- Just curious how far your Wi-Fi access point is from your desktop computer - 14 Updates
- good mineral oil removal? - 1 Update
| Arlen _G_ Holder <_arlen.george@halder.edu>: Oct 16 08:13PM On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 13:54:13 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote: >> o Point-to-Point [e.g., 2.4GHz could be as high as 158 dB] > No it can't. Hi Dan Purgert, THANK YOU for that correction! Mea culpa! Also, THANK YOU FOR ADDING ADULT VALUE to this thread! I respond to all purposefully helpful posts, where I _appreciate_ that you found my statement above to be materially wrong (where, if I am accidentally wrong, I admit it as soon as it's pointed out, if not sooner). It's a characteristic of an adult. As you may recall, I state that I aim for 100% credibility on material facts, even after decades on Usenet, where you must admit to attain anywhere near that kind of credibility on Usenet for material facts puts me on the level of people like Marek Novotny, rest his soul. I strive for 100% credibility because I own adult belief systems: a. I base my initial belief system on assessment of facts, and, b. If (and when) assessment of facts change, I modify my belief system Such that my belief system is _always_ based & bolstered, by facts. You may find that I harp on the trolls, where there are resaons for that o The trolls infest any potluck picnic like gnats swarming around food o The trolls have no intention to add value - they troll for amusement o Hence, once the trolls infest a Q&A thread - the potluck is ruined I try to swat the trolls ... to make it "less fun" for them to troll o But, as William Unruh astutely noted ... that also adds to the noise Where the hope is that the trolls find some other potluck to infest (Where, the record shows, I don't feed them when they infest other threads) Trolls like nospam apparently base their belief system on the results of a coin toss (as far as anyone can tell), since they always fail this simple test of their claims, when it comes to asking them for underlying facts: o Name just one I'm completely different from most Usenet posters (IMHO), Dan, o For one, I avoid idle worthless useless chitchat threads o For the other, I author threads that literally pry fact out (if possible) To that end, Dan, in terms of valuable adult facts... o You can _always_ ream me with facts - and I will THANK YOU when you do. Here's a reference, for example, on the Apple newsgroups, about facts: o wrong, by badgolferman > newsgroup even when proven so? How can everyone always be right? > Maybe some consider it a sign of weakness if they concede a point, > but it's actually a sign of humility and maturity. Notice that "adults" have no problem adjusting their belief systems: <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/BjiM9DsVXj8/d0X_fHUkCAAJ> It's the common trolls (listed prior) who, IMHO, have a problem with facts. When confronted with mere facts, in general, they respond with hatred. o Why? I don't know why. I think perhaps it that their belief systems aren't based on facts o Facts scare them (like facts about Santa Claus might scare a child) o Facts instantly DESTROY their belief systems. This is, IMHO, far more common on Apple newsgroups simply because Apple MARKETING is so far and above Linux & Windows marketing that the difference in the user base (IMHO), is night and day - but we leave that for a separate discussion on what type of people are more swayed by (admittedly clever) Marketing, whereas I suspect the Linux folks are least affected: o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made? <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ> For me, facts _bolster_ my belief system o More correctly, an adult logical assessment of those facts does The people whose belief systems aren't based on actual facts o But more so on (admittedly brilliant) marketing Are the ones who, IMHO, are the ones most spouting their bullshit on Usenet (e.g., people like "Snit", and "nospam", and "Chris", and "Lewis", etc.) But even the Windows newsgroups has these types of people whose belief systems are (apparently) backed up by exactly zero facts, where, they too fail the most obvious of the simplest test of imaginary belief systems: o Name just one BTW, as a glaringly example of those who prove they can't possibly ever add even one iota of adult value, you may note that Char Jackson just moments ago made some of the most ridiculous claims humanly possible in this post <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.os.linux/n7VGUrGdXiA/Kg9McsGtBwAJ> 1. I could get attempt to reason with Char Jackson (which would take a month, and he'd still never accept any facts) 2. I could just ignore his always utterly worthless posts (at the risk that _others_ would believe what he wrote) (Pick one.) Hence, I repeat I will ignore the aforementioned trolls in this thread. Getting back to your on-topic calculations, I will agree that my quick assessment of Paul's data in that sentence of the maximum for point to point must be wrong - where I don't do "point to point" fixed setup design all that often (actually, almost never). What I do mostly is point to multipoint o For example, I paint the pool or barn or distant driveway gate o Or, I vastly increase the range of a standalone laptop or desktop Where, all I need to do those tasks, reliably, & legally, are facts. Hence, what I love is that you reamed me with facts. o You can _always_ ream me with facts - as I love facts. My belief system is based on facts! o The one fact I'd love to know more about is the typical router power If we compare these $100 "tranceivers" such as the ones Paul and I refer to as the simple-to-use "Ubiquiti PowerBeam" transceivers ... they clearly can transmit at least up to the legal limit in EIRP (isn't that correct, Dan?) <https://www.ui.com/airmax/powerbeam/> Luckily the math is easier for these PowerBeam radios since they're essentially a one-part unit, where the radio, physically, is literally the "horn" of the antenna itself, as they snap together into place such that there is no "pigtail" accessible to the user; there is only Ethernet. <https://www.ui.com/airmax/powerbeam-ac/> So while there _will_ be losses we didn't account for, they should be as minimal as Ubiquiti could have made them for these units, don't you think? Given the PowerBeams are cheap, light, small, and, most to the point, still vastly more powerful than a typical similarly priced SOHO router, I'm glad Paul picked up on this PowerBeam, as I would like to start by making it the canonical suggestion for people on this newsgroup to start with, who want to increase their range. I based that mostly on the fact that the price (about $100 give or take) for the entire unit is "about what they pay" for a typical SOHO router, and, more importantly, because the installation is about as simple as it gets (i.e., I assess setup to be about the same as for a typical router). Just like a router, you sit it on a shelf (or bolt it to a pole), and you plug in the cat5 cable to your computer - and you log in (ubnt/ubnt) to 192.168.1.20 (as I recall), and you set it