550 ohm ground
> Wow, they may have been better floating the tower.
>  
> From: Joshaven Mailing Lists 
> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 7:00 PM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?
>  
> http://www.copper.org/applications/electrical/pq/casestudy/orange_county_A6088.html
>  
> 
>  
>  
> Sincerely,
> Joshaven Potter
> MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, UACA
> Google Hangouts: yourt...@gmail.com 
> Cell & SMS: 1-517-607-9370 
> supp...@joshaven.com 
>  
>  
>  
>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Ken Hohhof > > wrote:
>>  
>> Well, not necessarily.  It is possible to turn grounding and shielding into 
>> a religion and lose track of what they are accomplishing.
>>  
>> For example, the power company guy in up in the bucket doesn’t rely on 
>> grounding to protect him from high voltage, and neither do the birds sitting 
>> on the wires.  I’m not saying TJ is right, but be careful of adding more 
>> grounding without thinking about what you are grounding, to what, and why.
>>  
>> I also wonder if Gino is seeing this everywhere, or just at a few towers.  I 
>> think some towers have problems and you can’t fix it without going beyond 
>> just your equipment.
>>  
>> If it’s everywhere, did this coincide with a change to a different 
>> brand/model of radios?
>>  
>> From: Mike Hammett 
>> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 5:06 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com 
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?
>>  
>> If what you've done isn't working, then it isn't enough, not that it's too 
>> much.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com 
>> 
>> From: "TJ Trout" >
>> To: af@afmug.com 
>> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 5:04:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?
>> 
>> Gino, 
>>  
>> Try not grounding at all?
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:39 PM, George Skorup > >wrote:
>>> I have no doubt it's the SS clamping that's blowing the fuse. If there was 
>>> no fuse, I bet the SS would continue clamping and start smoking if there's 
>>> enough current to supply it. I don't know if it helps save things, but I'm 
>>> leaning towards yes. Just getting all of the radios on the same DC bus 
>>> seems to have helped quite a bit as well.
>>> 
>>> On 10/25/2015 12:51 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
 Speaking of fuses, I know sometimes we get overcurrent trips on CTMs and 
 SyncInjectors and have to reset them.  Very rare, but always during 
 storms. It is possible this is saving radios, I can't say for sure.
 
 
 -Original Message- From: George Skorup
 Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 12:34 PM
 To: af@afmug.com 
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?
 
 One thing we've been doing for several years now is a bonding wire up
 the tower. I do not trust the tower steel/leg joints being low enough
 resistance. Failure rate went way down. DC and fuses doesn't hurt either.
 
 On 10/25/2015 10:57 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
> So we are loosing radios left and right due to lightning!
> 
> Typical site setup:
> 
> Radios on tower grounded to tower
> 
> Shielded cable
> 
> Shielded patch panel - grounded
> 
> Regular cat5 jumpers
> 
> Wbmfg SS - grounded
> 
> Regular cat5 jumpers
> 
> Poe device
> 
> What's wrong?
> 
>  
> 

[AFMUG] What do you climbers think of this video?

[Steve]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2JbZX33qMo

Gave me white knuckles watching them do it.  I know I'd get used to it but I 
still have a hard time watching others do it.  Hat is off to you climbers

... signed

A desk jockey..

[AFMUG] New Speedtest.net server for us

[Sterling Jacobson]

I 'moved' our speedtest.net server to our 10Gbps network.
It's actually on a 1U rack server now instead of a VM at the datacenter.

I can get about 2500Mbps by 7800Mbps locally from it.

Can any of you get over 1Gbps to it?

http://avative.speedtest.net/

Re: [AFMUG] Wednesday ISP Radio -- 11am CST

[Dennis Burgess]

BTW, this is Wednesday at 11am CST! :)

Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
den...@linktechs.net - 314-735-0270 x103 - 
www.linktechs.net

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:28 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Wednesday ISP Radio -- 11am CST



Tomorrow we will have Tim Luttman, the COO of KP Performance Antennas.  You can 
visit us at www.ispradio.com and listen live, or watch 
any of our videos at our YouTube 
Channel



Thanks,
ISPRadio.com

Re: [AFMUG] New Speedtest.net server for us

[Chuck Hogg]

Meh, I only get 450x550 :)

Regards,
Chuck

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson 
wrote:

> I 'moved' our speedtest.net server to our 10Gbps network.
> It's actually on a 1U rack server now instead of a VM at the datacenter.
>
> I can get about 2500Mbps by 7800Mbps locally from it.
>
> Can any of you get over 1Gbps to it?
>
> http://avative.speedtest.net/
>

Re: [AFMUG] The Dude Still Useful [In addition to other monitoring]?

[Joe Novak]

I plan on keeping it around for visual documentation.

I used goograb (http://sourceforge.net/projects/goograb/) to grab a google
maps screenshot of my service area and set up dude to reflect my network
topology. It helped clean the map up quite a bit since we added so much in
the last couple of years. It adds a little bit of scrolling around.. but I
don't mind it.

I have completely abandoned it for monitoring aside from if a node is red
it's down. I only ping my devices.


Joe

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> That's exactly it.  The Dude makes it easy to visualize.  I might keep it
> just to have a backhaul map.
>
> On 10/26/2015 2:03 PM, Joshua Stump wrote:
>
> I’ve not found anything that works as well as The Dude goes for mapping… I
> really like being able to see links w/ throughput at a glance. It does look
> like OpenNMS does maps, but judging by the demo, it feels more clunky and
> performs worse than Dude. Currently we’re using PRTG for monitoring and
> Dude for map.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joshua Stump
>
>
>
> Network Administrator | Fourway.NET  | 800-733-0062
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 1:54 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] The Dude Still Useful [In addition to other
> monitoring]?
>
>
>
> I'd suggest running the v4 beta on a VM and backup with snapshots.  You
> can still do the network map, that's the only reason I have it around.
>
>
>
> OpenNMS is a good option, but I don't think there's a map.
>
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Christopher Gray <
> cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> I'm working to centralize some monitoring as my network has grown. My
> current hardware includes Ubiquiti, Cambium, and Mikrotik. If I setup
> something like OpenNMS, would there be any benefit / usefulness to also
> running The Dude in it's current version?
>
>
>
> Thanks - Chris
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] I was good this weekend

[Chuck McCown]

Guess I need to search for blanco or figure out how to make it.

From: Jaime Solorza 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 12:19 PM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] I was good this weekend

fresco is different made from cow and goat milkqueso blanco is from cow 
milk onlydifferent flavor and texture all togetherqueso fresco is found 
on top of traditional flautas as opposed to queso blanco

Jaime Solorza 
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  How is that different from queso fresco?  I keep trying to make stuff that 
tastes autentico but we only have queso fresco in our supermarkets and it does 
not quite taste right.  

  From: Jaime Solorza 
  Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 9:01 AM
  To: Animal Farm 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] I was good this weekend

  Queso Blanco it was awesome

  Jaime Solorza

  On Oct 26, 2015 8:24 AM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

What kind of queso in on the beans?

From: Jaime Solorza 
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 7:20 PM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: [AFMUG] I was good this weekend

Wife bought us dinner

Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[Dennis Burgess]

http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=461=0


Case qty, if you start buying quite a few, let us know and I’m sure we can be 
competitive. . Just give us an opportunity.

As far as something cheaper, without GigE, you can do 
http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=1572=0 
at $45 bucks single unit qty, plus have POE out as well! ☺

Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – 
www.linktechs.net

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:46 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

Thats what I want, footprintish of a smartjack

Trying to even find these mikrotiks is beginning to frustrate me, the same 
model number appears to be different products both in form and spec between 
vendors. The cheapest our purchaser has been quoted from our normal vendors on 
RB951G-2HND is 90 bucks


I wonder if you could do something like this metarouter thing for unused ports 
on a demarc unit that just redirects all traffic on those ports to a rickroll

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof 
> wrote:
When using it as a demarc for a small business, we mounted it to the wall and 
labeled it “ISP Demarc” with ISP name on Eth1 and customer name on Eth2.  
Similar to a SmartJack shelf or an IAD.  People look at a 751 and think it’s a 
jack or a modem, not a router anyway.  We also put a sticker on it “Property of 
”.

The problem is computer consultants, in fact I just got off the phone with one 
having a hissy fit because we replaced a Frontier DSL modem with a managed 
RB2011 and he insists on being able to make changes.  I told him the customer 
is welcome to have you put in a router/firewall for them and then you can 
manage it, but not our managed router.  It also drives guys installing things 
like security cameras and POS terminals crazy they can’t just bring up a web 
GUI on 192.168.1.1 and guess the password.  We turn off all IP services except 
Winbox.

To the computer consultants, it can be a real turf issue.  I don’t see why.  
The customer can pay them to install and manage a router, that’s money in their 
pocket.  In some cases I think the subtext is they are getting kickbacks for 
recommending ISPs and don’t like the customer ordering service directly from 
one of the ISPs that doesn’t kick back a commission or recurring revenue.  I 
sometimes wonder if even the telcos do this, otherwise I can’t figure out why 
some of the computer guys recommend Frontier.


From: Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 1:51 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

In my previous life, we liked the 450G with the plain unlabeled case from 
Baltic Networks and wall mount brackets.  It seemed people were less likely to 
play around with a black box mounted on the wall than with a desktop router.
On 10/26/2015 12:58 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
We have used the RB750G or RB750 for a business demarc device.  Often with a 
routed /29 on the customer side (business IT guys are trained to ask for 5 
public IPs whether they need them or not).

I think the hEX and hEX Lite are the replacements for those.


From: That One Guy /sarcasm
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 11:49 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

We bridge to the router. The 2011 are all big. I only need a couple ports at 
most available to the customer on the business side in most cases as they have 
their own firewall, I would just like the CPE router (not CPE radio) to be able 
to be a part of our L3 network when the need arises. this is more a demarc 
device on those business customers, for managed routers on our contract support 
customers we do Fortigate UTMs. I dont mind two devices to keep the separation 
between church and state. Contract services is a component that could leave our 
jurisdiction and I dont want to have taken liberties on the ISP network that 
would conflict with a third party IT taking over

An example business customer im dealing with right now is a bank. they have 3 
branches on our network A B C and two off our network D and E. We are their 
contract IT also.

A B and C have us as their primary provider, A is their main branch. D have a 
cable connection with a DSL backup as well as a PtP t1 to A. E has cable/dsl as 
well. A B and C are all on our PmP wireless network for all intents and 
purposes (we have them on pmp solutions until saturation then move them to 
PtP), and we are turning up a 3rd party ptp fiber circuit between A and our NOC 
(they use our IP space). Our wireless having more capacity than the fiber 
contract.

Their main branch, A gets to our noc via a licensed hop then an air fiber, each 
of those have backup 5ghz link. There is also an 

[AFMUG] hmmm

[Chuck McCown]

Notice our friend?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwqgvJseTiWga0dpMlV2aVdISzA/view?pli=1

Re: [AFMUG] New Speedtest.net server for us

[Paul McCall]

Travis stop it.  I am starting to twitch LOL

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 6:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New Speedtest.net server for us

Who does? Where do I get one? Do you have one? How much was it? Is it external 
or internal? Does it support US Robotics v.92?

On 10/26/2015 4:09 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
> They have 56k modems now...
>
> -Original Message- From: Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, October 
> 26, 2015 4:07 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New 
> Speedtest.net server for us I'm only getting 38.4kbps by 38.4kbps... 
> may need to upgrade my modem.
>
> Travis
>
> On 10/26/2015 3:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
>> I 'moved' our speedtest.net server to our 10Gbps network.
>> It's actually on a 1U rack server now instead of a VM at the datacenter.
>>
>> I can get about 2500Mbps by 7800Mbps locally from it.
>>
>> Can any of you get over 1Gbps to it?
>>
>> http://avative.speedtest.net/
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New Speedtest.net server for us

[Travis Johnson]

Who does? Where do I get one? Do you have one? How much was it? Is it 
external or internal? Does it support US Robotics v.92?


On 10/26/2015 4:09 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

They have 56k modems now...

-Original Message- From: Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, October 
26, 2015 4:07 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New 
Speedtest.net server for us

I'm only getting 38.4kbps by 38.4kbps... may need to upgrade my modem.

Travis

On 10/26/2015 3:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:

I 'moved' our speedtest.net server to our 10Gbps network.
It's actually on a 1U rack server now instead of a VM at the datacenter.

I can get about 2500Mbps by 7800Mbps locally from it.

Can any of you get over 1Gbps to it?

http://avative.speedtest.net/

Re: [AFMUG] What do you climbers think of this video?

[Josh Luthman]

+1 Peter


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

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Peter Kranz  wrote:

> Well honestly not scary at all. they actually have a deck to walk on and
> extensive safety gear.
>
> Now if you got rid of the walking deck, added wind, water, and some hard
> to reach pipes that you had to clip onto one after another, then it would
> be more interesting.
>
> Then carry a bunch of tools and try to perform various tasks involving
> bolts and wrenches.
>
> Peter Kranz
> www.UnwiredLtd.com
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
> Mobile: 510-207-
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 2:15 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] What do you climbers think of this video?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2JbZX33qMo
>
> Gave me white knuckles watching them do it.  I know I'd get used to it but
> I still have a hard time watching others do it.  Hat is off to you climbers
>
> ... signed
>
> A desk jockey..
>
>

[AFMUG] Wednesday ISP Radio -- 11am CST

[Dennis Burgess]

Tomorrow we will have Tim Luttman, the COO of KP Performance Antennas.  You can 
visit us at www.ispradio.com and listen live, or watch 
any of our videos at our YouTube 
Channel



Thanks,
ISPRadio.com

Re: [AFMUG] The Dude Still Useful [In addition to other monitoring]?

