We've mostly been doing PTP and some small PtMP for camera networks with
ePMP. We were using all UBNT for the camera stuff. So we started a new
job that required an AP on a central site and 8 or 10 remote cameras
spread across five remote sites. All within a mile, so low power 5.2/5.4
was the best option. Bought a bunch of the new UBNT beam things and
found they only did 5.7. Ordered ePMP, because I'm not going to shit on
5.7 like everyone else does. The DVR sits behind a Force110 SM connected
to the AP at the tower. Three of the remotes are also on SMs connected
to the same AP and it has zero problems. Even our regular camera guys
said the video feeds were never this smooth on any of the UBNT networks.
Regular connectorized radio for the AP, not GPS. Nothing else special,
just bridging and flexible framing. Probably pushing 30-40Mbps of video
traffic. Methinks Cambium just knows how to do RF scheduling.
On 7/21/2015 5:12 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
OK, ignore me, I seem to be having a bad math day.
Also trying to grasp the concept of actually using a 40 MHz channel.
But I was also remembering an ePMP data sheet with a 150 Mbps number.
Probably because there are so many ePMP variants.
I assume the lesser model is limited by CPU, not RF?
*From:* George Skorup <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2015 5:02 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP force 110 gps sync
ePMP is 64QAM. 256 would be nice, but there's always the PTP450 for
that, which of course is limited to 20MHz though. I have a 10 mile
ePMP link on 2' dishes running in the 5.1 band. 20MHz channel. I get
98Mbps aggregate. I see no reason why a 40MHz channel couldn't do
200Mbps, maybe a little more.
On 7/21/2015 1:31 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
The answer you are looking for is 802.11ac?
Anyway, I guess I’m mistaken and 220M may be the right number for
256QAM in 40 MHz. Assuming the planets align and every sub is at max
modulation with no retries.
*From:* Josh Luthman <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2015 1:23 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP force 110 gps sync
And Mimosa is...
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Jul 21, 2015 2:19 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Really, 220 Mbps in a 40 MHz channel? That’s a bunch for
something based on an 802.11n PHY.
I think the regular Force 110 spec sheet says 150M, does the GPS
sync version really say 220M? I’m not disputing it, just
surprised/amazed.
*From:* Josh Luthman <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2015 1:15 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP force 110 gps sync
220 would be perfect. I've had nothing but great RF performance.
Did you see my story about going from Beams to force110?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340 <tel:937-552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343 <tel:937-552-2343>
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Jul 21, 2015 1:51 PM, "Joshua Heide" <[email protected]> wrote:
Looking into these units. Wondering what kind of throughput
people are getting with these. Are you getting the 220mbps
real world throughput that they claim?
Josh Heide
Network Engineer
Velociter Wireless, Inc.
(209)838-1221 x108 <tel:%28209%29838-1221%20x108>