up: Voila! o You just vastly increased your Wi-Fi range for your laptop/desktop/phone! a. You either plug it into your laptop to get from the pool to the house b. Or you paint the pool from the house so your laptop/phone works far away All with the same router setup ease as what you have with a common router. Either way (access point for your computer or network card for your computer), for about what people here pay for their puny routers, they get actual power (up to the legal power limit for your country). BTW, let me ask you, Dan (or others), what's a "good name" to refer to what I said above was a "network card"? Here's what you're doing at the pool: o You have the PowerBeam plugged into your laptop Ethernet port. o That gives you the maximum point-to-multipoint power available o For about the same price you pay today for a typical SOHO router What would you 'call' that setup in a colloquial conversation? (Pretty much, that's what most of the people were arguing about.) Just like we say "aiming an antenna" or "balancing tires", everyone knows what we're talking about, what would you call this setup in a colloquial conversation (i.e., you only get a couple of words to play with)? As per FCC 15.247("Operation within the bands 909-928 MHz, > provided the maximum conducted output power of the intentional > radiator is reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that the directional > gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi. This is nice to know about fixed point-to-point operation, where our WISP who works with us need to know and deal with all of that. While people on this ng 'can' set up a fixed point-to-point arrangement, wouldn't you say, Dan, that the most common obvious usage of this technology, for these computer newsgroups, would be point to multipoint, where, as shown above, they can plop their laptop at the pool, which can be hundreds of feet from the house, and still get good signal strength. > That is, if you have a fixed point-to-point link (such as from a WISP > tower to a customer's premises), you can increase the antenna gain by 3 > dB for every dB you reduce your conducted power. This is very nice to know, Dan, as we "set up" point-to-point radios for our WISP provider all the time - but where we simply use the settings they give us to use. We also maintain the radios (e.g., we update the firmware, and tweak settings, as per the WISP team; but we don't design the setup itself anymore (we did in the past, but, as you can tell from all the spare radios in the grandkids' playroom, we screwed up a lot before we finally ended up with what we're using now on our rooftops. For this group, I think we should mostly speak about point to multipoint, since I can easily see everyone here possibly having a need to either extend the range of the access points surrounding the house or to extend the range of a single piece of computer equipment such as an Ethernet enabled laptop or desktop. > At this point, we've generally nowhere else to go. Some radios may be > able to conduct at a few dBm below zero Thank you Dan, for pointing out a statement I made that I based on an incorrect interpretation of the rules that Paul kindly provided. I'm always eager to be reamed with actual facts that are materially important. Adults form belief systems which should be based on facts. o All my belief systems, are therefore, bolstered by facts. > the all-in-one units (Nanobeam, Nanostation), but any of the models with > removable radomes (Powerbeam, Litebeam) or antennas (Rocket) can be told > the wrong information. Thank you Dan for pointing that out, which, in the aforementioned reference threads, I saw that Jeff Liebermann also pointed out. In the case of the Powerbeams though, Dan, it seemed, at first, like it's impossible to exceed the legal limits, since the transceiver is literally part of the antenna (there is no pigtail, for example, accessible to the user). However, in another post, Johann Beretta found an error in my assessment of the facts, which I agree with, where he provided accurate information which explained the following "can" happen if you wish to "lie" during the setup (where I didn't consider such a bold-faced lie to even be possible). For the device that Paul mentioned, which is described in this spec sheet: <https://dl.ubnt.com/qsg/PBE-M5-400/PBE-M5-400_EN.html> The router "wireless" setup tab shows two options for the antenna: a. Feed Only (2x2) 3 dBi b. 400 (2x2) 25 dBi When you select the first option, you can separately set the transmit power to the maximum of 26 dBm, where you can't exceed the legal limits by doing so. When you set the second option, which is just the feedhorn itself (which, interestingly, will work just fine - but who would bother?) you can increase the transmit power setting only to 12 dBM. As Johann Beretta noted: > However, why the fuck anyone would ever do that is beyond me. > Nevertheless that doesn't change the fact that it is legal (if odd) > to do so. However, where you can get into trouble is when Johann noted: > It is absolutely illegal to LIE in the configuration and choose the Feed > Only option when it's snapped into the dish. So, I stand corrected on my assessment that you can't set up the PowerBeam to an illegal power settings - simply because it didn't occur to me that people could/would lie on the router setup options. So when people ask "are you buying licensed or unlicensed equipment", I'm kind of wondering "why" they ask that, where, to me, it's sort of like them asking "are you robbing banks" every time you purchase a ski mask. Sure, you can purchase a ski mask and use it to rob banks, but, let's be adults in this thread with purposefully helpful intent and let's stop wasting our time accusing people of attempting to exceed legal limits. What Dan Purgert & Johann Beretta proved with facts is that you "could" lie in the router setup, which will enable you to exceed limits - but there's no reason to do so (as far as I can tell), nor is there any desire to do so. (Hence, wasting our time with accusations of robbing banks is something people like "Good Guy" & "Diesel" & most of the apologists do - but adults can generally add on topic value without playing their silly games). However, this useful corrective discussion points out something useful to share with the groups on this Usenet potluck - which is that this PowerBeam is, perhaps, one of the best suggestions for people on this newsgroup who want to try their hand at increasing their range, for about the same cost they paying today for what I consider to be anemic box store consumer stuff. Hence... For the remainder of _this_ discussion, I think we should concentrate on those PowerBeams that Paul happened to astutely pick out of the bunch! <https://i.postimg.cc/XJChDCPr/spare-access-points.jpg> In that picture, the nanobeams and powerbeams are on the shelf since they're pretty small (about the size of a large salad bowl, while the rockets are on the floor (they're sturdy as all hell - where you'd be happy to know those are all stainless steel bolts, for example, and there is other wind & weatherproofing that you'll love to see