[David]

I use nagios to help with alerts and mapping for our tech side but for 
all visual sorts I have Wireless manager installed and a client that
stays connected to it 24/7 to show our entire county wide back haul map. 
When folks come into the lobby that is usually the first thing

they study to see where the live in ref to a tower LOL



On 10/26/2015 12:53 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
I'd suggest running the v4 beta on a VM and backup with snapshots.  
You can still do the network map, that's the only reason I have it 
around.


OpenNMS is a good option, but I don't think there's a map.


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

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Christopher Gray 
> wrote:


I'm working to centralize some monitoring as my network has
grown. My current hardware includes Ubiquiti, Cambium, and
Mikrotik. If I setup something like OpenNMS, would there be any
benefit / usefulness to also running The Dude in it's current
version?

Thanks - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] What do you climbers think of this video?

[Peter Kranz]

Well honestly not scary at all. they actually have a deck to walk on and 
extensive safety gear.

Now if you got rid of the walking deck, added wind, water, and some hard to 
reach pipes that you had to clip onto one after another, then it would be more 
interesting.

Then carry a bunch of tools and try to perform various tasks involving bolts 
and wrenches.

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 2:15 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] What do you climbers think of this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2JbZX33qMo

Gave me white knuckles watching them do it.  I know I'd get used to it but I 
still have a hard time watching others do it.  Hat is off to you climbers

... signed

A desk jockey..

Re: [AFMUG] New Speedtest.net server for us

[Josh Luthman]

Same here.


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

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Peter Kranz  wrote:

> Avative.speedtest.net redirects me to the closest speedtest server.. not
> yours..
>
> Peter Kranz
> www.UnwiredLtd.com
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
> Mobile: 510-207-
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 2:22 PM
> To: 'af@afmug.com' 
> Subject: [AFMUG] New Speedtest.net server for us
>
> I 'moved' our speedtest.net server to our 10Gbps network.
> It's actually on a 1U rack server now instead of a VM at the datacenter.
>
> I can get about 2500Mbps by 7800Mbps locally from it.
>
> Can any of you get over 1Gbps to it?
>
> http://avative.speedtest.net/
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New Speedtest.net server for us

[Jon Langeler]

What kind of CPU did you need for 10GB interface? 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 26, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> I 'moved' our speedtest.net server to our 10Gbps network.
> It's actually on a 1U rack server now instead of a VM at the datacenter.
> 
> I can get about 2500Mbps by 7800Mbps locally from it.
> 
> Can any of you get over 1Gbps to it?
> 
> http://avative.speedtest.net/

Re: [AFMUG] New Speedtest.net server for us

[Chuck McCown]

They have 56k modems now...

-Original Message- 
From: Travis Johnson 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 4:07 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New Speedtest.net server for us 


I'm only getting 38.4kbps by 38.4kbps... may need to upgrade my modem.

Travis

On 10/26/2015 3:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:

I 'moved' our speedtest.net server to our 10Gbps network.
It's actually on a 1U rack server now instead of a VM at the datacenter.

I can get about 2500Mbps by 7800Mbps locally from it.

Can any of you get over 1Gbps to it?

http://avative.speedtest.net/

Re: [AFMUG] What do you climbers think of this video?

[Jaime Solorza]

cool stufflife on tower is bit more spooky.tests to lanyards and
work tie off guys before every climb

Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> +1 Peter
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Peter Kranz 
> wrote:
>
>> Well honestly not scary at all. they actually have a deck to walk on and
>> extensive safety gear.
>>
>> Now if you got rid of the walking deck, added wind, water, and some hard
>> to reach pipes that you had to clip onto one after another, then it would
>> be more interesting.
>>
>> Then carry a bunch of tools and try to perform various tasks involving
>> bolts and wrenches.
>>
>> Peter Kranz
>> www.UnwiredLtd.com
>> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
>> Mobile: 510-207-
>> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve
>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 2:15 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: [AFMUG] What do you climbers think of this video?
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2JbZX33qMo
>>
>> Gave me white knuckles watching them do it.  I know I'd get used to it
>> but I still have a hard time watching others do it.  Hat is off to you
>> climbers
>>
>> ... signed
>>
>> A desk jockey..
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New Speedtest.net server for us

[Peter Kranz]

Avative.speedtest.net redirects me to the closest speedtest server.. not
yours..

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 2:22 PM
To: 'af@afmug.com' 
Subject: [AFMUG] New Speedtest.net server for us

I 'moved' our speedtest.net server to our 10Gbps network.
It's actually on a 1U rack server now instead of a VM at the datacenter.

I can get about 2500Mbps by 7800Mbps locally from it.

Can any of you get over 1Gbps to it?

http://avative.speedtest.net/

Re: [AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?

[Rory Conaway]

I just realized I missed what you said.  You can do it on the 4 Lan ports 
together or the WAN port or both.  Just can't do each one of the 4 Lan ports 
individually.

Rory

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:48 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?

yes

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tim Reichhart
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:47 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?

I am just wondering if airrouter hp would be able to do this or not? Basically 
I am looking to do is limit bandwidth on each port to 6meg on 10/100 mbps port.

Tim

Re: [AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?

[Mathew Howard]

A Mikrotik could do it...

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Rory Conaway 
wrote:

> I just realized I missed what you said.  You can do it on the 4 Lan ports
> together or the WAN port or both.  Just can't do each one of the 4 Lan
> ports individually.
>
> Rory
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:48 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?
>
> yes
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tim Reichhart
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:47 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?
>
> I am just wondering if airrouter hp would be able to do this or not?
> Basically I am looking to do is limit bandwidth on each port to 6meg on
> 10/100 mbps port.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[Ken Hohhof]

hEX claims to have gigabit ports (successor to RB750G).
http://routerboard.com/RB750Gr2


From: Mathew Howard 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 6:50 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

MSRP is only $79.95 on those... and I see a couple places selling them for well 
under MSRP.


The RB951G-2HnD appears to be the only one with GigE... if you don't care about 
that, then there's the RB951Ui-2HnD and RB951Ui-2nD (hAP). The H seems to mean 
they have high power wireless, Ui means they have PoE out (on one port) and G 
means gigabit. The hAP is smaller for factor (same as an RB750), but the other 
two both appear to have the same slightly larger case.


On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 3:46 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:

  Thats what I want, footprintish of a smartjack 

  Trying to even find these mikrotiks is beginning to frustrate me, the same 
model number appears to be different products both in form and spec between 
vendors. The cheapest our purchaser has been quoted from our normal vendors on 
RB951G-2HND is 90 bucks




  I wonder if you could do something like this metarouter thing for unused 
ports on a demarc unit that just redirects all traffic on those ports to a 
rickroll

  On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

When using it as a demarc for a small business, we mounted it to the wall 
and labeled it “ISP Demarc” with ISP name on Eth1 and customer name on Eth2.  
Similar to a SmartJack shelf or an IAD.  People look at a 751 and think it’s a 
jack or a modem, not a router anyway.  We also put a sticker on it “Property of 
”.

The problem is computer consultants, in fact I just got off the phone with 
one having a hissy fit because we replaced a Frontier DSL modem with a managed 
RB2011 and he insists on being able to make changes.  I told him the customer 
is welcome to have you put in a router/firewall for them and then you can 
manage it, but not our managed router.  It also drives guys installing things 
like security cameras and POS terminals crazy they can’t just bring up a web 
GUI on 192.168.1.1 and guess the password.  We turn off all IP services except 
Winbox.

To the computer consultants, it can be a real turf issue.  I don’t see why. 
 The customer can pay them to install and manage a router, that’s money in 
their pocket.  In some cases I think the subtext is they are getting kickbacks 
for recommending ISPs and don’t like the customer ordering service directly 
from one of the ISPs that doesn’t kick back a commission or recurring revenue.  
I sometimes wonder if even the telcos do this, otherwise I can’t figure out why 
some of the computer guys recommend Frontier.


From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 1:51 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

In my previous life, we liked the 450G with the plain unlabeled case from 
Baltic Networks and wall mount brackets.  It seemed people were less likely to 
play around with a black box mounted on the wall than with a desktop router.


On 10/26/2015 12:58 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

  We have used the RB750G or RB750 for a business demarc device.  Often 
with a routed /29 on the customer side (business IT guys are trained to ask for 
5 public IPs whether they need them or not).

  I think the hEX and hEX Lite are the replacements for those.


  From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
  Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 11:49 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

  We bridge to the router. The 2011 are all big. I only need a couple ports 
at most available to the customer on the business side in most cases as they 
have their own firewall, I would just like the CPE router (not CPE radio) to be 
able to be a part of our L3 network when the need arises. this is more a demarc 
device on those business customers, for managed routers on our contract support 
customers we do Fortigate UTMs. I dont mind two devices to keep the separation 
between church and state. Contract services is a component that could leave our 
jurisdiction and I dont want to have taken liberties on the ISP network that 
would conflict with a third party IT taking over 

  An example business customer im dealing with right now is a bank. they 
have 3 branches on our network A B C and two off our network D and E. We are 
their contract IT also.

  A B and C have us as their primary provider, A is their main branch. D 
have a cable connection with a DSL backup as well as a PtP t1 to A. E has 
cable/dsl as well. A B and C are all on our PmP wireless network for all 
intents and purposes (we have them on pmp solutions until saturation then move 
them to PtP), and we are turning up a 3rd party ptp fiber circuit between A and 
our NOC (they use our IP space). Our wireless having more capacity than the 
fiber contract.

  Their main branch, A gets to our noc via a licensed hop then an air 
fiber, each of those 

Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[Mathew Howard]

It does, but no wireless... I was just talking about the 951 series.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> hEX claims to have gigabit ports (successor to RB750G).
> http://routerboard.com/RB750Gr2
>
>
> *From:* Mathew Howard 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 6:50 PM
> *To:* af 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik
>
> MSRP is only $79.95 on those... and I see a couple places selling them for
> well under MSRP.
>
> The RB951G-2HnD appears to be the only one with GigE... if you don't care
> about that, then there's the RB951Ui-2HnD and RB951Ui-2nD (hAP). The H
> seems to mean they have high power wireless, Ui means they have PoE out (on
> one port) and G means gigabit. The hAP is smaller for factor (same as an
> RB750), but the other two both appear to have the same slightly larger case.
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 3:46 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thats what I want, footprintish of a smartjack
>>
>> Trying to even find these mikrotiks is beginning to frustrate me, the
>> same model number appears to be different products both in form and spec
>> between vendors. The cheapest our purchaser has been quoted from our normal
>> vendors on RB951G-2HND is 90 bucks
>>
>>
>> I wonder if you could do something like this metarouter thing for unused
>> ports on a demarc unit that just redirects all traffic on those ports to a
>> rickroll
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>>> When using it as a demarc for a small business, we mounted it to the
>>> wall and labeled it “ISP Demarc” with ISP name on Eth1 and customer name on
>>> Eth2.  Similar to a SmartJack shelf or an IAD.  People look at a 751 and
>>> think it’s a jack or a modem, not a router anyway.  We also put a sticker
>>> on it “Property of ”.
>>>
>>> The problem is computer consultants, in fact I just got off the phone
>>> with one having a hissy fit because we replaced a Frontier DSL modem with a
>>> managed RB2011 and he insists on being able to make changes.  I told him
>>> the customer is welcome to have you put in a router/firewall for them and
>>> then you can manage it, but not our managed router.  It also drives guys
>>> installing things like security cameras and POS terminals crazy they can’t
>>> just bring up a web GUI on 192.168.1.1 and guess the password.  We turn off
>>> all IP services except Winbox.
>>>
>>> To the computer consultants, it can be a real turf issue.  I don’t see
>>> why.  The customer can pay them to install and manage a router, that’s
>>> money in their pocket.  In some cases I think the subtext is they are
>>> getting kickbacks for recommending ISPs and don’t like the customer
>>> ordering service directly from one of the ISPs that doesn’t kick back a
>>> commission or recurring revenue.  I sometimes wonder if even the telcos do
>>> this, otherwise I can’t figure out why some of the computer guys recommend
>>> Frontier.
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Adam Moffett 
>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 1:51 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik
>>>
>>> In my previous life, we liked the 450G with the plain unlabeled case
>>> from Baltic Networks and wall mount brackets.  It seemed people were less
>>> likely to play around with a black box mounted on the wall than with a
>>> desktop router.
>>>
>>> On 10/26/2015 12:58 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>
>>> We have used the RB750G or RB750 for a business demarc device.  Often
>>> with a routed /29 on the customer side (business IT guys are trained to ask
>>> for 5 public IPs whether they need them or not).
>>>
>>> I think the hEX and hEX Lite are the replacements for those.
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 11:49 AM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik
>>>
>>> We bridge to the router. The 2011 are all big. I only need a couple
>>> ports at most available to the customer on the business side in most cases
>>> as they have their own firewall, I would just like the CPE router (not CPE
>>> radio) to be able to be a part of our L3 network when the need arises. this
>>> is more a demarc device on those business customers, for managed routers on
>>> our contract support customers we do Fortigate UTMs. I dont mind two
>>> devices to keep the separation between church and state. Contract services
>>> is a component that could leave our jurisdiction and I dont want to have
>>> taken liberties on the ISP network that would conflict with a third party
>>> IT taking over
>>>
>>> An example business customer im dealing with right now is a bank. they
>>> have 3 branches on our network A B C and two off our network D and E. We
>>> are their contract IT also.
>>>
>>> A B and C have us as their primary provider, A is their main branch. D
>>> have a cable connection with a DSL backup as well as a PtP t1 to A. E has
>>> 

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

I saw this the other day but figured it was above my pay grade

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
>
> Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a WAN
> address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN address.  Am
> I the last one to notice?
>
>
>


-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

[AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?

