The AP and CPE PtMP radio products appear to be posted at Doubleradius: http://www.doubleradius.com/store.html?manufacturer=576
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Faisal Imtiaz <[email protected]> wrote: > Production , no.... alpha/beta, yes..... ( their A5 product). > > 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: *"Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> > *To: *"af" <[email protected]> > *Sent: *Friday, November 6, 2015 12:52:50 PM > > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B5 vs AF5X > > 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
