To be fair, Mimosa doesn't have synced PTMP yet either... or unsynced, for that matter.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Josh Luthman <[email protected]> wrote: > Right sorry. I'm on the subject of PTMP products. > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Ty Featherling <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Ubiquiti hasn't figured it out for Airmax devices, no. For AirFiber >> products it works great. >> >> -Ty >> >> >> >> -Ty >> >> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Josh Luthman < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Cambium figured out sync no problem. >>> >>> Mimosa figured out sync no problem. Doesn't match up with Canopy...but >>> it's a step in the right direction. >>> >>> Ubnt can't figure it out for one reason or another. It's probably safe >>> to say that they're the ones that need to do the big push since they're a >>> HUGE part of the market. >>> >>> >>> Josh Luthman >>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> 1100 Wayne St >>> Suite 1337 >>> Troy, OH 45373 >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> You know what would be really nice to see ......... >>>> >>>> The day when one can use different mfg radios, on the same tower, using >>>> gps sync, and have them all get along .... >>>> >>>> Would actually create a bit of a revolution in the industry across the >>>> board ! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Faisal Imtiaz >>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom >>>> 7266 SW 48 Street >>>> Miami, FL 33155 >>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >>>> >>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected] >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From: *"Rory Conaway" <[email protected]> >>>> *To: *[email protected] >>>> *Sent: *Friday, November 6, 2015 12:19:58 PM >>>> >>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B5 vs AF5X >>>> >>>> I was thinking the same thing on the noise/interference issue. This >>>> has nothing to do with the efficiency by design. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have never seen a Mimosa avoid a channel because the other radio is >>>> using it. That kind of makes no sense. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Both radios have big firmware upgrades coming. The AF5x is supposed to >>>> have split channels, the Mimosas a lower latency and better handling of the >>>> Auto-Everything feature with multiple Mimosa radios on the same tower. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Right now for us, the split channel and auto-feature are keeping things >>>> running in excessively high interference levels. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Rory >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Stefan >>>> Englhardt >>>> *Sent:* Friday, November 6, 2015 9:33 AM >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B5 vs AF5X >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >Just a few FYI comments:- >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >the efficiency of PHY layer is greatly dependent on the noise and >>>> interference factors. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is the case with every radio. While there are differences how >>>> radios perform with interference. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >One can 'tune' auto everything mode, by manually locking out channels >>>> (i.e. channels in use by other equipment of yours). >>>> >>>> If I am correct Mimosa plans to autonegotiate used channels with radios >>>> on the same l2 network. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >There is another release for the PTP which is due soon 1.3 (I >>>> believe) which is supposed to have some more >interesting >>>> improvements....including a reduction in latency... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This will be great. Latency will be an issue when there are chained >>>> links. >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From: *"Stefan Englhardt" <[email protected]> >>>> *To: *[email protected] >>>> *Sent: *Friday, November 6, 2015 9:24:47 AM >>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B5 vs AF5X >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >I’ve got both radios running in different areas. The Mimosa radios >>>> are pretty proprietary in they are actually running about 87.5% of the PHY >>>> layer for throughput. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is with 8ms Frame size I guess. We use only 2 or 4 as latency adds >>>> up with multiple links. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >At that level, I really don’t think there is that much difference >>>> between the radios. The advantage in the world I live in is that spectrum >>>> interference is constantly changing and that the combination of split >>>> frequencies and auto-everything both make my life easier and seems to >>>> maximize thought. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Auto-Everything still does not work for me. Still does some wired >>>> decisions. At some links the background spectrum scan still shows the own >>>> radio as interferer. Using this as information for channel selection does >>>> not help. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >The AF5x radios however, have 10, 30 and 50MHz channel options whereas >>>> the Mimosa have an 80MHz channel option. Finding the spectrum to maximize >>>> the radios is the real key to optimizing the AF5x and they give you 3 >>>> distinct options. With the Mimosa’s I don’t worry about it, they search >>>> all the spectrum and make the changes in terms of channels and channel >>>> widths. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We’re very limited in high power spectrum (only 120MHz with 36db EiRP) >>>> so I want to squeeze every bit out of it. This is why I look at the AF5X >>>> for some places. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >What will be interesting is how both radios perform after the next >>>> firmware releases. Both products are expecting big things. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I guess you’re talkin PTMP? Would love to see this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I see both Radios have a great hardware base and have the possibility >>>> to get better with Firmware. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >>>> Behalf Of *Stefan Englhardt >>>> *Sent:* Friday, November 6, 2015 12:31 AM >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B5 vs AF5X >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >You're looking at the difference in code rates between 256QAM 3/4 >>>> code rate (MCS8) and 256QAM 5/6 code rate (MCS9)? All >things being >>>> equal in the same size TDD 40 MHz channel, of course the MCS9 radio will >>>> have a greater bps/Hz. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No. The AF5X claims to give higher performance with (8x) 256QAM >>>> compared to MCS9 (256QAM 5/6) of an .ac radio. AF5X is no .ac radio so they >>>> seem to have a different amount of subcarriers, less overhead or other >>>> modulation scheme? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://community.ubnt.com/t5/airFiber/AF5X-Link-Calculator-Updated-Download/m-p/1255928#M20955 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >Talking about the bps/Hz for a single stream, the specs for 802.11ac >>>> say that an MCS8 channel 40 MHz wide will be 162 to 180 Mbps, while a MCS9 >>>> channel 40 MHz wide will be 180 to 200 Mbps. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >I am not sure the two can be compared directly side by side thanks to >>>> the B5's split frequency modes of operation. They can be >better >>>> compared head to head if you're using a single fixed TDD frequency (like, >>>> 5760 center channel). >>>> >>>> Yes. I took 40MHz to be fair as 802.11ac does MCS9 only with channels >>>> greater equal 40MHz. And I am talking real IP capacity not physical. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Stefan Englhardt <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Anyone who have them both running did an unbiased comparison? >>>> >>>> We’ve several B5 links running and are quite happy with them. >>>> >>>> Good 11ac radios in a very neat package. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The AF5x on the other side is a custom designed radio which seems to >>>> >>>> squeeze more mbits out of smaller channels. In a 40MHz Channel I see >>>> >>>> an aggregated thruput of 320 Mbit/s with the B5 with 4ms framesize at >>>> >>>> MCS9 (256QAM). >>>> >>>> Looking at the AF5X (inofficial) link table should do 390 Mbit/s >>>> aggregated >>>> >>>> with 2ms framesize. So they promise to do higher bandwidth with lower >>>> >>>> latency in a 40MHz Channel (at smaller channels the difference is higher >>>> >>>> as .ac do only MCS8). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Is the AF5X the better radio with limited spectrum while the B5 can do >>>> more >>>> >>>> with enough spectrum available? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I’ve sites where I ran out of spectrum (ETSI) so I plan to put AF5X >>>> there. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