[Tim Reichhart]

I am just wondering if airrouter hp would be able to do this or not? Basically 
I am looking to do is limit bandwidth on each port to 6meg on 10/100 mbps port.

Tim

Re: [AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?

[Rory Conaway]

yes

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tim Reichhart
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:47 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?

I am just wondering if airrouter hp would be able to do this or not? Basically 
I am looking to do is limit bandwidth on each port to 6meg on 10/100 mbps port.

Tim

Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[Mathew Howard]

MSRP is only $79.95 on those... and I see a couple places selling them for
well under MSRP.

The RB951G-2HnD appears to be the only one with GigE... if you don't care
about that, then there's the RB951Ui-2HnD and RB951Ui-2nD (hAP). The H
seems to mean they have high power wireless, Ui means they have PoE out (on
one port) and G means gigabit. The hAP is smaller for factor (same as an
RB750), but the other two both appear to have the same slightly larger case.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 3:46 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thats what I want, footprintish of a smartjack
>
> Trying to even find these mikrotiks is beginning to frustrate me, the same
> model number appears to be different products both in form and spec between
> vendors. The cheapest our purchaser has been quoted from our normal vendors
> on RB951G-2HND is 90 bucks
>
>
> I wonder if you could do something like this metarouter thing for unused
> ports on a demarc unit that just redirects all traffic on those ports to a
> rickroll
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> When using it as a demarc for a small business, we mounted it to the wall
>> and labeled it “ISP Demarc” with ISP name on Eth1 and customer name on
>> Eth2.  Similar to a SmartJack shelf or an IAD.  People look at a 751 and
>> think it’s a jack or a modem, not a router anyway.  We also put a sticker
>> on it “Property of ”.
>>
>> The problem is computer consultants, in fact I just got off the phone
>> with one having a hissy fit because we replaced a Frontier DSL modem with a
>> managed RB2011 and he insists on being able to make changes.  I told him
>> the customer is welcome to have you put in a router/firewall for them and
>> then you can manage it, but not our managed router.  It also drives guys
>> installing things like security cameras and POS terminals crazy they can’t
>> just bring up a web GUI on 192.168.1.1 and guess the password.  We turn off
>> all IP services except Winbox.
>>
>> To the computer consultants, it can be a real turf issue.  I don’t see
>> why.  The customer can pay them to install and manage a router, that’s
>> money in their pocket.  In some cases I think the subtext is they are
>> getting kickbacks for recommending ISPs and don’t like the customer
>> ordering service directly from one of the ISPs that doesn’t kick back a
>> commission or recurring revenue.  I sometimes wonder if even the telcos do
>> this, otherwise I can’t figure out why some of the computer guys recommend
>> Frontier.
>>
>>
>> *From:* Adam Moffett 
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 1:51 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik
>>
>> In my previous life, we liked the 450G with the plain unlabeled case from
>> Baltic Networks and wall mount brackets.  It seemed people were less likely
>> to play around with a black box mounted on the wall than with a desktop
>> router.
>>
>> On 10/26/2015 12:58 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>
>> We have used the RB750G or RB750 for a business demarc device.  Often
>> with a routed /29 on the customer side (business IT guys are trained to ask
>> for 5 public IPs whether they need them or not).
>>
>> I think the hEX and hEX Lite are the replacements for those.
>>
>>
>> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 11:49 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik
>>
>> We bridge to the router. The 2011 are all big. I only need a couple ports
>> at most available to the customer on the business side in most cases as
>> they have their own firewall, I would just like the CPE router (not CPE
>> radio) to be able to be a part of our L3 network when the need arises. this
>> is more a demarc device on those business customers, for managed routers on
>> our contract support customers we do Fortigate UTMs. I dont mind two
>> devices to keep the separation between church and state. Contract services
>> is a component that could leave our jurisdiction and I dont want to have
>> taken liberties on the ISP network that would conflict with a third party
>> IT taking over
>>
>> An example business customer im dealing with right now is a bank. they
>> have 3 branches on our network A B C and two off our network D and E. We
>> are their contract IT also.
>>
>> A B and C have us as their primary provider, A is their main branch. D
>> have a cable connection with a DSL backup as well as a PtP t1 to A. E has
>> cable/dsl as well. A B and C are all on our PmP wireless network for all
>> intents and purposes (we have them on pmp solutions until saturation then
>> move them to PtP), and we are turning up a 3rd party ptp fiber circuit
>> between A and our NOC (they use our IP space). Our wireless having more
>> capacity than the fiber contract.
>>
>> Their main branch, A gets to our noc via a licensed hop then an air
>> fiber, each of those have backup 5ghz link. There is also an alt path on
>> our 

[AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

[Adam Moffett]

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a 
WAN address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN 
address.  Am I the last one to notice?

Re: [AFMUG] New Speedtest.net server for us

[Sterling Jacobson]

Nothing special, this was the parts list, used:

HP DL360 G5, 8GB RAM, Dual 2.5GHz Quad core, 3 146GB drives(1 hot spare), 
redundant PSUs - $200
Intel 10GB SFP+ NIC - $110

So for that, I got a machine capable of doing 7800Mbps to my desktop.
It's not on-net, but it's a very short loop through one router.

In a week or two I'll have it through a different router and see if anything 
changes.
I could probably even drop it on the same switching network and see if I get 
more throughput.
That would be interesting.

However at this moment it's not even showing up on speedtest.net anymore.
Oh well, maybe I broke something with their system.
I'll go check it again with a friends help.

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 6:16 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New Speedtest.net server for us

What kind of CPU did you need for 10GB interface? 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 26, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> I 'moved' our speedtest.net server to our 10Gbps network.
> It's actually on a 1U rack server now instead of a VM at the datacenter.
> 
> I can get about 2500Mbps by 7800Mbps locally from it.
> 
> Can any of you get over 1Gbps to it?
> 
> http://avative.speedtest.net/

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

[George Skorup]

I bet if you look at your phone status, your IPv4 address will be in 
that range. It is on my Vz Android phone. IIRC, that was specifically 
set aside for CGN. I suppose we could also use it for our NAT mode CPEs.


On 10/26/2015 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a 
WAN address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN 
address.  Am I the last one to notice?

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

[Josh Luthman]

Vzw is that private v4.  v6 enabled.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Oct 26, 2015 11:11 PM, "Mathew Howard"  wrote:

> Interesting... I just checked my phone (US cellular) and it's got a
> 10.x.x.x address... and no IPv6.
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>
>> I bet if you look at your phone status, your IPv4 address will be in that
>> range. It is on my Vz Android phone. IIRC, that was specifically set aside
>> for CGN. I suppose we could also use it for our NAT mode CPEs.
>>
>>
>> On 10/26/2015 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
>>>
>>> Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a
>>> WAN address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN address.
>>> Am I the last one to notice?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?

[Tim Reichhart]

Mathew
How miktroik be able to do this? Like with queues or something?

Tim


-Original Message-
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?
From: "Mathew Howard" 
To: af 
Date: 10/27/15 12:26:12am

A Mikrotik could do it...
  
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Rory Conaway  wrote:
I just realized I missed what you said.  You can do it on the 4 Lan ports 
together or the WAN port or both.  Just can't do each one of the 4 Lan ports 
individually.

Rory
 
-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:48 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?

yes

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tim Reichhart
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:47 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?

I am just wondering if airrouter hp would be able to do this or not? Basically 
I am looking to do is limit bandwidth on each port to 6meg on 10/100 mbps port.

Tim





  
 

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

[Mathew Howard]

Interesting... I just checked my phone (US cellular) and it's got a
10.x.x.x address... and no IPv6.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> I bet if you look at your phone status, your IPv4 address will be in that
> range. It is on my Vz Android phone. IIRC, that was specifically set aside
> for CGN. I suppose we could also use it for our NAT mode CPEs.
>
>
> On 10/26/2015 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
>>
>> Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a
>> WAN address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN address.
>> Am I the last one to notice?
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

[Mathew Howard]

Since these addresses aren't supposed to be used for normal internal NAT,
they really shouldn't go into bridge mode if they see one... I'm guessing
they don't look for anything other than RFC1918 addresses.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> I just had a light bulb come on over my head about this. Will routers that
> like to change to bridge/switch/AP mode if they see a private address on
> the WAN port NOT do that if we hand out this range?
>
> Here's my thought. We're contemplating changing our Canopy SMs from bridge
> to NAT w/ DMZ and configure them to hand out only one address via DHCP.
> Since the address pool size will be only one address, if these stupid
> routers go into bridge mode, only the router itself is going to get that
> address and none of the customer's other devices will work.
>
> This isn't your typical RFC1918-type address space, so I have to wonder
>
> On 10/26/2015 10:58 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> I know, I just thought it was interesting that they didn't. If we were
> still doing NAT I'd be using it.
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:50 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>
>> Nothing says they have to use it.
>>
>> On 10/26/2015 10:11 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> Interesting... I just checked my phone (US cellular) and it's got a
>> 10.x.x.x address... and no IPv6.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, George Skorup 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I bet if you look at your phone status, your IPv4 address will be in
>>> that range. It is on my Vz Android phone. IIRC, that was specifically set
>>> aside for CGN. I suppose we could also use it for our NAT mode CPEs.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/26/2015 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>>
 
 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

 Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a
 WAN address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN address.
 Am I the last one to notice?



>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

[Josh Luthman]

I think it was discussed here a while back...


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

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
>
> Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a WAN
> address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN address.  Am
> I the last one to notice?
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

[Ken Hohhof]

Am I the last one to notice?


Maybe.

-Original Message- 
From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 8:14 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012? 


https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a 
WAN address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN 
address.  Am I the last one to notice?

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

[Rhys Cuff (Latrobe I.T)]

Hmmm, I think you were second last :-S



-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Tuesday, 27 October 2015 1:19 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

> Am I the last one to notice?

Maybe.

-Original Message-
From: Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 8:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012? 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a WAN 
address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN address.  Am I 
the last one to notice?

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

[George Skorup]

Nothing says they have to use it.

On 10/26/2015 10:11 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Interesting... I just checked my phone (US cellular) and it's got a 
10.x.x.x address... and no IPv6.


On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, George Skorup > wrote:


I bet if you look at your phone status, your IPv4 address will be
in that range. It is on my Vz Android phone. IIRC, that was
specifically set aside for CGN. I suppose we could also use it for
our NAT mode CPEs.


On 10/26/2015 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

Apparently 100.64.0.0/10  was set aside
for ISP NAT so we can assign a WAN address that was guaranteed
not to collide with anybody's LAN address. Am I the last one
to notice?

[AFMUG] OT - Adele video and old phones

[Ken Hohhof]

The Internet seems to be freaking out about the flip phone in the new Adele 
video.  And the corded landline phone, the phone booth, and the FAX 
printouts.


Reminds me of this:
http://bizarro.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/172/2014/07/Bizarro-07-06-14-WEB.jpg 

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

[Mathew Howard]

I know, I just thought it was interesting that they didn't. If we were
still doing NAT I'd be using it.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:50 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> Nothing says they have to use it.
>
> On 10/26/2015 10:11 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> Interesting... I just checked my phone (US cellular) and it's got a
> 10.x.x.x address... and no IPv6.
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>
>> I bet if you look at your phone status, your IPv4 address will be in that
>> range. It is on my Vz Android phone. IIRC, that was specifically set aside
>> for CGN. I suppose we could also use it for our NAT mode CPEs.
>>
>>
>> On 10/26/2015 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
>>>
>>> Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a
>>> WAN address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN address.
>>> Am I the last one to notice?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?

[Mathew Howard]

Yes, you could setup a seperate queue for each interface.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Tim Reichhart <
timreichh...@hometowncable.net> wrote:

>
>
> Mathew
> How miktroik be able to do this? Like with queues or something?
>
> Tim
>
>
> -Original Message-
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?
> From: "Mathew Howard" 
> To: af 
> Date: 10/27/15 12:26:12am
>
> A Mikrotik could do it...
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
> I just realized I missed what you said.  You can do it on the 4 Lan ports
> together or the WAN port or both.  Just can't do each one of the 4 Lan
> ports individually.
>
> Rory
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:48 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?
>
> yes
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tim Reichhart
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:47 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] can airrouter hp do this or not?
>
> I am just wondering if airrouter hp would be able to do this or not?
> Basically I am looking to do is limit bandwidth on each port to 6meg on
> 10/100 mbps port.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

[George Skorup]

I just had a light bulb come on over my head about this. Will routers 
that like to change to bridge/switch/AP mode if they see a private 
address on the WAN port NOT do that if we hand out this range?


