Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz

[Tim Hardy]

Just confirming that this is actually two (2) dual core radios - one CCDP at 80 
MHz bandwidth and the other CCDP at 40 MHz bandwidth with the two transmit 
frequencies separated by 60 MHz - correct?  This will require couplers and 
associated losses on both ends (approximately 7 dB).  Any attempt to stack an 
80 and a 40 to get a 120 MHz block in order to “cover” the band for an ETSI 112 
MHz bandwidth radio configuration would be strictly illegal in North America, 
and any single transmitter bandwidth greater than 80 MHz bandwidth (11 GHz) is 
likewise illegal.

> On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:28 AM, Jon Langeler  wrote:
> 
> 11Ghz is 80MHz per channel, plus another 40Mhz= 120Mhz (two channels per 
> polarity). But the channels have to be stacked and available.
> Ignore the promos and prices. Tell him what price you need to be at and he 
> will try to make it happen. 
> 
> Jon Langeler
> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
> 
> 
>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 10:36 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Jon,
>> 
>> I'm pretty dumb with this stuff, is this possibly two descrete 60mhz 
>> channels per TX side?
>> 
>> TJ
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jon Langeler > > wrote:
>> 11Ghz...2 channels in FCC assignment -similar- to AF11FX. 
>> 
>> Jon Langeler
>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 8:08 PM, TJ Trout >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What band can you do 120mhz in?
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:04 PM Jon Langeler >> > wrote:
>>> SIAE just licensed me 2Gbps links in 120Mhz x2. Price was basically all the 
>>> same 
>>> 
>>> Jon Langeler
>>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>> 
>>> 
 On Jun 3, 2020, at 6:16 PM, Jason McKemie 
 >>> > wrote:
 
 Yeah, the throughput is pretty comparable between the two.
 
 On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, TJ Trout >>> > wrote:
 aviat can do the same with dual channels on a single radio, it's called 
 a2c or active two channel, we use it on the wtm4100
 
 On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:38 PM Josh Baird >>> > wrote:
 The WTM4200 is dual core which is why it can do 1.4Gbps.  The Bridgewave 
 has some other magic.
 
 On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:41 PM Jason McKemie 
 >>> > wrote:
 I may have gotten the Aviat model wrong, whatever their dual core version 
 is - 4300? I think the power on the Aviat is better, probably in part due 
 to the field replaceable diplexer in the Navigator.
 
 On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, Josh Baird >>> > wrote:
 I think the Navigator DT will have a higher overall throughput (~3Gbps if 
 you have the channels available).
 
 The WTM4200 and the Navigator ST are a better comparison - each capable of 
 ~1.4Gbps.  
 
 On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:27 AM Jason McKemie 
 >>> > wrote:
 Does anyone have any experience with the two of these (Aviat WTM4200 vs 
 Navigator Dual)?  I'm having a hard time deciding.
 
 -Jason
 -- 
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com 
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
 
 -- 
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com 
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
 
 -- 
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com 
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
 
 -- 
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com 
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
 
>>> -- 
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com 
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com 
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
>>> 
>> -- 
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com 
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
>> 
>> -- 
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

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

Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz

[Jon Langeler]

I’m not sure details other than I verified multiple times 120Mhz of actual 
usage and the speed matched. Our frequency coordinator worked with them on the 
rest...

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.


> On Jun 4, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Tim Hardy  wrote:
> 
> Just confirming that this is actually two (2) dual core radios - one CCDP at 
> 80 MHz bandwidth and the other CCDP at 40 MHz bandwidth with the two transmit 
> frequencies separated by 60 MHz - correct?  This will require couplers and 
> associated losses on both ends (approximately 7 dB).  Any attempt to stack an 
> 80 and a 40 to get a 120 MHz block in order to “cover” the band for an ETSI 
> 112 MHz bandwidth radio configuration would be strictly illegal in North 
> America, and any single transmitter bandwidth greater than 80 MHz bandwidth 
> (11 GHz) is likewise illegal.
> 
>> On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:28 AM, Jon Langeler  wrote:
>> 
>> 11Ghz is 80MHz per channel, plus another 40Mhz= 120Mhz (two channels per 
>> polarity). But the channels have to be stacked and available.
>> Ignore the promos and prices. Tell him what price you need to be at and he 
>> will try to make it happen. 
>> 
>> Jon Langeler
>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 10:36 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jon,
>>> 
>>> I'm pretty dumb with this stuff, is this possibly two descrete 60mhz 
>>> channels per TX side?
>>> 
>>> TJ
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jon Langeler  
>>> wrote:
 11Ghz...2 channels in FCC assignment -similar- to AF11FX. 
 
 Jon Langeler
 Michwave Technologies, Inc.
 
 
> On Jun 3, 2020, at 8:08 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
> 
> 
> What band can you do 120mhz in?
> 
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:04 PM Jon Langeler  
> wrote:
>> SIAE just licensed me 2Gbps links in 120Mhz x2. Price was basically all 
>> the same 
>> 
>> Jon Langeler
>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 6:16 PM, Jason McKemie 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Yeah, the throughput is pretty comparable between the two.
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, TJ Trout  wrote:
 aviat can do the same with dual channels on a single radio, it's 
 called a2c or active two channel, we use it on the wtm4100
 
 On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:38 PM Josh Baird  wrote:
> The WTM4200 is dual core which is why it can do 1.4Gbps.  The 
> Bridgewave has some other magic.
> 
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:41 PM Jason McKemie 
>  wrote:
>> I may have gotten the Aviat model wrong, whatever their dual core 
>> version is - 4300? I think the power on the Aviat is better, 
>> probably in part due to the field replaceable diplexer in the 
>> Navigator.
>> 
>> On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, Josh Baird  wrote:
>>> I think the Navigator DT will have a higher overall throughput 
>>> (~3Gbps if you have the channels available).
>>> 
>>> The WTM4200 and the Navigator ST are a better comparison - each 
>>> capable of ~1.4Gbps.  
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:27 AM Jason McKemie 
>>>  wrote:
 Does anyone have any experience with the two of these (Aviat 
 WTM4200 vs Navigator Dual)?  I'm having a hard time deciding.
 
 -Jason
 -- 
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>> -- 
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>> -- 
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>> -- 
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
 -- 
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>> -- 
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>> -- 
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Ping Graphing

[Steven Kenney]

In linux, MTR works well for tracing and pinging every hop along the way and 
keeping the stats % per hop etc. Ideal for seeing where the loss is taking 
place. 


-- 
Steven Kenney 
Network Operations Manager 
WaveDirect Telecommunications 
http://www.wavedirect.net 
(519)737-WAVE (9283) 


From: "Matt"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 12:42:39 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] Ping Graphing 

I am trouble shooting some intermittent issues with eoip tunnels and 
routing I use for modem management. Does anyone know of something I 
can run on linux to ping a host/hosts once a second and graph results? 

Like MRTG but able to see 1 second resolution etc? I know MRTG is old 
but I still use it a great deal. 

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

Re: [AFMUG] Switch software bug

[Nate Burke]

Just before one provider was supposed to start, they sent a notice they were 
postponing, the other provider did the upgrade last night. 

On June 4, 2020 12:08:29 AM CDT, Nate Burke  wrote:
>We got notices late this afternoon from 2 seperate upstreams of
>emergency maintenance overnight tonight for software upgrades.  Was
>there some sort of big bug that was just found on one of the
>switch/routing platforms?
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Switch software bug

[Mike Hammett]

Well, it's good to not have both down at the same time. 

One of my upstreams had a series of rolling upgrades for this week that has 
been postponed. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Nate Burke"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 8:23:31 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Switch software bug 

Just before one provider was supposed to start, they sent a notice they were 
postponing, the other provider did the upgrade last night. 


On June 4, 2020 12:08:29 AM CDT, Nate Burke  wrote: 

We got notices late this afternoon from 2 seperate upstreams of emergency 
maintenance overnight tonight for software upgrades. Was there some sort of big 
bug that was just found on one of the switch/routing platforms? 


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

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

Re: [AFMUG] Switch software bug

[Steven Kenney]

I'm curious to know which platform :) 


-- 
Steven Kenney 
Network Operations Manager 
WaveDirect Telecommunications 
http://www.wavedirect.net 
(519)737-WAVE (9283) 


From: "Nate Burke"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 1:08:29 AM 
Subject: [AFMUG] Switch software bug 

We got notices late this afternoon from 2 seperate upstreams of emergency 
maintenance overnight tonight for software upgrades. Was there some sort of big 
bug that was just found on one of the switch/routing platforms? 
-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz

[Tim Hardy]

Should be easy enough to check to ensure that you have two (2) dual core radios 
each transmitting a discrete frequency 60 MHz apart from one another.  Anything 
else would lead one to believe that they actually are just using their ETSI 
configuration (112 MHz) within the 120 MHz block.  Seems suspicious when two 
sets of radios are about the same cost as one.


> On Jun 4, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Jon Langeler  wrote:
> 
> I’m not sure details other than I verified multiple times 120Mhz of actual 
> usage and the speed matched. Our frequency coordinator worked with them on 
> the rest...
> 
> Jon Langeler
> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
> 
> 
>> On Jun 4, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Tim Hardy  wrote:
>> 
>> Just confirming that this is actually two (2) dual core radios - one CCDP 
>> at 80 MHz bandwidth and the other CCDP at 40 MHz bandwidth with the two 
>> transmit frequencies separated by 60 MHz - correct?  This will require 
>> couplers and associated losses on both ends (approximately 7 dB).  Any 
>> attempt to stack an 80 and a 40 to get a 120 MHz block in order to “cover” 
>> the band for an ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth radio configuration would be strictly 
>> illegal in North America, and any single transmitter bandwidth greater than 
>> 80 MHz bandwidth (11 GHz) is likewise illegal.
>> 
>>> On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:28 AM, Jon Langeler >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 11Ghz is 80MHz per channel, plus another 40Mhz= 120Mhz (two channels per 
>>> polarity). But the channels have to be stacked and available.
>>> Ignore the promos and prices. Tell him what price you need to be at and he 
>>> will try to make it happen. 
>>> 
>>> Jon Langeler
>>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>> 
>>> 
 On Jun 3, 2020, at 10:36 PM, TJ Trout >>> > wrote:
 
 
 Jon,
 
 I'm pretty dumb with this stuff, is this possibly two descrete 60mhz 
 channels per TX side?
 
 TJ
 
 On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jon Langeler >>> > wrote:
 11Ghz...2 channels in FCC assignment -similar- to AF11FX. 
 
 Jon Langeler
 Michwave Technologies, Inc.
 
 
> On Jun 3, 2020, at 8:08 PM, TJ Trout  > wrote:
> 
> 
> What band can you do 120mhz in?
> 
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:04 PM Jon Langeler  > wrote:
> SIAE just licensed me 2Gbps links in 120Mhz x2. Price was basically all 
> the same 
> 
> Jon Langeler
> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
> 
> 
>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 6:16 PM, Jason McKemie 
>> > > wrote:
>> 
>> Yeah, the throughput is pretty comparable between the two.
>> 
>> On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, TJ Trout > > wrote:
>> aviat can do the same with dual channels on a single radio, it's called 
>> a2c or active two channel, we use it on the wtm4100
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:38 PM Josh Baird > > wrote:
>> The WTM4200 is dual core which is why it can do 1.4Gbps.  The Bridgewave 
>> has some other magic.
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:41 PM Jason McKemie 
>> > > wrote:
>> I may have gotten the Aviat model wrong, whatever their dual core 
>> version is - 4300? I think the power on the Aviat is better, probably in 
>> part due to the field replaceable diplexer in the Navigator.
>> 
>> On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, Josh Baird > > wrote:
>> I think the Navigator DT will have a higher overall throughput (~3Gbps 
>> if you have the channels available).
>> 
>> The WTM4200 and the Navigator ST are a better comparison - each capable 
>> of ~1.4Gbps.  
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:27 AM Jason McKemie 
>> > > wrote:
>> Does anyone have any experience with the two of these (Aviat WTM4200 vs 
>> Navigator Dual)?  I'm having a hard time deciding.
>> 
>> -Jason
>> -- 
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com 
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
>> 
>> -- 
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com 
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
>> 
>> -- 
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com 
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
>> 
>> -- 
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com 
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
>> 
>

[AFMUG] Cloud Hosted Mikrotik

[Matt]

Anyone using a cloud hosted Mikrotik router?  Where and how much?  We
have one Mikrotik we use to terminate a number of tunnels for modem
management and when its fiber got cut last time it made us think a
cloud solution might be better.

