Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!

[Robert West]

Yep.  Right now I can check, uncheck..  All the same.  Still passes
through.  They should default it to pass through and forget about it.



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Greg Ihnen
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 6:57 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!

I just upgraded my units to 5.2.1. In the GUI the passthrough checkbox is
unchecked even though it's passing through. I checked the box, applied, and
it's still unchecked but passing through.

On the forum someone told me to reset the unit, reflash the firmware, and
reset it again. I'm going to do that later.

Greg

On Sep 26, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Robert West wrote:

> Same browser as when  I configured it and I can still turn the secondary
ether PoE on and off on other Nano5Ms.  
> 
> Am running 5.2.1, yeah, even downgraded.  Posts on UBNT forums are
building on this issue.  After 20 days or so it will burn out.
> 
> 
> Here is what I came up with after I took it down.  This is part of my post
to the forums
> 
> 
> . I had an AirGrid set on a 15 foot mast out at the road
for a customer because of trees. Ran an underground line of double shielded,
flooded Cat5, direct bury, with ground wire. Everything grounded and working
fine. His neighbor wanted service so I swapped the grid out with a Nano5M,
plugged a Nano Loco into the secondary ether pointing to another nano in the
neighbors window. Ran just fine for almost a month THEN crazy issues.
Neighbor lost connection but the customer hard wired into the Nano5m was
just fine. Thought it might be a bad crimp on the jumper, replaced it, it
fired up. Was a mess ever since. Power on, off, on, off. 
> 
> Then I saw the PoE Pass-through checkbox empty. Checked it, applied, box
again empty. Couldn't get it to stick. Did a truck roll, power to NanoL
gone. 
> 
> Took the Nano5M down and brought to the shop. Bench tested. No secondary
power, no check in the box. Diud a hard reset. Still nothing. Downgraded
firmware, another hard reset. Secondary Port now ON! BUT. Checkbox
still empty. 
> 
> Checked the box, applied. Check still in the box. Remove check, apply,
check gone, BUT power still on at the secondary port! I can not turn off the
power to the secondary power! Upgraded firmware Hard reset. Still on no
matter is box is checked or not. 
> 
> Now for the REST of the story and my guess on this..
> 
> The cable run to the pole is 100 feet. I used the 15V UBNT power injector
that came with the Nano5M. After the install I checked the operation and all
was as smooth as silk. Quick booting, fast throughput on both units.
> 
> When I took the unit down and got it operating I was also using a 15v UBNT
power injector however my cable length on the bench was only 8 feet. I
watched the lights on the nano and also watched how long UBNT Discovery
utility took to pick it up. Long. It looked like it was struggling to
connect to the wired lan. After it came up I plugged a bullet into the
secondary port and power cycled it all. Long struggle to connect to the
wired lan. Sometimes Discovery would see it, sometimes not. 
> 
> So.. Pulled out an OLD 3Com 24V 3A power injector and plugged the
setup into it. Fired up FAST! Fired up every time and would not fail. Still
unable to turn off the power to the secondary port so I reinstalled the unit
at the customer site but with the 24V 3A power injector. It's been running
almost 24 hours now and I'm able to talk to everything connected to it
remotely and all pings are perfect.
> 
> My guess.. It was under powered. It may have not had enough power to
keep the secondary port powered, damaged the switching circuit and is now
stuck giving power to the secondary port with no way of turning it off.
Possible constant fluttering of the circuit on and off burned it out.
> 
> With it being stuck on, it's good for now. I wouldn't mind not having an
option to turn off the Poe, it can always be on as far as I'm concerned. Or
if nothing else, have it default to on in case of a failure of the switching
circuit..
> 
> 
> Bob-
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
> On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 10:30 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Cc: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!
> 
> Two quick points,  I have seen something like this due to browser.what
browser are u usingdid you try a different browser.
> 
> Also, 5.2.1 full has been released...try that as well...
> 
> 
> Faisal
> 
> On Sep 26, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
> 
>> I had some trouble with an NS5M running 5.2.1 RC2.
>> 
>> Short version:
>> 
>> I had some weirdness tonight. I was looking at network traffic with
Wireshark and noticed "CDP - Cisco Discovery Protocol" (UBNT calls it "extra
reportin

Re: [WISPA] MUM

[Dennis Burgess]

Shuttle J  

 

 

---
Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
 
LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training 
- Author of "Learn RouterOS"   

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 8:29 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MUM

 

Best way to get to the conference center from the airport?

On 9/26/2010 5:00 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote: 

If anyone is interested, hitting up the Hotel Bar/Grill for some food
and drinks!   

 

 

---
Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
 
LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training 
- Author of "Learn RouterOS"   

 

 
 
 
 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - Sept. 23rd, 2010

[Jeremie Chism]

This was probably already answered but what is the theoretical range given the 
power limits in the upper channels. 