when you see it). The Bullets are even smaller in and of themselves (also at about $100) <https://www.ebay.com/i/264481061466> ($18 used) But the Ubiquiti bullets need to be screwed directly to an antenna, so I would only recommend, for this group, the bullets if they want to put an omni (whip) antenna onto the bullet, which makes it really nice for the middle of the house, for example, or if you want to walk around with a bullet in your hands: <https://www.ui.com/airmax/bulletm/> > No, it is not. The maximum EIRP of a point-to-multipoint intentional > radiator is 36 dBm (30 dBm conducted power + 6 dBi antenna; or a 1:1 > correction thereto). Hmmm... Dan ... I'm ok with deferring to your knowledge, I really am. But that means I must have read Paul's page 12 wrong then. <https://www.engeniustech.com/resources/how-to-install-long-range-point-to-point-wireless-networking-links.pdf> Can you help clarify why my take on this one line in Paul's reference, is different from yours with respect to this exact situation: o PowerBeam M2 400, max 26dBm, antenna 18dBi Paul's page 12 is titled "Maximum EIRP in 2.4 GHz", where the chart is for "directional signals", and where line 5 of that chart (in dark blue) shows: o Max Power = 26 dBm, Max Antenna Gain is 18dBi, EIRP is 44 dBm (25 Watts) The PowerBeam M2 400 on my shelf fits that line perfectly. o Is it that this chart is NOT showing what the legal limits are? Another point where we seem to |
| Arlen _G_ Holder <_arlen.george@halder.edu>: Oct 16 08:35PM On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:47:16 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >>of some sort. >> Paul > Well, it improves the receiving gain, too. Since, in this Usenet potluck, we bring our suggestions to share so that a. Those whose desktops do NOT have WiFi (they only need an RJ45 port) b. Anyone who needs far greater WiFi range than what they already have I agree with both Paul & J.P. Gilliver (John) that: o It's likely more bang for the buck to put a dollar into the antenna dB o Than to put that same dollar into the radio transmit dB Although complexities arise when you get to sensitivity & noise immunity. What would be nice, by way of shared comparisons, if people would note what the power output is of the current Wi-Fi enabled SOHO router they're using. As far as I can tell, so far anyway, typical consumer router EIRPs are orders of magnitude lower than the PowerBeam we've latched onto as our suggested unit to increase WiFi range for Ethernet-enabled computers. Can others share what EIRP we can typically attain with $100 home routers? |
| Arlen _G_ Holder <_arlen.george@halder.edu>: Oct 16 09:11PM On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:45:58 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote: > 802.11a/b/g/n/ac general-purpose access points), you'll get about 120 > meters or so in open air before the connection starts becoming > unreliable. Hi Dan, Thanks for sharing that useful information about 3dBi omnis on most general-purpose "access points", where I assume you mean routers mostly. 120 meters in open air seems kind of far for a typical $100 home router, but let's accept that as the "typical" open-air distance since we are discussing increasing the range in two fundamental common instances: 1. The computer has only an RJ45 network interface, or, 2. The computer's current Wi-Fi range is insufficient. > Now, if you live way out in the middle of nowhere, you might be able to > push it a bit farther, due to less EM noise; but nowhere near "hundreds > of yards" or "a small number of miles". Understood. I live in the "middle of nowhere" so to speak, but even I have unidentified noise as the free AirView Spectrum Analyzer software shows: <https://wlan-profi-shop.de/bilder/airVIEW.jpg> I'm sure you're aware of this, Dan, but the others may not be aware that this type of analysis is yours for the taking with this equipment, where, to buy a standalone hardware spectrum analyzer tool would be costly: <https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/airmax/UBNT_DS_airView.pdf> > Note too, that in order to do this, both ends will need to be up at > about their maximum conducted transmit power, and as such, the overall > MCS rate will suffer somewhat. Agreed that both ends matter. o BTW, there's nothing stopping you from buying _two_ radios for this task We haven't covered "setup" yet, where the reader will be happy to note that I assess the setup to be about the same simplicity (or complexity) as is the typical setup for any home router (as a repeater, for example). Luckily, setup is, in the end, not a big deal since you generally have two main options, where there are plenty of setup tutorials on the net: o Configure a Point-to-Multipoint (PtMP) ISP-Style Access Point <https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/205197610-airMAX-Configure-a-Point-to-Multipoint-PtMP-ISP-style-Access-Point> o How to Configure an Indirect Point-to-Point (PtP) Link (Bridge, Repeater) <https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/204952284-airMAX-How-to-Configure-an-Indirect-Point-to-Point-PtP-Link-Bridge-Repeater-> > the manufacturer), then you may be able to eke out some additional > range; although at that point it's entirely up to the capabilities of > the mobile device. Agreed that there are so many options, that it is confusing... Given that the whole point of this discussion is: a. Figure out what range people get today b. Learn how to extend that range (appreciably) if needed... This document by Uquibiti helps people decide what "stuff" they need: o Which product should I use <https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/205197750-airMAX-Which-product-should-I-use-> > One thing to note is that many manufacturers of these long-range radios > have moved on to ASICs, and as such, the devices are no longer able to > modulate the carrier in an 802.11-compliant manner. So, no "WiFi". Let's stick to "WiFi" for the purpose of "this" discussion, since our goal o Is to determine what range most people need And, if they need more (perhaps even vastly more) range, then... o We can show them how to extend the range of their home access points o And we can show them how to extend the range of their standalone computer (Even if that standalone computer has only an Ethernet and no "WiFi" card.) BTW, Dan, what should we colloquially refer to the setup like this as? <https://i.postimg.cc/6QJqK6Cj/desktop02.jpg> -- The goal of this Usenet potluck is to (vastly) increase range at low cost. |