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

[AFMUG] Cat5 Stripper

[Matt]

We use EZ cat5 connectors and switched from single jacketed outdoor
shielded cat5 too double jacketed.  What is everyone using for a cat5
stripper?

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

Re: [AFMUG] Cat5 Stripper

[Ken Hohhof]

You mean something like this?
https://www.gmesupply.com/abeco-smart-strip-utp-stp-data-cable-stripper


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:23 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Cat5 Stripper

We use EZ cat5 connectors and switched from single jacketed outdoor shielded
cat5 too double jacketed.  What is everyone using for a cat5 stripper?

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



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

Re: [AFMUG] Switch software bug

[Nate Burke]

The Traffic will just move over to other upstream connections if they 
both would have maintenance'd at the same time.


I know what equipment is at my location, which is Ciena and 
TelcoSystems, but I'm not sure what equipment is on the other end of the 
fiber.


On 6/4/2020 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

Well, it's good to not have both down at the same time.

One of my upstreams had a series of rolling upgrades for this week 
that has been postponed.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Nate Burke" 
*To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
*Sent: *Thursday, June 4, 2020 8:23:31 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Switch software bug

Just before one provider was supposed to start, they sent a notice 
they were postponing, the other provider did the upgrade last night.


On June 4, 2020 12:08:29 AM CDT, Nate Burke  wrote:

We got notices late this afternoon from 2 seperate upstreams of
emergency maintenance overnight tonight for software upgrades. Was
there some sort of big bug that was just found on one of the
switch/routing platforms?


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





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

Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz

[Mathew Howard]

Does Siae have the capability of running two channels per core, like was
discussed earlier on the Bridgewave and Aviat radios?

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 8:49 AM Tim Hardy  wrote:

> Should be easy enough to check to ensure that you have two (2) dual core
> radios each transmitting a discrete frequency 60 MHz apart from one
> another.  Anything else would lead one to believe that they actually are
> just using their ETSI configuration (112 MHz) within the 120 MHz block.
> Seems suspicious when two sets of radios are about the same cost as one.
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Jon Langeler 
> wrote:
>
> I’m not sure details other than I verified multiple times 120Mhz of actual
> usage and the speed matched. Our frequency coordinator worked with them on
> the rest...
>
> Jon Langeler
> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Tim Hardy  wrote:
>
> Just confirming that this is actually two (2) dual core radios - one CCDP
> at 80 MHz bandwidth and the other CCDP at 40 MHz bandwidth with the two
> transmit frequencies separated by 60 MHz - correct?  This will require
> couplers and associated losses on both ends (approximately 7 dB).  Any
> attempt to stack an 80 and a 40 to get a 120 MHz block in order to “cover”
> the band for an ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth radio configuration would be
> strictly illegal in North America, and any single transmitter bandwidth
> greater than 80 MHz bandwidth (11 GHz) is likewise illegal.
>
> On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:28 AM, Jon Langeler 
> wrote:
>
> 11Ghz is 80MHz per channel, plus another 40Mhz= 120Mhz (two channels per
> polarity). But the channels have to be stacked and available.
> Ignore the promos and prices. Tell him what price you need to be at and he
> will try to make it happen.
>
> Jon Langeler
> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>
>
> On Jun 3, 2020, at 10:36 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>
> 
> Jon,
>
> I'm pretty dumb with this stuff, is this possibly two descrete 60mhz
> channels per TX side?
>
> TJ
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jon Langeler 
> wrote:
>
>> 11Ghz...2 channels in FCC assignment -similar- to AF11FX.
>>
>> Jon Langeler
>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 8:08 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> What band can you do 120mhz in?
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:04 PM Jon Langeler 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> SIAE just licensed me 2Gbps links in 120Mhz x2. Price was basically all
>>> the same
>>>
>>> Jon Langeler
>>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 6:16 PM, Jason McKemie <
>>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, the throughput is pretty comparable between the two.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, TJ Trout  wrote:
>>>
 aviat can do the same with dual channels on a single radio, it's called
 a2c or active two channel, we use it on the wtm4100

 On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:38 PM Josh Baird  wrote:

> The WTM4200 is dual core which is why it can do 1.4Gbps.  The
> Bridgewave has some other magic.
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:41 PM Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
>> I may have gotten the Aviat model wrong, whatever their dual core
>> version is - 4300? I think the power on the Aviat is better, probably in
>> part due to the field replaceable diplexer in the Navigator.
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, Josh Baird  wrote:
>>
>>> I think the Navigator DT will have a higher overall throughput
>>> (~3Gbps if you have the channels available).
>>>
>>> The WTM4200 and the Navigator ST are a better comparison - each
>>> capable of ~1.4Gbps.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:27 AM Jason McKemie <
>>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>>
 Does anyone have any experience with the two of these (Aviat
 WTM4200 vs Navigator Dual)?  I'm having a hard time deciding.

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

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

[AFMUG] Internal fiber

[chuck]

I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.  
But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people not 
understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then there is 
the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and splice outside in 
a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router is a bit more 
difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new system I am 
looking for something better.

I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the house.  
Anything like that exist?-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cat5 Stripper

[Joe Novak]

My favorite is still classic klein strippers:

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Klein-Tools-7-1-8-in-Klein-Kurve-Wire-Stripper-Cutter-for-10-18-AWG-Solid-Wire-and-12-20-AWG-Stranded-Wire-11055/100630708



My uncle swears by the classic 'electricians scissors':

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Wiss-5-1-4-in-Electrician-s-Scissors-175E/204155015?MERCH=REC-_-pipsem-_-302589194-_-204155015-_-N



I never really liked these, but there are people that prefer them. For me
they would always cut into the cat5e, that also goes for strippers like
them.
https://www.amazon.com/Platinum-Tools-15015-Jacket-Stripper/dp/B000FI2RVC

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 9:24 AM Matt  wrote:

> We use EZ cat5 connectors and switched from single jacketed outdoor
> shielded cat5 too double jacketed.  What is everyone using for a cat5
> stripper?
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] OT: Thursday funny

[Bill Prince]

  
  

-- 

bp



  

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

Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz

[Kurt Fankhauser]

If you need more throughput in 11ghz can't you license two separate links
for 11ghz and install two separate AVIAT radios and then the radios can
bond both links together? I thought that was a feature that AVIAT had.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:21 AM Mathew Howard  wrote:

> Does Siae have the capability of running two channels per core, like was
> discussed earlier on the Bridgewave and Aviat radios?
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 8:49 AM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>
>> Should be easy enough to check to ensure that you have two (2) dual core
>> radios each transmitting a discrete frequency 60 MHz apart from one
>> another.  Anything else would lead one to believe that they actually are
>> just using their ETSI configuration (112 MHz) within the 120 MHz block.
>> Seems suspicious when two sets of radios are about the same cost as one.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 4, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Jon Langeler 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I’m not sure details other than I verified multiple times 120Mhz of
>> actual usage and the speed matched. Our frequency coordinator worked with
>> them on the rest...
>>
>> Jon Langeler
>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 4, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Tim Hardy  wrote:
>>
>> Just confirming that this is actually two (2) dual core radios - one
>> CCDP at 80 MHz bandwidth and the other CCDP at 40 MHz bandwidth with the
>> two transmit frequencies separated by 60 MHz - correct?  This will require
>> couplers and associated losses on both ends (approximately 7 dB).  Any
>> attempt to stack an 80 and a 40 to get a 120 MHz block in order to “cover”
>> the band for an ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth radio configuration would be
>> strictly illegal in North America, and any single transmitter bandwidth
>> greater than 80 MHz bandwidth (11 GHz) is likewise illegal.
>>
>> On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:28 AM, Jon Langeler 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 11Ghz is 80MHz per channel, plus another 40Mhz= 120Mhz (two channels per
>> polarity). But the channels have to be stacked and available.
>> Ignore the promos and prices. Tell him what price you need to be at and
>> he will try to make it happen.
>>
>> Jon Langeler
>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 10:36 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Jon,
>>
>> I'm pretty dumb with this stuff, is this possibly two descrete 60mhz
>> channels per TX side?
>>
>> TJ
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jon Langeler 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 11Ghz...2 channels in FCC assignment -similar- to AF11FX.
>>>
>>> Jon Langeler
>>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 8:08 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> What band can you do 120mhz in?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:04 PM Jon Langeler 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 SIAE just licensed me 2Gbps links in 120Mhz x2. Price was basically all
 the same

 Jon Langeler
 Michwave Technologies, Inc.


 On Jun 3, 2020, at 6:16 PM, Jason McKemie <
 j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

 Yeah, the throughput is pretty comparable between the two.

 On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, TJ Trout  wrote:

> aviat can do the same with dual channels on a single radio, it's
> called a2c or active two channel, we use it on the wtm4100
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:38 PM Josh Baird 
> wrote:
>
>> The WTM4200 is dual core which is why it can do 1.4Gbps.  The
>> Bridgewave has some other magic.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:41 PM Jason McKemie <
>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I may have gotten the Aviat model wrong, whatever their dual core
>>> version is - 4300? I think the power on the Aviat is better, probably in
>>> part due to the field replaceable diplexer in the Navigator.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, Josh Baird  wrote:
>>>
 I think the Navigator DT will have a higher overall throughput
 (~3Gbps if you have the channels available).

 The WTM4200 and the Navigator ST are a better comparison - each
 capable of ~1.4Gbps.

 On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:27 AM Jason McKemie <
 j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> Does anyone have any experience with the two of these (Aviat
> WTM4200 vs Navigator Dual)?  I'm having a hard time deciding.
>
> -Jason
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
 --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

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

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

Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz

[Mathew Howard]

I don't know what specific bonding features Aviat has, but you can
technically do that with any radios... it's just a question of where and
how you have to do the bonding. You are also able to do two radios on the
same dish with the appropriate couplers,  etc. with most 11ghz radios.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:38 AM Kurt Fankhauser 
wrote:

> If you need more throughput in 11ghz can't you license two separate links
> for 11ghz and install two separate AVIAT radios and then the radios can
> bond both links together? I thought that was a feature that AVIAT had.
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:21 AM Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> Does Siae have the capability of running two channels per core, like was
>> discussed earlier on the Bridgewave and Aviat radios?
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 8:49 AM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>>
>>> Should be easy enough to check to ensure that you have two (2) dual core
>>> radios each transmitting a discrete frequency 60 MHz apart from one
>>> another.  Anything else would lead one to believe that they actually are
>>> just using their ETSI configuration (112 MHz) within the 120 MHz block.
>>> Seems suspicious when two sets of radios are about the same cost as one.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 4, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Jon Langeler 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’m not sure details other than I verified multiple times 120Mhz of
>>> actual usage and the speed matched. Our frequency coordinator worked with
>>> them on the rest...
>>>
>>> Jon Langeler
>>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 4, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Tim Hardy  wrote:
>>>
>>> Just confirming that this is actually two (2) dual core radios - one
>>> CCDP at 80 MHz bandwidth and the other CCDP at 40 MHz bandwidth with the
>>> two transmit frequencies separated by 60 MHz - correct?  This will require
>>> couplers and associated losses on both ends (approximately 7 dB).  Any
>>> attempt to stack an 80 and a 40 to get a 120 MHz block in order to “cover”
>>> the band for an ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth radio configuration would be
>>> strictly illegal in North America, and any single transmitter bandwidth
>>> greater than 80 MHz bandwidth (11 GHz) is likewise illegal.
>>>
>>> On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:28 AM, Jon Langeler 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 11Ghz is 80MHz per channel, plus another 40Mhz= 120Mhz (two channels per
>>> polarity). But the channels have to be stacked and available.
>>> Ignore the promos and prices. Tell him what price you need to be at and
>>> he will try to make it happen.
>>>
>>> Jon Langeler
>>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 10:36 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> Jon,
>>>
>>> I'm pretty dumb with this stuff, is this possibly two descrete 60mhz
>>> channels per TX side?
>>>
>>> TJ
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jon Langeler 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 11Ghz...2 channels in FCC assignment -similar- to AF11FX.

 Jon Langeler
 Michwave Technologies, Inc.


 On Jun 3, 2020, at 8:08 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:

 
 What band can you do 120mhz in?