Sent from my iPhone4

On Sep 26, 2010, at 9:30 PM, Forbes Mercy  wrote:

> I have 12 towers surrounding Yakima with my head-end in Moxee.
> 
> On 9/26/2010 10:28 AM, MDK wrote:
>> 
>> It appears that you have, even if VHF-Lo turns out to be not workable, 
>> several UHF channels. 
>>  
>> Of course, if you have real estate on   the hills to the north, 
>> east, and south, you're not too bad off, either.   
>>  
>> ( wife's mother lives in Yakima, son's going to be going to YVCC sometime 
>> soon, I think, I know the place somewhat.)
>>  
>> I ran the center of town type of scenario,  putting the spot somewhere a 
>> little west of the railroad tracks and just south of the downtown corridor.  
>>  I suspect it may change if you move out toward Moxee or  through the gap 
>> out toward Wapato, or up north toward Naches.  
>>  
>> The spectrumbridge tool works pretty decently, but it lacks explanation of 
>> some of the features.   
>>  
>>  
>> ++
>> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
>> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
>> ++
>> 
>> From: Forbes Mercy
>> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 8:29 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - Sept. 23rd, 
>> 2010
>> 
>> Well since I'm Yakima you now have my attention!
>> 
>> Forbes Mercy
>> President - Washington Broadband, Inc.
>> 
>> On 9/25/2010 5:00 PM, MDK wrote:  
>>> 
>>> Your sarcasm would be, well, effective, if I weren't correct about there 
>>> being no way to use it.   No other WISP is going to be able to do what I 
>>> can't do, either, Jack. 
>>>  
>>> In my town, there is ONE UHF channel.   6 mhz.   That's it.  In the 
>>> mountains, where we need it due to forest, it can't be done.Get 
>>> yourself a copy of Radio Mobile and check your HAAT, RM uses the FCC's 
>>> requirement as its defaults. 
>>>  
>>> There's ONE VHF-HI channel.Two VHF-LO channels.   And, as mentioned, 
>>> the VHF low is so susceptible to noise I doubt anyone will even try to make 
>>> anything work there.   One flourescent light on and your internet goes 
>>> dead...
>>>  
>>> So, while this is fantastic in theory,  in reality, this spectrum will not 
>>> be useable to signficant level, by many WISP's.  If you use the tools you 
>>> have and start inspecting your sites, you'll find that there's a lot more 
>>> use of TV space than you knew.And, some places are amazingly open.  
>>>  
>>> However, some of the rural guys will find lots of space.   I hope, anyway. 
>>>  
>>> Gresham, OR,  - 2 channels
>>> Portland, OR,  - 2 channels
>>>  
>>> Spokane, WA,  12 channels - but a good chunk won't work due to HAAT 
>>> limitations.
>>> Libby, MT, 37 channels
>>> Moro, or, 36 channels ( population, 400?)
>>> Tacoma, WA, 12 channels
>>> yakima, WA , 14
>>> Lawrence, KS.  12
>>>  
>>> The majority of examples above include at least half the channels in VHF.   
>>> As I noted before, there ARE obstacles to overcome in using VHF, especially 
>>> VHF-lo.   Even VHF-hi could prove to be seriously susceptible to 
>>> interference.Also,  the VHF and and sometimes even UHF frequencies are 
>>> subject to interference by "skip", which will cause cyclical interference 
>>> issues, by broadcasters far, far away.   We'll find out when either makers 
>>> trials leak results,  or when people start trying. 
>>>  
>>> These are some of the technical issues that will become part of our 
>>> vocabulary as we try to move into this.   Has anyone here seen any trials 
>>> done in the VHF frequencies?   
>>>  
>>> I did some propagation examples in my town, using RM and UHF, and it 
>>> appears we're going to be limited to around 1.5 miles max distance, unless 
>>> you can get your antenna near max height, both AP and client due the fact 
>>> the fresnel zone is HUGE!  
>>>  
>>> I didn't dry the VHF bands, as I couldn't find quickly find any antenna 
>>> specs published for the frequencies. 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> ++
>>> Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
>>> 541-969-8200  509-386-4589
>>> ++
>>> 
>>> From: Jack Unger
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 3:53 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - Sept. 
>>> 23rd, 2010
>>> 
>>> Hello Mark,
>>> 
>>> Thank-you for your comments and thanks in advance for agreeing not to use 
>>> the available TV White Space channels in your area. That will leave those 
>>> open for another WISP to use. 
>>> 
>>> Thank you again and best regards, 
>>> 
>>> jack
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 

Re: [WISPA] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - Sept. 23rd, 2010

[Forbes Mercy]

 I have 12 towers surrounding Yakima with my head-end in Moxee.

On 9/26/2010 10:28 AM, MDK wrote:
It appears that you have, even if VHF-Lo turns out to be not workable, 
several UHF channels.
Of course, if you have real estate on the hills to the north, east, 
and south, you're not too bad off, either.
( wife's mother lives in Yakima, son's going to be going to YVCC 
sometime soon, I think, I know the place somewhat.)
I ran the center of town type of scenario,  putting the spot somewhere 
a little west of the railroad tracks and just south of the downtown 
corridor.   I suspect it may change if you move out toward Moxee or  
through the gap out toward Wapato, or up north toward Naches.
The spectrumbridge tool works pretty decently, but it lacks 
explanation of some of the features.

