brwainer

Possibly a deauth attack. Look into PMF (Protected Management Frames) as an option on your wireless. Your clients have to support it too. WPA3 also requires PMF so if you can set that then you’d have it enabled.

OK but now check the license page within the Meraki dashboard so you know how much time left it has.

This switch has no local interface or way to configure it once it connects to the cloud. And prior to that you can only do things like setting a static IP, gateway, and DNS if needed to get to the cloud. Without a license, Meraki hardware is ewaste.

No the section you’re looking at is what the device supports for input. At the bottom of your screenshot it says the max load on POE Out with 802.3at in is 12.95W which is 802.3af territory. Nothing in your screenshot defines that the POE-Out is 802.3af or active compliant.

No the warning label on the device is to not connect a passive POE supplying device to the ports on the bottom (exposed to a user when mounted on a wall) that can’t handle it. The single POE-Out port on this device is Active, but you can only find that out from experience with it directly, which I have. The data sheet just says its PoE with no further detail.

This AP model has its uplink/POE-In port on the back, and 4 LAN ports on the bottom, one of which is POE-out. There are two types of PoE output, Active and Passive. Active PoE follows one of a few standards (802.3af, 802.3at, 802.3bt - 15W, 30W, and 60/90W) and will not output power unless a suitable device is detected on the port (technically it outputs 5V to power the circuitry that a device identifies itself with). Active PoE is 48-56V, which could be enough to damage some devices, either instantly or over time. Passive PoE outputs its full voltage all the time. Most injectors are Passive PoE - that’s why your AP has the label on it to not connect an injector to any of the 4 LAN ports. This AP cannot handle any supplied voltage on the LAN ports. Most passive PoE seen in the field is 24V, except as noted with Injectors that can do 48-56V. 24V passive is unlikely to damage most things, while 48V passive is likely to cause harm. The LAN1 port on the H510 is Active PoE 802.3af.

The APN settings (basically, the settings of the router that bridges the cell network to the internet) can allow Mobile-to-Mobile but not Internet-to-Mobile. You need to speak with your cell provider and request that connections from non-mobile IPs be allowed. They might change the APN your SIM defaults to, or they might provide an APN value that you need to set on your 4G router.

Use iperf3. Go to google or bing or youtube to learn how to use it.

Regarding your PSI comparison: the sub’s carbon fiber walls were 5” thick - I don’t know about a Dreamliner’s walls but way less. I don’t think the PSI difference is what immediately makes this a bad idea. The sub had dozens of successful dives. It is the mechanical properties of carbon fiber overall that make it a poor choice for repeated cycles of compression and decompression - too stiff and not a homogenous material.

I agree, please explain more about this. Are you trying to boot one system “from the network” using the other as a file server?

The USW-Flex (not USW-Flex-Mini) will do this, if each camera uses less than 10W. The total downstream POE budget of the USW-Flex when powered by 802.3at is 20W. There are other POE switch options from other vendors that have similar capabilities.

Correct, they are RackStuds.

Wait until it actually happens. Because plenty of times companies have shipped a laptop using mxm and promised there will be upgrade kits, and then dropped the family. Recent big one I remember was Alienware.

People are confusing different things. The expansion card slots on the Framework 13 have some limitations with an AMD CPU, as written in the quote. But people here are also talking about the Framework 16’s “Expansion Bay” which has USB2 and PCIe.

Here’s the open source posting of the Expansion Bay (GPU slot): https://github.com/FrameworkComputer/ExpansionBay Also input modules: https://github.com/FrameworkComputer/InputModules and expansion cards (the same cards they’ve been using for years): https://github.com/FrameworkComputer/ExpansionCards

If there isn’t a working standard for a replaceable GPU (because mxm is arguably not a standard, and even if it was it never worked as promised) then is it a bad thing to make a standard and publish it for others to use? They promised at the announcement a month ago that the GPU slot specifications would be open for people to make their one modules, for GPUs or otherwise (anything that uses PCIe), just like their side module standard is open and people are making their own. Edit: already in their github: https://github.com/FrameworkComputer/ExpansionBay

That is showing the Framework 16, which is not out yet. It has a rear slot for a GPU directly connected by PCIe. this announcement is about the Framework 13 AMD version, which just like the Framework 13 Intel version has eGPU support over USB4/thunderbolt.

Mxm was never really a standard - it defined the physical parts of the PCB but that’s about it. Upgrades to newer generations were almost never available, and cards between systems weren’t compatible because the position and mounting of cooling wasn’t part of the standard - nor the amount of cooling capacity needed. On the Framework 16 they are combining the GPU with the fans for the system. So if you have a powerful GPU it will include an appropriate cooling system and beefier fans, but if you replace it with an M.2 carrier board then the fans will only be enough to cool the CPU. There’s other lessons learned from the repeated failure of mxm in the new system.

In that case if BlackBox is in your budget go for it. The other one I’d look at though is POE Texas - always been happy with their products.

“Netsh winsock reset” clears the network socket backend, meaning that all open connections your computer was keeping were closed. I’m betting the FPS improvement was actually from some background process no longer having an open connection to some server. Or that this is a red herring and it isn’t related to the network or your commands.

You say they don’t have the POE+ power… but do they have POE? Most WAPs will operate in a low power mode on POE - they disable things like USB, second ethernet ports, and maybe half the MIMO chains, but they’ll do almost the same as on POE+.

Do you have multiple public IPs? If so, did you add the other IP(s) as “Additional IPs” in the settings for the WAN interface?

Yep exactly as @manikyath says. And having used Untangle as well as nearly every other router and firewall platform I can say that Untangle is as straightforward as anything else. Sure there’s a lot of options you could choose for unusual situations, so it looks scarier than a basic home router, but if you just follow the Simple section on that page it’ll work for the most needs. And actually the Simple rule view hides the scary options anyway.

Cat 5e is rated for 5Gb at 55 meters and 2.5Gb or below at 100 meters Cat 6 is rated for 10Gb at 55 meters and 5Gb or below at 100 meters Cat 6a is rated for 10Gb or below at 100 meters Cat 7 and Cat 8 are only defined/recognized by some international standards bodies (specifically excluding the US), and are only needed for speeds >10Gb. Because they aren’t fully defined, nearly any cable you find out there is garbage/scam, excluding the reputable brands (because it isn’t defined in the US you can sell whatever you want with a label of Cat 7 or Cat 8)

Check the actual WLANs on the APs. For example, on one AP I checked, the main MAC starts with 74, but the WLAN BSSIDs start with 74, 7a, and 7e, with the last 10 digits being the same.