| Arlen _G_ Holder <_arlen.george@halder.edu>: Oct 16 11:23PM On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 00:28:50 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote: > I've also been using computers since 1979. I'm not a newbie. <OT> Like you, and like most here, I'm no noob to Usenet either. I started with, oh, I guess Masscomp or SunOS, maybe VAXVMS, where we used 'rn' and 'tin', where, even today, I use "vi" & telnet as my "client". The point to keep in mind is that trolls have always existed o Trolls always prove one thing each time they post All I have to do is point to what they trolls themselves wrote to prove it o The trolls swarm like gnats at any Usenet potluck to ruin it if they can Who are the trolls who posted _zero_ value in this thread? o Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net> (more than a half dozen times) o trader_4 <trader4@optonline.net> (more than 14 posts in this thread) o dpb <none@none.net> (two utterly worthless posts in this thread) o Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> (two completely off topic worthless posts) An example of pointing to what these trolls post, look at this: o From: % <persent@gmail.com> "i thought he looked like a fake tit" Clearly these people did not bring adult value to the Usenet potluck o Hence, the question, always, is "can" they (is it actually "in" them?) Think about these facts when we realize how trolls ruin Usenet o People like Fox's Mercantile can't post a _single_ item of on-topic value o Even after having posted more than a half dozen times (all worthless) Even as I haven't responded once to trolls from Fox's Mercantile or djb o Yet, like cowardly bullies, they insist on their god-given right to troll What is an adult supposed to do about this infestation of trolls? o There is always the option to not feed them (which I clearly tried here) o Yet, that doesn't stop them (Fox's Mercantile _still_ repeatedly trolled) Over the years, I've realized, all these trolls _can_ do .... is troll. o They have no adult value to add whatsoever; to any technical topic. There are, as I see it, two fundamental use models on Usenet: a. The model I use, which is FAQ style - ask a question & work the answer b. There's the model the trolls use - post nothing of value - for amusement Since the trolls like Fox's Mercantile & Ed Pawloski & djb are here for amusement, there's really nothing an adult can do - since they trolled this thread, multiple times, even though they were completely ignored. Nothing can stop the gnats from infesting the Usenet potluck. o I tried to swat them away (e.g., trader_4); but they keep coming. There are only two kinds of people who posted to this thread: o Those who posted technical value with purposefully helpful intent o And those trolls who prove, by what they post, this is amusement for them We're having a serious technical conversation, Johann Beretta o And the trolls are consistently posting their child-like drivel. The problem, with Usenet, as I see it... o Is that the trolls insist on proving they have a God-given right to troll The good part about Usenet, as I see it... o Is that adults can still share nuggets of useful on-topic tech advice I appreciate that YOU clearly have adult on-topic technical value to add o As do others like Jeff Liebermann who contributes greatly to Usenet -- This thread ascertained what range people are getting today, and then we discussed ways to help obtain vastly greater range (if needed). |
| Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>: Oct 16 06:45PM -0500 On 10/16/19 6:23 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote: > <OT> > Like you, and like most here, I'm no noob to Usenet either. But unlike the rest of us here, you're like a leaky toilet that just keeps going on and on. -- "I am a river to my people." Jeff-1.0 WA6FWi http:foxsmercantile.com |
| Arlen _G_ Holder <_arlen.george@halder.edu>: Oct 17 12:44AM On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 02:42:25 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote: > Brand is easy. I prefer Ubiquiti as they deliver the whole package. > Equipment, accessories, monitoring, etc. But, that's not to imply they > are the best. I'd say they are the best for my budget and/or situation. Hi Johann, I appreciate that you are trying to share value on this Usenet potluck. Thank you for letting us know the brand you prefer most. o We also prefer Ubiquiti ... mostly for price & packaging reasons. Of course, as you're aware, there's some "magic" in using the same equipment on both sides, and of course, there's the fact that we get used to how any one company does things. Keeping in mind this is a USenet potluck where we're bringing "food" of value to share with others, I would recommend Ubiquiti to a "homeowner", over, say, Mikrotik. Would you concur? Assuming a common consumer needed additional range o And assuming they wanted to get this kind of power we speak of o At prices about around the same price they pay today for home routers... What others would you recommend a common consumer explore? o Ubiquiti <https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/204950584-airMAX-Using-airView-to-Find-the-Best-Channel> o Engenius <https://www.engeniustech.com/resources/how-to-install-long-range-point-to-point-wireless-networking-links.pdf> o Mikrotik <http://www.mikrotik-routeros.net/install.aspx> o Mimosa <https://mimosa.co> o Eero <https://support.eero.com/hc/en-us/articles/207602596-How-is-eero-different-than-a-range-extender-> etc. > Lately I've been unhappy with the direction that UBNT is headed so I've > been experimenting with Cambium. They are completely NEW to me so thank you for bringing them up! o Cambium <https://www.triadwireless.net/ubiquiti-vs-cambium-vs-mimosa-the-final-chapter/> It's great when folks bring useful items to share on the Usenet potluck. > that's not necessarily a negative. I've had serious concerns of late > that Ubiquiti is more worried about eye candy and less about firmware > stability and have voiced such concerns to them. I have noticed that Mikrotik GUI is more of an endless assemblage of tools, whereas the Ubiquiti GUI is, as you noted, quite a bit more "polished". As you implied, polish itself doesn't rule over the vast assortment of tools the Microtik equipment offers (however, I do so very much love the spectrum analyzer in Ubiquiti ... do you ever use it to seek out noise?) > operation, but I reckon I have somewhere in the general vicinity of > $60,000 of their gear in current deployment. The only reason I mention > that is to qualify my experience with them. I thank you for bringing up Cambium, which is useful to share in this Usenet potluck, where the goal is for laypeople like me to be able to vastly increase the range of our home devices, at "about the cost" of a common router (give or take). I really LOVE, for example, the fact I can instantly turn a desktop that only has Ethernet, into a desktop that has POWERFUL WiFi (not puny WiFi). Likewise, I love that a laptop with puny 30mW dBm (and, oh, maybe a 0.5dBi antenna?) can INSTANTLY havfe the legal limit for point to multipoint connections, simply by plugging this equipment into its Ethernet port. BTW, a _lot_ of the discussion on this thread revolved around what to "call it" when we use the Ethernet port to connect to an AP over Wi-Fi. What would you call it? > Litebeam M5s than any other type as I have found them to be a fairly > good ROI. But I also have dozens of Rocket M5s, Rocket ACs (PRISM) and a > metric ton of Powerbeams (M and AC) deployed. Thank you for that summary of the models of Ubiquiti equipment you use. I have no experience with the Litebeams, but I have experience with bullets, nanos, powerbeams, and various