++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

*From:* Forbes Mercy 
*Sent:* Saturday, September 25, 2010 8:29 PM
*To:* WISPA General List 
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - 
Sept. 23rd, 2010


Well since I'm Yakima you now have my attention!

Forbes Mercy
President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

On 9/25/2010 5:00 PM, MDK wrote:
Your sarcasm would be, well, effective, if I weren't correct about 
there being no way to use it.   No other WISP is going to be able to 
do what I can't do, either, Jack.
In my town, there is ONE UHF channel.   6 mhz.   That's it.  In the 
mountains, where we need it due to forest, it can't be done.Get 
yourself a copy of Radio Mobile and check your HAAT, RM uses the 
FCC's requirement as its defaults.
There's ONE VHF-HI channel.Two VHF-LO channels.   And, as 
mentioned, the VHF low is so susceptible to noise I doubt anyone will 
even try to make anything work there.   One flourescent light on and 
your internet goes dead...
So, while this is fantastic in theory,  in reality, this spectrum 
will not be useable to signficant level, by many WISP's.  If you use 
the tools you have and start inspecting your sites, you'll find that 
there's a lot more use of TV space than you knew.And, some places 
are amazingly open.
However, some of the rural guys will find lots of space.   I hope, 
anyway.

Gresham, OR,  - 2 channels
Portland, OR,  - 2 channels
Spokane, WA,  12 channels - but a good chunk won't work due to HAAT 
limitations.

Libby, MT, 37 channels
Moro, or, 36 channels ( population, 400?)
Tacoma, WA, 12 channels
yakima, WA , 14
Lawrence, KS.  12
The majority of examples above include at least half the channels in 
VHF.   As I noted before, there ARE obstacles to overcome in using 
VHF, especially VHF-lo.   Even VHF-hi could prove to be seriously 
susceptible to interference.Also,  the VHF and and sometimes even 
UHF frequencies are subject to interference by "skip", which will 
cause cyclical interference issues, by broadcasters far, far away.   
We'll find out when either makers trials leak results,  or when 
people start trying.
These are some of the technical issues that will become part of our 
vocabulary as we try to move into this.   Has anyone here seen any 
trials done in the VHF frequencies?
I did some propagation examples in my town, using RM and UHF, and it 
appears we're going to be limited to around 1.5 miles max distance, 
unless you can get your antenna near max height, both AP and client 
due the fact the fresnel zone is HUGE!
I didn't dry the VHF bands, as I couldn't find quickly find any 
antenna specs published for the frequencies.

++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

*From:* Jack Unger 
*Sent:* Saturday, September 25, 2010 3:53 PM
*To:* WISPA General List 
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - 
Sept. 23rd, 2010


Hello Mark,

Thank-you for your comments and thanks in advance for agreeing not to 
use the available TV White Space channels in your area. That will 
leave those open for another WISP to use.


Thank you again and best regards,

jack






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List:wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives:http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Arch

Re: [WISPA] MUM

[Forbes Mercy]

 Best way to get to the conference center from the airport?

On 9/26/2010 5:00 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote:


If anyone is interested, hitting up the Hotel Bar/Grill for some food 
and drinks!


*---
Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
**Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net 

*/LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training 
 - Author of "Learn RouterOS" 
 /*






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] MUM

[Blake Covarrubias]

Its just an Axiomtek NA-720 820 I believe. Look 'em up.

--
Blake Covarrubias

On Sep 26, 2010, at 17:16, Francois Menard  wrote:

> Las mail was meant to be private.
> But I can deal with the fact that this is also publicly known now...
> 
> F.
> 
> On 2010-09-26, at 8:14 PM, Francois Menard wrote:
> 
>> Dennis,
>> 
>> I want to OEM your powerrouter 732's to put a SIP proxy on them.
>> 
>> Are you bringing in one on site ?
>> 
>> F.
>> 
>> On 2010-09-26, at 8:00 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
>> 
>>> If anyone is interested, hitting up the Hotel Bar/Grill for some food and 
>>> drinks!  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
>>> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>>> Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
>>> LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>> 
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> 
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] MUM

[Dennis Burgess]

Btw.. Good prime rib... Large pizza is huge too..



-Original Message-
From: Dennis Burgess 
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 5:00 PM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: [WISPA] MUM

If anyone is interested, hitting up the Hotel Bar/Grill for some food
and drinks!   

 

 

---
Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
 
LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training 
- Author of "Learn RouterOS"   

 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] MUM

[Francois Menard]

Las mail was meant to be private.
But I can deal with the fact that this is also publicly known now...

F.

On 2010-09-26, at 8:14 PM, Francois Menard wrote:

> Dennis,
> 
> I want to OEM your powerrouter 732's to put a SIP proxy on them.
> 
> Are you bringing in one on site ?
> 
> F.
> 
> On 2010-09-26, at 8:00 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
> 
>> If anyone is interested, hitting up the Hotel Bar/Grill for some food and 
>> drinks!  
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
>> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>> Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
>> LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> 
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] MUM

[Francois Menard]

Dennis,

I want to OEM your powerrouter 732's to put a SIP proxy on them.

Are you bringing in one on site ?

F.