 On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:04 PM Jon Langeler 
 wrote:

> SIAE just licensed me 2Gbps links in 120Mhz x2. Price was basically
> all the same
>
> Jon Langeler
> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>
>
> On Jun 3, 2020, at 6:16 PM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, the throughput is pretty comparable between the two.
>
> On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, TJ Trout  wrote:
>
>> aviat can do the same with dual channels on a single radio, it's
>> called a2c or active two channel, we use it on the wtm4100
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:38 PM Josh Baird 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The WTM4200 is dual core which is why it can do 1.4Gbps.  The
>>> Bridgewave has some other magic.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:41 PM Jason McKemie <
>>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>>
 I may have gotten the Aviat model wrong, whatever their dual core
 version is - 4300? I think the power on the Aviat is better, probably 
 in
 part due to the field replaceable diplexer in the Navigator.

 On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, Josh Baird  wrote:

> I think the Navigator DT will have a higher overall throughput
> (~3Gbps if you have the channels available).
>
> The WTM4200 and the Navigator ST are a better comparison - each
> capable of ~1.4Gbps.
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:27 AM Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have any experience with the two of these (Aviat
>> WTM4200 vs Navigator Dual)?  I'm having a hard time deciding.
>>
>> -Jason
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
>>>

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[Sterling Jacobson]

I assume this is not new construction.

In my limited use cases I've used armored jump cables from the outside mini-nid 
join box to the inside.
Then loop it a couple of times, maybe behind the ONT even, secured to the wall 
or whatever, then just a bit is exposed to the plug.
Or just went ahead and used a NID inside with the usual strain guards and even 
boots or mini conduit etc.

New CenturyLink builds I've noticed have a flexible mini duct/conduit, then 
loop the jump cable coming out of that behind the ONT and connect it on the 
bottom so not much is exposed.

From: AF  On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:24 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.
But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people not 
understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then there is 
the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and splice outside in 
a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router is a bit more 
difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new system I am 
looking for something better.

I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the house.  
Anything like that exist?
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[Adam Moffett]

Armored patch cord?

https://www.fs.com/products/41655.html

Doesn't help if the failures happen at the connector.


My other thought is the "two box" approach.  The fiber router/ONT is 
screwed to the wall in an out of the way place like basement or utility 
room, and run Cat5e to where the WiFi router lives.  You can still use 
Calix for both boxes, but maybe not the 844G.  They have a cheaper ONT 
with single ethernet port, and then one with WiFi and an Ethernet WAN 
port.  I don't recall the model #'s.  I think this is the most long term 
outlook.  The installs will be more complicated, but you can put the 
fiber in a logical place for a utility entrance while still putting the 
WiFi near the users. I.E.: I think this is the best way, but not the 
cheapest or quickest.



On 6/4/2020 11:24 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.
But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people 
not understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  
Then there is the issue with the termination.  You can get long 
jumpers and splice outside in a small enclosure.  But replacing the 
end on the router is a bit more difficult.  I have used unicams in the 
past, but with my new system I am looking for something better.
I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through 
the house.  Anything like that exist?


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

Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz

[Joseph.Schraml]

Our ALFOPlus2 radio is true dual-carrier radio capable of up to 2x 112 MHz 
channels. In instances where a customer can get the FCC to license wider than 
80 MHz channels (11 GHz & 18 GHz), we can unlock the modems to provide up to 
112 MHz bandwidth. With 4096QAM, this yields just over 2 Gbps full duplex 
throughput (no compression).



This radio has independent modems and RF, so you have the flexibility to put 
one of the carriers on say an 80 MHz channel using 4096QAM, and the other 
carrier on 40 MHz using 256QAM. You also have the flexibility to set RF power 
to different levels for the independent carriers. But most folks license CCDP 
for max throughput, and there is no loss between the ODU and the antenna in 
this mode.



We've also supplied 4+0 configurations (two ALFOPlus2 radios with a combiner 
sandwiched between them), which doubles the capacity. Sure, there's a 3dB 
coupler loss on each end, but you're getting 2x the throughput



We've been shipping this radio since 2016. We've recently added a 10Gbe 
interface to the radio (this is the AP2XG), so you can run a single 10G fiber 
to the radio instead of two 1G connections. 



Need more info? My contact info below...





Thanks,

 



 

Joe Schraml

VP Sales Operations & Marketing

SIAE Microelettronica, Inc.

+1 (408) 832-4884

joseph.schr...@siaemic.com

www.siaemic.com




>>> Tim Hardy  6/4/2020 6:48 AM >>>

Should be easy enough to check to ensure that you have two (2) dual core radios 
each transmitting a discrete frequency 60 MHz apart from one another.  Anything 
else would lead one to believe that they actually are just using their ETSI 
configuration (112 MHz) within the 120 MHz block.  Seems suspicious when two 
sets of radios are about the same cost as one.





On Jun 4, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Jon Langeler  wrote:



I’m not sure details other than I verified multiple times 120Mhz of actual 
usage and the speed matched. Our frequency coordinator worked with them on the 
rest...



Jon Langeler

Michwave Technologies, Inc.






On Jun 4, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Tim Hardy  wrote:




Just confirming that this is actually two (2) dual core radios - one CCDP at 
80 MHz bandwidth and the other CCDP at 40 MHz bandwidth with the two transmit 
frequencies separated by 60 MHz - correct?  This will require couplers and 
associated losses on both ends (approximately 7 dB).  Any attempt to stack an 
80 and a 40 to get a 120 MHz block in order to “cover” the band for an ETSI 112 
MHz bandwidth radio configuration would be strictly illegal in North America, 
and any single transmitter bandwidth greater than 80 MHz bandwidth (11 GHz) is 
likewise illegal.




On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:28 AM, Jon Langeler  wrote:



11Ghz is 80MHz per channel, plus another 40Mhz= 120Mhz (two channels per 
polarity). But the channels have to be stacked and available.
Ignore the promos and prices. Tell him what price you need to be at and he will 
try to make it happen. 



Jon Langeler

Michwave Technologies, Inc.






On Jun 3, 2020, at 10:36 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:





Jon,



I'm pretty dumb with this stuff, is this possibly two descrete 60mhz channels 
per TX side?




TJ



On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jon Langeler  wrote:



11Ghz...2 channels in FCC assignment -similar- to AF11FX. 



Jon Langeler

Michwave Technologies, Inc.






On Jun 3, 2020, at 8:08 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:





What band can you do 120mhz in?



On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:04 PM Jon Langeler  wrote:



SIAE just licensed me 2Gbps links in 120Mhz x2. Price was basically all the 
same 



Jon Langeler

Michwave Technologies, Inc.






On Jun 3, 2020, at 6:16 PM, Jason McKemie  
wrote:




Yeah, the throughput is pretty comparable between the two.

On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, TJ Trout  wrote:


aviat can do the same with dual channels on a single radio, it's called a2c or 
active two channel, we use it on the wtm4100



On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:38 PM Josh Baird  wrote:



The WTM4200 is dual core which is why it can do 1.4Gbps.  The Bridgewave has 
some other magic.



On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:41 PM Jason McKemie 
 wrote:


I may have gotten the Aviat model wrong, whatever their dual core version is - 
4300? I think the power on the Aviat is better, probably in part due to the 
field replaceable diplexer in the Navigator.

On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, Josh Baird  wrote:


I think the Navigator DT will have a higher overall throughput (~3Gbps if you 
have the channels available).



The WTM4200 and the Navigator ST are a better comparison - each capable of 
~1.4Gbps.  



On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:27 AM Jason McKemie 
 wrote:



Does anyone have any experience with the two of these (Aviat WTM4200 vs 
Navigator Dual)?  I'm having a hard time deciding.



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

Re: [AFMUG] Cat5 Stripper

[Ken Hohhof]

The reason I like the ABECO Smart Strip is that you can adjust the depth of cut 
so it goes 80 or 90% of the way through the jacket and will never nick the 
wires inside or the foil shield.  You might need to have a couple of them, one 
adjusted for UTP, one for STP, another for coax, etc., or you can just adjust 
as needed.

 

That said, the techs scoff at this and don’t see why I can’t just use the 
strippers built into the crimpers, rather than carrying a special tool just for 
stripping the jacket.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Joe Novak
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:25 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cat5 Stripper

 

My favorite is still classic klein strippers:

 

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Klein-Tools-7-1-8-in-Klein-Kurve-Wire-Stripper-Cutter-for-10-18-AWG-Solid-Wire-and-12-20-AWG-Stranded-Wire-11055/100630708
 

 

 

My uncle swears by the classic 'electricians scissors':

 

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Wiss-5-1-4-in-Electrician-s-Scissors-175E/204155015?MERCH=REC-_-pipsem-_-302589194-_-204155015-_-N
 

 

 

I never really liked these, but there are people that prefer them. For me they 
would always cut into the cat5e, that also goes for strippers like them.

https://www.amazon.com/Platinum-Tools-15015-Jacket-Stripper/dp/B000FI2RVC  

 

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 9:24 AM Matt mailto:matt.mailingli...@gmail.com> > wrote:

We use EZ cat5 connectors and switched from single jacketed outdoor
shielded cat5 too double jacketed.  What is everyone using for a cat5
stripper?

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

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

Re: [AFMUG] Switch software bug

[Ken Hohhof]

About a month ago there was a Salt advisory, and I seem to remember some
Cisco products being hacked, but it sounds like more of a server
vulnerability.

https://www.csoonline.com/article/3541721/cloud-servers-hacked-via-critical-
saltstack-vulnerabilities.html

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Nate Burke
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:54 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Switch software bug

 

The Traffic will just move over to other upstream connections if they both
would have maintenance'd at the same time.  

I know what equipment is at my location, which is Ciena and TelcoSystems,
but I'm not sure what equipment is on the other end of the fiber.  

On 6/4/2020 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

Well, it's good to not have both down at the same time.

One of my upstreams had a series of rolling upgrades for this week that has
been postponed.



-
Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
 


 
  Midwest Internet Exchange
 

 
  The Brothers WISP
 
 





  _  


From: "Nate Burke"   
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  

Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 8:23:31 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Switch software bug

Just before one provider was supposed to start, they sent a notice they were
postponing, the other provider did the upgrade last night. 

On June 4, 2020 12:08:29 AM CDT, Nate Burke  
 wrote: 

We got notices late this afternoon from 2 seperate upstreams of emergency
maintenance overnight tonight for software upgrades. Was there some sort of
big bug that was just found on one of the switch/routing platforms?


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

 





 

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

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[chuck]

I am not using ONTs in the classic sense.  The 844G router is the ONT.  
Trying to attach as little to the outside of the house as possible.  

From: Sterling Jacobson 
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:45 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

I assume this is not new construction.

 

In my limited use cases I’ve used armored jump cables from the outside mini-nid 
join box to the inside.

Then loop it a couple of times, maybe behind the ONT even, secured to the wall 
or whatever, then just a bit is exposed to the plug.

Or just went ahead and used a NID inside with the usual strain guards and even 
boots or mini conduit etc.

 

New CenturyLink builds I’ve noticed have a flexible mini duct/conduit, then 
loop the jump cable coming out of that behind the ONT and connect it on the 
bottom so not much is exposed.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:24 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

 

I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.  

But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people not 
understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then there is 
the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and splice outside in 
a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router is a bit more 
difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new system I am 
looking for something better.

 

I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the house.  
Anything like that exist?




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

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[Carl Peterson]

Cheap would be the bow type flat drop - we use them with FRP steel ones are
too stiff.

Next option would be either 3m of 4.8mm RBR drop cables like
MDC-JJ1G-0200FJ

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:25 AM  wrote:

> I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.
> But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people not
> understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then there
> is the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and splice
> outside in a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router is a bit
> more difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new system I
> am looking for something better.
>
> I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the
> house.  Anything like that exist?
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>


-- 

Carl Peterson

*PORT NETWORKS*

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 637-3707
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[chuck]

Yeah, the giga point.  I have considered that.  Just trying to get away from 
CAT5 completely.  
One good router, in a good location, fed by fiber.  
At least that is my current goal.  Reality may change that plan.  

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:52 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

Armored patch cord?

https://www.fs.com/products/41655.html

Doesn't help if the failures happen at the connector.  




My other thought is the "two box" approach.  The fiber router/ONT is screwed to 
the wall in an out of the way place like basement or utility room, and run 
Cat5e to where the WiFi router lives.  You can still use Calix for both boxes, 
but maybe not the 844G.  They have a cheaper ONT with single ethernet port, and 
then one with WiFi and an Ethernet WAN port.  I don't recall the model #'s.  I 
think this is the most long term outlook.  The installs will be more 
complicated, but you can put the fiber in a logical place for a utility 
entrance while still putting the WiFi near the users.  I.E.: I think this is 
the best way, but not the cheapest or quickest.