rockets, where, well, you know, they're all "different" in different ways. For _this_ newsgroup, I think I'd lean toward recommending the PowerBeams. Why? o They are one-piece light units (they just plug it into Cat5 & Voila!) o They are powerful (i.e., they can transmit to the legal limit, if nec.) o They are inexpensive (roughtly around what a $100 router costs) o They're fairly new so they are supported well (AFAIK) For example, here is a non-Ubiquiti tutorial on setting up the PowerBeam: <https://www.jagoancopas.net/2019/02/configuring-powerbeam-m5-ubiquiti.html> Where those of us who have set these things up can offer advice to the casual reader of this newsgroup that setup is, about, sort of almost the same, as setting up a home router in terms of simplicity or complexity. Would you agree with that assessment Johann? > I choose the radio based > on the scenario and when at all possible I match links model to model > (tower to tower). Yup. We all know the golden rule, which is... o Always pair your equipment in every way possible to be twins > make (not counting their consumer crap (UniFi and such) in the > intervening years and have pretty much standardized on Litebeams, Nanos, > Rockets, and PowerBeams. That's interesting! I haven't used what you term the "consumer crap", but one of my neighbors was trying to help some of his Apple-based neighbors extend their range. To help those Apple based neighbors, they all chipped in on a pile of these $80 Unifi "dots" (which is what we call them, colloquially) in bulk: <https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-Unifi-Ap-AC-Long-Range/dp/B015PRCBBI> Since it's a standing joke with us that the moment we find out that somneone uses Apple equipment, we have to treat them with kid gloves, we used these "dots" all over the place for them - but they're _still_ having problems left and right. Do you find those UniFi "dots" (colloquial term) to be useful in practice? > I have one pair of AirFiber 5x than I never > got around to deploying as the piece of shit has no Site Survey function > and thus is mostly useless. Waste of $1K.... Wow. No site survey? I love a few "tools" in the Ubiquiti suite, these being those I love most: 1. I love their spectrum analyzer "waterfall" graph (colloquial term) 2. I generally run the built-in "Site Survey" & "Device Discovery" tools 3. And, after setting the LEDs, I run a quick "Antenna Alignment" The main problem I have with the free AirView spectrum analysis tool is that, on Windows, the Java Runtime Environment 1.6 or later is required. <https://i.postimg.cc/GpCG1H3G/airviewneedsjava.jpg> > I suspect many WISPS followed that exact same path. My own experience > mirrors it. I'm also quite familiar with Jeff's postings. He's got a > pretty solid amount of experience from what I can tell. Yup. I tried to get Jeff to join us at our weekly "inventor's lunch" over on Sand Hill Road, but he is too busy servicing customers.... :) What I love about Jeff is how beautifully detailed he is, where he wouldn't fall for marketing bullshit since he keeps open a very skeptical mind. In fact, he's the guy who clued me in that the SOHO routers suck, in general, in terms of puny transmit power, where the omni is to be expected, but the transmit power is what you can't easily just "replace". I still find a use for routers and switches at home, but with all this spare CPE lying around, I get hooked on the phenominal range these devices have when set up in point to multipoint configurations, for about the same price that people commonly pay for their typical home router. The value added, I think, that we can provide to the newsgroups here, is that the next time they're attempting to extend range (e.g., let's say they want their laptop at the pool to connect to the wifi at the house), they can simply plug one of these PowerBeams into the Ethernet port, and voila! Instant range. > eating up the DFS bands which were the last "clean" spectrum we had. > Pile that on top of the fact that Ubiquiti can't seem to beat the false > DFS detections and... You're right, of course, Which is why we _started_ (as you seem to have done also), with the 2.4 GHz CPE devices, growing ever increasingly in antenna gain over time, where then we switched to 5 GHz devices, where, at least, we started with decently high antenna gain. Since I have so much spare CPE stuff lying around, I can plug them into each of the computer Ethernet ports, where the range increase is great (although I have one difficult problem of getting through a wall-to-wall bathroom mirror - which I can only do by bouncing signal about). Sigh. Also, by zoning rules, all our windows have some kind of coating that kills signal, 15 decibels or so, when all we do is point a radio at a distance access point about five miles away, where we simply measure signal: 1. On the deck without anything in front 2. Through the sliding glass doors or windows (screens removed) 3. Or through the wall. Would you guess that the WORST signal, by about 15dB in fact, as I recall, is the one through the windows and doors. Sheesh. What is inside those things? > assholes are using 80 MHz to move a couple dozen mbps is beyond me. I > suspect it's deliberately to fuck over WISPs as the only people who'd > have satellite are in the exact territories that WISPs like to cover. This is interesting, where, as you noted, we've had Hughes up here for quite a long time (they were first, I think), and then ViSat came in with their new satellites on the Ka band (as I recall). We had a few people try them - but all - to a person - dropped them over time. Bandwidth caps were killing them, as I recall. It's intersting the issues you're having with them, which I'm unaware of, simply becuase I didnt' touch the stuff - I was on Etheric at the time which has been good to me in different ways. Thanks for sharing the ornery detail on the frequency they chose, where, you're quite correct - where WISP exists, they will exist too. > ANY consumer satellite system that delivers enough mbps to saturate a 20 > Mhz wide transmission. So one must wonder why they decided to use 300% > more spectrum than they need. This is very interesting, which I was unaware of, but where even on WISP, we've had one company switch frequencies without telling the others (they all know each other - but some - like Surnet - are downright ornery - as Jeff Liebermann might concur as I'm sure he knows them well - particluarly their on-call support guy housed in Arizona, Brett - who is just about as customer unfriendly as a human can get). Most of the WISPs share the spectrum nicely, but that one outfit drives the rest nuts, based on my conversations with them. Sigh. It's not as bad as the Huges/ViaSat situation though, because at least you can talk to the owners personally in the case of WISP collisions. > recall the manufacturer but it sucked) and a couple of abortive attempts > with using consumer grade routers when I first started experimenting, I > have been 100% Ubiquiti for RF generation. Thanks for that vote of confidence for Ubiquiti, which is useful on this kind of thread because we want to share your experiences with the