On 2010-09-26, at 8:00 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote:

> If anyone is interested, hitting up the Hotel Bar/Grill for some food and 
> drinks!  
>  
>  
> ---
> Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
> Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
> LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS"
>  
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] MUM

[Francois Menard]

Anytime. Let me know when. Coming from Quebec. Look forward to meet you all.

I'm meeting JJ wednesday and am going to bug him about his 3.65 strategy.

F.

On 2010-09-26, at 8:00 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote:

> If anyone is interested, hitting up the Hotel Bar/Grill for some food and 
> drinks!  
>  
>  
> ---
> Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
> Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
> LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS"
>  
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] MUM

[Dennis Burgess]

If anyone is interested, hitting up the Hotel Bar/Grill for some food
and drinks!   

 

 

---
Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
 
LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training 
- Author of "Learn RouterOS"   

 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!

[Greg Ihnen]

I just upgraded my units to 5.2.1. In the GUI the passthrough checkbox is 
unchecked even though it's passing through. I checked the box, applied, and 
it's still unchecked but passing through.

On the forum someone told me to reset the unit, reflash the firmware, and reset 
it again. I'm going to do that later.

Greg

On Sep 26, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Robert West wrote:

> Same browser as when  I configured it and I can still turn the secondary 
> ether PoE on and off on other Nano5Ms.  
> 
> Am running 5.2.1, yeah, even downgraded.  Posts on UBNT forums are building 
> on this issue.  After 20 days or so it will burn out.
> 
> 
> Here is what I came up with after I took it down.  This is part of my post to 
> the forums
> 
> 
> . I had an AirGrid set on a 15 foot mast out at the road for 
> a customer because of trees. Ran an underground line of double shielded, 
> flooded Cat5, direct bury, with ground wire. Everything grounded and working 
> fine. His neighbor wanted service so I swapped the grid out with a Nano5M, 
> plugged a Nano Loco into the secondary ether pointing to another nano in the 
> neighbors window. Ran just fine for almost a month THEN crazy issues. 
> Neighbor lost connection but the customer hard wired into the Nano5m was just 
> fine. Thought it might be a bad crimp on the jumper, replaced it, it fired 
> up. Was a mess ever since. Power on, off, on, off. 
> 
> Then I saw the PoE Pass-through checkbox empty. Checked it, applied, box 
> again empty. Couldn't get it to stick. Did a truck roll, power to NanoL gone. 
> 
> Took the Nano5M down and brought to the shop. Bench tested. No secondary 
> power, no check in the box. Diud a hard reset. Still nothing. Downgraded 
> firmware, another hard reset. Secondary Port now ON! BUT. Checkbox 
> still empty. 
> 
> Checked the box, applied. Check still in the box. Remove check, apply, check 
> gone, BUT power still on at the secondary port! I can not turn off the power 
> to the secondary power! Upgraded firmware Hard reset. Still on no matter 
> is box is checked or not. 
> 
> Now for the REST of the story and my guess on this..
> 
> The cable run to the pole is 100 feet. I used the 15V UBNT power injector 
> that came with the Nano5M. After the install I checked the operation and all 
> was as smooth as silk. Quick booting, fast throughput on both units.
> 
> When I took the unit down and got it operating I was also using a 15v UBNT 
> power injector however my cable length on the bench was only 8 feet. I 
> watched the lights on the nano and also watched how long UBNT Discovery 
> utility took to pick it up. Long. It looked like it was struggling to connect 
> to the wired lan. After it came up I plugged a bullet into the secondary port 
> and power cycled it all. Long struggle to connect to the wired lan. Sometimes 
> Discovery would see it, sometimes not. 
> 
> So.. Pulled out an OLD 3Com 24V 3A power injector and plugged the 
> setup into it. Fired up FAST! Fired up every time and would not fail. Still 
> unable to turn off the power to the secondary port so I reinstalled the unit 
> at the customer site but with the 24V 3A power injector. It's been running 
> almost 24 hours now and I'm able to talk to everything connected to it 
> remotely and all pings are perfect.
> 
> My guess.. It was under powered. It may have not had enough power to keep 
> the secondary port powered, damaged the switching circuit and is now stuck 
> giving power to the secondary port with no way of turning it off. Possible 
> constant fluttering of the circuit on and off burned it out.
> 
> With it being stuck on, it's good for now. I wouldn't mind not having an 
> option to turn off the Poe, it can always be on as far as I'm concerned. Or 
> if nothing else, have it default to on in case of a failure of the switching 
> circuit..
> 
> 
> Bob-
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 10:30 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Cc: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!
> 
> Two quick points,  I have seen something like this due to browser.what 
> browser are u usingdid you try a different browser.
> 
> Also, 5.2.1 full has been released...try that as well...
> 
> 
> Faisal
> 
> On Sep 26, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
> 
>> I had some trouble with an NS5M running 5.2.1 RC2.
>> 
>> Short version:
>> 
>> I had some weirdness tonight. I was looking at network traffic with 
>> Wireshark and noticed "CDP - Cisco Discovery Protocol" (UBNT calls it "extra 
>> reporting") traffic coming from one of the NS5M's on my back haul. I had 
>> turned that off. I browsed into the unit in question and sure enough enable 
>> extra reporting was checked again! I unchecked the "enable extra reporting" 
>> box and apply the settings many times and it k

Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!

