Re: [WISPA] security certificate

[Edward Spoon]

Once logged in, Services - Web Server - uncheck "Secure Connection (HTTPS)".


Ed Spoon 
Internet Services Manager - triparish.net / cajun.net
CSS, Inc . / 985-879-3219

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:18 PM, ~NGL~  wrote:

>   There is a problem with this website's security certificate.
>
> How do I correct this problem? I get this almost every time I log in to a
> Ubiquiti radio.
> NGL
>
>   If you can read this Thank A Teacher.
> And if it's in English Thank A Soldier!
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Strange IP

[Edward Spoon]

Sounds like you need to turn on WDS.

Ed Spoon 
Internet Services Manager - triparish.net / cajun.net
CSS, Inc . / 985-879-3219


On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:29 PM, ~NGL~  wrote:

>  All air routers are now static IP,s and I still have the problem
> If I disconnect the client from the AP I get the correct IP. but on a few
> client it changes at the client side when I go on line to 192.168.10.1
> NGL
>
>  *From:* Clay Stewart 
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:12 AM
> *To:* WISPA General List 
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Strange IP
>
> Well, the router is only 192.168.1.10 when WAN is on DHCP... which I think
> as long as it gets an assigned DHCP address, you cannot see the
> 192.168.10.1, just like when you assign it a static IP. But, if you unplug
> that router from the DHCP circuit, or turnoff the DHCP server, and the
> router is rebooted or times out the DHCP clients IP address, then it will
> have the fall back IP available... 192.168.10.1.
>
> If you ping out of a router up stream through WAN, and it is not connected
> to a DHCP server, or assigned a static, the ping will say it is coming from
> 192.168.10.1
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:40 PM, ~NGL~  wrote:
>
>>  Can all routers be the same IP on the Wan side?
>> NGL
>>
>>
>>  *From:* Clay Stewart 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:31 AM
>>  *To:* WISPA General List 
>> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Strange IP
>>
>> If the WAN is left in DHCP, the default fall back IP is 192.168.10.1 .
>>  If you set a static IP on WAN, then that IP goes away.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:26 PM, ~NGL~  wrote:
>>
>>>  Just a couple of Air Routers in SOHO mode.
>>> NGL
>>>
>>>  *From:* Clay Stewart 
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:16 AM
>>> *To:* WISPA General List 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Strange IP
>>>
>>> 192.168.10.1 is the fall back IP for any UBNT unit that is in router
>>> mode (AirRouter, NBM5, whatever.)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:14 PM, ~NGL~  wrote:
>>>
  I am getting a strange IP address at the clients end,
 When I ping it from my end I get the correct IP.
 When I ping it from the clients end I get 92.168.10.1.
 That is with the router removed.
 I am getting this on a few clients, mostly Ubiquiti users.
 The network is DHCP my router is the DHCP Server..
 Help
 NGL

   If you can read this Thank A Teacher.
 And if it's in English Thank A Soldier!

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> SCS
>>>   Clay Stewart
>>>   CEO, Tye River Farms, Inc.,
>>>   DBA Stewart Computer Services
>>>   434.263.6363 O
>>>   434.942.6510 C
>>>   cstew...@stewartcomputerservices.com
>>> "We Keep You Up and Running"
>>>Wireless Broadband
>>>Programming
>>>   Network Services
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wireless mailing list
>>> Wireless@wispa.org
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wireless mailing list
>>> Wireless@wispa.org
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> --
>> SCS
>>   Clay Stewart
>>   CEO, Tye River Farms, Inc.,
>>   DBA Stewart Computer Services
>>   434.263.6363 O
>>   434.942.6510 C
>>   cstew...@stewartcomputerservices.com
>> "We Keep You Up and Running"
>>Wireless Broadband
>>Programming
>>   Network Services
>>
>> --
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> --
> SCS
>   Clay Stewart
>   CEO, Tye River Farms, Inc.,
>   DBA Stewart Computer Services
>   434.263.6363 O
>   434.942.6510 C
>   cstew...@stewartcomputerservices.com
> "We Keep You Up and Running"
>Wireless Broadband
>Programming
>   Network Services
>
> --
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
<>___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL SU to SU

[Edward Spoon]

Yes, I am trying to get Mikrotiks behind 2 different SU's associated to the
same AP to talk to each other. Unicast didn't do it and I can't find any
"MAC forwarding" settings. Will see if renumbering is an option and try
that next.