Here's my thought. We're contemplating changing our Canopy SMs from 
bridge to NAT w/ DMZ and configure them to hand out only one address via 
DHCP. Since the address pool size will be only one address, if these 
stupid routers go into bridge mode, only the router itself is going to 
get that address and none of the customer's other devices will work.


This isn't your typical RFC1918-type address space, so I have to wonder

On 10/26/2015 10:58 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
I know, I just thought it was interesting that they didn't. If we were 
still doing NAT I'd be using it.


On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:50 PM, George Skorup > wrote:


Nothing says they have to use it.

On 10/26/2015 10:11 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

Interesting... I just checked my phone (US cellular) and it's got
a 10.x.x.x address... and no IPv6.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, George Skorup
> wrote:

I bet if you look at your phone status, your IPv4 address
will be in that range. It is on my Vz Android phone. IIRC,
that was specifically set aside for CGN. I suppose we could
also use it for our NAT mode CPEs.


On 10/26/2015 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

Apparently 100.64.0.0/10  was set
aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a WAN address that was
guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN address.  Am
I the last one to notice?

Re: [AFMUG] Tile satellite mount

[Rory Conaway]

Found it.  Not the exact one but close enough.  The one I was working with was 
wider which I like better.

http://www.rstcenterprises.com/commdeck/our_products/retrodeck.phtml

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:53 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tile satellite mount

Not always.  And I really like this mount as another tool, just can’t find them.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 9:36 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tile satellite mount

No option to skip it and go for a fascia mount?

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
I’m looking for a roof mount that attaches to concrete tiles by clamping 
against it.  Any help would be appreciated.

Rory Conaway • Triad Wireless • CEO
4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040
602-426-0542
r...@triadwireless.net
www.triadwireless.net

“Progress always involves risks. You can't steal second base and keep your foot 
on first. “~Frederick B. Wilcox

Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

[Mark Radabaugh]

Dear AG,

I would love to respond to your subpoena but under FCC Section 222 of the 
communications act, which the FCC so clearly stated in double-negative in the 
Open Internet Order by saying "we decline to forbear from applying section 222 
of the Act in the case of broadband Internet access service.”, we are 
restricted from disclosing any proprietary customer network information unless 
specifically authorized by the customer.Please contact the FCC and clarify 
your authority to collect the requested information and provide this 
information to our corporate council.

Or things I wish I could do….

Mark


> On Oct 26, 2015, at 11:55 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
> 
> IMHO false advertising is better handled by state attorneys general or the 
> FTC, rather than the FCC.  State AGs actually have a pretty good record of 
> combatting fraud, and it just takes a few states to put a whole industry on 
> notice.
>  
> But I wonder if Schneiderman’s office understands the complexity of the 
> situation.  It’s not as simple as Subway selling 11-inch footlong sandwiches, 
> or fish markets selling tilapia as red snapper.  Yes, they understand the 
> interconnection situation.  But as Mike says, it’s hard to believe that TWC, 
> Cablevision and Verizon aren’t delivering advertised speeds in NYC.
>  
> In my area, we regularly see Frontier sell “up to 6 Mbps” service that can’t 
> reliably deliver 1 Mbps.  So what the NY AG says is possible, just less 
> likely on cable or fiber service.
>  
> Our most popular plans are 3/1 and 6/2, and we reliably deliver those, in 
> fact a little over just to make sure.  But even at those fairly low speeds, 
> we get complaints due to customer WiFi problems, computer problems, 
> connection maxed out, speed plan insufficient for what they are trying to do, 
> and problems at the content provider end.  One customer the other day finally 
> followed our recommendation after a year of complaining and updated the WiFi 
> drivers on her Toshiba laptop (with Intel AC 7260 card), and the WiFi 
> connection went from 5.5M to 300M.  Suddenly, our service worked as 
> advertised.  Of course, she didn’t have a single wired computer in the house. 
>  That is getting pretty typical.
>  
> I can’t imagine what it’s like offering 25M-100M or gigabit service, and 
> having people constantly run speed tests and complain they aren’t getting the 
> advertised speeds.  I think it might be necessary to create a demarc with a 
> test jack on the outside like the telcos did.  If you can get advertised 
> speed at the test jack, then it’s a customer network problem not a service 
> provider problem.
>  
> I have no sympathy for the lying ISPs like Frontier, but like Mike, I wonder 
> how prevalent that is on major cable systems and in major metro areas.  I 
> think the real liars are in rural areas and small towns where they can get 
> away with it.
>  
>  
>  
> From: Mike Hammett 
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:11 AM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ
>  
> I just read a report that US Cable companies deliver more than their 
> advertised performance most of the time. It's go nowhere investigations.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> From: "Jaime Solorza"  >
> To: "Animal Farm" >
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:06:22 AM
> Subject: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ
> 
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-attorney-general-probes-broadband-speeds-1445870078
>  
> 
> Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] The Dude Still Useful [In addition to other monitoring]?

[Adam Moffett]

That's exactly it.  The Dude makes it easy to visualize.  I might keep 
it just to have a backhaul map.


On 10/26/2015 2:03 PM, Joshua Stump wrote:


I’ve not found anything that works as well as The Dude goes for 
mapping… I really like being able to see links w/ throughput at a 
glance. It does look like OpenNMS does maps, but judging by the demo, 
it feels more clunky and performs worse than Dude. Currently we’re 
using PRTG for monitoring and Dude for map.


Joshua Stump

Network Administrator | Fourway.NET  | 800-733-0062

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 1:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] The Dude Still Useful [In addition to other 
monitoring]?


I'd suggest running the v4 beta on a VM and backup with snapshots.  
You can still do the network map, that's the only reason I have it around.


OpenNMS is a good option, but I don't think there's a map.


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

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Christopher Gray 
> wrote:


I'm working to centralize some monitoring as my network has
grown. My current hardware includes Ubiquiti, Cambium, and
Mikrotik. If I setup something like OpenNMS, would there be any
benefit / usefulness to also running The Dude in it's current version?

Thanks - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[Adam Moffett]

In my previous life, we liked the 450G with the plain unlabeled case 
from Baltic Networks and wall mount brackets.  It seemed people were 
less likely to play around with a black box mounted on the wall than 
with a desktop router.


On 10/26/2015 12:58 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
We have used the RB750G or RB750 for a business demarc device.  Often 
with a routed /29 on the customer side (business IT guys are trained 
to ask for 5 public IPs whether they need them or not).

I think the hEX and hEX Lite are the replacements for those.
*From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
*Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 11:49 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik
We bridge to the router. The 2011 are all big. I only need a couple 
ports at most available to the customer on the business side in most 
cases as they have their own firewall, I would just like the CPE 
router (not CPE radio) to be able to be a part of our L3 network when 
the need arises. this is more a demarc device on those business 
customers, for managed routers on our contract support customers we do 
Fortigate UTMs. I dont mind two devices to keep the separation between 
church and state. Contract services is a component that could leave 
our jurisdiction and I dont want to have taken liberties on the ISP 
network that would conflict with a third party IT taking over
An example business customer im dealing with right now is a bank. they 
have 3 branches on our network A B C and two off our network D and E. 
We are their contract IT also.
A B and C have us as their primary provider, A is their main branch. D 
have a cable connection with a DSL backup as well as a PtP t1 to A. E 
has cable/dsl as well. A B and C are all on our PmP wireless network 
for all intents and purposes (we have them on pmp solutions until 
saturation then move them to PtP), and we are turning up a 3rd party 
ptp fiber circuit between A and our NOC (they use our IP space). Our 
wireless having more capacity than the fiber contract.
Their main branch, A gets to our noc via a licensed hop then an air 
fiber, each of those have backup 5ghz link. There is also an alt path 
on our network from the licensed link via another licensed link to our 
second provider (no bgp at present) and i am putting in an EOIP tunnel 
from provider 2 back to provider 1 to be able to keep their IP space 
in play(it is what it is). So in essence they have three paths to 
egress with multiple redundancies.
I am planning on MPLS between their three on network sites, hence the 
need for demarcation between us and their fortigates.
If I can do this with a 50 dollar router that we keep on hand for 
residential CPE as well, that makes me happy.

Is this convoluted enough?
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Ken Hohhof > wrote:


We use RB951G-2HnD.  Yes it costs a few bucks more, but it’s worth
it to stock one router, and it has been very reliable.  If we were
going through boatloads of them, I guess we might look at stocking
more models to save a few bucks.
For businesses that need more wired ports, or installations where
we think we need external antennas, we use RB2011UiAS-2HnD-N. We
also have a few CRS125 models out there, like as a demarc for
multiple tenants.
I am debating whether to look at the new Cambium models, mainly to
get an 802.11ac product, but integrating the POE and ATA functions
would simplify wiring for residential customers.  Just not sure it
would let us manage the VoIP function the way we like, also not
sure I want to give up the outboard POE with surge protection.
*From:* Josh Luthman 
*Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 10:38 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik
Router?  Rb2011 are great and about $100.  The 951 is cheaper for
the residents.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:19 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
> wrote:

back looking at a cpe mikrotik, I would prefer to stock one
unit for residential and business customers, I just dont know
what can actually handle what reliably.
For the residential side, not much more than the equivalent of
a ubnt air router, at that price point, i think at one point
we were paying 29 a piece for 20 packs or something to that
effect, i dont know if thats still accurate.
on the business customer side it may need to participate in
OSPF and MPLS/EOIP, wireless not being required.
I would prefer Gigabit Ethernet, SPF not a requirement for the
standard drop device.
-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see

 

Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?

[Gino Villarini]

It seems that keeping up with proper grounding its a huge undertaking! is
there a easier way? Isolate all gear with SC40 PVC mounts?

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> 550 ohm ground
> Wow, they may have been better floating the tower.
>
> *From:* Joshaven Mailing Lists 
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 7:00 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?
>
>
> http://www.copper.org/applications/electrical/pq/casestudy/orange_county_A6088.html
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Joshaven Potter
> MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, UACA
> Google Hangouts: yourt...@gmail.com
> Cell & SMS: 1-517-607-9370
> supp...@joshaven.com
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
> Well, not necessarily.  It is possible to turn grounding and shielding
> into a religion and lose track of what they are accomplishing.
>
> For example, the power company guy in up in the bucket doesn’t rely on
> grounding to protect him from high voltage, and neither do the birds
> sitting on the wires.  I’m not saying TJ is right, but be careful of adding
> more grounding without thinking about what you are grounding, to what, and
> why.
>
> I also wonder if Gino is seeing this everywhere, or just at a few towers.
> I think some towers have problems and you can’t fix it without going beyond
> just your equipment.
>
> If it’s everywhere, did this coincide with a change to a different
> brand/model of radios?
>
> *From:* Mike Hammett 
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 5:06 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?
>
> If what you've done isn't working, then it isn't enough, not that it's too
> much.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> --
> *From: *"TJ Trout" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Sunday, October 25, 2015 5:04:32 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?
>
> Gino,
>
> Try not grounding at all?
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:39 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>
>> I have no doubt it's the SS clamping that's blowing the fuse. If there
>> was no fuse, I bet the SS would continue clamping and start smoking if
>> there's enough current to supply it. I don't know if it helps save things,
>> but I'm leaning towards yes. Just getting all of the radios on the same DC
>> bus seems to have helped quite a bit as well.
>>
>> On 10/25/2015 12:51 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of fuses, I know sometimes we get overcurrent trips on CTMs and
>>> SyncInjectors and have to reset them.  Very rare, but always during storms.
>>> It is possible this is saving radios, I can't say for sure.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message- From: George Skorup
>>> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 12:34 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?
>>>
>>> One thing we've been doing for several years now is a bonding wire up
>>> the tower. I do not trust the tower steel/leg joints being low enough
>>> resistance. Failure rate went way down. DC and fuses doesn't hurt either.
>>>
>>> On 10/25/2015 10:57 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>>>
 So we are loosing radios left and right due to lightning!

 Typical site setup:

 Radios on tower grounded to tower

 Shielded cable

 Shielded patch panel - grounded

 Regular cat5 jumpers

 Wbmfg SS - grounded

 Regular cat5 jumpers

 Poe device

 What's wrong?
>>>
>>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

[Christopher Tyler]

Wow

"The office requested detailed information from each of the companies on their 
network management and advertising practices, including copies of all broadband 
customer complaints related to discrepancies between actual and advertised 
speeds and all “interconnection” agreements, formal and informal, that the 
companies have struck with third parties."

-- 
Christopher Tyler 
MTCRE/MTCNA/MTCTCE/MTCWE 
Total Highspeed Internet Services 
417.851.1107

- Original Message -
From: "Jaime Solorza" 
To: "Animal Farm" 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:06:22 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-attorney-general-probes-broadband-speeds-1445870078

Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] I was good this weekend

[Chuck McCown]

What kind of queso in on the beans?

From: Jaime Solorza 
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 7:20 PM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: [AFMUG] I was good this weekend

Wife bought us dinner

Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] I was good this weekend

[Ben Moore]

Man...that looks SO good!

