Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af <[email protected]> wrote:
> i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). > > we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for > PTP. > > the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like the > difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are both > cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. same > thing with backhauls. > > 2 cents > > -sean > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Cambium, > > > > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend > to us for this type of problem/solution? > > > > Paul > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af > > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > > > For Cambium.... we have a very remote tower that feeds several other > towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... > > > > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several > anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... > > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik > RB912 5 Ghz > > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of > usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A > > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 > > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G > > > > Tower R then feeds... > > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of > usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of > usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of > usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of > usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > > > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling > act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect > (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT > radios on the backside links. > > > > The challenge... > > > > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I > need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect > and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. > > > > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other > than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is > inexpensive. > > > > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsynced.... can it sync, now or > tomorrow? Latency with sync? > > > > Paul > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt via Af > > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Please allow me to clarify. > > > > > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 > FE ports. > > > > > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the > > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary > PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on > board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). > > > > > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release > 2.4 and will apply to both products. > > > > Reading this spec sheet. > > > > > http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf > > > > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame > > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode) >