On 6/4/2020 11:24 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

  I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.  
  But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people not 
understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then there is 
the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and splice outside in 
a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router is a bit more 
difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new system I am 
looking for something better.

  I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the 
house.  Anything like that exist?

   



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

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[Carl Peterson]

Supposedly the realflex drop cables can be treated like cat5.  We're a
little more gentle then that with the 3mm ones.  You can order in just
about any config. i.e plenum, one end terminated, both ends terminated,
pull sock on one end, etc.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:10 AM Carl Peterson 
wrote:

> Cheap would be the bow type flat drop - we use them with FRP steel ones
> are too stiff.
>
> Next option would be either 3m of 4.8mm RBR drop cables like
> MDC-JJ1G-0200FJ
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:25 AM  wrote:
>
>> I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.
>> But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people
>> not understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then
>> there is the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and
>> splice outside in a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router
>> is a bit more difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new
>> system I am looking for something better.
>>
>> I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the
>> house.  Anything like that exist?
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Carl Peterson
>
> *PORT NETWORKS*
>
> 401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553
>
> Baltimore, MD 21202
>
> (410) 637-3707
>


-- 

Carl Peterson

*PORT NETWORKS*

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 637-3707
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[Sterling Jacobson]

Yeah, I got your meaning, I just tend to use ONT generically but I guess it 
becomes a CPE inside or whatever.

I agree, those little grey boxes of yours make great little cross connect 
NID/housings.
We use them all over for Ethernet RJ45 M/F junction housings.
Including housing the simple BIDI LC couplers for outside plant to inside 
jumper cross connects.

I need to order more of those empty housings if you have them.
I’ll send you an email.


From: AF  On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:10 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

I am not using ONTs in the classic sense.  The 844G router is the ONT.
Trying to attach as little to the outside of the house as possible.

From: Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:45 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

I assume this is not new construction.

In my limited use cases I’ve used armored jump cables from the outside mini-nid 
join box to the inside.
Then loop it a couple of times, maybe behind the ONT even, secured to the wall 
or whatever, then just a bit is exposed to the plug.
Or just went ahead and used a NID inside with the usual strain guards and even 
boots or mini conduit etc.

New CenturyLink builds I’ve noticed have a flexible mini duct/conduit, then 
loop the jump cable coming out of that behind the ONT and connect it on the 
bottom so not much is exposed.

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of 
ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:24 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.
But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people not 
understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then there is 
the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and splice outside in 
a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router is a bit more 
difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new system I am 
looking for something better.

I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the house.  
Anything like that exist?

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

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[Sterling Jacobson]

Although the outside plant guys hate doing it, we do have installs just 
transitioning the drop cable from outside conduit to inside run all the way to 
the CPE.
Sometimes it's not pretty because they just use the splice case to go to pig 
tail instead of something "fancy" like the shrink tube covered CAM splice or 
whatever.
But it works IMO if it's secured at the right places and looped for slack so a 
little bit of flex can happen.



From: AF  On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:11 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

Yeah, the giga point.  I have considered that.  Just trying to get away from 
CAT5 completely.
One good router, in a good location, fed by fiber.
At least that is my current goal.  Reality may change that plan.

From: Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:52 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber


Armored patch cord?

https://www.fs.com/products/41655.html

Doesn't help if the failures happen at the connector.



My other thought is the "two box" approach.  The fiber router/ONT is screwed to 
the wall in an out of the way place like basement or utility room, and run 
Cat5e to where the WiFi router lives.  You can still use Calix for both boxes, 
but maybe not the 844G.  They have a cheaper ONT with single ethernet port, and 
then one with WiFi and an Ethernet WAN port.  I don't recall the model #'s.  I 
think this is the most long term outlook.  The installs will be more 
complicated, but you can put the fiber in a logical place for a utility 
entrance while still putting the WiFi near the users.  I.E.: I think this is 
the best way, but not the cheapest or quickest.


On 6/4/2020 11:24 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.
But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people not 
understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then there is 
the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and splice outside in 
a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router is a bit more 
difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new system I am 
looking for something better.

I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the house.  
Anything like that exist?



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

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[Sterling Jacobson]

I like the look of the RealFlex.

What I can’t figure out, maybe also part of this conversation as intended, is 
if you don’t use a jumper, how are CenturyLink et. al. doing that nice outside 
plant drop to inside patch/end splice/connection?
My guys don’t seem to know how that’s done.

I’m guessing it’s an inline splice with some sort of special heat shrink 
tubing/package that protects the join and provides strain/pull prevention 
internally?

I just don’t get it.

From: AF  On Behalf Of Carl Peterson
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:14 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

Supposedly the realflex drop cables can be treated like cat5.  We're a little 
more gentle then that with the 3mm ones.  You can order in just about any 
config. i.e plenum, one end terminated, both ends terminated, pull sock on one 
end, etc.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:10 AM Carl Peterson 
mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com>> wrote:
Cheap would be the bow type flat drop - we use them with FRP steel ones are too 
stiff.

Next option would be either 3m of 4.8mm RBR drop cables like MDC-JJ1G-0200FJ

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:25 AM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:
I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.
But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people not 
understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then there is 
the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and splice outside in 
a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router is a bit more 
difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new system I am 
looking for something better.

I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the house.  
Anything like that exist?
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


--

Carl Peterson

PORT NETWORKS

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 637-3707


--

Carl Peterson

PORT NETWORKS

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 637-3707
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[Chris Fabien]

We use one of two options

Corning RuggedDrop assembly, is a 5mm 1F tight buffered cable with SC/APC
on either end, outside rated in case you need to house wrap, we use this
from the NID to a baseboard jack. These are $25-35 range for 50-100ft
length.

Fiberstore armored patch cables - 3mm with a blue PVC jacket, we use these
from the baseboard jack to the modem/ONU. Depending on the ONU you may need
a UPC to APC which is a custom item about a 1 month lead time. We've also
bought a similar cable from total cable solutions. About $5 for the FS and
only about $8.50 for the TCS.  We have also bought longer ones of these to
use from NID to the baseboard jack, in cases when it will not be exposed to
UV, like right into the crawl space and then up into the living area.

This is the baseboard jack we use:
http://www.ecablemart.com/terminal_box/2-fiber-86-type-ftth-terminal-box-p-119819.html

Hope the helps
Chris



On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:25 AM  wrote:

> I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.
> But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people not
> understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then there
> is the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and splice
> outside in a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router is a bit
> more difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new system I
> am looking for something better.
>
> I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the
> house.  Anything like that exist?
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Switch software bug

[Steve Jones]

I know its increased, but ive been really surprised there havent been more
exploits given the turmoil and remote workforce that is short staffed.
Maybe there is but the exploits are being efficiently used so theyre not
exposed. thats always been a pet peeve, exploits being wasted. Its like
finding  a house with an unlocked door and instead of coming in and making
a ham sandwich every couple days you poop on the carpet and kick the dog.
now the door is locked and youre still hungry.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:11 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> About a month ago there was a Salt advisory, and I seem to remember some
> Cisco products being hacked, but it sounds like more of a server
> vulnerability.
>
>
> https://www.csoonline.com/article/3541721/cloud-servers-hacked-via-critical-saltstack-vulnerabilities.html
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Nate Burke
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:54 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Switch software bug
>
>
>
> The Traffic will just move over to other upstream connections if they both
> would have maintenance'd at the same time.
>
> I know what equipment is at my location, which is Ciena and TelcoSystems,
> but I'm not sure what equipment is on the other end of the fiber.
>
> On 6/4/2020 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> Well, it's good to not have both down at the same time.
>
> One of my upstreams had a series of rolling upgrades for this week that
> has been postponed.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Nate Burke"  
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> 
> *Sent: *Thursday, June 4, 2020 8:23:31 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Switch software bug
>
> Just before one provider was supposed to start, they sent a notice they
> were postponing, the other provider did the upgrade last night.
>
> On June 4, 2020 12:08:29 AM CDT, Nate Burke 
>  wrote:
>
> We got notices late this afternoon from 2 seperate upstreams of emergency
> maintenance overnight tonight for software upgrades. Was there some sort of
> big bug that was just found on one of the switch/routing platforms?
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[Carl Peterson]

We are mostly doing this indoors in MDUs but on the side of the house you
would terminate your OSP cable in the NID and then just plug in the
realflex drop.  There is an indoor/outdoor version for that.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:21 AM Sterling Jacobson 
wrote:

> I like the look of the RealFlex.
>
>
>
> What I can’t figure out, maybe also part of this conversation as intended,
> is if you don’t use a jumper, how are CenturyLink et. al. doing that nice
> outside plant drop to inside patch/end splice/connection?
>
> My guys don’t seem to know how that’s done.
>
>
>
> I’m guessing it’s an inline splice with some sort of special heat shrink
> tubing/package that protects the join and provides strain/pull prevention
> internally?
>
>
>
> I just don’t get it.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * Carl Peterson
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:14 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber
>
>
>
> Supposedly the realflex drop cables can be treated like cat5.  We're a
> little more gentle then that with the 3mm ones.  You can order in just
> about any config. i.e plenum, one end terminated, both ends terminated,
> pull sock on one end, etc.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:10 AM Carl Peterson 
> wrote:
>
> Cheap would be the bow type flat drop - we use them with FRP steel ones
> are too stiff.
>
>
>
> Next option would be either 3m of 4.8mm RBR drop cables like
> MDC-JJ1G-0200FJ
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:25 AM  wrote:
>
> I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.
>
> But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people not
> understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then there
> is the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and splice
> outside in a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router is a bit
> more difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new system I
> am looking for something better.
>
>
>
> I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the
> house.  Anything like that exist?
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Carl Peterson
>
> *PORT NETWORKS*
>
> 401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553
>
> Baltimore, MD 21202
>
> (410) 637-3707
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Carl Peterson
>
> *PORT NETWORKS*
>
> 401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553
>
> Baltimore, MD 21202
>
> (410) 637-3707
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>


-- 

Carl Peterson

*PORT NETWORKS*

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 637-3707
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[chuck]

Is there enough room in them for joining fiber?
I was going to do a larger box with an SC/APC coupler inside, but I have not 
solved the box sealing problem.  

From: Sterling Jacobson 
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:14 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

Yeah, I got your meaning, I just tend to use ONT generically but I guess it 
becomes a CPE inside or whatever.

 

I agree, those little grey boxes of yours make great little cross connect 
NID/housings.

We use them all over for Ethernet RJ45 M/F junction housings.

Including housing the simple BIDI LC couplers for outside plant to inside 
jumper cross connects.

 

I need to order more of those empty housings if you have them.

I’ll send you an email.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:10 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

 

I am not using ONTs in the classic sense.  The 844G router is the ONT.  

Trying to attach as little to the outside of the house as possible.  

 

From: Sterling Jacobson 

Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:45 AM

To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

 

I assume this is not new construction.

 

In my limited use cases I’ve used armored jump cables from the outside mini-nid 
join box to the inside.

Then loop it a couple of times, maybe behind the ONT even, secured to the wall 
or whatever, then just a bit is exposed to the plug.

Or just went ahead and used a NID inside with the usual strain guards and even 
boots or mini conduit etc.

 

New CenturyLink builds I’ve noticed have a flexible mini duct/conduit, then 
loop the jump cable coming out of that behind the ONT and connect it on the 
bottom so not much is exposed.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:24 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

 

I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.  

But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people not 
understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then there is 
the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and splice outside in 
a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router is a bit more 
difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new system I am 
looking for something better.

 

I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the house.  
Anything like that exist?




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




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

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[chuck]

This does help, thanks.  What do you do when you have to re terminate the 
Corning drop?

From: Chris Fabien 
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:22 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

We use one of two options 

Corning RuggedDrop assembly, is a 5mm 1F tight buffered cable with SC/APC on 
either end, outside rated in case you need to house wrap, we use this from the 
NID to a baseboard jack. These are $25-35 range for 50-100ft length. 

Fiberstore armored patch cables - 3mm with a blue PVC jacket, we use these from 
the baseboard jack to the modem/ONU. Depending on the ONU you may need a UPC to 
APC which is a custom item about a 1 month lead time. We've also bought a 
similar cable from total cable solutions. About $5 for the FS and only about 
$8.50 for the TCS.  We have also bought longer ones of these to use from NID to 
the baseboard jack, in cases when it will not be exposed to UV, like right into 
the crawl space and then up into the living area. 

