I ran a TCP test from the one on the far end back to a different Mikrotik router, and got around 60Mbps (I only tried one direction). I just used the sync button to get two of them to connect together, and it seemed to work alright, but that seems like it would be way too easy for customers to screw up. I haven't checked if there's a way to disable all the buttons yet.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:37 PM Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, based on my bench testing (actually in my house), I recommend not > trying to use the Sync button to pair them, especially if you anticipate > having more than 2 of them. I had nothing but frustration that way. Log > in via the WiFi or Ethernet interface, you can use Winbox to find neighbors > and connect via MAC address if you want. Then manually enter the network > key in each device, set the one by the router to “always” so it will always > be the CCO, and the others to “never” so they will be stations. I’m still > a little worried what happens if customers start pushing the Sync button > and unpair them, given that I had no luck pairing them with the button. I > was using 6.43.12 FW. > > > > UDP Bandwidth Test between units was only giving me around 20 Mbps each > direction, far less than the 200 Mbps the Qualcomm chip claims, it should > be noted that my house has a hodgepodge of wiring so maybe in a pristine > environment it would do better. WiFi signal on my laptop was unimpressive > from first to second floor but the thing does only have 1.5 dB antennas. > It seemed to work OK though. And you would only be using these to fill in > coverage holes, not as the main WiFi trying to cover the whole house. It > is single band, 2.4 GHz only. It uses the MIPSBE firmware and seems to > have all the RouterOS features just like a SOHO router, limited of course > by only having one Ethernet port (plus WLAN and powerline interfaces). > > > > I don’t recommend leaving the default bridge configuration, at a minimum > the WiFi needs to be secured. > > > > > > *From:* AF <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones > *Sent:* Friday, February 22, 2019 4:08 PM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik PWR-LINE AP > > > > That would be great, we use cambium routers, but customers constantly have > coverage issues in their house and even though best buy carries power line > stuff they always sell them an 88 dollar garbage nighthawk. Id like to just > have a cheap solution to get them into > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 3:29 PM Mathew Howard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I just got some... it seems like a good idea, but I'm not quite sure how > we'd use them yet. > > > > If you already have another Mikrotik router, using RoMON to manage them > could be an option. > > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 9:56 AM Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > > Anybody else evaluating or using these? > > > > They are smaller than I thought from the brochure photo, which is good. > I worry a bit about customers pressing the little buttons though, you know > how customers love to push buttons, plus you could accidentally push a > button while plugging the unit into a wall outlet. > > > > The instructions aren’t correct, it doesn’t have an IP address of > 192.168.88.1 by default, it is set up as a bridge with a DHCP client and > nothing else. You can access it from Winbox by MAC address, or I guess you > can connect it behind a router and let it get an IP address via DHCP. > > > > How are people setting these up? Our intent is to use them where the > customer already has a leased, managed Mikrotik router from us and they > have WiFi deadspots but don’t want any cables run. But if we’re supplying > it as part of a managed service (we bite the bullet on the cost if there is > a WiFi coverage problem within the house), then I want to be able to > monitor and manage the router and any powerline APs remotely. Winbox via > MAC address would not seem adequate. I guess we could give each powerline > device an identity which I assume will show up as the hostname in the > router DHCP server and then we could temporarily put in a port forward to > access them remotely. Or we could assign them static IP addresses like > 192.168.88.2 and 192.168.88.3 which is how we handle PTP links and routers > behind a customer router. > > > > If we just leave them as a bridge with a DHCP client, they technically > don’t need configuration, you can just push the Sync buttons to pair them. > But like any newly released device I think we’re going to want to upgrade > the firmware at which point we can change the configuration if we want to, > at least set System/Identity and maybe IP address. > > -- > 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