community at large - where - by doing so - (thousands?) benefit from every post we share. One thing I do like about Mikrotik router software is that there do seem to be a lot of tools, but they seem to license many of them, which Ubiquiti doesn't seem to do as much (or at all). > but hopefully they'll be able to muscle through it on short links. I > already have one set on the bench and am experimenting with it. As > normal, MikroTik's UI sucks fat balls, but...... Yes. Weather. We know it well. You seem to have it pretty much under control, where, here, for example, PG&E shut us off last week simply because of rains and fire danger (it's pretty bad out here for fire or earthquake, that's for sure). Rains? As you're aware ... here in the mountains surrounding the Silicon Valley, when it rains, it pours, and when it pours, it pours for weeks, but, in general, the sky is blue and the weather is sunny and calm. You must go through the same issues we have with solar powered UPS and portable propane-powered generators, which we sprinkle about (every house on the mountain has its own power generation unit - but I'm talking about the access points also need power and backup power - to last for days). -- Thank you for sharing value, particularly brands, for the Usenet potluck. |
| Arlen _G_ Holder <_arlen.george@halder.edu>: Oct 17 03:02AM On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 18:26:28 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote: > Their alignment function (for > example) is utter crap. Ubiquiti wins that hands-down. Easy to read, > easy to figure out.. etc. You have far more experience than I to share on the tools inside the router web GUI software, where I'm glad then that I have mostly Ubiquiti stuff. o Spectrum Analyzer tool <https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/202812440/spectrum_analyzer_1.png> o Site Survey tool <https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/205851848/step2.png> o Discovery Tool <https://help.ubnt.com/hc/article_attachments/360000171147/discovery.png> I agree with you on the alignment tool being easy and intuitive to use, but I don't have experience with anyone else's alignment tool (I can't find it in the Mikrotik menu). So it's great you share your experience on this public Usenet potluck. Since we're here to share additional technical on-topic value on this public Usenet potluck, here, for others to get a better idea of, is what Johann Beretta is talking about on the Ubuiquiti alignment GUI on my own radio, just now, where I annotated the results to make it easier for you: <https://i.postimg.cc/sfkHW6WG/align.jpg> Notice the antenna alignment steps are intuitive and simple: 0. You head to the "Advanced" tab on the router web configuration GUI. 1. You set the threshhold for each of the four external LEDs to light LED1=65dBm LED2=63dBm LED3=61dBm LED4=60dBM (Notice they dispense with the minus signs in the GUI.) 2. You pull down the tools menu for "align antenna". 3. If you want to align by sound, you check the "alignment beep" box (We generally do NOT align by sound as we use a helper instead.) 4. You set the max signal (if desired), where this is set to -65dBM 5. You twist the antenna ever so slightly to get the maximum signal level. (In this case, that's -55dBm for a WiFi AP five or six miles away.) Another useful tool is the "Discovery Tool" <https://www.ui.com/videos/#> And, another useful tool is the "Site Survey". <https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/205851848/step2.png> (They list so much information, I didn't want to have to redact it all.) The "spectrum analyzer" tool is also quite nice for noise levels. <https://help.ubnt.com/hc/en-us/articles/204950584-airMAX-Using-airView-to-Find-the-Best-Channel> <https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/airmax/UBNT_DS_airView.pdf> -- Note: This is the stuff Char Jackson proved totally ignorant about. |
| Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx>: Oct 16 11:50PM -0400 On 10/16/2019 11:02 PM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote: > Note: This is the stuff Char Jackson proved totally ignorant about You just can't make a post without knocking or denigrating someone. Your superiority complex has to show. |
| Arlen _G_ Holder <_arlen.george@halder.edu>: Oct 17 05:40AM On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 01:55:29 -0300, pjp wrote: > my RV parked back in woods about 1Km from house. > That correct? If so what would I need to purchase (not make) to have it > work? Hi pjp, Most of this thread covered silly semantics, and then the post you responded to covered legal limits, where I apologize for those two: On semantics, the precise words don't matter when you're trying to get something done - like you just asked how and if you can do it. On legality, it's like wasting time cautioning everyoine who buys a ski mask not to rob a bank using it ... it's just not the time and place to worry about breaking the law, since you have to TRY to break the law. Dan showed you "could" break the law, which I appreciate, but that's like saying you could break the law by using a ski mask to rob a bank, which is to say there are a few other things involved after you buy the equipment. So now to your question ... there are others who can advise you BETTER than I can, so I'll let them trump me ... but to help you where I can... let's clarify the questions, first. From what you said we know... 1. You're a km a way from the RV 2. You want WiFi at that RV 3. Presumably that WiFi will be "beamed" from your house (or vice versa) The first and most important question, is whether you can visually "see" the RV. Where I live, we can see for scores of miles, so that's not such a silly question. But if you're in dense woods, you won't be able to visually see the RV. If you can SEE the RV, then certainly all the stuff we're talking about will work. Even if you can't see the RV, we can "make" it work, but, really, "most" of this thread was about Line Of Sight (LOS) transmissions (mostly, although you can go shorter distances through structures since radio waves are really just fluctuations in electical & magnetic fields). If you can "see" the RV, the kilometer isn't going to be a problem (although we have to look at the "gain", mostly from the antenna, on both ends). First key question: o From your roof or from a window or from a pole on the ground or from a treetop within a few hundred feet of the house ... can you "see" the RV? |