This is the baseboard jack we use: 
http://www.ecablemart.com/terminal_box/2-fiber-86-type-ftth-terminal-box-p-119819.html

Hope the helps
Chris



On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:25 AM  wrote:

  I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.  
  But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people not 
understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then there is 
the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and splice outside in 
a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router is a bit more 
difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new system I am 
looking for something better.

  I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the 
house.  Anything like that exist?
  -- 
  AF mailing list
  AF@af.afmug.com
  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com




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

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[chuck]

Their brochure shows that the inner portion of the realflex is tough enough to 
strip and stable by itself.  

From: Carl Peterson 
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:13 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

Supposedly the realflex drop cables can be treated like cat5.  We're a little 
more gentle then that with the 3mm ones.  You can order in just about any 
config. i.e plenum, one end terminated, both ends terminated, pull sock on one 
end, etc.  

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:10 AM Carl Peterson  
wrote:

  Cheap would be the bow type flat drop - we use them with FRP steel ones are 
too stiff.   

  Next option would be either 3m of 4.8mm RBR drop cables like MDC-JJ1G-0200FJ 

  On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:25 AM  wrote:

I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.  
But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people not 
understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then there is 
the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and splice outside in 
a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router is a bit more 
difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new system I am 
looking for something better.

I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the 
house.  Anything like that exist?
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



  -- 

  Carl Peterson


  PORT NETWORKS

  401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

  Baltimore, MD 21202

  (410) 637-3707 



-- 

Carl Peterson


PORT NETWORKS

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 637-3707 




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

Re: [AFMUG] Switch software bug

[Ken Hohhof]

I found this article interesting.  Who knew, being a cybercriminal is boring 
and you have to deal with whiny customers.

 

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2020/05/career-choice-tip-cybercrime-is-mostly-boring/

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 11:34 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Switch software bug

 

I know its increased, but ive been really surprised there havent been more 
exploits given the turmoil and remote workforce that is short staffed. Maybe 
there is but the exploits are being efficiently used so theyre not exposed. 
thats always been a pet peeve, exploits being wasted. Its like finding  a house 
with an unlocked door and instead of coming in and making a ham sandwich every 
couple days you poop on the carpet and kick the dog. now the door is locked and 
youre still hungry.

 

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:11 AM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:

About a month ago there was a Salt advisory, and I seem to remember some Cisco 
products being hacked, but it sounds like more of a server vulnerability.

https://www.csoonline.com/article/3541721/cloud-servers-hacked-via-critical-saltstack-vulnerabilities.html

 

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Nate Burke
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:54 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Switch software bug

 

The Traffic will just move over to other upstream connections if they both 
would have maintenance'd at the same time.  

I know what equipment is at my location, which is Ciena and TelcoSystems, but 
I'm not sure what equipment is on the other end of the fiber.  

On 6/4/2020 8:42 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

Well, it's good to not have both down at the same time.

One of my upstreams had a series of rolling upgrades for this week that has 
been postponed.



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





  _  


From: "Nate Burke"   
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"   

Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 8:23:31 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Switch software bug

Just before one provider was supposed to start, they sent a notice they were 
postponing, the other provider did the upgrade last night. 

On June 4, 2020 12:08:29 AM CDT, Nate Burke   
 wrote: 

We got notices late this afternoon from 2 seperate upstreams of emergency 
maintenance overnight tonight for software upgrades. Was there some sort of big 
bug that was just found on one of the switch/routing platforms?


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

 

 

 

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

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

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[Carl Peterson]

We try not to.  If we have to, generally AFL Fast connectors for 3mm or
sumitomo  LYNX2-SCAPCSM-3.0 with a little sumitomo splicer.

Not to get too far into the weeds, but we generally install stub ends -
terminated end goes to our enclosure and then we splice the customer end in
a wall plate.  Fibermint makes us wall plates with a shutter coupler and a
pigtail pre-installed for a buck or two.  Can be surface mounted or mounted
to a low voltage frame.  Then we use a patch cable, like the fs armored
ones, to go to the 844G.  If you are wall mounting the 844G you can
terminate in the wall plate but I prefer the separate fiber jack.


https://www.aflglobal.com/Products/Fiber-Optic-Connectivity/Field-Installable-Connectors/FAST-Connectors_(1).aspx

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:48 AM  wrote:

> This does help, thanks.  What do you do when you have to re terminate the
> Corning drop?
>
> *From:* Chris Fabien
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:22 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber
>
> We use one of two options
>
> Corning RuggedDrop assembly, is a 5mm 1F tight buffered cable with SC/APC
> on either end, outside rated in case you need to house wrap, we use this
> from the NID to a baseboard jack. These are $25-35 range for 50-100ft
> length.
>
> Fiberstore armored patch cables - 3mm with a blue PVC jacket, we use these
> from the baseboard jack to the modem/ONU. Depending on the ONU you may need
> a UPC to APC which is a custom item about a 1 month lead time. We've also
> bought a similar cable from total cable solutions. About $5 for the FS and
> only about $8.50 for the TCS.  We have also bought longer ones of these to
> use from NID to the baseboard jack, in cases when it will not be exposed to
> UV, like right into the crawl space and then up into the living area.
>
> This is the baseboard jack we use:
> http://www.ecablemart.com/terminal_box/2-fiber-86-type-ftth-terminal-box-p-119819.html
>
> Hope the helps
> Chris
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:25 AM  wrote:
>
>> I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.
>> But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people
>> not understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then
>> there is the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and
>> splice outside in a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router
>> is a bit more difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new
>> system I am looking for something better.
>>
>> I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the
>> house.  Anything like that exist?
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>


-- 

Carl Peterson

*PORT NETWORKS*

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 637-3707
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[Chris Fabien]

We would typically replace the cable run although there is room in the NID
and in that baseboard jack to fusion splice a pigtail in a pinch.


On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:48 PM  wrote:

> This does help, thanks.  What do you do when you have to re terminate the
> Corning drop?
>
> *From:* Chris Fabien
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:22 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber
>
> We use one of two options
>
> Corning RuggedDrop assembly, is a 5mm 1F tight buffered cable with SC/APC
> on either end, outside rated in case you need to house wrap, we use this
> from the NID to a baseboard jack. These are $25-35 range for 50-100ft
> length.
>
> Fiberstore armored patch cables - 3mm with a blue PVC jacket, we use these
> from the baseboard jack to the modem/ONU. Depending on the ONU you may need
> a UPC to APC which is a custom item about a 1 month lead time. We've also
> bought a similar cable from total cable solutions. About $5 for the FS and
> only about $8.50 for the TCS.  We have also bought longer ones of these to
> use from NID to the baseboard jack, in cases when it will not be exposed to
> UV, like right into the crawl space and then up into the living area.
>
> This is the baseboard jack we use:
> http://www.ecablemart.com/terminal_box/2-fiber-86-type-ftth-terminal-box-p-119819.html
>
> Hope the helps
> Chris
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:25 AM  wrote:
>
>> I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.
>> But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people
>> not understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then
>> there is the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and
>> splice outside in a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router
>> is a bit more difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new
>> system I am looking for something better.
>>
>> I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the
>> house.  Anything like that exist?
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz

[Tim Hardy]

And, this is exactly what I have been discussing in this thread.  “In instances 
where a customer can get the FCC to license wider than 80 MHz channels (11 GHz 
& 18 GHz), we can unlock the modems to provide up to 112 MHz bandwidth.”

Let’s be clear on this.  The only way to “get the FCC to license” these would 
be to properly prior coordinate the radio and frequency pair at 112 MHz with 
the correct emission designator, and then file FCC applications with this 
information. These applications would require at least two formal rule waiver 
requests ( 47 CFR 101.109 & 47 CFR 101.147) and these are not usually granted 
routinely.  Coordinating and licensing an 80 MHz channel pair and a 40 MHz pair 
60 MHz away in order to “block-out” 120 MHz would not somehow make this 112 MHz 
bandwidth legal.  For example, one recent coordination listed 10995.0 MHz CCDP 
at 80 MHz and 10935.0 MHz CCDP at 40 MHz to cover a total of 120 MHz.  The 
licensing for this would require two separate radio sets one at 80 MHz CCDP and 
the other at 40 MHz CCDP.  Unlocking the radio for 112 MHz bandwidth here would 
be strictly illegal and subject the operator to forfeiture (fines).  The 
licensed frequencies would be meaningless as the operational frequency for the 
112 MHz carrier would have to be 10975.0 MHz.

As far as I know, there have been no PCNs or applications filed with rule 
waiver requests for 112 MHz bandwidth in either 11 or 18 GHz.  Therefore, 
anyone operating in this fashion is doing so at their peril and vendors should 
not be pushing this in North America without cautioning their customers.

> On Jun 4, 2020, at 11:31 AM,  
>  wrote:
> 
> Our ALFOPlus2 radio is true dual-carrier radio capable of up to 2x 112 MHz 
> channels. In instances where a customer can get the FCC to license wider than 
> 80 MHz channels (11 GHz & 18 GHz), we can unlock the modems to provide up to 
> 112 MHz bandwidth. With 4096QAM, this yields just over 2 Gbps full duplex 
> throughput (no compression).
> 
> This radio has independent modems and RF, so you have the flexibility to put 
> one of the carriers on say an 80 MHz channel using 4096QAM, and the other 
> carrier on 40 MHz using 256QAM. You also have the flexibility to set RF power 
> to different levels for the independent carriers. But most folks license CCDP 
> for max throughput, and there is no loss between the ODU and the antenna in 
> this mode.
> 
> We've also supplied 4+0 configurations (two ALFOPlus2 radios with a combiner 
> sandwiched between them), which doubles the capacity. Sure, there's a 3dB 
> coupler loss on each end, but you're getting 2x the throughput
> 
> We've been shipping this radio since 2016. We've recently added a 10Gbe 
> interface to the radio (this is the AP2XG), so you can run a single 10G fiber 
> to the radio instead of two 1G connections.
> 
> Need more info? My contact info below...
> 
> Thanks,
>  
> 
>  
> Joe Schraml
> VP Sales Operations & Marketing
> SIAE Microelettronica, Inc.
> +1 (408) 832-4884
> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com 
> www.siaemic.com 
> 
> >>> Tim Hardy mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>> 6/4/2020 
> >>> 6:48 AM >>>
> Should be easy enough to check to ensure that you have two (2) dual core 
> radios each transmitting a discrete frequency 60 MHz apart from one another.  
> Anything else would lead one to believe that they actually are just using 
> their ETSI configuration (112 MHz) within the 120 MHz block.  Seems 
> suspicious when two sets of radios are about the same cost as one.
> 
> 
>> On Jun 4, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Jon Langeler > > wrote:
>> 
>> I’m not sure details other than I verified multiple times 120Mhz of actual 
>> usage and the speed matched. Our frequency coordinator worked with them on 
>> the rest...
>> 
>> Jon Langeler
>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 4, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Tim Hardy >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Just confirming that this is actually two (2) dual core radios - one CCDP 
>>> at 80 MHz bandwidth and the other CCDP at 40 MHz bandwidth with the two 
>>> transmit frequencies separated by 60 MHz - correct?  This will require 
>>> couplers and associated losses on both ends (approximately 7 dB).  Any 
>>> attempt to stack an 80 and a 40 to get a 120 MHz block in order to “cover” 
>>> the band for an ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth radio configuration would be 
>>> strictly illegal in North America, and any single transmitter bandwidth 
>>> greater than 80 MHz bandwidth (11 GHz) is likewise illegal.
>>> 
 On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:28 AM, Jon Langeler >>> > wrote:
 
 11Ghz is 80MHz per channel, plus another 40Mhz= 120Mhz (two channels per 
 polarity). But the channels have to be stacked and available.
 Ignore the promos and prices. Tell him what price you need to be at and he 
 will try to make it happen. 
 
 Jon Langeler
 Michw

Re: [AFMUG] OT fun

[Ken Hohhof]

Good one, Ant-Steve.  All hail The Queen.  And remember, there shall be no 
antarchy.

 

This is about the Ant Group, right?

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1416375691836223/

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:07 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT fun

 

lent

 

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:45 AM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> > 
wrote:

 

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

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

Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz

[Mike Hammett]

That's dumb. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Tim Hardy"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:19:32 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz 

And, this is exactly what I have been discussing in this thread. “In instances 
where a customer can get the FCC to license wider than 80 MHz channels (11 GHz 
& 18 GHz), we can unlock the modems to provide up to 112 MHz bandwidth.” 