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> Wife bought us dinner
>
> Jaime Solorza
>

Re: [AFMUG] I was good this weekend

[Jaime Solorza]

Yep

Jaime Solorza
On Oct 26, 2015 8:28 AM, "Ty Featherling"  wrote:

> Queso blanco, of course!
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> What kind of queso in on the beans?
>>
>> *From:* Jaime Solorza 
>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 7:20 PM
>> *To:* Animal Farm 
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] I was good this weekend
>>
>>
>> Wife bought us dinner
>>
>> Jaime Solorza
>>
>
>

[AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

[Jaime Solorza]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-attorney-general-probes-broadband-speeds-1445870078

Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

[Mike Hammett]

I just read a report that US Cable companies deliver more than their advertised 
performance most of the time. It's go nowhere investigations. 




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

- Original Message -

From: "Jaime Solorza"  
To: "Animal Farm"  
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:06:22 AM 
Subject: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ 


http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-attorney-general-probes-broadband-speeds-1445870078
 
Jaime Solorza 

Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

thats pretty broad, you would think its also private business information

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Christopher Tyler <
ch...@totalhighspeed.net> wrote:

> Wow
>
> "The office requested detailed information from each of the companies on
> their network management and advertising practices, including copies of all
> broadband customer complaints related to discrepancies between actual and
> advertised speeds and all “interconnection” agreements, formal and
> informal, that the companies have struck with third parties."
>
> --
> Christopher Tyler
> MTCRE/MTCNA/MTCTCE/MTCWE
> Total Highspeed Internet Services
> 417.851.1107
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jaime Solorza" 
> To: "Animal Farm" 
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:06:22 AM
> Subject: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ
>
>
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-attorney-general-probes-broadband-speeds-1445870078
>
> Jaime Solorza
>



-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] I was good this weekend

[Ty Featherling]

Queso blanco, of course!

-Ty



-Ty

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> What kind of queso in on the beans?
>
> *From:* Jaime Solorza 
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 7:20 PM
> *To:* Animal Farm 
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] I was good this weekend
>
>
> Wife bought us dinner
>
> Jaime Solorza
>

Re: [AFMUG] I was good this weekend

[Jaime Solorza]

Queso Blanco it was awesome

Jaime Solorza
On Oct 26, 2015 8:24 AM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

> What kind of queso in on the beans?
>
> *From:* Jaime Solorza 
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 7:20 PM
> *To:* Animal Farm 
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] I was good this weekend
>
>
> Wife bought us dinner
>
> Jaime Solorza
>

Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?

[David]

If site itself is poorly grounded then grounding radios will not help.


On 10/25/2015 10:57 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:

So we are loosing radios left and right due to lightning!

Typical site setup:

Radios on tower grounded to tower

Shielded cable

Shielded patch panel - grounded

Regular cat5 jumpers

Wbmfg SS - grounded

Regular cat5 jumpers

Poe device

What's wrong?

Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?

[David]

Absolutely, We have CTM or CMM which has saved us much grief over the 
past 10yrs.
I have had sites like Gino has and each one has its own unique grounding 
issues but if looked at close enough youll find its something as simple 
as a

poor ground back to the mains ground. Or no ground at all.



On 10/25/2015 03:39 PM, George Skorup wrote:
I have no doubt it's the SS clamping that's blowing the fuse. If there 
was no fuse, I bet the SS would continue clamping and start smoking if 
there's enough current to supply it. I don't know if it helps save 
things, but I'm leaning towards yes. Just getting all of the radios on 
the same DC bus seems to have helped quite a bit as well.


On 10/25/2015 12:51 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
Speaking of fuses, I know sometimes we get overcurrent trips on CTMs 
and SyncInjectors and have to reset them.  Very rare, but always 
during storms. It is possible this is saving radios, I can't say for 
sure.



-Original Message- From: George Skorup
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 12:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?

One thing we've been doing for several years now is a bonding wire up
the tower. I do not trust the tower steel/leg joints being low enough
resistance. Failure rate went way down. DC and fuses doesn't hurt 
either.


On 10/25/2015 10:57 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:

So we are loosing radios left and right due to lightning!

Typical site setup:

Radios on tower grounded to tower

Shielded cable

Shielded patch panel - grounded

Regular cat5 jumpers

Wbmfg SS - grounded

Regular cat5 jumpers

Poe device

What's wrong?

Re: [AFMUG] larger SyncInjector?

[Christopher Tyler]

Did you look at the SyncBox12. No Site Monitor but used in conjunction with a 
Netonix and... Shazam.

-- 
Christopher Tyler 
MTCRE/MTCNA/MTCTCE/MTCWE 
Total Highspeed Internet Services 
417.851.1107

- Original Message -
From: "Ken Hohhof" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 11:58:45 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] larger SyncInjector?

12 ports would be nice

From: Mathew Howard 
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 11:47 AM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] larger SyncInjector?

If I remember correctly, it's going to be a 12 port. I think it would be DIN 
rail... or maybe both?


On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Paul McCall  wrote:

  I saw a mock unit of a 12 port S.I. at A.F in Feb.


  -Original Message-
  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
  Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 12:41 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: [AFMUG] larger SyncInjector?

  I was not at Wispapalooza, but do I remember discussion awhile back of a 
larger SyncInjector - like maybe 8 ports in one unit?  Or am I dreaming?  I 
don't see anything on the Packetflux website.

  Does anyone know if this is indeed on the roadmap, and if so, how far down 
the road?  And would this be DIN rail or rackmount?

Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?

[Chuck Hogg]

You're not doing fiber/DC only like the cellco's have proven to be the best
method.

Regards,
Chuck

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Gino Villarini 
wrote:

> So we are loosing radios left and right due to lightning!
>
> Typical site setup:
>
> Radios on tower grounded to tower
>
> Shielded cable
>
> Shielded patch panel - grounded
>
> Regular cat5 jumpers
>
> Wbmfg SS - grounded
>
> Regular cat5 jumpers
>
> Poe device
>
> What's wrong?
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] open btest servers?

[Sterling Jacobson]

50.114.231.72

Let me know how it goes.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 1:48 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] open btest servers?

mikrotik btest.
On 10/23/2015 3:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Mikrotik?  Or Speedtest. Net?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Oct 23, 2015 3:31 PM, "Adam Moffett" 
> wrote:
I'm trying to troubleshoot a speed issue for a customer.  Does anybody have 
open btest servers going with room for at least 20meg ?

[AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

back looking at a cpe mikrotik, I would prefer to stock one unit for
residential and business customers, I just dont know what can actually
handle what reliably.

For the residential side, not much more than the equivalent of a ubnt air
router, at that price point, i think at one point we were paying 29 a piece
for 20 packs or something to that effect, i dont know if thats still
accurate.

on the business customer side it may need to participate in OSPF and
MPLS/EOIP, wireless not being required.

I would prefer Gigabit Ethernet, SPF not a requirement for the standard
drop device.

-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

[Rory Conaway]

The government buys off the referees and then wants the players that get 
favored status from these referees who cheat even more to explain why they are 
cheating.  This is why, "BECAUSE THEY CAN AND YOU HELP THEM".  

Rory

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Tyler
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 8:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

Wow

"The office requested detailed information from each of the companies on their 
network management and advertising practices, including copies of all broadband 
customer complaints related to discrepancies between actual and advertised 
speeds and all “interconnection” agreements, formal and informal, that the 
companies have struck with third parties."

-- 
Christopher Tyler 
MTCRE/MTCNA/MTCTCE/MTCWE 
Total Highspeed Internet Services 
417.851.1107

- Original Message -
From: "Jaime Solorza" 
To: "Animal Farm" 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:06:22 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-attorney-general-probes-broadband-speeds-1445870078

Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[Dennis Burgess]

951U for 99% of residential, good wireless, bridge mode, and has power up to 
Radio CPE is the router
CRS125 typically for some small business, gives them a managed router/switch 
and can charge for that.  CPE is still in route mode, CRS is in bridge if they 
don’ need more than one public.   If they need more than one public, then we 
route a /29 to the CPE, and then the CRS can become the router, you can also 
use a 2011, but the CRS has more ports, all gig and has about the same routing 
performance.

Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – 
www.linktechs.net

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:39 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

Router?  Rb2011 are great and about $100.  The 951 is cheaper for the residents.


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

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:19 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
> wrote:
back looking at a cpe mikrotik, I would prefer to stock one unit for 
residential and business customers, I just dont know what can actually handle 
what reliably.

For the residential side, not much more than the equivalent of a ubnt air 
router, at that price point, i think at one point we were paying 29 a piece for 
20 packs or something to that effect, i dont know if thats still accurate.

on the business customer side it may need to participate in OSPF and MPLS/EOIP, 
wireless not being required.

I would prefer Gigabit Ethernet, SPF not a requirement for the standard drop 
device.

--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] now you can yell at people through your unifi

[Eric Kuhnke]

All of the new >$140 unifi are 802.3af/802.3at , just the cheap ones are
24V.


On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Cameron Crum  wrote:

> S...if they were really wanting to make this extremely usable, they
> would make it standard 48 v poe. Plugging these into a poe switch and being
> done would be awesome. Having to buy those stupid pigtail converters makes
> it a hassle, and it makes your wiring management harder. Putting them on
> the radio side is no good when you have 40-50 ft ceilings in an auditorium.
> I don't want to have to rent a scissor lift to change a $10 part if the
> thing stops working, and I won' t know if it the converter until I change
> it.
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Louis Arsenault 
> wrote:
>
>> Hope they implemented it well Wouldn't want another incident like
>> target keeps having with there PA system.
>>
>> http://wtvr.com/2015/10/15/target-store-plays-porn-over-pa-system/
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>> > Oh, that kind of “public address”.
>> >
>> > From: Eric Kuhnke
>> > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:14 PM
>> > To: af@afmug.com
>> > Subject: [AFMUG] now you can yell at people through your unifi
>> >
>> > https://www.ubnt.com/unifi/unifi-ap-ac-edu/
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Louis
>>
>> NTInet
>> O: 803-533-1660 X 207
>> C: 803-997-0004
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] now you can yell at people through your unifi

[Cameron Crum]

S...if they were really wanting to make this extremely usable, they
would make it standard 48 v poe. Plugging these into a poe switch and being
done would be awesome. Having to buy those stupid pigtail converters makes
it a hassle, and it makes your wiring management harder. Putting them on
the radio side is no good when you have 40-50 ft ceilings in an auditorium.
I don't want to have to rent a scissor lift to change a $10 part if the
thing stops working, and I won' t know if it the converter until I change
it.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Louis Arsenault  wrote:

> Hope they implemented it well Wouldn't want another incident like
> target keeps having with there PA system.
>
> http://wtvr.com/2015/10/15/target-store-plays-porn-over-pa-system/
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
> > Oh, that kind of “public address”.
> >
> > From: Eric Kuhnke
> > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:14 PM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: [AFMUG] now you can yell at people through your unifi
> >
> > https://www.ubnt.com/unifi/unifi-ap-ac-edu/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -Louis
>
> NTInet
> O: 803-533-1660 X 207
> C: 803-997-0004
>

Re: [AFMUG] now you can yell at people through your unifi

[Mike Hammett]

"802.3at PoE+ Compatible" 




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

- Original Message -

From: "Cameron Crum"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:24:59 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] now you can yell at people through your unifi 


S...if they were really wanting to make this extremely usable, they would 
make it standard 48 v poe. Plugging these into a poe switch and being done 
would be awesome. Having to buy those stupid pigtail converters makes it a 
hassle, and it makes your wiring management harder. Putting them on the radio 
side is no good when you have 40-50 ft ceilings in an auditorium. I don't want 
to have to rent a scissor lift to change a $10 part if the thing stops working, 
and I won' t know if it the converter until I change it. 


On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Louis Arsenault < lo...@ntinet.com > wrote: 


Hope they implemented it well Wouldn't want another incident like 
target keeps having with there PA system. 

http://wtvr.com/2015/10/15/target-store-plays-porn-over-pa-system/ 



On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Ken Hohhof < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: 
> Oh, that kind of “public address”. 
> 
> From: Eric Kuhnke 
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:14 PM 
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: [AFMUG] now you can yell at people through your unifi 
> 
> https://www.ubnt.com/unifi/unifi-ap-ac-edu/ 
> 
> 



-- 
-Louis 

NTInet 
O: 803-533-1660 X 207 
C: 803-997-0004 

[AFMUG] Tile satellite mount

[Rory Conaway]

I'm looking for a roof mount that attaches to concrete tiles by clamping 
against it.  Any help would be appreciated.

Rory Conaway * Triad Wireless * CEO
4226 S. 37th Street * Phoenix * AZ 85040
602-426-0542
r...@triadwireless.net
www.triadwireless.net

"Progress always involves risks. You can't steal second base and keep your foot 
on first. "~Frederick B. Wilcox

Re: [AFMUG] now you can yell at people through your unifi

[Louis Arsenault]

Hope they implemented it well Wouldn't want another incident like
target keeps having with there PA system.

http://wtvr.com/2015/10/15/target-store-plays-porn-over-pa-system/

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
> Oh, that kind of “public address”.
>
> From: Eric Kuhnke
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:14 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] now you can yell at people through your unifi
>
> https://www.ubnt.com/unifi/unifi-ap-ac-edu/
>
>



-- 
-Louis

NTInet
O: 803-533-1660 X 207
C: 803-997-0004

Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[Josh Luthman]

Router?  Rb2011 are great and about $100.  The 951 is cheaper for the
residents.