[Robert West]

Same browser as when  I configured it and I can still turn the secondary ether 
PoE on and off on other Nano5Ms.  

Am running 5.2.1, yeah, even downgraded.  Posts on UBNT forums are building on 
this issue.  After 20 days or so it will burn out.


Here is what I came up with after I took it down.  This is part of my post to 
the forums


. I had an AirGrid set on a 15 foot mast out at the road for a 
customer because of trees. Ran an underground line of double shielded, flooded 
Cat5, direct bury, with ground wire. Everything grounded and working fine. His 
neighbor wanted service so I swapped the grid out with a Nano5M, plugged a Nano 
Loco into the secondary ether pointing to another nano in the neighbors window. 
Ran just fine for almost a month THEN crazy issues. Neighbor lost connection 
but the customer hard wired into the Nano5m was just fine. Thought it might be 
a bad crimp on the jumper, replaced it, it fired up. Was a mess ever since. 
Power on, off, on, off. 

Then I saw the PoE Pass-through checkbox empty. Checked it, applied, box again 
empty. Couldn't get it to stick. Did a truck roll, power to NanoL gone. 

Took the Nano5M down and brought to the shop. Bench tested. No secondary power, 
no check in the box. Diud a hard reset. Still nothing. Downgraded firmware, 
another hard reset. Secondary Port now ON! BUT. Checkbox still empty. 

Checked the box, applied. Check still in the box. Remove check, apply, check 
gone, BUT power still on at the secondary port! I can not turn off the power to 
the secondary power! Upgraded firmware Hard reset. Still on no matter is 
box is checked or not. 

Now for the REST of the story and my guess on this..

The cable run to the pole is 100 feet. I used the 15V UBNT power injector that 
came with the Nano5M. After the install I checked the operation and all was as 
smooth as silk. Quick booting, fast throughput on both units.

When I took the unit down and got it operating I was also using a 15v UBNT 
power injector however my cable length on the bench was only 8 feet. I watched 
the lights on the nano and also watched how long UBNT Discovery utility took to 
pick it up. Long. It looked like it was struggling to connect to the wired lan. 
After it came up I plugged a bullet into the secondary port and power cycled it 
all. Long struggle to connect to the wired lan. Sometimes Discovery would see 
it, sometimes not. 

So.. Pulled out an OLD 3Com 24V 3A power injector and plugged the setup 
into it. Fired up FAST! Fired up every time and would not fail. Still unable to 
turn off the power to the secondary port so I reinstalled the unit at the 
customer site but with the 24V 3A power injector. It's been running almost 24 
hours now and I'm able to talk to everything connected to it remotely and all 
pings are perfect.

My guess.. It was under powered. It may have not had enough power to keep 
the secondary port powered, damaged the switching circuit and is now stuck 
giving power to the secondary port with no way of turning it off. Possible 
constant fluttering of the circuit on and off burned it out.

With it being stuck on, it's good for now. I wouldn't mind not having an option 
to turn off the Poe, it can always be on as far as I'm concerned. Or if nothing 
else, have it default to on in case of a failure of the switching 
circuit..


Bob-


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 10:30 AM
To: WISPA General List
Cc: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!

Two quick points,  I have seen something like this due to browser.what 
browser are u usingdid you try a different browser.

Also, 5.2.1 full has been released...try that as well...


Faisal

On Sep 26, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:

> I had some trouble with an NS5M running 5.2.1 RC2.
> 
> Short version:
> 
> I had some weirdness tonight. I was looking at network traffic with Wireshark 
> and noticed "CDP - Cisco Discovery Protocol" (UBNT calls it "extra 
> reporting") traffic coming from one of the NS5M's on my back haul. I had 
> turned that off. I browsed into the unit in question and sure enough enable 
> extra reporting was checked again! I unchecked the "enable extra reporting" 
> box and apply the settings many times and it kept coming back checked. It was 
> a long process to get the settings how I wanted but I finally got everything 
> the way I wanted it, though no matter what I do the "POE passthrough" box 
> remains unchecked even though I checked it and applied the settings many 
> times. It is passing POE so I'm just disregarding the checkbox and hoping 
> it's just a glitch in the UI.
> 
> Long version:
> 
> I took notes through this process for my own reference and to make sure I 
> could tell the story accurately to UBNT.
> 
> (Through the process below I tire

Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!

[Greg Ihnen]

Yeah, I've seen funny browser stuff too, so I tried all three below.

Browsers: Safari 5.0.2, Firefox 3.6.10, Chrome 6.0.427.63. (all under Mac OS X)

I have Win XP and 7 so I could try IE if you think that would help. I kind of 
doubt it after already trying 3.

I'll try 5.2.1. Thanks!

