On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Adam Moffett
wrote:
> Just a theory.
>
Taking this to the private forum.
--
Jeremy Austin
(907) 895-2311 office
(907) 803-5422 cell
jhaus...@gmail.com
Heritage NetWorks
Whitestone Power & Communications
Vertical Broadband, LLC
Schedule a meeting: http://dood
ginal Message --
From: "Jeremy Austin" mailto:jhaus...@gmail.com>>
To: telrad@wispa.org <mailto:telrad@wispa.org>
Sent: 4/3/2017 7:03:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Nathan Anderson <mailto:nath...@fsr.com>>
earer, and if the SNMP traffic is significant enough, then one
or two low MCS UE could drag down a whole eNB until the polling was
completed.
Just a theory.
-- Original Message --
From: "Jeremy Austin"
To: telrad@wispa.org
Sent: 4/3/2017 7:03:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Up
C/IP pairs would need to be in your ethernet router's ARP table for any
traffic destined to any UE, too, not just SNMP or ICMP traffic.
-- Nathan
From: telrad-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of
Jeremy Austin
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 4:04 PM
To: telra
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Nathan Anderson wrote:
> Have you tried shutting off only the SNMP polling for a few cycles, but
> leaving the ICMP polling tests running?
>
>
>
This is why I said I've found the source, but not yet the cause. I'm going
to see if I can isolate SNMP from ICMP, depe
elrad@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Nathan Anderson
mailto:nath...@fsr.com>> wrote:
Jeremy mentioned his periodic traffic dips to me recently off-list.
I have found the source of the dips, if not the final cause. For a refresher,
th
r"
To: "Telrad List"
Sent: 4/3/2017 11:24:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
We are not using SNMP here just TR-069.
We do ping the UE.
Matt Carpenter
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Jeremy Austin
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Nathan Anderson
We are not using SNMP here just TR-069.
We do ping the UE.
Matt Carpenter
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Jeremy Austin wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Nathan Anderson wrote:
>
>> Jeremy mentioned his periodic traffic dips to me recently off-list.
>>
>
> I have found the source
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Nathan Anderson wrote:
> Jeremy mentioned his periodic traffic dips to me recently off-list.
>
I have found the source of the dips, if not the final cause. For a
refresher, this was a 10-second long forced dip in traffic — nearly to nil
on the uplink, and 75-80%
emy Austin
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:44 AM
To: telrad@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
Sorry, early morning WISPAMERICA brain.
What I meant to ask, Nathan, was how you captured both sides of PDN/EPC traffic
isolated from the CPE7000? The ingress I can understand, but t
ase (116).
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Nathan
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* telrad-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Nathan Anderson
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 15, 2017 1:47 AM
>> *To:* telrad@wispa.org
>>
>>
>
that. But the CPE7000 firmware we
> used for testing was the latest public release (116).
>
>
>
> -- Nathan
>
>
>
> *From:* telrad-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Nathan Anderson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 15, 2017 1:47 AM
>
spa.org] On Behalf Of
Nathan Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 1:47 AM
To: telrad@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
This is exactly it. We didn't have the visibility into things to see what was
causing the poor throughput at first (yet another one of our longstandi
un...@wispa.org [mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of
Adam Moffett
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:34 PM
To: telrad@wispa.org; telrad@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
* UE getting stuck at MCS4apparently until an S1 reset. This may or may
not be the same throughp
[mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of
Skywerx Support
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 8:58 PM
To: Adam Moffett; telrad@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
Um Boy! Here we go!!!
First off please re read my previous posts. We now have 18 eNB's online with 2
centralized
Our average is low to
Mid 20's on CINR and worst being between 10 and 12. We have 10 gig fiber
uplinks where the EPC's are located with licensed 2+0 to each tower where eNB's
are located. Latency between EPC and all eNB's is 1 ms or less.
--
Justin Davis
COO
SkyWerx Industries, LLC
> On Mar
Hi Justin,
What is your minimum CINR? What network do you have between your EPCs
and the eNB's?
Thanks!