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

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:19 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> back looking at a cpe mikrotik, I would prefer to stock one unit for
> residential and business customers, I just dont know what can actually
> handle what reliably.
>
> For the residential side, not much more than the equivalent of a ubnt air
> router, at that price point, i think at one point we were paying 29 a piece
> for 20 packs or something to that effect, i dont know if thats still
> accurate.
>
> on the business customer side it may need to participate in OSPF and
> MPLS/EOIP, wireless not being required.
>
> I would prefer Gigabit Ethernet, SPF not a requirement for the standard
> drop device.
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

[Mark - Myakka Technologies]

This is very interesting being I ran into some testing issues over the
weekend.  I'm in process of updating my headend and wanting to test
some speeds at peak times.  I have 100/25 connection at home.  Last
time I did a speed test I was able to pull 90+/25+ on my connection,
that was a few months ago.

This weekend after I did some updates the best I could pull was about
10/20 on my test.  Needless to say I was questioning my updates.  I
started digging deeper and found out my CPU was going to 100% during
the test.  I went to a different computer and reran the test.  I got
95/27 on that computer constantly.

Difference is first computer is running on an older XP computer and
second computer is running on win7 64 bit computer.

So, bottom line is the Internet connection was fine, I was just testing
on a old computer.  So, how is FCC/NYAG/Bandwidth Police going to
determine if it is the providers equipment or the customers equipment?




-- 
Best regards,
 Markmailto:m...@mailmt.com

Myakka Technologies, Inc.
www.MyakkaTech.com

Proud Sponsor of the Myakka City Relay For Life
http://www.RelayForLife.org/MyakkaCityFL

Please Donate at Please Donate at http://www.myakkatech.com/RFL.html
--

Monday, October 26, 2015, 11:10:13 AM, you wrote:

CT> Wow

CT> "The office requested detailed information from each of the
CT> companies on their network management and advertising practices,
CT> including copies of all broadband customer complaints related to
CT> discrepancies between actual and advertised speeds and all
CT> ￜinterconnectionￜ agreements, formal and informal, that the
CT> companies have struck with third parties."



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[Ken Hohhof]

We use RB951G-2HnD.  Yes it costs a few bucks more, but it’s worth it to stock 
one router, and it has been very reliable.  If we were going through boatloads 
of them, I guess we might look at stocking more models to save a few bucks.

For businesses that need more wired ports, or installations where we think we 
need external antennas, we use RB2011UiAS-2HnD-N.  We also have a few CRS125 
models out there, like as a demarc for multiple tenants.

I am debating whether to look at the new Cambium models, mainly to get an 
802.11ac product, but integrating the POE and ATA functions would simplify 
wiring for residential customers.  Just not sure it would let us manage the 
VoIP function the way we like, also not sure I want to give up the outboard POE 
with surge protection.


From: Josh Luthman 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:38 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

Router?  Rb2011 are great and about $100.  The 951 is cheaper for the residents.


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

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:19 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:

  back looking at a cpe mikrotik, I would prefer to stock one unit for 
residential and business customers, I just dont know what can actually handle 
what reliably. 

  For the residential side, not much more than the equivalent of a ubnt air 
router, at that price point, i think at one point we were paying 29 a piece for 
20 packs or something to that effect, i dont know if thats still accurate.

  on the business customer side it may need to participate in OSPF and 
MPLS/EOIP, wireless not being required.

  I would prefer Gigabit Ethernet, SPF not a requirement for the standard drop 
device.


  -- 

  If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

oh, that's a very very good point...

  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark - Myakka Technologies 
  To: Christopher Tyler 
  Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:51 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ


  This is very interesting being I ran into some testing issues over the
  weekend.  I'm in process of updating my headend and wanting to test
  some speeds at peak times.  I have 100/25 connection at home.  Last
  time I did a speed test I was able to pull 90+/25+ on my connection,
  that was a few months ago.

  This weekend after I did some updates the best I could pull was about
  10/20 on my test.  Needless to say I was questioning my updates.  I
  started digging deeper and found out my CPU was going to 100% during
  the test.  I went to a different computer and reran the test.  I got
  95/27 on that computer constantly.

  Difference is first computer is running on an older XP computer and
  second computer is running on win7 64 bit computer.

  So, bottom line is the Internet connection was fine, I was just testing
  on a old computer.  So, how is FCC/NYAG/Bandwidth Police going to
  determine if it is the providers equipment or the customers equipment?




  -- 
  Best regards,
   Markmailto:m...@mailmt.com

  Myakka Technologies, Inc.
  www.MyakkaTech.com

  Proud Sponsor of the Myakka City Relay For Life
  http://www.RelayForLife.org/MyakkaCityFL

  Please Donate at Please Donate at http://www.myakkatech.com/RFL.html
  --

  Monday, October 26, 2015, 11:10:13 AM, you wrote:

  CT> Wow

  CT> "The office requested detailed information from each of the
  CT> companies on their network management and advertising practices,
  CT> including copies of all broadband customer complaints related to
  CT> discrepancies between actual and advertised speeds and all
  CT> ￜinterconnectionￜ agreements, formal and informal, that the
  CT> companies have struck with third parties."



  ---
  This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
  https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

[Ken Hohhof]

IMHO false advertising is better handled by state attorneys general or the FTC, 
rather than the FCC.  State AGs actually have a pretty good record of 
combatting fraud, and it just takes a few states to put a whole industry on 
notice.

But I wonder if Schneiderman’s office understands the complexity of the 
situation.  It’s not as simple as Subway selling 11-inch footlong sandwiches, 
or fish markets selling tilapia as red snapper.  Yes, they understand the 
interconnection situation.  But as Mike says, it’s hard to believe that TWC, 
Cablevision and Verizon aren’t delivering advertised speeds in NYC.

In my area, we regularly see Frontier sell “up to 6 Mbps” service that can’t 
reliably deliver 1 Mbps.  So what the NY AG says is possible, just less likely 
on cable or fiber service.

Our most popular plans are 3/1 and 6/2, and we reliably deliver those, in fact 
a little over just to make sure.  But even at those fairly low speeds, we get 
complaints due to customer WiFi problems, computer problems, connection maxed 
out, speed plan insufficient for what they are trying to do, and problems at 
the content provider end.  One customer the other day finally followed our 
recommendation after a year of complaining and updated the WiFi drivers on her 
Toshiba laptop (with Intel AC 7260 card), and the WiFi connection went from 
5.5M to 300M.  Suddenly, our service worked as advertised.  Of course, she 
didn’t have a single wired computer in the house.  That is getting pretty 
typical.

I can’t imagine what it’s like offering 25M-100M or gigabit service, and having 
people constantly run speed tests and complain they aren’t getting the 
advertised speeds.  I think it might be necessary to create a demarc with a 
test jack on the outside like the telcos did.  If you can get advertised speed 
at the test jack, then it’s a customer network problem not a service provider 
problem.

I have no sympathy for the lying ISPs like Frontier, but like Mike, I wonder 
how prevalent that is on major cable systems and in major metro areas.  I think 
the real liars are in rural areas and small towns where they can get away with 
it.



From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:11 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

I just read a report that US Cable companies deliver more than their advertised 
performance most of the time. It's go nowhere investigations.




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





From: "Jaime Solorza" 
To: "Animal Farm" 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:06:22 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ


http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-attorney-general-probes-broadband-speeds-1445870078

Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

[Rory Conaway]

We are having an issue with that today with a company we are over-running.  
They sign for 3Mbps and get 500-750Kbps.  I tell the people who call us, take 
speed test measurements for 2 days, every 3 hours.  Screen shot it and call the 
company to either cancel contract or you will call the AG’s office to file a 
complaint.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 8:55 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

IMHO false advertising is better handled by state attorneys general or the FTC, 
rather than the FCC.  State AGs actually have a pretty good record of 
combatting fraud, and it just takes a few states to put a whole industry on 
notice.

But I wonder if Schneiderman’s office understands the complexity of the 
situation.  It’s not as simple as Subway selling 11-inch footlong sandwiches, 
or fish markets selling tilapia as red snapper.  Yes, they understand the 
interconnection situation.  But as Mike says, it’s hard to believe that TWC, 
Cablevision and Verizon aren’t delivering advertised speeds in NYC.

In my area, we regularly see Frontier sell “up to 6 Mbps” service that can’t 
reliably deliver 1 Mbps.  So what the NY AG says is possible, just less likely 
on cable or fiber service.

Our most popular plans are 3/1 and 6/2, and we reliably deliver those, in fact 
a little over just to make sure.  But even at those fairly low speeds, we get 
complaints due to customer WiFi problems, computer problems, connection maxed 
out, speed plan insufficient for what they are trying to do, and problems at 
the content provider end.  One customer the other day finally followed our 
recommendation after a year of complaining and updated the WiFi drivers on her 
Toshiba laptop (with Intel AC 7260 card), and the WiFi connection went from 
5.5M to 300M.  Suddenly, our service worked as advertised.  Of course, she 
didn’t have a single wired computer in the house.  That is getting pretty 
typical.

I can’t imagine what it’s like offering 25M-100M or gigabit service, and having 
people constantly run speed tests and complain they aren’t getting the 
advertised speeds.  I think it might be necessary to create a demarc with a 
test jack on the outside like the telcos did.  If you can get advertised speed 
at the test jack, then it’s a customer network problem not a service provider 
problem.

I have no sympathy for the lying ISPs like Frontier, but like Mike, I wonder 
how prevalent that is on major cable systems and in major metro areas.  I think 
the real liars are in rural areas and small towns where they can get away with 
it.



From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:11 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

I just read a report that US Cable companies deliver more than their advertised 
performance most of the time. It's go nowhere investigations.


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


From: "Jaime Solorza" 
>
To: "Animal Farm" >
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:06:22 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-attorney-general-probes-broadband-speeds-1445870078

Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] now you can yell at people through your unifi

[Eric Kuhnke]

In many cases this is just an extension on their PBX that puts all phones
on speakerphone. If someone calls in and can social engineer an employee
into transferring them to that extension number, the PBX picks up
immediately. Best Buy and Circuit City had the same problem 10+ years ago.



On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Louis Arsenault  wrote:

> Hope they implemented it well Wouldn't want another incident like
> target keeps having with there PA system.
>
> http://wtvr.com/2015/10/15/target-store-plays-porn-over-pa-system/
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
> > Oh, that kind of “public address”.
> >
> > From: Eric Kuhnke
> > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:14 PM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: [AFMUG] now you can yell at people through your unifi
> >
> > https://www.ubnt.com/unifi/unifi-ap-ac-edu/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -Louis
>
> NTInet
> O: 803-533-1660 X 207
> C: 803-997-0004
>

Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[Mathew Howard]

RB2011 is probably the best way to go for business customers. Really, a hEX
is cheaper and should do the job just fine, but it's only got five ports
and it looks... cheaper.

For residential, the hAP is probably the closest thing to the equivalent of
an airRouter, and should around the same price. You probably really could
do everything with the hAP... it's running RouterOS, so it could do any
OSPF or MPLS stuff you wanted to, but no gigabit, and it might be a bit
underpowered for some business customers.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> Router?  Rb2011 are great and about $100.  The 951 is cheaper for the
> residents.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:19 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> back looking at a cpe mikrotik, I would prefer to stock one unit for
>> residential and business customers, I just dont know what can actually
>> handle what reliably.
>>
>> For the residential side, not much more than the equivalent of a ubnt air
>> router, at that price point, i think at one point we were paying 29 a piece
>> for 20 packs or something to that effect, i dont know if thats still
>> accurate.
>>
>> on the business customer side it may need to participate in OSPF and
>> MPLS/EOIP, wireless not being required.
>>
>> I would prefer Gigabit Ethernet, SPF not a requirement for the standard
>> drop device.
>>
>> --
>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>>
>
>

[AFMUG] The Dude Still Useful [In addition to other monitoring]?

[Christopher Gray]

I'm working to centralize some monitoring as my network has grown. My
current hardware includes Ubiquiti, Cambium, and Mikrotik. If I setup
something like OpenNMS, would there be any benefit / usefulness to also
running The Dude in it's current version?

Thanks - Chris

Re: [AFMUG] Tile satellite mount

[Rory Conaway]

Not always.  And I really like this mount as another tool, just can’t find them.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 9:36 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tile satellite mount

No option to skip it and go for a fascia mount?

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
I’m looking for a roof mount that attaches to concrete tiles by clamping 
against it.  Any help would be appreciated.

Rory Conaway • Triad Wireless • CEO
4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040
602-426-0542
r...@triadwireless.net
www.triadwireless.net

“Progress always involves risks. You can't steal second base and keep your foot 
on first. “~Frederick B. Wilcox

Re: [AFMUG] The Dude Still Useful [In addition to other monitoring]?

[Josh Luthman]

I'd suggest running the v4 beta on a VM and backup with snapshots.  You can
still do the network map, that's the only reason I have it around.

OpenNMS is a good option, but I don't think there's a map.


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

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Christopher Gray <
cg...@graytechsoftware.com> wrote:

> I'm working to centralize some monitoring as my network has grown. My
> current hardware includes Ubiquiti, Cambium, and Mikrotik. If I setup
> something like OpenNMS, would there be any benefit / usefulness to also
> running The Dude in it's current version?
>
> Thanks - Chris
>

Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?

[Chuck McCown]

550 ohm ground
Wow, they may have been better floating the tower.

