It sounds like they may be on their way to having it in the newer Airmax AC gear - at some point at least.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:39 AM, 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