Thanks






On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

> Oh... sorry I thought we were talking about one SU talking to the other
> while both were connected to the same AU.
>
> Yeah, I don't know of anyway to make an SU talk to an SU direct.
>
>
> Matt Hoppes
> Director of Information Technology
> Indigo Wireless
> +1 (570) 723-7312
>
> On 1/20/14, 3:22 PM, Patrick Leary wrote:
> > At one point they had a "cell extender" that acted as a repeater, but
> that was an AU and SU merged into a single NEMA box. I know of no way to
> connect SU to SU directly without an AU in the middle. The caveat is that I
> was never an engineer, so maybe there was some super secret agent setting
> for which I had no knowledge. I doubt it though, otherwise they'd no have
> built the extender.
> >
> > Patrick Leary
> >   M 727.501.3735
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
> > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 3:19 PM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL SU to SU
> >
> > H, I thought I recalled that you could turn that off?  Or maybe it
> was you have to assign a different subnet IP to each device so they talk
> through the head router.
> >
> >
> > Matt Hoppes
> > Director of Information Technology
> > Indigo Wireless
> > +1 (570) 723-7312
> >
> > On 1/20/14, 3:15 PM, Patrick Leary wrote:
> >> Edward, from my Alvarion days, I know of no way to enable CPE to CPE
> connection.
> >>
> >> Patrick Leary
> >>M 727.501.3735
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> >> On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
> >> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 2:28 PM
> >> To: WISPA General List
> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL SU to SU
> >>
> >> It is, but it's been way too long, I don't recall where the setting is.
> >>
> >>
> >> Matt Hoppes
> >> Director of Information Technology
> >> Indigo Wireless
> >> +1 (570) 723-7312
> >>
> >> On 1/20/14, 2:10 PM, Edward Spoon wrote:
> >>> Seems like there is a filter preventing SU to SU communication on the
> >>> same AP. I know Trango's had this and had an option to enable or
> >>> disable. Anyone familiar with where this setting would be in the
> >>> Alvarion setup, if it is configurable at all?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Wireless mailing list
> >>> Wireless@wispa.org
> >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>>
> >> ___
> >> Wireless mailing list
> >> Wireless@wispa.org
> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> **
> >> ** This footnote confirms that this email message has been
> >> scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code,
> vandals & computer viruses.
> >> **
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> **
> >> ** This footnote confirms that this email message has been
> >> scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code,
> >> vandals & computer viruses.
> >> **
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wireless mailing list
> >> Wireless@wispa.org
> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>
> > ___
>

[WISPA] Alvarion VL SU to SU

[Edward Spoon]

Seems like there is a filter preventing SU to SU communication on the same
AP. I know Trango's had this and had an option to enable or disable. Anyone
familiar with where this setting would be in the Alvarion setup, if it is
configurable at all?

Thanks
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Nagios vs. The Dude

[Edward Spoon]

NagIOS for 'backbone', 'critical' infrastructure, premium customers, etc.
that we need to be "Nagged" about. Have tried to configure the Dude to nag -
not made for it. We use the Dude to map the network for at a glance
overview. We also use it to notify us of day to day outages, flapping, etc.
where a single email to the NOC is enough. Its easy interface makes it great
for the non-tech taking the call to do minimal troubleshooting. We use Cacti
used to graph historical data, signal, usage, latency, etc...

3 very useful tools each with it's place.

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Mark Nash  wrote:

> I'd like to hear from people who have switched from one of these free
> products to the other.
>
> I'm considering a switch from Nagios to The Dude myself, but I'd like to
> hear pros & cons of either.
>
> What did you switch from/to, and why?
>
> Thanks !
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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] Motorola Canopy 5720-BH Deaf & Dumb

[Edward Spoon]

Anyone else have experience with this or any suggestions would be greatly
appreciated.

Over the last 6 weeks, we have had 4 of these go from expected rssi to the
mid to low 80's overnight. The first couple of times was immediately after
bad weather / power outage and we attributed it to that. The last 2 however,
have been during clear blue skies. They usually still have enough in them to
connect periodically and I have used this to flip Master/Slave roles and run
spectrum analyzer on both ends to determine which one can't hear anymore. We
change that radio and rssi goes back to expected and the link is good again
(until next time). This is happening at different locations, although one
location in particular has a history of this going back even farther.

Could it be power or CMM related? Something external causing the radio to go
deaf?
<><>


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] CMM Required?

[Edward Spoon]

Actually, I was looking at the VLAN function and it appears that I could get
the results I want with that. Is anyone familiar enough with these to know
if the VLAN "port isolation" works as advertised. ie: restrict radio on port
1 to talk only to port 2, port 3 only talk to port 4, etc. so that I can
isolate legs into different router interfaces.

Thanks

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Marco Coelho  wrote:

> Since you have 6 non-overlapping channels that you can use, with only
> three radios, you do not need the
> CMM timing.  You can have each radio generate sync.  This changes if
> you have other canopy 5.7 gear on the towers.
>
> Marco Coelho
>
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Josh Luthman
>  wrote:
> > You can use a parasitic thing from Packet Flux.  Or CTM.
> >
> > On Aug 21, 2010 11:06 PM, "Edward Spoon"  wrote:
> >
> > Trying to get a definitive answer here and Moto ain't a helpin'!
> > For a site with 2 or 3 5720BH units (all links PtP - no AP-SU traffic),
> do I
> > 'have to' use a CMM? I'd prefer to bring each link inside on a separate
> wire
> > to isolate them in the router for failover configuration. Can't do much
> with
> > them if they are all on one wire in one interface.
> > Thanks
> > Ed
> > triparish.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > 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/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Marco C. Coelho
> Argon Technologies Inc.
> POB 875
> Greenville, TX 75403-0875
> 903-455-5036
>
>
>
> 
> 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] CMM Required?