Greg

On Sep 26, 2010, at 9:59 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

> Two quick points,  I have seen something like this due to browser.what 
> browser are u usingdid you try a different browser.
> 
> Also, 5.2.1 full has been released...try that as well...
> 
> 
> Faisal




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height

[Josh Luthman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency#Comparison_table

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


On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 2:03 PM, John Scrivner  wrote:

> The actual frequency band has nothing to do with data capacity. The
> carrier CHANNEL BANDWIDTH is the important number. If a 6 megahertz
> wide channel is used at say 200-206 MHz then any modulation system
> used on that carrier should be able to carry the same amount of data
> as an equivalent channel at say 600-606 MHz. Note both carriers are 6
> MHz wide. The capacity of the channel is determined by the spectral
> efficiency of the system used to modulate and demodulate the
> information from the channel's carrier(s). Do a Google search on
> Nyquist / Shannon's Law / maximum bits per hertz to get a more
> thorough understanding of the concepts. What we see in most of the
> current systems we use for fixed wireless broadband are spectral
> efficiencies from 0.5 to 10 bits per hertz. Some estimates say that we
> will see roughly 17 bits per hertz from WiMAX and LTE deployments in
> the coming months / years. This in large part due to the advancements
> from MIMO which allows for in-channel reuse of the carrier bandwidth.
> John Scrivner
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Scott Reed 
> wrote:
> > That is not exactly true.  Depends on the modulation techniques.  And I
> > believe there is an upper limit to the number of bits you can get on a
> > single cycle of the carrier.
> >
> > On 9/25/2010 10:32 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> >
> > Just as fast as any other frequency.
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> >
> > On 9/24/2010 5:50 PM, RickG wrote:
> >
> > But how fast can 200 or 300MHz go?
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Brian Webster
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That
> >> certainly goes through trees.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Brian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> >> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM
> >> To: WISPA General List
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick
> forest/trees
> >> easilly 70ft tall.
> >>
> >> A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open
> air,
> >> and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path.
> >>
> >> In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree
> line
> >> and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile
> >> coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market.
> >>
> >> All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than
> >> 900 does.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I would have liked to see that height doubled.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas
> >> that have a limited number of channels available.
> >>
> >> Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom DeReggi
> >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> - Original Message -
> >>
> >> From: Fred Goldstein
> >>
> >> To: WISPA General List
> >>
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it
> >> useless to WISPs in much of the country.
> >>
> >> In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75
> meters,
> >> there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT.  I
> >> notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper
> >> midwest.
> >>
> >> In a place like Kansas, nobody is >75m AAT.  But in the woody Berkshires
> >> of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the
> trees,
> >> and a significant share of houses are >75m AAT.  Also, if you want to
> cover
> >> a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too.  75
> meters
> >> isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise.
> >>
> >> It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT
> >> if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away.  A more
> >> sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP
> based
> >> on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is
> held
> >> constant as the height rises.  Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up
> to
> >> 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less
> than
> >> the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights.
> >>
> >> Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over.
> >>
> >> At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmi

Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height

[John Scrivner]

The actual frequency band has nothing to do with data capacity. The
carrier CHANNEL BANDWIDTH is the important number. If a 6 megahertz
wide channel is used at say 200-206 MHz then any modulation system
used on that carrier should be able to carry the same amount of data
as an equivalent channel at say 600-606 MHz. Note both carriers are 6
MHz wide. The capacity of the channel is determined by the spectral
efficiency of the system used to modulate and demodulate the
information from the channel's carrier(s). Do a Google search on
Nyquist / Shannon's Law / maximum bits per hertz to get a more
thorough understanding of the concepts. What we see in most of the
current systems we use for fixed wireless broadband are spectral
efficiencies from 0.5 to 10 bits per hertz. Some estimates say that we
will see roughly 17 bits per hertz from WiMAX and LTE deployments in
the coming months / years. This in large part due to the advancements
from MIMO which allows for in-channel reuse of the carrier bandwidth.
John Scrivner


