Anything you'd want to test on a Chicago area network? :-p
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Macenski via Af" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 3:57:08 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium We are working on a couple of thing you are going to like :) On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Eric Kuhnke via Af < [email protected] > wrote: Any plans for a 3.5 or 3.65 GHz AirFiber, using a similar system to the AF5? With integrated antennas, it'd be pretty big, but I could see it being useful in some applications where an AF24 won't reach far enough (8-9km and 99.999% max modulation over one year). On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> 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) </blockquote> </blockquote>