From: Joshaven Mailing Lists 
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 7:00 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?

http://www.copper.org/applications/electrical/pq/casestudy/orange_county_A6088.html
 


Sincerely,
Joshaven Potter
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, UACA
Google Hangouts: yourt...@gmail.com
Cell & SMS: 1-517-607-9370
supp...@joshaven.com



  On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

  Well, not necessarily.  It is possible to turn grounding and shielding into a 
religion and lose track of what they are accomplishing.

  For example, the power company guy in up in the bucket doesn’t rely on 
grounding to protect him from high voltage, and neither do the birds sitting on 
the wires.  I’m not saying TJ is right, but be careful of adding more grounding 
without thinking about what you are grounding, to what, and why.

  I also wonder if Gino is seeing this everywhere, or just at a few towers.  I 
think some towers have problems and you can’t fix it without going beyond just 
your equipment.

  If it’s everywhere, did this coincide with a change to a different 
brand/model of radios?

  From: Mike Hammett
  Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 5:06 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?

  If what you've done isn't working, then it isn't enough, not that it's too 
much.




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



--

  From: "TJ Trout" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 5:04:32 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?


  Gino,  

  Try not grounding at all?



  On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:39 PM, George Skorup wrote:

I have no doubt it's the SS clamping that's blowing the fuse. If there was 
no fuse, I bet the SS would continue clamping and start smoking if there's 
enough current to supply it. I don't know if it helps save things, but I'm 
leaning towards yes. Just getting all of the radios on the same DC bus seems to 
have helped quite a bit as well.

On 10/25/2015 12:51 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

  Speaking of fuses, I know sometimes we get overcurrent trips on CTMs and 
SyncInjectors and have to reset them.  Very rare, but always during storms. It 
is possible this is saving radios, I can't say for sure.


  -Original Message- From: George Skorup
  Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 12:34 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Site Grounding - what we are doing wrong?

  One thing we've been doing for several years now is a bonding wire up
  the tower. I do not trust the tower steel/leg joints being low enough
  resistance. Failure rate went way down. DC and fuses doesn't hurt either.

  On 10/25/2015 10:57 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:

So we are loosing radios left and right due to lightning!

Typical site setup:

Radios on tower grounded to tower

Shielded cable

Shielded patch panel - grounded

Regular cat5 jumpers

Wbmfg SS - grounded

Regular cat5 jumpers

Poe device

What's wrong?

Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

We bridge to the router. The 2011 are all big. I only need a couple ports
at most available to the customer on the business side in most cases as
they have their own firewall, I would just like the CPE router (not CPE
radio) to be able to be a part of our L3 network when the need arises. this
is more a demarc device on those business customers, for managed routers on
our contract support customers we do Fortigate UTMs. I dont mind two
devices to keep the separation between church and state. Contract services
is a component that could leave our jurisdiction and I dont want to have
taken liberties on the ISP network that would conflict with a third party
IT taking over

An example business customer im dealing with right now is a bank. they have
3 branches on our network A B C and two off our network D and E. We are
their contract IT also.

A B and C have us as their primary provider, A is their main branch. D have
a cable connection with a DSL backup as well as a PtP t1 to A. E has
cable/dsl as well. A B and C are all on our PmP wireless network for all
intents and purposes (we have them on pmp solutions until saturation then
move them to PtP), and we are turning up a 3rd party ptp fiber circuit
between A and our NOC (they use our IP space). Our wireless having more
capacity than the fiber contract.

Their main branch, A gets to our noc via a licensed hop then an air fiber,
each of those have backup 5ghz link. There is also an alt path on our
network from the licensed link via another licensed link to our second
provider (no bgp at present) and i am putting in an EOIP tunnel from
provider 2 back to provider 1 to be able to keep their IP space in play(it
is what it is). So in essence they have three paths to egress with multiple
redundancies.

I am planning on MPLS between their three on network sites, hence the need
for demarcation between us and their fortigates.

If I can do this with a 50 dollar router that we keep on hand for
residential CPE as well, that makes me happy.


Is this convoluted enough?




On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> We use RB951G-2HnD.  Yes it costs a few bucks more, but it’s worth it to
> stock one router, and it has been very reliable.  If we were going through
> boatloads of them, I guess we might look at stocking more models to save a
> few bucks.
>
> For businesses that need more wired ports, or installations where we think
> we need external antennas, we use RB2011UiAS-2HnD-N.  We also have a few
> CRS125 models out there, like as a demarc for multiple tenants.
>
> I am debating whether to look at the new Cambium models, mainly to get an
> 802.11ac product, but integrating the POE and ATA functions would simplify
> wiring for residential customers.  Just not sure it would let us manage the
> VoIP function the way we like, also not sure I want to give up the outboard
> POE with surge protection.
>
>
> *From:* Josh Luthman 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 10:38 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik
>
> Router?  Rb2011 are great and about $100.  The 951 is cheaper for the
> residents.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:19 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> back looking at a cpe mikrotik, I would prefer to stock one unit for
>> residential and business customers, I just dont know what can actually
>> handle what reliably.
>>
>> For the residential side, not much more than the equivalent of a ubnt air
>> router, at that price point, i think at one point we were paying 29 a piece
>> for 20 packs or something to that effect, i dont know if thats still
>> accurate.
>>
>> on the business customer side it may need to participate in OSPF and
>> MPLS/EOIP, wireless not being required.
>>
>> I would prefer Gigabit Ethernet, SPF not a requirement for the standard
>> drop device.
>>
>> --
>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>>
>
>



-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] UBNT Eth Surge Protectors ?? Any good?

[Mathew Howard]

I don't know how well they compare, but I'd assume it's going to be better
than nothing.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:53 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would say yes, as long as you keep them away from any surges you should
> be fine.
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Gino Villarini 
> wrote:
>
>> Ran out of WBMFG GigESS and need to protect some AF24 units, are the UBNT
>> SS units any good?
>>
>> A local shop has some stock on them
>>
>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[Mike Hammett]

The common names are new and designed to cover up some of that model number 
mess. 




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

- Original Message -

From: "That One Guy /sarcasm"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 12:17:13 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik 


this is what you refer to when you say hEX? http://routerboard.com/RB750Gr2 


as opposed to: http://routerboard.com/RB951G-2HnD 


The differences being the hex has more processor, less RAM and no wireless? 


I really like these mikrotiks, but trying to figure out specs vs part numbers 
vs common names is as confusing to me as a power tool to a woman 


On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 



Yep, those are direct replacements... basically the same thing, just a bit more 
powerful hardware. Sounds to me like the hEX would be perfect here. 





On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Ken Hohhof < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: 






We have used the RB750G or RB750 for a business demarc device. Often with a 
routed /29 on the customer side (business IT guys are trained to ask for 5 
public IPs whether they need them or not). 

I think the hEX and hEX Lite are the replacements for those. 





From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 11:49 AM 


To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik 




We bridge to the router. The 2011 are all big. I only need a couple ports at 
most available to the customer on the business side in most cases as they have 
their own firewall, I would just like the CPE router (not CPE radio) to be able 
to be a part of our L3 network when the need arises. this is more a demarc 
device on those business customers, for managed routers on our contract support 
customers we do Fortigate UTMs. I dont mind two devices to keep the separation 
between church and state. Contract services is a component that could leave our 
jurisdiction and I dont want to have taken liberties on the ISP network that 
would conflict with a third party IT taking over 

An example business customer im dealing with right now is a bank. they have 3 
branches on our network A B C and two off our network D and E. We are their 
contract IT also. 

A B and C have us as their primary provider, A is their main branch. D have a 
cable connection with a DSL backup as well as a PtP t1 to A. E has cable/dsl as 
well. A B and C are all on our PmP wireless network for all intents and 
purposes (we have them on pmp solutions until saturation then move them to 
PtP), and we are turning up a 3rd party ptp fiber circuit between A and our NOC 
(they use our IP space). Our wireless having more capacity than the fiber 
contract. 

Their main branch, A gets to our noc via a licensed hop then an air fiber, each 
of those have backup 5ghz link. There is also an alt path on our network from 
the licensed link via another licensed link to our second provider (no bgp at 
present) and i am putting in an EOIP tunnel from provider 2 back to provider 1 
to be able to keep their IP space in play(it is what it is). So in essence they 
have three paths to egress with multiple redundancies. 

I am planning on MPLS between their three on network sites, hence the need for 
demarcation between us and their fortigates. 

If I can do this with a 50 dollar router that we keep on hand for residential 
CPE as well, that makes me happy. 


Is this convoluted enough? 






On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Ken Hohhof < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: 






We use RB951G-2HnD. Yes it costs a few bucks more, but it’s worth it to stock 
one router, and it has been very reliable. If we were going through boatloads 
of them, I guess we might look at stocking more models to save a few bucks. 

For businesses that need more wired ports, or installations where we think we 
need external antennas, we use RB2011UiAS-2HnD-N. We also have a few CRS125 
models out there, like as a demarc for multiple tenants. 

I am debating whether to look at the new Cambium models, mainly to get an 
802.11ac product, but integrating the POE and ATA functions would simplify 
wiring for residential customers. Just not sure it would let us manage the VoIP 
function the way we like, also not sure I want to give up the outboard POE with 
surge protection. 





From: Josh Luthman 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:38 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik 




Router? Rb2011 are great and about $100. The 951 is cheaper for the residents. 





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

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:19 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm < 
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > wrote: 



back looking at a cpe mikrotik, I would prefer to stock one unit for 
residential and business customers, I just dont know what can actually handle 
what reliably. 

For the residential side, not much more than the equivalent of a 

Re: [AFMUG] now you can yell at people through your unifi

[Jaime Solorza]

but did it look a UFO?

Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

> All of the new >$140 unifi are 802.3af/802.3at , just the cheap ones are
> 24V.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Cameron Crum  wrote:
>
>> S...if they were really wanting to make this extremely usable, they
>> would make it standard 48 v poe. Plugging these into a poe switch and being
>> done would be awesome. Having to buy those stupid pigtail converters makes
>> it a hassle, and it makes your wiring management harder. Putting them on
>> the radio side is no good when you have 40-50 ft ceilings in an auditorium.
>> I don't want to have to rent a scissor lift to change a $10 part if the
>> thing stops working, and I won' t know if it the converter until I change
>> it.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Louis Arsenault 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hope they implemented it well Wouldn't want another incident like
>>> target keeps having with there PA system.
>>>
>>> http://wtvr.com/2015/10/15/target-store-plays-porn-over-pa-system/
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>> > Oh, that kind of “public address”.
>>> >
>>> > From: Eric Kuhnke
>>> > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:14 PM
>>> > To: af@afmug.com
>>> > Subject: [AFMUG] now you can yell at people through your unifi
>>> >
>>> > https://www.ubnt.com/unifi/unifi-ap-ac-edu/
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Louis
>>>
>>> NTInet
>>> O: 803-533-1660 X 207
>>> C: 803-997-0004
>>>
>>
>>
>

[AFMUG] UBNT Eth Surge Protectors ?? Any good?

[Gino Villarini]

Ran out of WBMFG GigESS and need to protect some AF24 units, are the UBNT
SS units any good?

A local shop has some stock on them

Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

[Adam Moffett]

I would not make the mistake of equating NY the city with NY the state.
The former is where spiderman and fiberoptic cables live.
The latter is where the cows and corn fields and unreliable DSL live.

We're in the middle of building wireless into 7 townships which have 
little or no existing broadband.



On 10/26/2015 11:55 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
IMHO false advertising is better handled by state attorneys general or 
the FTC, rather than the FCC.  State AGs actually have a pretty good 
record of combatting fraud, and it just takes a few states to put a 
whole industry on notice.
But I wonder if Schneiderman’s office understands the complexity of 
the situation.  It’s not as simple as Subway selling 11-inch footlong 
sandwiches, or fish markets selling tilapia as red snapper.  Yes, they 
understand the interconnection situation.  But as Mike says, it’s hard 
to believe that TWC, Cablevision and Verizon aren’t delivering 
advertised speeds in NYC.
In my area, we regularly see Frontier sell “up to 6 Mbps” service that 
can’t reliably deliver 1 Mbps.  So what the NY AG says is possible, 
just less likely on cable or fiber service.
Our most popular plans are 3/1 and 6/2, and we reliably deliver those, 
in fact a little over just to make sure.  But even at those fairly low 
speeds, we get complaints due to customer WiFi problems, computer 
problems, connection maxed out, speed plan insufficient for what they 
are trying to do, and problems at the content provider end.  One 
customer the other day finally followed our recommendation after a 
year of complaining and updated the WiFi drivers on her Toshiba laptop 
(with Intel AC 7260 card), and the WiFi connection went from 5.5M to 
300M.  Suddenly, our service worked as advertised.  Of course, she 
didn’t have a single wired computer in the house.  That is getting 
pretty typical.
I can’t imagine what it’s like offering 25M-100M or gigabit service, 
and having people constantly run speed tests and complain they aren’t 
getting the advertised speeds.  I think it might be necessary to 
create a demarc with a test jack on the outside like the telcos did.  
If you can get advertised speed at the test jack, then it’s a customer 
network problem not a service provider problem.
I have no sympathy for the lying ISPs like Frontier, but like Mike, I 
wonder how prevalent that is on major cable systems and in major metro 
areas.  I think the real liars are in rural areas and small towns 
where they can get away with it.

