Thanks Bill ! -----Original Message----- From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Prince via Af Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 7:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Kudus to Chuck and Beehive ePMP dishes
It's more than "filters". I would expect that the ePMP would do better in a low-noise environment because the frames are pretty large. However, if there is a lot of interference, I would expect the PMP450 to get better because it can fit a bunch of ATM-like frames in between bits of interference. bp On 10/22/2014 2:24 PM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: > I have asked about that too, and I just hear crickets.... the only comment > I head was 450 had better "filters" but I asked for follow-up comparison data > vs. a guess and got more crickets. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt via Af > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 5:18 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Kudus to Chuck and Beehive ePMP dishes > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Paul McCall via Af <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes, we have forklifted 5 or 6 towers now from a Canopy 100 series 2.4. >> In general, we have been happy. There is a lot to learn on ePMP planning >> and best practices vs. the Canopy 100 series "set it and forget it". The >> Frequency reuse and GPS does seem to work pretty well on ePMP. >> >> We have one POP that has UBNT and Mikrotik interference and that site is >> giving us some challenges. Since going 802.11 2.4, we are abandoning the >> "FSK C/I throne" to become one of the common folk. I find Cambium's >> implementation to be better than the other guys, but interference is >> interference, so to speak. >> >> But, I am not sure I would not be having the same exact "considerations" >> using ANY radio with higher modulation requirements, including the 450 >> series. > I am really curious if the 450 would have done better in the face of > interference vs the ePMP. I have not heard of anyone doing a good comparison > yet. > > > > >> /shrug ? >> >> Overall, I give ePMP a 7.5 out of 10 with slow, regular advancements from >> the software team.
