Just wait until you have people with AF5's in your neck of the woods. No overtly OOB emissions that I'm aware of, but it absolutely crushes anything on 5GHz in it's beamwidth and freq-use range. Atheros radios outside of the band also get overloaded and CCQ tanks.

AF24 is amazing and firmware will only get better. AF5... kinda not a fan at this point. Same for just about every -AC radio from every manufacturer. Time will tell how Mimosa does though, I am mildly interested in those.

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com>

On 09/23/2014 08:29 PM, David Milholen via Af wrote:
Since I run several of these in our networks as well as the new 650 units. Ubiquity has a bunch of OOBE even that low if the power requirements are not being met. I have had ubiquity on my tower colo'd with a ptp230 5.4 unit and I set the ubiquity in the 5.2 range and it completely knocked off our ptp230 link. I had to turn the power way down below even min power levels before the 230 would come back up.

If by turning your system down and levels do return to normal for them. Then I would take a closer look at your config on your AP to see if you can tweak it to meet standards and at the same time not mess with them. I tried running a ptp link colo'd on my tower using ubiquity and the Out of band noise was incredible. I had 50' sep and andrew dish with at least 120 deg out of center. The Ns5 was the one with 3' dish.

Another thing to try is to get someone who make gutters and use sheet metal to make an extended shield placed between the ubiquity and the 600s


On 9/23/2014 7:05 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:
but i do really like the interface on the 650

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:04 PM, That One Guy <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    This is really beginning to irritate me, Now the guy who replaced
    the gear is still blaming us for the problems here, I moved the
    ubnt gear clear down to like 5.1 or whatever the lowest channel
    is, the spectrum at this and the remote site are deplorable.
    The Signal/Noise ratio is moving around on the ptp650 and the
    Vector Errors are off the chart, but he still wants to blame our
    equipment.

    I can tell you it boils down to an improper system repair post
    disaster. I pulled screen shots, both before and after I moved
    our channels, showed them the issue with their own colocated
    radios, turned on assymetric channels, yes, they were running
    symmetric in a high noise environment, nothing could go wrong
    there, right?

    Now tomorrow, my boss is going there to unplug our radio, taking
    our customers down. Im betting some utter nonsense like
    capacitant power or our antenna shape ends up being to blame here.

    I know ubnt is shit and bleeds noise allover, this particular
    radio is a rocket m5 with the 30db dish and the shield kit. The
    link is 90 degrees off both of theirs (ours is west, they have
    one north and one south) I believe we have 30 foot vertical sep
    between it and their closest radio. I can see how a rocket would
    magically destroy the whole 5ghz spectrum and not have
    performance issues itself.I even cycled the UBNT radios to make
    sure that they actually did change channels.

    ATPC power ranging not matching current TX output and RX doesnt
    make any sense to me. Interference alone will not alter RX power
    unless its very very notable.
     And then to top it off its said it would be better to move
    completely off the band to 3ghz since it cant interfere. Yeah,
    great fucking idea, lets take the only semi clean spectrum left
    and burn it on a backhaul thats performing as it should because
    other people dont know how to troubleshoot their own damn gear.
    But the kicker to that would be "oh, you must still be
    interfering, that m365 is actually a 5ghz radio downconverted

    how bout this, climb the damn tower and fix the fuckup

    fucking meh

    On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:04 PM, That One Guy via Af
    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

        Im not doing anything, this is a not my chair not my problem
        issue.

        This strike blew everything on the tower, if it was
        electronic, it cooked, the switch was sitting on back of the
        APC and welded to it even tripped the breaker

        Im just curious with these if theres any issue with the ATPC
        on these bas boys

        On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:42 PM, David via Af <[email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

            Inspect the cables or at lease switch one or both out at
            one end and see if a prevalent change is made.
             Could be a feed horn but unlikely I would shoot for
            pigtails first.


            On 09/23/2014 02:38 PM, That One Guy via Af wrote:
            I just got done troubleshooting a 650 link for our
            landlord we are coloed with on a couple towers. I had
            not looked at the ptp interface since the 500.

            This thing is freaking beautiful, and I never compliment
            anybody, especially on a web gui.

            Sooooo much information, so easy to find.


            one question though, They have atpc set to -35 on these,
            does that basically turn atpc off, or could it cause a
            problem?

            Im pretty sure they have a loose antenna or damaged
            feedhorn/patch cables (this was a lighnting replacement
            of a ptp500, reusing the cables/feedhorn)

            The system statistics showed a variation of received
            power ranging from -47 to -78 with a peak of -110 ,
            -78ish being current. Transmit powers show a variation
            of -15dBm up to 21 dBm (I did not notice the negative
            value at first). This would account for the range of
             Received power except When the Status screenshots were
            taken, the transmit power on both units was at 21 dBm
            with a 77/78 receive power on each side. If the output
            power is accurate, the receive power on the remote end
            would be at the peak, not the mean.

-- All parts should go together without forcing. You must
            remember that the parts you are reassembling were
            disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them
            together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do
            not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925




-- All parts should go together without forcing. You must
        remember that the parts you are reassembling were
        disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them
        together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
        use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925




-- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember
    that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.
    Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a
    reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance
    manual, 1925




--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925

--

Reply via email to