I ment 670, said 650... it's Friday and I'm ready for a beer. On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote:
> EOL means it should get cheaper. :-) > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Eric Muehleisen" <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Friday, August 17, 2018 12:52:48 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Cambium PTP400 replacement > > > The 650 is EOL. Go with the 670 and you can use it in multipoint mode and > save on radio costs. > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:34 AM Joe Novak <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I wouldn't put up a AC EPMP/PTP550 and expect it to be trouble free >> yet... the firmware is still being ironed out. Tried and true would >> probably be PTP650/PTP450 like Colin said. >> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Sam Lambie <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> If bandwidth isn't an issue, I have a whole bunch of PTP 100's laying >>> around. Cheap.... >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 9:55 AM Lewis Bergman <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Huh. So the only real difference I need isn't available. Figures. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 10:22 AM [email protected] < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The PTP550 has two radios in it that you can bond together. The DSO >>>>> ability hasn't been released in firmware. >>>>> When the DSO is operational, it will only change one channel at a time >>>>> so the link never goes down. You can also set >>>>> the channel width separately for each radio. Another note is that >>>>> these radios have not yet been approved for DFS >>>>> frequencies, so that will be another firmware upgrade to enable that. >>>>> About 5ms latency. Another feature in future >>>>> firmware will be GPS sync from a CMM5. (Or Packetflux I'm sure) >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Lewis Bergman < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So I have a customer with a private PTP network built long ago, >>>>>> obviously, with PTP400 links. For years this has worked great and they >>>>>> have >>>>>> been happy. Recently, due to either lightening or another contractor >>>>>> issue, >>>>>> one of the three sites (2 of the the total 6 backhauls) are now dead. I >>>>>> could probably find some ancient stuff and maybe replace these two but I >>>>>> thought now would be a good time to get them into some supportable >>>>>> equipment. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like something as trouble free as the PTP400. Throughput is a >>>>>> non issue as they only need about 2Mbs. The main deal is reliability and >>>>>> my >>>>>> desire to not have to jack with the thing due to outside influences be >>>>>> they >>>>>> weather or interference. Basically as close to the 400's trouble free >>>>>> operation as possible. Cost is a factor but not the primary one, yet >>>>>> something above $1000 each side is a non starter. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have looked at the PTP550 which is based on an AC chipset but says >>>>>> it has: >>>>>> Dynamic Spectrum Optimization (DSO)* With Dynamic Spectrum >>>>>> Optimization, PTP 550 systems are constantly optimizing the channel of >>>>>> operation to maximize link reliability and performance. Based on >>>>>> environment the PTP 550 can be set to move or search better spectrum. As >>>>>> a >>>>>> result, customer can get more throughput with limited spectrum in even >>>>>> the >>>>>> most challenging environments >>>>>> I also looked at the ePMP Force series, based on the same chipset. I >>>>>> have used a bunch of these before but not in this demanding (reliability >>>>>> wise) environment. All the Force stuff seem to have a sentence like >>>>>> these: >>>>>> Configurable modes of operation ensure robust adaptivity to both >>>>>> symmetrical and asymmetrical traffic while providing high performance and >>>>>> round-trip latency as low as 3-5 ms. >>>>>> Configurable Modes of operation ensure robust adaptivity to both >>>>>> symmetrical and asymmetrical traffic while providing high performance and >>>>>> round-trip latency as low as 2 - 3 ms. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I guess my question is, for those using these products, is there >>>>>> really a big difference between the PTP550 line and the Force line? They >>>>>> are both based on the AC chipset so while there is maybe quite a bit they >>>>>> can do to enhance that I can't imagine it would be earth shattering. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any recommendations? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> AF mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> *Sam Lambie* >>> Taosnet Wireless Tech. >>> 575-758-7598 Office >>> www.Taosnet.com <http://www.newmex.com> >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >>> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > >
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
