Kumu Networks was working on this too.  I don’t think they have it working yet.

Rory

From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 2:17 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Antenna article

More throughput? Less latency?

Sure, without Mu-MIMO you can't have more than one CPE talking at the same time 
to the AP, but there's no reason to restrict some CPE from transmitting at the 
same time as the AP.

Maybe some CPE have more to say than others...  by a lot?

I guess it boils down to cost. Is the cost high enough to where you just add it 
to the AP and call it a day or is it low enough where you put it in everything?

What's more costly, the filter or developing a scheduler to accommodate the 
lack of a filter?


-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
________________________________
From: "castarritt" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 4:11:19 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Antenna article
What's the point of having the CPE run full duplex?

Example scenario: two CPEs (#1 and #2) are connected to a magic filter equipped 
FD AP.  Both want to send and receive as much bandwidth as possible.

The AP splits the frame up into two halves.  During the first half, it talks to 
#1 while receiving from #2.  During the second half, it talks to #2 while 
listening to #1.  The AP spends 100% of the frame-time talking and receiving at 
the same time.  The CPEs meanwhile are running TDD, and spend 100% of the 
frame-time either talking or listening, but not at the same time.

I see no benefit from building this tech into the CPEs unless you want your CPE 
to be able to use up more than 50% of the AP's frame-time.

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 3:59 PM Mike Hammett 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Why not have CPE talking at the same time as they're receiving?

I don't know why it wouldn't work on MIMO, but I'm not smart enough to make 
that declaration.


-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
________________________________
From: "castarritt" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 3:53:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Antenna article
I understand the benefit.  My point was that only the APs would need the magic 
filters as long as a frequency and/or time division multiple access scheme will 
still be in use.  The SMs don't need the magic filters because they aren't 
talking while receiving, only the AP is.  The only reason I can see to have the 
filters in the SMs if you want each SM to be able to use more than 50% of the 
AP's frame time.


My other question still stands though; is this tech going to work for MIMO APs? 
 I would rather have a dual-pol (or better yet, MU-MIMO) AP running TDD/FDD 
than a full duplex SISO AP.

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 3:23 PM Mike Hammett 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
If this works, Tx and Rx at the same time means throughput goes up everywhere 
with everything (that adopts it), given that everything is now full duplex and 
not half duplex. No need for TDD. No need for FDD. It's all just FD.

*IF* it works...


-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
________________________________
From: "castarritt" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 3:00:47 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Antenna article
Why would you want the CPE to RX and TX at the same time/frequency when you can 
use OFDMA?

My big question is if they can get this to work with MIMO.  We already have 
better ways to get double the throughput of a single-chain omni.

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:29 PM Ken Hohhof 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
What do you do at the CPE end?  Will one of these fit on a cellphone?

From: AF <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 2:04 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Antenna article

Well... get on it! We don't have all day.

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:41 PM <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Very interesting article in the latest IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine

Pseudo broadband omni that allows TX and RX on the same freq.

The orientation of the elements provides something like 50 dB reduction of 
mutual coupling between the TX and RX signal.

Then there is an analog cancellation stage that give another about 30 dB of 
cancellation.

Then there is a digital section that automagically does another 30+ dB of 
cancellation.

The TX signal ends up being down like 110-120 dB when it hits the receiver.

If this can be perfected we double our channel throughput...
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

--
AF mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

--
AF mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

--
AF mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

--
AF mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

--
AF mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[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

Reply via email to