On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Scott Reed  wrote:
> That is not exactly true.  Depends on the modulation techniques.  And I
> believe there is an upper limit to the number of bits you can get on a
> single cycle of the carrier.
>
> On 9/25/2010 10:32 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> Just as fast as any other frequency.
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> On 9/24/2010 5:50 PM, RickG wrote:
>
> But how fast can 200 or 300MHz go?
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Brian Webster
>  wrote:
>>
>> But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That
>> certainly goes through trees.
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>>
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:32 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>>
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, that really sucks. Many areas needing served have thick forest/trees
>> easilly 70ft tall.
>>
>> A 90ft height, just wouldn't allow enough of the signal to have open air,
>> and the signal would be going through trees most of the full path.
>>
>> In 900Mhz, the difference between having the tower side over the tree line
>> and below the tree line can be the difference between a quarter mile
>> coverage and a 7 mile coverage in our market.
>>
>> All be it, 700Mhz does have better NLOS propogation characteristics than
>> 900 does.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would have liked to see that height doubled.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, admittedly, it will allow much better spectrum re-use in areas
>> that have a limited number of channels available.
>>
>> Spectrum reuse is one of the best ways to serve more people.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>
>> From: Fred Goldstein
>>
>> To: WISPA General List
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:36 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height
>>
>>
>>
>> This item alone may be the show-stopper, the poison pill that makes it
>> useless to WISPs in much of the country.
>>
>> In places where the routine variation in elevation is more than 75 meters,
>> there will be houses (subscribers) that are more than 76 meters AAT.  I
>> notice this in the areas I'm studying, both in the east and in the upper
>> midwest.
>>
>> In a place like Kansas, nobody is >75m AAT.  But in the woody Berkshires
>> of Western Massachusetts, the UHF space is needed to get through the trees,
>> and a significant share of houses are >75m AAT.  Also, if you want to cover
>> a decent radius, the access point needs to be up the hill too.  75 meters
>> isn't a mountaintop; it's just a little rise.
>>
>> It makes no sense to absolutely ban fixed use at a site that is 100m AAT
>> if the nearest protected-service contour is, say, 50 miles away.  A more
>> sensible rule would be to follow broadcast practice, and lower the ERP based
>> on height, so that the distance to a given signal strength contour is held
>> constant as the height rises.  Hence a Class A FM station is allowed up to
>> 15 miles, and if it is more than 300 feet AAT, then it is allowed less than
>> the 3000 watts ERP that apply at lower heights.
>>
>> Maybe the lawyers want to have more petitions to argue over.
>>
>> At 9/23/2010 04:07 PM, Rich Harnish wrote:
>>
>>
>> 65. Decision. We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit
>> antenna height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission
>> stated in the Second Report and Order, the 30 meters above ground limit was
>> established as a balance between the benefits of increasing TV bands device
>> transmission range and the need to minimize the impact on licensed
>> services.129 Consistent with the Commission’s stated approach in the Second
>> Report and Order of taking a conservative approach in protecting authorized
>> services, we find the prudent course of ac

Re: [WISPA] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - Sept. 23rd, 2010

[MDK]

It appears that you have, even if VHF-Lo turns out to be not workable, several 
UHF channels.  

Of course, if you have real estate on the hills to the north, east, and south, 
you're not too bad off, either.   

( wife's mother lives in Yakima, son's going to be going to YVCC sometime soon, 
I think, I know the place somewhat.)

I ran the center of town type of scenario,  putting the spot somewhere a little 
west of the railroad tracks and just south of the downtown corridor.   I 
suspect it may change if you move out toward Moxee or  through the gap out 
toward Wapato, or up north toward Naches.   

The spectrumbridge tool works pretty decently, but it lacks explanation of some 
of the features.   


++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++


From: Forbes Mercy 
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 8:29 PM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - Sept. 23rd, 
2010


Well since I'm Yakima you now have my attention!

Forbes Mercy
President - Washington Broadband, Inc.

On 9/25/2010 5:00 PM, MDK wrote: 
  Your sarcasm would be, well, effective, if I weren't correct about there 
being no way to use it.   No other WISP is going to be able to do what I can't 
do, either, Jack.  

  In my town, there is ONE UHF channel.   6 mhz.   That's it.  In the 
mountains, where we need it due to forest, it can't be done.Get yourself a 
copy of Radio Mobile and check your HAAT, RM uses the FCC's requirement as its 
defaults.  

  There's ONE VHF-HI channel.Two VHF-LO channels.   And, as mentioned, the 
VHF low is so susceptible to noise I doubt anyone will even try to make 
anything work there.   One flourescent light on and your internet goes dead...

  So, while this is fantastic in theory,  in reality, this spectrum will not be 
useable to signficant level, by many WISP's.  If you use the tools you have and 
start inspecting your sites, you'll find that there's a lot more use of TV 
space than you knew.And, some places are amazingly open.   

  However, some of the rural guys will find lots of space.   I hope, anyway.  

  Gresham, OR,  - 2 channels
  Portland, OR,  - 2 channels

  Spokane, WA,  12 channels - but a good chunk won't work due to HAAT 
limitations.
  Libby, MT, 37 channels
  Moro, or, 36 channels ( population, 400?)
  Tacoma, WA, 12 channels
  yakima, WA , 14
  Lawrence, KS.  12

  The majority of examples above include at least half the channels in VHF.   
As I noted before, there ARE obstacles to overcome in using VHF, especially 
VHF-lo.   Even VHF-hi could prove to be seriously susceptible to interference.  
  Also,  the VHF and and sometimes even UHF frequencies are subject to 
interference by "skip", which will cause cyclical interference issues, by 
broadcasters far, far away.   We'll find out when either makers trials leak 
results,  or when people start trying.  

  These are some of the technical issues that will become part of our 
vocabulary as we try to move into this.   Has anyone here seen any trials done 
in the VHF frequencies?   

  I did some propagation examples in my town, using RM and UHF, and it appears 
we're going to be limited to around 1.5 miles max distance, unless you can get 
your antenna near max height, both AP and client due the fact the fresnel zone 
is HUGE!   

  I didn't dry the VHF bands, as I couldn't find quickly find any antenna specs 
published for the frequencies.  



  ++
  Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
  541-969-8200  509-386-4589
  ++


  From: Jack Unger 
  Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 3:53 PM
  To: WISPA General List 
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - Sept. 23rd, 
2010


  Hello Mark,

  Thank-you for your comments and thanks in advance for agreeing not to use the 
available TV White Space channels in your area. That will leave those open for 
another WISP to use. 