*From:* Mike Hammett 
*Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 10:11 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband 
Speeds - WSJ
I just read a report that US Cable companies deliver more than their 
advertised performance most of the time. It's go nowhere investigations.




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


*From: *"Jaime Solorza" 
*To: *"Animal Farm" 
*Sent: *Monday, October 26, 2015 10:06:22 AM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] New York Attorney General Probes Broadband Speeds - WSJ

http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-attorney-general-probes-broadband-speeds-1445870078

Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] Tile satellite mount

[Jeremy]

No option to skip it and go for a fascia mount?

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Rory Conaway 
wrote:

> I’m looking for a roof mount that attaches to concrete tiles by clamping
> against it.  Any help would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> *Rory Conaway **• Triad Wireless •** CEO*
>
> *4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>
> *602-426-0542 <602-426-0542>*
>
> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>
> *www.triadwireless.net *
>
>
>
> *“Progress always involves risks. You can't steal second base and keep
> your foot on first. “~Frederick B. Wilcox*
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] now you can yell at people through your unifi

[Ken Hohhof]

Slightly more high-tech version of Bart calling Moe’s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpyhkmQPyE0

Getting a new receptionist to transfer you to the extension of the intercom has 
been around since at least the early 70’s.


From: Eric Kuhnke 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 11:20 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] now you can yell at people through your unifi

In many cases this is just an extension on their PBX that puts all phones on 
speakerphone. If someone calls in and can social engineer an employee into 
transferring them to that extension number, the PBX picks up immediately. Best 
Buy and Circuit City had the same problem 10+ years ago. 




On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Louis Arsenault  wrote:

  Hope they implemented it well Wouldn't want another incident like
  target keeps having with there PA system.

  http://wtvr.com/2015/10/15/target-store-plays-porn-over-pa-system/


  On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
  > Oh, that kind of “public address”.
  >
  > From: Eric Kuhnke
  > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:14 PM
  > To: af@afmug.com
  > Subject: [AFMUG] now you can yell at people through your unifi
  >
  > https://www.ubnt.com/unifi/unifi-ap-ac-edu/
  >
  >




  --
  -Louis

  NTInet
  O: 803-533-1660 X 207
  C: 803-997-0004

Re: [AFMUG] UBNT Eth Surge Protectors ?? Any good?

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

I would say yes, as long as you keep them away from any surges you should
be fine.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Gino Villarini 
wrote:

> Ran out of WBMFG GigESS and need to protect some AF24 units, are the UBNT
> SS units any good?
>
> A local shop has some stock on them
>



-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[Ken Hohhof]

We have used the RB750G or RB750 for a business demarc device.  Often with a 
routed /29 on the customer side (business IT guys are trained to ask for 5 
public IPs whether they need them or not).

I think the hEX and hEX Lite are the replacements for those.


From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 11:49 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

We bridge to the router. The 2011 are all big. I only need a couple ports at 
most available to the customer on the business side in most cases as they have 
their own firewall, I would just like the CPE router (not CPE radio) to be able 
to be a part of our L3 network when the need arises. this is more a demarc 
device on those business customers, for managed routers on our contract support 
customers we do Fortigate UTMs. I dont mind two devices to keep the separation 
between church and state. Contract services is a component that could leave our 
jurisdiction and I dont want to have taken liberties on the ISP network that 
would conflict with a third party IT taking over 

An example business customer im dealing with right now is a bank. they have 3 
branches on our network A B C and two off our network D and E. We are their 
contract IT also.

A B and C have us as their primary provider, A is their main branch. D have a 
cable connection with a DSL backup as well as a PtP t1 to A. E has cable/dsl as 
well. A B and C are all on our PmP wireless network for all intents and 
purposes (we have them on pmp solutions until saturation then move them to 
PtP), and we are turning up a 3rd party ptp fiber circuit between A and our NOC 
(they use our IP space). Our wireless having more capacity than the fiber 
contract.

Their main branch, A gets to our noc via a licensed hop then an air fiber, each 
of those have backup 5ghz link. There is also an alt path on our network from 
the licensed link via another licensed link to our second provider (no bgp at 
present) and i am putting in an EOIP tunnel from provider 2 back to provider 1 
to be able to keep their IP space in play(it is what it is). So in essence they 
have three paths to egress with multiple redundancies.

I am planning on MPLS between their three on network sites, hence the need for 
demarcation between us and their fortigates. 

If I can do this with a 50 dollar router that we keep on hand for residential 
CPE as well, that makes me happy. 


Is this convoluted enough?




On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

  We use RB951G-2HnD.  Yes it costs a few bucks more, but it’s worth it to 
stock one router, and it has been very reliable.  If we were going through 
boatloads of them, I guess we might look at stocking more models to save a few 
bucks.

  For businesses that need more wired ports, or installations where we think we 
need external antennas, we use RB2011UiAS-2HnD-N.  We also have a few CRS125 
models out there, like as a demarc for multiple tenants.

  I am debating whether to look at the new Cambium models, mainly to get an 
802.11ac product, but integrating the POE and ATA functions would simplify 
wiring for residential customers.  Just not sure it would let us manage the 
VoIP function the way we like, also not sure I want to give up the outboard POE 
with surge protection.


  From: Josh Luthman 
  Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:38 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

  Router?  Rb2011 are great and about $100.  The 951 is cheaper for the 
residents.


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

  On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:19 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:

back looking at a cpe mikrotik, I would prefer to stock one unit for 
residential and business customers, I just dont know what can actually handle 
what reliably. 

For the residential side, not much more than the equivalent of a ubnt air 
router, at that price point, i think at one point we were paying 29 a piece for 
20 packs or something to that effect, i dont know if thats still accurate.

on the business customer side it may need to participate in OSPF and 
MPLS/EOIP, wireless not being required.

I would prefer Gigabit Ethernet, SPF not a requirement for the standard 
drop device.


-- 

If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.





-- 

If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

I have an old 750 at home and we had tried on on our network as a "CPE" for
our billing server, but it seemed to get overwhelmed and cranky, I assumed
it was the combination OSPF and few policies on it

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> We have used the RB750G or RB750 for a business demarc device.  Often with
> a routed /29 on the customer side (business IT guys are trained to ask for
> 5 public IPs whether they need them or not).
>
> I think the hEX and hEX Lite are the replacements for those.
>
>
> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 11:49 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik
>
> We bridge to the router. The 2011 are all big. I only need a couple ports
> at most available to the customer on the business side in most cases as
> they have their own firewall, I would just like the CPE router (not CPE
> radio) to be able to be a part of our L3 network when the need arises. this
> is more a demarc device on those business customers, for managed routers on
> our contract support customers we do Fortigate UTMs. I dont mind two
> devices to keep the separation between church and state. Contract services
> is a component that could leave our jurisdiction and I dont want to have
> taken liberties on the ISP network that would conflict with a third party
> IT taking over
>
> An example business customer im dealing with right now is a bank. they
> have 3 branches on our network A B C and two off our network D and E. We
> are their contract IT also.
>
> A B and C have us as their primary provider, A is their main branch. D
> have a cable connection with a DSL backup as well as a PtP t1 to A. E has
> cable/dsl as well. A B and C are all on our PmP wireless network for all
> intents and purposes (we have them on pmp solutions until saturation then
> move them to PtP), and we are turning up a 3rd party ptp fiber circuit
> between A and our NOC (they use our IP space). Our wireless having more
> capacity than the fiber contract.
>
> Their main branch, A gets to our noc via a licensed hop then an air fiber,
> each of those have backup 5ghz link. There is also an alt path on our
> network from the licensed link via another licensed link to our second
> provider (no bgp at present) and i am putting in an EOIP tunnel from
> provider 2 back to provider 1 to be able to keep their IP space in play(it
> is what it is). So in essence they have three paths to egress with multiple
> redundancies.
>
> I am planning on MPLS between their three on network sites, hence the need
> for demarcation between us and their fortigates.
>
> If I can do this with a 50 dollar router that we keep on hand for
> residential CPE as well, that makes me happy.
>
>
> Is this convoluted enough?
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> We use RB951G-2HnD.  Yes it costs a few bucks more, but it’s worth it to
>> stock one router, and it has been very reliable.  If we were going through
>> boatloads of them, I guess we might look at stocking more models to save a
>> few bucks.
>>
>> For businesses that need more wired ports, or installations where we
>> think we need external antennas, we use RB2011UiAS-2HnD-N.  We also have a
>> few CRS125 models out there, like as a demarc for multiple tenants.
>>
>> I am debating whether to look at the new Cambium models, mainly to get an
>> 802.11ac product, but integrating the POE and ATA functions would simplify
>> wiring for residential customers.  Just not sure it would let us manage the
>> VoIP function the way we like, also not sure I want to give up the outboard
>> POE with surge protection.
>>
>>
>> *From:* Josh Luthman 
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 10:38 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik
>>
>> Router?  Rb2011 are great and about $100.  The 951 is cheaper for the
>> residents.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:19 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> back looking at a cpe mikrotik, I would prefer to stock one unit for
>>> residential and business customers, I just dont know what can actually
>>> handle what reliably.
>>>
>>> For the residential side, not much more than the equivalent of a ubnt
>>> air router, at that price point, i think at one point we were paying 29 a
>>> piece for 20 packs or something to that effect, i dont know if thats still
>>> accurate.
>>>
>>> on the business customer side it may need to participate in OSPF and
>>> MPLS/EOIP, wireless not being required.
>>>
>>> I would prefer Gigabit Ethernet, SPF not a requirement for the standard
>>> drop device.
>>>
>>> --
>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik

[Mathew Howard]

Yep, those are direct replacements... basically the same thing, just a bit
more powerful hardware. Sounds to me like the hEX would be perfect here.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> We have used the RB750G or RB750 for a business demarc device.  Often with
> a routed /29 on the customer side (business IT guys are trained to ask for
> 5 public IPs whether they need them or not).
>
> I think the hEX and hEX Lite are the replacements for those.
>
>
> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm 
> *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 11:49 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik
>
> We bridge to the router. The 2011 are all big. I only need a couple ports
> at most available to the customer on the business side in most cases as
> they have their own firewall, I would just like the CPE router (not CPE
> radio) to be able to be a part of our L3 network when the need arises. this
> is more a demarc device on those business customers, for managed routers on
> our contract support customers we do Fortigate UTMs. I dont mind two
> devices to keep the separation between church and state. Contract services
> is a component that could leave our jurisdiction and I dont want to have
> taken liberties on the ISP network that would conflict with a third party
> IT taking over
>
> An example business customer im dealing with right now is a bank. they
> have 3 branches on our network A B C and two off our network D and E. We
> are their contract IT also.
>
> A B and C have us as their primary provider, A is their main branch. D
> have a cable connection with a DSL backup as well as a PtP t1 to A. E has
> cable/dsl as well. A B and C are all on our PmP wireless network for all
> intents and purposes (we have them on pmp solutions until saturation then
> move them to PtP), and we are turning up a 3rd party ptp fiber circuit
> between A and our NOC (they use our IP space). Our wireless having more
> capacity than the fiber contract.
>
> Their main branch, A gets to our noc via a licensed hop then an air fiber,
> each of those have backup 5ghz link. There is also an alt path on our
> network from the licensed link via another licensed link to our second
> provider (no bgp at present) and i am putting in an EOIP tunnel from
> provider 2 back to provider 1 to be able to keep their IP space in play(it
> is what it is). So in essence they have three paths to egress with multiple
> redundancies.
>
> I am planning on MPLS between their three on network sites, hence the need
> for demarcation between us and their fortigates.
>
> If I can do this with a 50 dollar router that we keep on hand for
> residential CPE as well, that makes me happy.
>
>
> Is this convoluted enough?
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> We use RB951G-2HnD.  Yes it costs a few bucks more, but it’s worth it to
>> stock one router, and it has been very reliable.  If we were going through
>> boatloads of them, I guess we might look at stocking more models to save a
>> few bucks.
>>
>> For businesses that need more wired ports, or installations where we
>> think we need external antennas, we use RB2011UiAS-2HnD-N.  We also have a
>> few CRS125 models out there, like as a demarc for multiple tenants.
>>
>> I am debating whether to look at the new Cambium models, mainly to get an
>> 802.11ac product, but integrating the POE and ATA functions would simplify
>> wiring for residential customers.  Just not sure it would let us manage the
>> VoIP function the way we like, also not sure I want to give up the outboard
>> POE with surge protection.
>>
>>
>> *From:* Josh Luthman 
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 26, 2015 10:38 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CPE Mikrotik
>>
>> Router?  Rb2011 are great and about $100.  The 951 is cheaper for the
>> residents.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:19 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> back looking at a cpe mikrotik, I would prefer to stock one unit for
>>> residential and business customers, I just dont know what can actually
>>> handle what reliably.
>>>
>>> For the residential side, not much more than the equivalent of a ubnt
>>> air router, at that price point, i think at one point we were paying 29 a
>>> piece for 20 packs or something to that effect, i dont know if thats still
>>> accurate.
>>>
>>> on the business customer side it may need to participate in OSPF and
>>> MPLS/EOIP, wireless not being required.
>>>
>>> I would prefer Gigabit Ethernet, SPF not a requirement for the standard
>>> drop device.
>>>
>>> --
>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of