Subject: Re: Argus and wireless

From: Scott Woods <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 17:42:06 -0500

On Jun 3, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold wrote:

> Hey there,
>
>     Not too sure on your Argus problem.  Any chance you can give a
> snippet of the config?  Although, digging through the code, I don't see
> anything version 2 specific.. It might not be supported...  (although,
> it's so close to v1, I don't see why not)

According to the Canopy documentation, the radios will only respond to 
an SNMPv2c query. I can run snmpget -v2c -c Canopy 169.254.1.1 
1.3.6.1.4.1.161.19.3.2.2.2.0, and it works fine. But if I leave off the 
-v2c, or substitute -v1 or -v3, it will fail.

In Argus, I can query our Cisco routers, so I know the configuration is 
correct. But whenever I try to query a radio, it always fails. The 
debugging page in Argus shows "UDP timeout" on the srvc::reason field. 
Running tcpdump confirms that I get a response from the radio to the 
snmpget command, but no response from the Argus command.

>     From your post, I checked out your website.  Are you a new WISP 
> just
> getting started?  How do you like the Canopy gear?  Which frequencies
> are you running?  We're looking at the 900 Mhx gear here.  I have some
> test gear here and it's just wonderful..  Real fast, easy to set up, 
> and
> it looks like a perfect fit...  I'd be interested in hearing your
> experiences as well...  :)

We've been around for about a year. We've got a mix of 2.4 and 900 
installations. The 900 gear will work is some places the 2.4 won't, 
including a few non-line-of-site locations. However, it seems to be a 
lot less solid than our 2.4. It tends to drop the connection to the AP 
more frequently. Motorola has been issuing new firmware updates to 
address this, and they hope to have a solution by the end of June.

If you want to ask any more questions about Canopy, I'd be happy to 
answer them off the list.

>     I also noticed (from poking around on the site) that you're running
> squirrelmail..  Looks like version 1..4.0 based on the login screen.
> Might I suggest that you look at upgrading that?  I believe 1.4.0
> suffered from some nasty XSS security problems...  :)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm working on a new e-mail server to replace 
this one, but I've updated squirrelmail in the meantime.

Scott