  Thank you again and best regards, 

  jack







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/









WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - Sept. 23rd, 2010

[MDK]

Oh... I thought it was just me having issues with the site.  If you move 
REAL slow, it seems to work fine.

++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

--
From: "Jeromie Reeves" 
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 8:11 PM
To: ; "WISPA General List" 

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Today is a Momentous Day for our Industry - Sept. 
23rd,2010


> sort and filter the fcc db, mainly for microwave links and tower
> locations.  The spectrum bridge map does not work well for me,
> crashing often (both linux and windows) with tile errors.
 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Two quick points,  I have seen something like this due to browser.what 
browser are u usingdid you try a different browser.

Also, 5.2.1 full has been released...try that as well...


Faisal

On Sep 26, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:

> I had some trouble with an NS5M running 5.2.1 RC2.
> 
> Short version:
> 
> I had some weirdness tonight. I was looking at network traffic with Wireshark 
> and noticed "CDP - Cisco Discovery Protocol" (UBNT calls it "extra 
> reporting") traffic coming from one of the NS5M's on my back haul. I had 
> turned that off. I browsed into the unit in question and sure enough enable 
> extra reporting was checked again! I unchecked the "enable extra reporting" 
> box and apply the settings many times and it kept coming back checked. It was 
> a long process to get the settings how I wanted but I finally got everything 
> the way I wanted it, though no matter what I do the "POE passthrough" box 
> remains unchecked even though I checked it and applied the settings many 
> times. It is passing POE so I'm just disregarding the checkbox and hoping 
> it's just a glitch in the UI.
> 
> Long version:
> 
> I took notes through this process for my own reference and to make sure I 
> could tell the story accurately to UBNT.
> 
> (Through the process below I tired various browsers to make sure the problem 
> wasn't due to some fluke in one of the browsers)
> 
> Using Wireshark I noticed extended reporting coming from an NS5M which is 
> running Station WDS (one end of a back haul), firmware is 5.2.1 RC2.
> In NS5M web interface I turned off extended reporting.
> Hit "change" then "test" but after unit rebooted it wasn't showing itself to 
> be in the test mode (and the associated count down to restore settings was 
> not showing) and extended reporting checkbox was back on.
> Unchecked extended reporting (again) and clicked apply this time instead of 
> test.
> Unit went off line and the BulletM2 (my point of access) on the NS5M's 
> secondary port never came back up. (I was accessing the NS5M through the 
> BulletM2 at this point)
> Had to power cycle NS5M to revive the NS5M/BulletM2 combo.
> Came back up with extra reporting checkbox checked.
> 
> Downgraded to 5.2.
> The combo came back up for a minute, then dropped off line again, then came 
> back up and stayed up. Extra reporting checkbox still checked.
> Decided to try changing another setting. I picked the "lock to AP MAC" and 
> put in the MAC address of the other end of the back haul. Hit test, the unit 
> rebooted and came back with the "log to AP MAC" field blank.
> 
> Downgraded to 5.0.1, then upgraded back up to 5.2.1
> 
> Connected via ethernet and reset to defaults.
> Start programming the unit. Manually set ack timing. Setting stuck.
> Turned on pass through, after reboot checkbox was unchecked. Tried it again, 
> again the box is unchecked after the unit reboots.
> 
> Restored to defaults again.
> Tried disabling extra reporting and turning off ack timeout auto adjust and 
> turning on POE passthrough all at the same time. None of the settings stuck 
> (according to the web interface but the Bullet M2 on the secondary port was 
> up.
> Set the necessary changes on the wireless and network tabs. All settings 
> stuck without a hitch.
> Returned to Advanced and set POE ack timeout auto adjust off and disabled 
> extra reporting off (without changing POE passthrough - it was unchecked but 
> passing through) and those settings stuck. The unit's behavior is as I want 
> it.  I was even able to lock the unit to the AP's MAC address. The only 
> discrepancy is the POE passthrough is unchecked even though it's passing 
> through (as I want it to).
> 
> I'm thinking about TFTP'ing in the 5.2.1 RC2 firmware since it sounds like 
> TFTP'ing the firmware in rewrites/partitions more of the unit's memory than 
> upgrading the firmware via the web interface.
> 
> I'll post this to the UBNT forum tomorrow.
> 
> Greg
> 
> On Sep 25, 2010, at 11:08 PM, Robert West wrote:
> 
>> Nope.  No dice.  Played with it after I took it down.  Did a hard reset 
>> then.  PoE is always on no matter what the checkbox says.  
>> Before reset, PoE did not work no matter which port power was put into.
>> 
>> Downgraded, upgraded, just can't turn that sucker off.  Maybe I need to show 
>> it a picture of my first wife..!
>> 
>> Bob-
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
>> Behalf Of Philip Dorr
>> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 9:38 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!
>> 
>> input power in the "secondary" port and use the "main" port to power the 
>> second radio
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Robert West  
>> wrote:
>>> Eh?  What ya mean???
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
>>> On Behalf