| Arlen _G_ Holder <_arlen.george@halder.edu>: Oct 17 06:43AM On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 21:55:36 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote: >> in the Mikrotik menu). > No surprise there as it's in a rather dumb location. Interfaces / WLAN1 > / Near the top (10th button from the left in my router) Hi Johann, Wow. Thanks for that suggestion as, you're more aware than anyone where, that the MicroTik RouterOS must have at least a hundred or more different "menus", many deeply nested, where there could be hundreds overall. I think with your help, I may have gotten close, although it's NOT intuitive what the steps are to get it to actually work. By way of comparison, here's the Ubuqiti AirOS align sequence result: <https://i.postimg.cc/sfkHW6WG/align.jpg> Here's a screenshot I just snapped for you of the RouterOS align result: <https://i.postimg.cc/tCxLW2ZN/align01.jpg> Where that was obtained on Windows 10 Pro by running these steps: o Doubleclick on "winbox.exe" & up pops "MikroTik WinBox Loader v2.2.18" o Log in to the RouterOS "WinBox v6.28 on RB411" IP address as 'admin' o Left click on the left panel of menus item named "Interfaces" o That brings up a new window titled "Interface List" with 9 tabs o Those 9 tabs are: Interface, Ethernet, EoIP Tunnel, IP Tunnel, GRE Tunnel, VLAN, VRRP, Bonding, & LTE o In that "Interface List" are 3 items: bridge1, ether1, & wlan1 o Doubleclick on "wlan1" & up pops an "Interface <wlan1>" window with 15 tabs o Those 15 tabs are: General, Wireless, Data Rates, Advanced, HT, HT MCS, WDS, Nstreme, NV2, Tx Power, Current Tx Power, Advanced Status, Status, & Traffic o At the right of that same "Interface <wlan1>" window are 13 "buttons" o Those 13 buttons are: OK, Cancel, Apply, Disable, Comment, Torch, Scan, Freq Usage, Align, Sniff, Snooper, Reset Configuration, & Simple Mode o I click on the "Align" button and an "Alignment (Running)" window pops up. o That window has a pulldown set to "wlan1" & 5 buttons to the right o Those 5 buttons are: Start, Stop, Close, Wireless Alignment Settings, & New Window o In the middle of that window are 8 tabs o Those 8 tabs are: Address, SSID, Rx Quality, Avg. Rx Quality, Last Rx, Tx Quality, Last Tx, & Correct (%) I must be close, but when I press "Start" or "Stop" the window header definitely changes from "Alignment (Running)" to "Alignment", so, I must be close ... but I don't see where I'm supposed to see the signal strength graphical values (and I don't hear any beeping sounds either). The radio is "working" because when I press "Snooper", I get a long dynamically changing listing of all the radios it can 'see'. Likewise, when I press "Sniff", it shows sniffed packets. Same with "Freq. Usage", I see the frequency & noise levels. Also, when I press "Scan" I see a list of access points & information. Even "Torch" does something, although I don't know what I just torched. Am I close? <https://i.postimg.cc/tCxLW2ZN/align01.jpg> I don't know where to look to see the signal strength numbers or graph. -- The Mikrotik router menu is like Linux where AirOS is like Windows. |
| dpb <none@none.net>: Oct 17 08:41AM -0500 On 10/17/2019 12:40 AM, Arlen _G_ Holder wrote: ... > responded to covered legal limits, where I apologize for those two: > On semantics, the precise words don't matter when you're trying to get > something done - .... ... Au contraire, good buddy. It's precisely where precision is _most_ important. |
| Arlen _G_ Holder <_arlen.george@halder.edu>: Oct 17 03:23PM On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 06:10:39 -0300, pjp wrote: > from direction of RV. One possibility at about 45 degree angle but new > owners would have to appear given current owners will never own a pc of > any sort. Hi pjp, It's good that you can "see" something at the RV, as this stuff is line of sight (LOS), where the distances are immense LOS, but they suck otherwise. The way you get LOS in trees, of course, is to mount the antenna on the tree (which we do all the time), and at home, the way to get LOS is you mount the antenna on the chimney (which we also do all the time). Or on a pole (which we do all the time too). As long as you can see the antennas, you're good to go, where we can deal with the Fresnel Zone later. Once you have two antennas pointed at each other, all you do, physically speaking, is connect the home end to Internet via Cat5 cable, usually to a router switch but it could just as well be directly to the modem or whatever you get your Internet from. At the RV you have a couple of choices depending on what "device" is at the RV, where you don't need anything else if you're going to plug the Cat5 cable directly into, oh, say, a desktop at the RV. Often, if you're going to go to all that trouble, what we do is find a spare SOHO router lying around (we have tons of them, as you can imagine), and we just plug the RV antenna Cat6 into that "RV router". That's the best setup, which gives the most flexibility at the RV end. Essentially, you have the same Internet at the RV as you have at home. a. At the RV, mobile devices can connect to the RV router b. Laptops and desktops with WiFi can connect to the RV router c. Desktops without Internet can connect to the RV router switch etc. Notice while my original "pool" example is only hundreds of feet of range, so you can skip the second radio in the case of hundreds of feet - your "RV example" is a kilometer, which is likely too far for more mobile devices and laptops to send back to. (There are people here who can do the math since all this stuff is well known to them - where there are web sites which allow you to run the calculation.) Without even running any calculations, you'll notice I'm suggesting a radio & router on each end, because I know that works in all circumstances if they can "see" each other (i.e., LOS). There's lots of good stuff in any search where those are the basics: <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=calculation+wifi+distance+antenna+radio> |
| Arlen _G_ Holder <_arlen.george@halder.edu>: Oct 17 03:26PM On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:09:55 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote: > I am fairly curious as to why you have not addressed the point that I > have made a couple of times where it's trivial to put a PowerBeam (for > example) into a configuration that violates FCC transmit limits. Hi Johann Beretta, Let's stay at the high level without dropping to the level of the trolls. o Once we drop to their level, we can never climb back out of the morass When I buy a ski mask, it doesn't even cross my mind that some people need to be admonished to not rob banks when they buy that same ski mask. It just doesn't. o I'm quite a reasonable logical sensible fellow, if I do say so myself. > I apologize if I simply missed it. But in the event I did not, why have > you not addressed this? I directly addressed it in this thread, Johann, & even quoted your words! <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.internet.wireless/Dpk9EhVreJk/TyR5mVYYDwAJ> > 400 (as an example) with "Feed Only" on the wireless tab but, in > reality, having the feedhorn inside the 400mm dish, and the transmit > power set to maximum, will violate FCC transmit limits for the 5 GHz band? This is an exact excerpt from that very post in this very thread, Johann: <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.internet.wireless/Dpk9EhVreJk/TyR5mVYYDwAJ> > So, I stand corrected on my assessment that you can't set up the PowerBeam > to an illegal power settings - simply because it didn't occur to me that > people could/would lie on the router setup options. See above which was posted in this thread yesterday: <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.internet.wireless/Dpk9EhVreJk/TyR5mVYYDwAJ> Here