Let’s be clear on this. The only way to “get the FCC to license” these would be 
to properly prior coordinate the radio and frequency pair at 112 MHz with the 
correct emission designator, and then file FCC applications with this 
information. These applications would require at least two formal rule waiver 
requests ( 47 CFR 101.109 & 47 CFR 101.147) and these are not usually granted 
routinely. Coordinating and licensing an 80 MHz channel pair and a 40 MHz pair 
60 MHz away in order to “block-out” 120 MHz would not somehow make this 112 MHz 
bandwidth legal. For example, one recent coordination listed 10995.0 MHz CCDP 
at 80 MHz and 10935.0 MHz CCDP at 40 MHz to cover a total of 120 MHz. The 
licensing for this would require two separate radio sets one at 80 MHz CCDP and 
the other at 40 MHz CCDP. Unlocking the radio for 112 MHz bandwidth here would 
be strictly illegal and subject the operator to forfeiture (fines). The 
licensed frequencies would be meaningless as the operational frequency for the 
112 MHz carrier would have to be 10975.0 MHz. 


As far as I know, there have been no PCNs or applications filed with rule 
waiver requests for 112 MHz bandwidth in either 11 or 18 GHz. Therefore, anyone 
operating in this fashion is doing so at their peril and vendors should not be 
pushing this in North America without cautioning their customers. 





On Jun 4, 2020, at 11:31 AM, < joseph.schr...@siaemic.com > < 
joseph.schr...@siaemic.com > wrote: 



Our ALFOPlus2 radio is true dual-carrier radio capable of up to 2x 112 MHz 
channels. In instances where a customer can get the FCC to license wider than 
80 MHz channels (11 GHz & 18 GHz), we can unlock the modems to provide up to 
112 MHz bandwidth. With 4096QAM, this yields just over 2 Gbps full duplex 
throughput (no compression). 


This radio has independent modems and RF, so you have the flexibility to put 
one of the carriers on say an 80 MHz channel using 4096QAM, and the other 
carrier on 40 MHz using 256QAM. You also have the flexibility to set RF power 
to different levels for the independent carriers. But most folks license CCDP 
for max throughput, and there is no loss between the ODU and the antenna in 
this mode. 


We've also supplied 4+0 configurations (two ALFOPlus2 radios with a combiner 
sandwiched between them), which doubles the capacity. Sure, there's a 3dB 
coupler loss on each end, but you're getting 2x the throughput 


We've been shipping this radio since 2016. We've recently added a 10Gbe 
interface to the radio (this is the AP2XG), so you can run a single 10G fiber 
to the radio instead of two 1G connections. 


Need more info? My contact info below... 


Thanks, 

 

Joe Schraml 
VP Sales Operations & Marketing 
SIAE Microelettronica, Inc. 
+1 (408) 832-4884 
joseph.schr...@siaemic.com 
www.siaemic.com 

>>> Tim Hardy < thardy...@gmail.com > 6/4/2020 6:48 AM >>> 

Should be easy enough to check to ensure that you have two (2) dual core radios 
each transmitting a discrete frequency 60 MHz apart from one another. Anything 
else would lead one to believe that they actually are just using their ETSI 
configuration (112 MHz) within the 120 MHz block. Seems suspicious when two 
sets of radios are about the same cost as one. 






On Jun 4, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Jon Langeler < jon-ispli...@michwave.net > wrote: 


I’m not sure details other than I verified multiple times 120Mhz of actual 
usage and the speed matched. Our frequency coordinator worked with them on the 
rest... 



Jon Langeler 
Michwave Technologies, Inc. 





On Jun 4, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Tim Hardy < thardy...@gmail.com > wrote: 






Just confirming that this is actually two (2) dual core radios - one CCDP at 80 
MHz bandwidth and the other CCDP at 40 MHz bandwidth with the two transmit 
frequencies separated by 60 MHz - correct? This will require couplers and 
associated losses on both ends (approximately 7 dB). Any attempt to stack an 80 
and a 40 to get a 120 MHz block in order to “cover” the band for an ETSI 112 
MHz bandwidth radio configuration would be strictly illegal in North America, 
and any single transmitter bandwidth greater than 80 MHz bandwidth (11 GHz) is 
likewise illegal. 





On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:28 AM, Jon Langeler < jon-ispli...@michwave.net > wrote: 


11Ghz is 80MHz per channel, plus another 40Mhz= 120Mhz (two channels per 
polarity). But the channels have to be stacked and available. 
Ignore the promos and 

Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz

[Joseph.Schraml]

Matthew - yes we do. 





Thanks,

 



 

Joe Schraml

VP Sales Operations & Marketing

SIAE Microelettronica, Inc.

+1 (408) 832-4884

joseph.schr...@siaemic.com

www.siaemic.com




>>> Mathew Howard  6/4/2020 8:20 AM >>>

 
Does Siae have the capability of running two channels per core, like was 
discussed earlier on the Bridgewave and Aviat radios? 






On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 8:49 AM Tim Hardy  wrote:



Should be easy enough to check to ensure that you have two (2) dual core radios 
each transmitting a discrete frequency 60 MHz apart from one another. Anything 
else would lead one to believe that they actually are just using their ETSI 
configuration (112 MHz) within the 120 MHz block. Seems suspicious when two 
sets of radios are about the same cost as one.





On Jun 4, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Jon Langeler  wrote:



I’m not sure details other than I verified multiple times 120Mhz of actual 
usage and the speed matched. Our frequency coordinator worked with them on the 
rest...



Jon Langeler

Michwave Technologies, Inc.






On Jun 4, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Tim Hardy  wrote:




Just confirming that this is actually two (2) dual core radios - one CCDP at 
80 MHz bandwidth and the other CCDP at 40 MHz bandwidth with the two transmit 
frequencies separated by 60 MHz - correct? This will require couplers and 
associated losses on both ends (approximately 7 dB). Any attempt to stack an 80 
and a 40 to get a 120 MHz block in order to “cover” the band for an ETSI 112 
MHz bandwidth radio configuration would be strictly illegal in North America, 
and any single transmitter bandwidth greater than 80 MHz bandwidth (11 GHz) is 
likewise illegal.




On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:28 AM, Jon Langeler  wrote:



11Ghz is 80MHz per channel, plus another 40Mhz= 120Mhz (two channels per 
polarity). But the channels have to be stacked and available.
Ignore the promos and prices. Tell him what price you need to be at and he will 
try to make it happen. 



Jon Langeler

Michwave Technologies, Inc.






On Jun 3, 2020, at 10:36 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:





Jon,



I'm pretty dumb with this stuff, is this possibly two descrete 60mhz channels 
per TX side?




TJ



On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jon Langeler  wrote:



11Ghz...2 channels in FCC assignment -similar- to AF11FX. 



Jon Langeler

Michwave Technologies, Inc.






On Jun 3, 2020, at 8:08 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:





What band can you do 120mhz in?



On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:04 PM Jon Langeler  wrote:



SIAE just licensed me 2Gbps links in 120Mhz x2. Price was basically all the 
same 



Jon Langeler

Michwave Technologies, Inc.






On Jun 3, 2020, at 6:16 PM, Jason McKemie  
wrote:




Yeah, the throughput is pretty comparable between the two.

On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, TJ Trout  wrote:


aviat can do the same with dual channels on a single radio, it's called a2c or 
active two channel, we use it on the wtm4100



On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:38 PM Josh Baird  wrote:



The WTM4200 is dual core which is why it can do 1.4Gbps. The Bridgewave has 
some other magic.



On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:41 PM Jason McKemie 
 wrote:


I may have gotten the Aviat model wrong, whatever their dual core version is - 
4300? I think the power on the Aviat is better, probably in part due to the 
field replaceable diplexer in the Navigator.

On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, Josh Baird  wrote:


I think the Navigator DT will have a higher overall throughput (~3Gbps if you 
have the channels available).



The WTM4200 and the Navigator ST are a better comparison - each capable of 
~1.4Gbps. 



On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:27 AM Jason McKemie 
 wrote:



Does anyone have any experience with the two of these (Aviat WTM4200 vs 
Navigator Dual)? I'm having a hard time deciding.



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

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

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

Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz

[Mathew Howard]

Lots of government rules are dumb... unfortunately, that doesn't mean we
can ignore them...

My understanding is that radios like the Bridgewave Navigator are actually
able to run two distinct carriers in a single core radio, so you actually
can license two adjacent channels (there can even be somewhat of a gap
between them, if I understand it right) and use that legally, but that's a
different thing than running a single 112mhz channel under two licenses.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:39 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> That's dumb.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Tim Hardy" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:19:32 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz
>
> And, this is exactly what I have been discussing in this thread.  “In
> instances where a customer can get the FCC to license wider than 80 MHz
> channels (11 GHz & 18 GHz), we can unlock the modems to provide up to 112
> MHz bandwidth.”
>
> Let’s be clear on this.  The only way to “get the FCC to license” these
> would be to properly prior coordinate the radio and frequency pair at 112
> MHz with the correct emission designator, and then file FCC applications
> with this information. These applications would require at least two formal
> rule waiver requests ( 47 CFR 101.109 & 47 CFR 101.147) and these are not
> usually granted routinely.  Coordinating and licensing an 80 MHz channel
> pair and a 40 MHz pair 60 MHz away in order to “block-out” 120 MHz would
> not somehow make this 112 MHz bandwidth legal.  For example, one recent
> coordination listed 10995.0 MHz CCDP at 80 MHz and 10935.0 MHz CCDP at 40
> MHz to cover a total of 120 MHz.  The licensing for this would require two
> separate radio sets one at 80 MHz CCDP and the other at 40 MHz CCDP.
> Unlocking the radio for 112 MHz bandwidth here would be strictly illegal
> and subject the operator to forfeiture (fines).  The licensed frequencies
> would be meaningless as the operational frequency for the 112 MHz carrier
> would have to be 10975.0 MHz.
>
> As far as I know, there have been no PCNs or applications filed with rule
> waiver requests for 112 MHz bandwidth in either 11 or 18 GHz.  Therefore,
> anyone operating in this fashion is doing so at their peril and vendors
> should not be pushing this in North America without cautioning their
> customers.
>
> On Jun 4, 2020, at 11:31 AM,  <
> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> wrote:
>
> Our ALFOPlus2 radio is true dual-carrier radio capable of up to 2x 112 MHz
> channels. In instances where a customer can get the FCC to license wider
> than 80 MHz channels (11 GHz & 18 GHz), we can unlock the modems to provide
> up to 112 MHz bandwidth. With 4096QAM, this yields just over 2 Gbps full
> duplex throughput (no compression).
>
> This radio has independent modems and RF, so you have the flexibility to
> put one of the carriers on say an 80 MHz channel using 4096QAM, and the
> other carrier on 40 MHz using 256QAM. You also have the flexibility to set
> RF power to different levels for the independent carriers. But most folks
> license CCDP for max throughput, and there is no loss between the ODU and
> the antenna in this mode.
>
> We've also supplied 4+0 configurations (two ALFOPlus2 radios with a
> combiner sandwiched between them), which doubles the capacity. Sure,
> there's a 3dB coupler loss on each end, but you're getting 2x the
> throughput
>
> We've been shipping this radio since 2016. We've recently added a 10Gbe
> interface to the radio (this is the AP2XG), so you can run a single 10G
> fiber to the radio instead of two 1G connections.
>
> Need more info? My contact info below...
>
> Thanks,
>
> 
>
> Joe Schraml
> VP Sales Operations & Marketing
> SIAE Microelettronica, Inc.
> +1 (408) 832-4884
> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com
> www.siaemic.com
>
> >>> Tim Hardy  6/4/2020 6:48 AM >>>
> Should be easy enough to check to ensure that you have two (2) dual core
> radios each transmitting a discrete frequency 60 MHz apart from one
> another.  Anything else would lead one to believe that they actually are
> just using their ETSI configuration (112 MHz) within the 120 MHz block.
> Seems suspicious when two sets of radios are about the same cost as one.
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Jon Langeler 
> wrote:
>
> I’m not sure details other than I verified multiple t

Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz

[Mathew Howard]

When operating that way, do both channels need to be the same size, or can
you mix a 40mhz and an 80mhz, for example? I got the impression with the
Bridgewaves that would both need to be the same size (i.e 80mhz+80mhz).