[Edward Spoon]

Trying to get a definitive answer here and Moto ain't a helpin'!

For a site with 2 or 3 5720BH units (all links PtP - no AP-SU traffic), do I
'have to' use a CMM? I'd prefer to bring each link inside on a separate wire
to isolate them in the router for failover configuration. Can't do much with
them if they are all on one wire in one interface.

Thanks
Ed
triparish.net



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] [WISPA Members] [Motorola II] WISP's are killing themselves!!!!- New FCC form 477 report is out, not looking good for Fixed Wireless

[Edward Spoon]

Which is probably why my state just started their own required bi-annual
broadband filing report. The preferred method was census BLOCK, luckily that
was optional and tract was acceptable. Hopefully it stays that way! I spent
over 30 man hours (much of it after hours, and with Brian's help) getting
the tract data / correct format the first time, but since we are now
maintaining it I have already completed the March 1 FCC filing - took less
than 1 hour!

I refuse to let my brain contemplate starting from scratch again to get
block level data. Nope. Not happening. Forget it. No way, (You know we're
gonna have to eventually!!)

Ed


On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Brian Webster <
bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com> wrote:

> Yes there is a check box, that has been the problem with sharing the data.
> The FCC was even sued for a FOIA release of the From 477 data by The Center
> for Public Integrity in 2007. They were not required to release the
> information.
>
>
>
> Thank You,
> Brian Webster
>   -Original Message-
>  From: Ken Hohhof [mailto:khoh...@kwom.com]
>  Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 12:33 PM
>  To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
>  Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] [Motorola II] WISP's are killing
> themselves- New FCC form 477 report is out, not looking good for Fixed
> Wireless
>
>
>   Well, I can see how that's a problem.
>  Is there actually a checkbox where you choose to protect or not protect
> your data?  I don't remember that.  But I haven't done the March 1
> submission yet.
>  If that's the case, and they are prohibited from sharing the data with
> other government entities doing broadband mapping, I don't have a solution
> for that.
>
>
>  From: Brian Webster
>  Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:22 AM
>  To: Ken Hohhof ; memb...@wispa.org
>  Subject: RE: [WISPA Members] [Motorola II] WISP's are killing
> themselves- New FCC form 477 report is out, not looking good for Fixed
> Wireless
>
>
>  The biggest problem with not providing the 477 data to the state or making
> it available to those seeking grants, is the fact that people who file the
> data have checked the box that requires the FCC to protect it under NDA
> (Marlon do you remember this issue? As I recall you were one of the
> cheerleaders on that topic). The WISP's were the ones insisting that that
> option be available before they would file. Now the same industry it
> bitching about the fact that the data is not being distributed...can't have
> it both ways. The FCC has shared the data with NTIA and RUS and those
> agencies are protecting that same NDA.  Those agencies are using the data
> to
> cross reference grant applications and challenges.
>
>
>
>
>
>  Thank You,
>  Brian Webster
> -Original Message-
>From: Ken Hohhof [mailto:khoh...@kwom.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 12:03 PM
>To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; memb...@wispa.org
>Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] [Motorola II] WISP's are killing
> themselves- New FCC form 477 report is out,not looking good for Fixed
> Wireless
>
>
> Brian, this thread leaves me puzzled about a few things.
>
>1) Why are we so worried about the US "falling behind" the rest of the
> world in broadband, while the fact that China is leaving us in the dust in
> high speed rail generates a mere yawn?  (same with solar and wind power ...
> technology, manufacturing, and deployment)
>
>2) Does anyone really believe this is about high speed pipes for
> telemedicine, or kids doing their homework?  What is the national security
> issue with making sure every house is wired for 4 simultaneous streams of
> on-demand high definition 3D entertainment?  Are we afraid of falling
> behind
> the Chinese in the couch potato race?
>
>3) This is a census year.  Why is the census not being used to get this
> data directly from end users?  Think of the questions you could ask, not
> just about what speeds people have, but why they don't have higher speeds.
> (unavailable?  too expensive?  not needed?  don't even have a computer?
> only use the Internet for texting and tweeting from their cellphone?)
>
>4) Any other statistical survey would correct for known measurement
> errors.  For example, by checking a sample of the data against
> independently
> obtained data known to be accurate.  Or correcting for known measurement
> inaccuracies.  Like if you know that only 10% of Amish households have
> phones while 90% of the general population does, you might want to multiply
> the Amish responses in a phone survey by 9.  So if they know only 50% of
> WISPs are submitting Form 477, wouldn't it make sense to multiply the
> numbers by 2?  It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be more accurate than
> making decisions based on clearly wrong data.
>
>5) Why is a fortune in stimulus money being handed out in state mapping
> grants, for a one-time measurement, and for results that won't be available
> in time for the broadband plan next month?
>
>6) Why is