On 3/14/17 10:58 PM, Skywerx Support wrote:
> We were contacted by Telrad to beta test their embedded EPC into eNB
> about a month ago. What can I say. It performs just like the other
> p
attern. I know we'll move forward with the
> rest of the migration, but I think I'm waiting for 6.6M first.
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Nathan Anderson"
> To: "telrad@wispa.org"
> Sent: 3/14/2017 5:43:50 PM
> Subject:
nk I'm waiting for 6.6M
first.
-- Original Message ------
From: "Nathan Anderson"
To: "telrad@wispa.org"
Sent: 3/14/2017 5:43:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
There really isn't much for me to add to Jeremy's excellent response.
As
and mostly
avoidable. There was a recurring reset issue that was only resolved a
few months ago.
-- Original Message --
From: "Nathan Anderson"
To: "telrad@wispa.org"
Sent: 3/9/2017 5:46:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
Your post comes at a
http://www.telrad.com/telrad-launches-new-lte-in-a-box/
-- Nathan
From: telrad-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of
Ian Fraser
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 4:12 PM
To: telrad@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
I didn't see this - what pr
I didn't see this - what product are you speaking of ?
On 14/03/2017 7:04 PM, Nathan Anderson wrote:
Telrad in correspondence with their WISPA event, it's clear that you
guys aren't even using the same product that the rest of us are
___
Telrad mail
ere it is
configured).
-- Nathan
From: telrad-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of
Nathan Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 2:44 PM
To: telrad@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
There really isn't much for me to add to Jeremy's exce
My .014 cents (Canadian eh?)
* Dedicated bearers getting carte blanche on the uplink (100%
reproducible within 5 minutes of trying to use the feature...how did
this manage to ship?)
Having worked for a Very Large Telecom equipment provider I can tell you
that sadly the 'industry standar
rver? Really??) on either the Compact or BreezeWay require a full system
reboot to be applied? I mean, what year is this?
-- Nathan
From: telrad-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of
Jeremy Austin
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 11:56 PM
To: telrad@wispa.org
Subject:
Justin,
"What's Different" is an excellent question; I can't speak for others on
this list.
What's different (in my case) is that we start from the assumption that our
experience should be as positive as yours. Success stories are great. How a
company handles success stories... they print a press
The Telrad Wispa forum is starting to remind me of the Ubiquiti forum. The
same exact people posting with the same exact issues. But only like three
people!!! Issues like why can't I put 80 people on a Rocket M5, or how do I
configure a Rocket M5?Why does service suck on my access points? Oh
On 3/9/2017 4:53 PM, Jeremy Austin wrote:
> I have been fairly quiet on list about our outstanding issues,
> thinking that they would be better solved by superior troubleshooting
> and Telrad engineering than by social engineering.
You are certainly not alone.
___
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Nathan Anderson wrote:
> I personally have lost countless hours of sleep and built up a tremendous
> sleep debt over maintaining this system, and have fallen behind on other
> duties (as well as life in general) as a result. I am trying not to sound
> snippy here,
un...@wispa.org<mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org>] On Behalf Of
Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:18 AM
To: telrad@wispa.org<mailto:telrad@wispa.org>
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
Interesting.
------ Original Message --
From: "Nathan Anderson&q
sedly support SNMP v2c, so we shouldn't be overrunning a 32-bit
> integer.
>
>
>
> -- Nathan
>
>
>
> *From:* telrad-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:18 AM
>
> *To:*
n...@wispa.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Hanson
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:54 PM
>
>
> *To:* telrad@wispa.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
>
>
>
> So then we need a read only root account. That would be very helpful.
>
>
>
> On 02/16/
I think you mean a non-privileged shell account. :)
Pedantically yours,
-- Nathan
From: telrad-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of
Hanson
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:54 PM
To: telrad@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
So then we need
So then we need a read only root account. That would be very helpful.
On 02/16/2017 11:58 AM, Jeremy Austin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Adam Moffett
mailto:ad...@clarityconnect.com>> wrote:
Is there a way to monitor CPU usage on the EPC?
other than repeating the 'top
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Adam Moffett
wrote:
> Is there a way to monitor CPU usage on the EPC?
> other than repeating the 'top' command.
>
I am told that there is not, for non-root users.