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:43 PM  wrote:

> Matthew - yes we do.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Joe Schraml
> VP Sales Operations & Marketing
> SIAE Microelettronica, Inc.
> +1 (408) 832-4884
> joseph.schr...@siaemic.com
> www.siaemic.com
>
> >>> Mathew Howard  6/4/2020 8:20 AM >>>
> Does Siae have the capability of running two channels per core, like was
> discussed earlier on the Bridgewave and Aviat radios?
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 8:49 AM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>
>> Should be easy enough to check to ensure that you have two (2) dual core
>> radios each transmitting a discrete frequency 60 MHz apart from one
>> another. Anything else would lead one to believe that they actually are
>> just using their ETSI configuration (112 MHz) within the 120 MHz block.
>> Seems suspicious when two sets of radios are about the same cost as one.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 4, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Jon Langeler 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I’m not sure details other than I verified multiple times 120Mhz of
>> actual usage and the speed matched. Our frequency coordinator worked with
>> them on the rest...
>>
>> Jon Langeler
>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 4, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Tim Hardy  wrote:
>>
>> Just confirming that this is actually two (2) dual core radios - one
>> CCDP at 80 MHz bandwidth and the other CCDP at 40 MHz bandwidth with the
>> two transmit frequencies separated by 60 MHz - correct? This will require
>> couplers and associated losses on both ends (approximately 7 dB). Any
>> attempt to stack an 80 and a 40 to get a 120 MHz block in order to “cover”
>> the band for an ETSI 112 MHz bandwidth radio configuration would be
>> strictly illegal in North America, and any single transmitter bandwidth
>> greater than 80 MHz bandwidth (11 GHz) is likewise illegal.
>>
>> On Jun 4, 2020, at 12:28 AM, Jon Langeler 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 11Ghz is 80MHz per channel, plus another 40Mhz= 120Mhz (two channels per
>> polarity). But the channels have to be stacked and available.
>> Ignore the promos and prices. Tell him what price you need to be at and
>> he will try to make it happen.
>>
>> Jon Langeler
>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 10:36 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Jon,
>>
>> I'm pretty dumb with this stuff, is this possibly two descrete 60mhz
>> channels per TX side?
>>
>> TJ
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jon Langeler 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 11Ghz...2 channels in FCC assignment -similar- to AF11FX.
>>>
>>> Jon Langeler
>>> Michwave Technologies, Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 8:08 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> What band can you do 120mhz in?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:04 PM Jon Langeler 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 SIAE just licensed me 2Gbps links in 120Mhz x2. Price was basically all
 the same

 Jon Langeler
 Michwave Technologies, Inc.


 On Jun 3, 2020, at 6:16 PM, Jason McKemie <
 j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

 Yeah, the throughput is pretty comparable between the two.

 On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, TJ Trout  wrote:

> aviat can do the same with dual channels on a single radio, it's
> called a2c or active two channel, we use it on the wtm4100
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:38 PM Josh Baird 
> wrote:
>
>> The WTM4200 is dual core which is why it can do 1.4Gbps. The
>> Bridgewave has some other magic.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 12:41 PM Jason McKemie <
>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I may have gotten the Aviat model wrong, whatever their dual core
>>> version is - 4300? I think the power on the Aviat is better, probably in
>>> part due to the field replaceable diplexer in the Navigator.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, Josh Baird  wrote:
>>>
 I think the Navigator DT will have a higher overall throughput
 (~3Gbps if you have the channels available).

 The WTM4200 and the Navigator ST are a better comparison - each
 capable of ~1.4Gbps.

 On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:27 AM Jason McKemie <
 j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> Does anyone have any experience with the two of these (Aviat
> WTM4200 vs Navigator Dual)? I'm having a hard time deciding.
>
> -Jason
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
 --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/a

Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz

[Ken Hohhof]

But Part 101 is probably the least dumb set of rules that WISPs have to deal 
with.  It’s about the only time dealing with government regulations where I 
feel like I have a seat at the adult table.  We should follow the rules, lest 
we be banished to the kids table.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:39 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz

 

That's dumb.



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




  _  

From: "Tim Hardy" mailto:thardy...@gmail.com> >
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:19:32 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz

And, this is exactly what I have been discussing in this thread.  “In instances 
where a customer can get the FCC to license wider than 80 MHz channels (11 GHz 
& 18 GHz), we can unlock the modems to provide up to 112 MHz bandwidth.”

 

Let’s be clear on this.  The only way to “get the FCC to license” these would 
be to properly prior coordinate the radio and frequency pair at 112 MHz with 
the correct emission designator, and then file FCC applications with this 
information. These applications would require at least two formal rule waiver 
requests ( 47 CFR 101.109 & 47 CFR 101.147) and these are not usually granted 
routinely.  Coordinating and licensing an 80 MHz channel pair and a 40 MHz pair 
60 MHz away in order to “block-out” 120 MHz would not somehow make this 112 MHz 
bandwidth legal.  For example, one recent coordination listed 10995.0 MHz CCDP 
at 80 MHz and 10935.0 MHz CCDP at 40 MHz to cover a total of 120 MHz.  The 
licensing for this would require two separate radio sets one at 80 MHz CCDP and 
the other at 40 MHz CCDP.  Unlocking the radio for 112 MHz bandwidth here would 
be strictly illegal and subject the operator to forfeiture (fines).  The 
licensed frequencies would be meaningless as the operational frequency for the 
112 MHz carrier would have to be 10975.0 MHz.

 

As far as I know, there have been no PCNs or applications filed with rule 
waiver requests for 112 MHz bandwidth in either 11 or 18 GHz.  Therefore, 
anyone operating in this fashion is doing so at their peril and vendors should 
not be pushing this in North America without cautioning their customers.

 

On Jun 4, 2020, at 11:31 AM, mailto:joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> > mailto:joseph.schr...@siaemic.com> > wrote:

 

Our ALFOPlus2 radio is true dual-carrier radio capable of up to 2x 112 MHz 
channels. In instances where a customer can get the FCC to license wider than 
80 MHz channels (11 GHz & 18 GHz), we can unlock the modems to provide up to 
112 MHz bandwidth. With 4096QAM, this yields just over 2 Gbps full duplex 
throughput (no compression).

 

This radio has independent modems and RF, so you have the flexibility to put 
one of the carriers on say an 80 MHz channel using 4096QAM, and the other 
carrier on 40 MHz using 256QAM. You also have the flexibility to set RF power 
to different levels for the independent carriers. But most folks license CCDP 
for max throughput, and there is no loss between the ODU and the antenna in 
this mode.

 

We've also supplied 4+0 configurations (two ALFOPlus2 radios with a combiner 
sandwiched between them), which doubles the capacity. Sure, there's a 3dB 
coupler loss on each end, but you're getting 2x the throughput

 

We've been shipping this radio since 2016. We've recently added a 10Gbe 
interface to the radio (this is the AP2XG), so you can run a single 10G fiber 
to the radio instead of two 1G connections.

 

Need more info? My contact info below...





Thanks,

 



 

Joe Schraml

VP Sales Operations & Marketing

SIAE Microelettronica, Inc.

+1 (408) 832-4884

  joseph.schr...@siaemic.com

  www.siaemic.com

 

>>> Tim Hardy mailto:thardy...@gmail.com> > 6/4/2020 6:48 
>>> AM >>>

Should be easy enough to check to ensure that you have two (2) dual core radios 
each transmitting a discrete frequency 60 MHz apart from one another.  Anything 
else would lead one to believe that they actually are just using their ETSI 
configuration (112 MHz) within the 120 MHz block.  Seems suspicious when two 
sets of radios are about the same cost as one.

 

 

On Jun 4, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Jon Langeler mailto:jon-ispli...@michwave.net> > wrote:

 

I’m

Re: [AFMUG] OT fun

[Steve Jones]

You know they kicked me out of that group for creating the group  "A group
where we all pretend to be anteaters eating a colony of ants" and luring
their members over

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:32 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Good one, Ant-Steve.  All hail The Queen.  And remember, there shall be no
> antarchy.
>
>
>
> This is about the Ant Group, right?
>
>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1416375691836223/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:07 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT fun
>
>
>
> lent
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:45 AM  wrote:
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT fun

[Mathew Howard]

It's understandable... your group sounds much better!

My question is, do you just pretend to eat the ants, or do you actually eat
the ants and just pretend to be an anteater?

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:58 PM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> You know they kicked me out of that group for creating the group  "A group
> where we all pretend to be anteaters eating a colony of ants" and luring
> their members over
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:32 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> Good one, Ant-Steve.  All hail The Queen.  And remember, there shall be
>> no antarchy.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is about the Ant Group, right?
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1416375691836223/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:07 PM
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT fun
>>
>>
>>
>> lent
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:45 AM  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz

[Mike Hammett]

Sure. I meant to advocate changing the dumb rule as opposed to ignoring it. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Ken Hohhof"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:54:13 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz 



But Part 101 is probably the least dumb set of rules that WISPs have to deal 
with. It’s about the only time dealing with government regulations where I feel 
like I have a seat at the adult table. We should follow the rules, lest we be 
banished to the kids table. 




From: AF  On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:39 PM 
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz 


That's dumb. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -


From: "Tim Hardy" < thardy...@gmail.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:19:32 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Aviat vs Bridgewave 11GHz 

And, this is exactly what I have been discussing in this thread. “In instances 
where a customer can get the FCC to license wider than 80 MHz channels (11 GHz 
& 18 GHz), we can unlock the modems to provide up to 112 MHz bandwidth.” 



Let’s be clear on this. The only way to “get the FCC to license” these would be 
to properly prior coordinate the radio and frequency pair at 112 MHz with the 
correct emission designator, and then file FCC applications with this 
information. These applications would require at least two formal rule waiver 
requests ( 47 CFR 101.109 & 47 CFR 101.147) and these are not usually granted 
routinely. Coordinating and licensing an 80 MHz channel pair and a 40 MHz pair 
60 MHz away in order to “block-out” 120 MHz would not somehow make this 112 MHz 
bandwidth legal. For example, one recent coordination listed 10995.0 MHz CCDP 
at 80 MHz and 10935.0 MHz CCDP at 40 MHz to cover a total of 120 MHz. The 
licensing for this would require two separate radio sets one at 80 MHz CCDP and 
the other at 40 MHz CCDP. Unlocking the radio for 112 MHz bandwidth here would 
be strictly illegal and subject the operator to forfeiture (fines). The 
licensed frequencies would be meaningless as the operational frequency for the 
112 MHz carrier would have to be 10975.0 MHz. 



As far as I know, there have been no PCNs or applications filed with rule 
waiver requests for 112 MHz bandwidth in either 11 or 18 GHz. Therefore, anyone 
operating in this fashion is doing so at their peril and vendors should not be 
pushing this in North America without cautioning their customers. 





On Jun 4, 2020, at 11:31 AM, < joseph.schr...@siaemic.com > < 
joseph.schr...@siaemic.com > wrote: 




Our ALFOPlus2 radio is true dual-carrier radio capable of up to 2x 112 MHz 
channels. In instances where a customer can get the FCC to license wider than 
80 MHz channels (11 GHz & 18 GHz), we can unlock the modems to provide up to 
112 MHz bandwidth. With 4096QAM, this yields just over 2 Gbps full duplex 
throughput (no compression). 



This radio has independent modems and RF, so you have the flexibility to put 
one of the carriers on say an 80 MHz channel using 4096QAM, and the other 
carrier on 40 MHz using 256QAM. You also have the flexibility to set RF power 
to different levels for the independent carriers. But most folks license CCDP 
for max throughput, and there is no loss between the ODU and the antenna in 
this mode. 



We've also supplied 4+0 configurations (two ALFOPlus2 radios with a combiner 
sandwiched between them), which doubles the capacity. Sure, there's a 3dB 
coupler loss on each end, but you're getting 2x the throughput 



We've been shipping this radio since 2016. We've recently added a 10Gbe 
interface to the radio (this is the AP2XG), so you can run a single 10G fiber 
to the radio instead of two 1G connections. 



Need more info? My contact info below... 




Thanks, 



 



Joe Schraml 

VP Sales Operations & Marketing 

SIAE Microelettronica, Inc. 

+1 (408) 832-4884 

joseph.schr...@siaemic.com 

www.siaemic.com 


>>> Tim Hardy < thardy...@gmail.com > 6/4/2020 6:48 AM >>> 

Should be easy enough to check to ensure that you have two (2) dual core radios 
each transmitting a discrete frequency 60 MHz apart from one another. Anything 
else would lead one to believe that they actually are just using their ETSI 
configuration (112 MHz) within the 120 MHz block. Seems suspicious when two 
sets of radios are about the same cost as one. 







On Jun 4, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Jon Langeler < jon-ispli...@michwave.net > wrote: 



I’m not sure details other than I verified multiple times 120Mhz of actual 
usage and the speed matched. Our frequency coordinator worked with them on the 
rest... 