is the quote in this very thread where I agreed with you, a priori: > Specifically it is possible to build a custom dish for the transmitter > that would fall somewhere in between the two options (Feedhorn only & > 400mm dish) that would be, at worst, a gray area. When I buy a ski mask, it's assumed I can use it for skiing, but, if I want to, I can use it for camping, and, if I want to, I can use it for Halloween, and, if I want to..... You stood outside the ski shop, you saw I advocated buying a ski mask, and you told me to not rob a bank with it, where, much to my surprise, I found you "could" rob a bank with it, which I agreed with you on almost immediately in this very thread. <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.internet.wireless/Dpk9EhVreJk/TyR5mVYYDwAJ> If you missed that post, please refer to it as I think I agreed with EVERYTHING you said, and I did so openly and obviously, sans guile. I'm quite a reasonable logical sensible fellow, if I do say so myself. > safety problem if such a configuration is done near an airport using > TDWR radar? (yes I know the word radar is redundant here, but I use it > for clarification for lay persons) Johann, You have very VALUABLE information to share on this public Usenet potluck. o And I have a lot of hope we can help others do what you do all the time Let's not waste those valuable resources quibbling. o Let's help people! So far, one person and one person only has expressed an interest to add a WiFi antenna so that he can throw his Internet signal from his house, to his RV which is parked a kilometer away in an opening of the trees. <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.internet.wireless/Dpk9EhVreJk/LvDouUI3DwAJ> You might notice, from my responses, that I never once admonished him to rob a bank. I didn't query whether his RV is parked illegally. I didn't ask whether he is storing dead bodies in the refrigerator of said RV. I didn't ask what he wants to do with the Internet (illegal bitcoin mining perhaps)? Harping endlessly on that people can rob banks when they buy a ski mask shows how you think, I agree ... but it isn't a necessary conversation when all we're doing is explaining to people what they "can" do. If you buy a ski mask - you can ski. o If you buy a radio - you can paint your RV. We do NOT need to warn pjp at this stage to not look at porn at that RV. o There is zero indication that pjp is attempting to break the law He simply wants to know how to get Internet 1 kilometer away to his RV. Why don't we spend our energy advising people like pjp o Where, others will learn from listening in on that effort. Here's my most recent intentionally helpful advice to pjp o Where your advice trumps mine as you know far more than I ever will Can you help answer this question for this user? <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.electronics.repair/mfFaPuRWHmg/oEk9G8jTBwAJ> -- The goal is to share useful information on this Usenet public potluck. |
| Arlen _G_ Holder <_arlen.george@halder.edu>: Oct 17 04:05PM On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 01:41:57 -0700, Johann Beretta wrote: >> I don't know where to look to see the signal strength numbers or graph. > No graph. You just get a single row of numbers > https://mega.nz/#!kQh0nAgb!kUeDNj1LyAjBueiih3bLCMIPif4oRmCnX-u__qxNTlQ Hi Johann, Thanks for that information that it's not a graph; just a row of numbers. At this point, I'm not going to worry about aiming that antenna, as the Mikrotik routerboard and miniPCI 802.11n WiFi card is working just fine with signal strength of about -40 dBm in "bridge mode", through multiple physical obstacles (walls and floors). I do agree with you on two things about that Mikrotik interface: o It's like Linux - it can do everything o But you have to find it first and then you have to know how to use it The Ubiquiti AirOS router GUI is more like home Netgear/Linksys stuff. > As you'll recall, I don't generally use MikroTik radios. This screenshot > is from the single operational 'Tik CPE device I have. I'm like you, in that my only MikroTik equipment was what I got for free when I replaced all the nearby neighbors' Mikrotik stuff with Ubuiquit Nanos (at that time), which we subsequently replaced with 2.4GHz rockets, and then, finally, 5GHz rockets. Some people kept their old equipment, the rest asked us to cart it away. o I save all sorts of things (want a dozen satellite dishes, for example?) > Supposedly you can get audio feedback if you input the target MAC into > the alignment settings, but I haven't been successful. Yea. I saw that in a video, where the other end of this Mikrotick radio is a normal SOHO router (Netgear, I think), and not Mikrotick CPE. I'm ok. I'm sure I 'can' get a visible & audio alignment output out of the Mikrotik equipment - but what I learned from you is that you were right when you said they "hide" it, much like Linux is often characterized by Windows or Apple folks. For the purpose of this thread, I wouldn't recommend Mikrotik to the laypeople, where I'd recommend, as you did, Ubiquiti. Specifically, I'd "start" with the PowerBeam and then move up or down from there, based on what the customer needs are. We have our first 'customer', in pjp who asked this question here: <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.electronics.repair/mfFaPuRWHmg/gTWcR_mzBwAJ> You can help him too, by adding value to the response posted here: <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.internet.wireless/Dpk9EhVreJk/FRfYpRFXDwAJ> Where any help you can provide will be passed on to pjp accordingly. > I think to get audio feedback requires linking to another MikroTik > device, but I'm not positive. MK wireless is where my knowledge breaks > down. Thanks for that advice, which I agree with you and appreciate the help. o I agree with you on the fact Mikrotik took the "linux" route (sort of). Luckily, we've replaced all the Mikrotik CPE with Ubiquiti by now. o And even then, we went through a series of Ubiquiti CPE From bullets, to nanos, to powerbeams, to M2 rockets, to M5 rockets. o Sigh. We made a _lot_ of mistakes. The funny thing I learned is that perhaps the biggest mistake was in trying to buy the smallest device that "fit the requirements". In hindsight, it would have been cheaper, in the end, to buy the biggest device that fit the requirements. That is, in hindsight, it just wasn't worth the money attempting to save by buying the "least powerful device" that would work - where we should have bought the most powerful device that we could reasonably afford. Even so, the switch from 2.4GHz to 5GHz was basically inevitable, over the past ten or so years I've been doing this stuff for my home and for others. -- Usenet is a public potluck where adutls come to share items of value. |
| tabbypurr@gmail.com: Oct 16 12:56PM -0700 > don't need to worry at all about removing the mineral oil, just pour > in the hot parrafin and the oil will dissolve into the parrifin. > Eric You may find an oily coating stops the wax sticking & sealing. NT |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 15 updates in 2 topics"
Post a Comment