--
Jeremy Austin
(907) 895-2311
(907) 803-5422
jhaus...@gmail.com
Heritage NetWorks
Whitest
Is there a way to monitor CPU usage on the EPC?
other than repeating the 'top' command.
-- Original Message --
From: "Jeremy Austin"
To: "telrad@wispa.org"
Sent: 2/16/2017 10:04:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
Those icicles lo
Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:18 AM
>
>
> *To:* telrad@wispa.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
>
>
>
> Interesting.
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Nathan Anderson"
>
> To: &
o supposedly support
SNMP v2c, so we shouldn't be overrunning a 32-bit integer.
-- Nathan
From: telrad-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of
Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:18 AM
To: telrad@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink thro
Interesting.
-- Original Message --
From: "Nathan Anderson"
To: "telrad@wispa.org"
Sent: 2/16/2017 4:24:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
Jeremy mentioned his periodic traffic dips to me recently off-list. I
haven't seen anything exactly li
elrad-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of
Nathan Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 8:39 PM
To: telrad@wispa.org; Adam Moffett
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
The same bug exists on both the 7000 and the 8000? Seems unlikely.
I will have to keep my e
nt for GBR bearers, as discussed before. But it sure seems like what
> is happening is that whatever is supposed to be policing the uplink is
> mistakenly enforcing the UE UL AMBR on the dedicated bearer instead of the
> UL MBR.
>
>
>
> Ticket opened with Telrad.
>
>
>
: telrad@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
Weird. Maybe overflow from the dedicated bearer falls into the default bearer?
I also have to wonder if it's a bug in the UE. It seems like it must fall on
the UE to ultimately enforce the rate limit.
In our uplink throu
n"
To: "telrad@wispa.org" ; "'Adam Moffett'"
Sent: 2/10/2017 3:59:40 PM
Subject: RE: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
So last night, I re-ran this test again, and captured the whole thing
not just at the edge of the LTE network coming out of the EPC, but
between
-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of
Nathan Anderson
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 3:56 PM
To: 'Adam Moffett'; telrad@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
Then maybe the problem is not that the properly-marked upload traffic isn't
gett
, B, and C?
-- Nathan
From: telrad-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of
Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 2:50 PM
To: telrad@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
Somewhere there must be traffic counters for each QCI, or for individual
b
E Mgmt DSCP set to 5. I don't know why.
-Adam
-- Original Message --
From: "Nathan Anderson"
To: "telrad@wispa.org" ; "'Adam Moffett'"
Sent: 2/6/2017 5:11:49 PM
Subject: RE: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
...also, I still remain u
thin that limit, then I think they'll need to use an
external system for that.
-- Original Message --
From: "Nathan Anderson"
To: "'Adam Moffett'" ; "telrad@wispa.org"
Sent: 2/6/2017 5:06:29 PM
Subject: RE: [Telrad] Uplink throughput ag
dam Moffett'; telrad@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
Something that I learned that I should point out:
A dedicated bearer with a higher priority should take precedence over default
bearer traffic, yes. But from what I can tell, LTE spec. does not have a way
of putting a tota
ndesk about it. Use DSCP 6 because that's tagged by default in
the UE.
-- Original Message --
From: "Jeremy Austin" mailto:jhaus...@gmail.com>>
To: "Adam Moffett" mailto:ad...@clarityconnect.com>>;
telrad@wispa.org<mailto:telrad@wispa.org>
Sent: 2
use that's tagged by default in the UE.
-- Original Message --
From: "Jeremy Austin"
To: "Adam Moffett" ; telrad@wispa.org
Sent: 2/6/2017 4:30:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Adam Moffett
wrote:
Can
lrad-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:telrad-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of
Jeremy Austin
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 1:31 PM
To: Adam Moffett; telrad@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [Telrad] Uplink throughput again
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Adam Moffett
mailto:ad...@clarityconnect.com>>
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Adam Moffett
wrote:
> Can somebody tell me if they're getting expected uplink throughput?
>
>
What ENB and EPC revisions are you at, Adam?
We're investigating this same issue ourselves, although we haven't tried a
dedicated bearer.
--
Jeremy Austin
(907) 895
52 matches
Mail list logo