Jon Langeler 

Michwave Technologies, Inc. 






On Jun 4, 2020, at 

Re: [AFMUG] OT fun

[Robert Andrews]

1.9 Million members, that does sound like an ant colony...!!!

On 06/04/2020 10:31 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
Good one, Ant-Steve.  All hail The Queen.  And remember, there shall be 
no antarchy.


This is about the Ant Group, right?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1416375691836223/

*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:07 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT fun

lent

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:45 AM > wrote:


-- 
AF mailing list

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





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

Re: [AFMUG] OT fun

[Steve Jones]

we dox them, go to their home, and cannibalize them. I suspect I may have
taken this too far

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 1:03 PM Mathew Howard  wrote:

> It's understandable... your group sounds much better!
>
> My question is, do you just pretend to eat the ants, or do you actually
> eat the ants and just pretend to be an anteater?
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:58 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> You know they kicked me out of that group for creating the group  "A
>> group where we all pretend to be anteaters eating a colony of ants" and
>> luring their members over
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:32 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>>> Good one, Ant-Steve.  All hail The Queen.  And remember, there shall be
>>> no antarchy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is about the Ant Group, right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1416375691836223/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:07 PM
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT fun
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> lent
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:45 AM  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT fun

[Mathew Howard]

I want in.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 1:31 PM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> we dox them, go to their home, and cannibalize them. I suspect I may have
> taken this too far
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 1:03 PM Mathew Howard  wrote:
>
>> It's understandable... your group sounds much better!
>>
>> My question is, do you just pretend to eat the ants, or do you actually
>> eat the ants and just pretend to be an anteater?
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:58 PM Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You know they kicked me out of that group for creating the group  "A
>>> group where we all pretend to be anteaters eating a colony of ants" and
>>> luring their members over
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:32 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>>
 Good one, Ant-Steve.  All hail The Queen.  And remember, there shall be
 no antarchy.



 This is about the Ant Group, right?



 https://www.facebook.com/groups/1416375691836223/





 *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
 *Sent:* Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:07 PM
 *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT fun



 lent



 On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:45 AM  wrote:



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

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

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

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[Jason McKemie]

On my newer (passive) deployment, I've been splicing outside and then
coupling that to an armored patch cable that goes indoors.  Mounting the
ONT/CPE/whatever you want to call it to a floor joist and using POE to
power it.  That way I have the advantage of having the electronics in
somewhat of a climate controlled area, but still am able to run Cat5 for
most of the indoor distance.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:07 PM Chris Fabien  wrote:

> We would typically replace the cable run although there is room in the NID
> and in that baseboard jack to fusion splice a pigtail in a pinch.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:48 PM  wrote:
>
>> This does help, thanks.  What do you do when you have to re terminate the
>> Corning drop?
>>
>> *From:* Chris Fabien
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:22 AM
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber
>>
>> We use one of two options
>>
>> Corning RuggedDrop assembly, is a 5mm 1F tight buffered cable with SC/APC
>> on either end, outside rated in case you need to house wrap, we use this
>> from the NID to a baseboard jack. These are $25-35 range for 50-100ft
>> length.
>>
>> Fiberstore armored patch cables - 3mm with a blue PVC jacket, we use
>> these from the baseboard jack to the modem/ONU. Depending on the ONU you
>> may need a UPC to APC which is a custom item about a 1 month lead time.
>> We've also bought a similar cable from total cable solutions. About $5 for
>> the FS and only about $8.50 for the TCS.  We have also bought longer ones
>> of these to use from NID to the baseboard jack, in cases when it will not
>> be exposed to UV, like right into the crawl space and then up into the
>> living area.
>>
>> This is the baseboard jack we use:
>> http://www.ecablemart.com/terminal_box/2-fiber-86-type-ftth-terminal-box-p-119819.html
>>
>> Hope the helps
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:25 AM  wrote:
>>
>>> I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.
>>> But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people
>>> not understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then
>>> there is the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and
>>> splice outside in a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router
>>> is a bit more difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new
>>> system I am looking for something better.
>>>
>>> I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the
>>> house.  Anything like that exist?
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[Adam Moffett]

I have not seen a Century Link installation, but you can get a drop 
cable with basically a 3mm jacketed inner cable inside of it.  Then you 
use 3mm SOC's.  The FIS ones are called "Armordillo" and you get a brass 
tube that crimps over the connector and the 3mm jacket.  Then a rubber 
boot slides over the brass tube.  You can do that with no splice boxes 
inside or outside the house, but the inner cable is no stronger than any 
other 3mm jacketed cable.



On 6/4/2020 12:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:


I like the look of the RealFlex.

What I can’t figure out, maybe also part of this conversation as 
intended, is if you don’t use a jumper, how are CenturyLink et. al. 
doing that nice outside plant drop to inside patch/end splice/connection?


My guys don’t seem to know how that’s done.

I’m guessing it’s an inline splice with some sort of special heat 
shrink tubing/package that protects the join and provides strain/pull 
prevention internally?


I just don’t get it.

*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * Carl Peterson
*Sent:* Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:14 AM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

Supposedly the realflex drop cables can be treated like cat5.  We're a 
little more gentle then that with the 3mm ones.  You can order in just 
about any config. i.e plenum, one end terminated, both ends 
terminated, pull sock on one end, etc.


On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:10 AM Carl Peterson 
mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com>> wrote:


Cheap would be the bow type flat drop - we use them with FRP steel
ones are too stiff.

Next option would be either 3m of 4.8mm RBR drop cables like
MDC-JJ1G-0200FJ

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:25 AM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:

I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at
each home.

But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues
with people not understanding that the fiber is a bit more
delicate than cat5. Then there is the issue with the
termination.  You can get long jumpers and splice outside in a
small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router is a bit
more difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my
new system I am looking for something better.

I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route
through the house. Anything like that exist?

-- 
AF mailing list

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


-- 


Carl Peterson

*PORT NETWORKS*

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 637-3707


--

Carl Peterson

*PORT NETWORKS*

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 637-3707


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

[AFMUG] OT: UPS delay

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Here's a new one:

[image: image.png]

2020 is getting old really fast.

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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: UPS delay

[Mike Hammett]

There's nothing significant happening in the Hodgkins area. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 3:50:17 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] OT: UPS delay 


Here's a new one: 



image.png



2020 is getting old really fast. 

-- 


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

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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: UPS delay

[Adam Moffett]

#HodgkinsBlackout


On 6/4/2020 5:30 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

There's nothing significant happening in the Hodgkins area.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
*To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
*Sent: *Thursday, June 4, 2020 3:50:17 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] OT: UPS delay

Here's a new one:

image.png

2020 is getting old really fast.

--
- Forrest

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


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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: UPS delay

[Adam Moffett]

..and just thought I should add I'm making a joke in reference to 
the fake #DCBlackout which apparently was pushed by bots on twitter and 
Facebook and shared by a few foolish humans.




On 6/4/2020 5:37 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:


#HodgkinsBlackout


On 6/4/2020 5:30 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

There's nothing significant happening in the Hodgkins area.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
*To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
*Sent: *Thursday, June 4, 2020 3:50:17 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] OT: UPS delay

Here's a new one:

image.png

2020 is getting old really fast.

--
- Forrest

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


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

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[Mike Hammett]

Are you guys doing connectors in the outside NID or are you splicing there? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:24:28 AM 
Subject: [AFMUG] Internal fiber 




I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home. 
But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people not 
understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5. Then there is 
the issue with the termination. You can get long jumpers and splice outside in 
a small enclosure. But replacing the end on the router is a bit more difficult. 
I have used unicams in the past, but with my new system I am looking for 
something better. 

I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the house. 
Anything like that exist? 
-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: UPS delay

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

I'm guessing the delay occurred in NY with the city lockdowns they've been
doing.



On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:31 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> There's nothing significant happening in the Hodgkins area.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, June 4, 2020 3:50:17 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] OT: UPS delay
>
> Here's a new one:
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> 2020 is getting old really fast.
>
> --
> - Forrest
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>


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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: UPS delay

[Steve Jones]

If you want to see something awful, "FedEx Meat Grinder" Those deliveries
were delayed - really though, might not want to watch it

Theyre starting to go into unnecessary details on shipping updates. Other
than maybe guaging the delay timeframe, delayed is delayed

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:52 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> I'm guessing the delay occurred in NY with the city lockdowns they've been
> doing.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:31 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> There's nothing significant happening in the Hodgkins area.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> *Sent: *Thursday, June 4, 2020 3:50:17 PM
>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] OT: UPS delay
>>
>> Here's a new one:
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>> 2020 is getting old really fast.
>>
>> --
>> - Forrest
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
>
> --
> - Forrest
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: UPS delay

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Actually it looks like it took 24 hours for the truck to move between
Farmingdale, NY and Hodgkins, IL.

I'm assuming that UPS decided it wasn't safe to move it so they let it sit
somewhere for an extended period of time.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:51 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> I'm guessing the delay occurred in NY with the city lockdowns they've been
> doing.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:31 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> There's nothing significant happening in the Hodgkins area.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> *Sent: *Thursday, June 4, 2020 3:50:17 PM
>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] OT: UPS delay
>>
>> Here's a new one:
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>> 2020 is getting old really fast.
>>
>> --
>> - Forrest
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
>
> --
> - Forrest
>


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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: UPS delay

[Steve Jones]

probably having to get them into access controlled lots or behind barns in
the middle of BFE if theyre running  along haul transport and have to take
mandatory rests

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 5:00 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> Actually it looks like it took 24 hours for the truck to move between
> Farmingdale, NY and Hodgkins, IL.
>
> I'm assuming that UPS decided it wasn't safe to move it so they let it sit
> somewhere for an extended period of time.
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:51 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm guessing the delay occurred in NY with the city lockdowns they've
>> been doing.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:31 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>> There's nothing significant happening in the Hodgkins area.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>>> *Sent: *Thursday, June 4, 2020 3:50:17 PM
>>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] OT: UPS delay
>>>
>>> Here's a new one:
>>>
>>> [image: image.png]
>>>
>>> 2020 is getting old really fast.
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Forrest
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> - Forrest
>>
>
>
> --
> - Forrest
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

[Sterling Jacobson]

I’ll have to get some pictures of the CenturyLink installs now days and post 
them.

My in-laws are moving into a senior community that has their On FTTH inside to 
their HVAC room.

They are going with Comcast, lol!

From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 2:00 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber


I have not seen a Century Link installation, but you can get a drop cable with 
basically a 3mm jacketed inner cable inside of it.  Then you use 3mm SOC's.  
The FIS ones are called "Armordillo" and you get a brass tube that crimps over 
the connector and the 3mm jacket.  Then a rubber boot slides over the brass 
tube.  You can do that with no splice boxes inside or outside the house, but 
the inner cable is no stronger than any other 3mm jacketed cable.


On 6/4/2020 12:21 PM, Sterling Jacobson wrote:
I like the look of the RealFlex.

What I can’t figure out, maybe also part of this conversation as intended, is 
if you don’t use a jumper, how are CenturyLink et. al. doing that nice outside 
plant drop to inside patch/end splice/connection?
My guys don’t seem to know how that’s done.

I’m guessing it’s an inline splice with some sort of special heat shrink 
tubing/package that protects the join and provides strain/pull prevention 
internally?

I just don’t get it.

From: AF  On Behalf Of 
Carl Peterson
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:14 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Internal fiber

Supposedly the realflex drop cables can be treated like cat5.  We're a little 
more gentle then that with the 3mm ones.  You can order in just about any 
config. i.e plenum, one end terminated, both ends terminated, pull sock on one 
end, etc.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:10 AM Carl Peterson 
mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com>> wrote:
Cheap would be the bow type flat drop - we use them with FRP steel ones are too 
stiff.

Next option would be either 3m of 4.8mm RBR drop cables like MDC-JJ1G-0200FJ

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:25 AM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:
I am planning to run the fiber clear into the 844G router at each home.
But in the past when we have done this, we have had issues with people not 
understanding that the fiber is a bit more delicate than cat5.  Then there is 
the issue with the termination.  You can get long jumpers and splice outside in 
a small enclosure.  But replacing the end on the router is a bit more 
difficult.  I have used unicams in the past, but with my new system I am 
looking for something better.

I really need something a bit tougher than jumpers to route through the house.  
Anything like that exist?
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


--

Carl Peterson

PORT NETWORKS

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 637-3707


--

Carl Peterson

PORT NETWORKS

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 637-3707


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