Regarding small channels you should test AF5X. I see 75mbps aggregated on a
10MHz Channel. 2ms Frame Length.
[admin@gw24] > ping 192.168.51.180
SEQ HOST SIZE TTL TIME STATUS
0 192.168.51.180 56 64 2ms
1 192.168.51.180 56 64 1ms
2 192.168.51.180 56 64 1ms
3 192.168.51.180 56 64 1ms
4 192.168.51.180 56 64 2ms
5 192.168.51.180 56 64 3ms
6 192.168.51.180 56 64 1ms
7 192.168.51.180 56 64 1ms
8 192.168.51.180 56 64 1ms
9 192.168.51.180 56 64 2ms
10 192.168.51.180 56 64 1ms
11 192.168.51.180 56 64 1ms
12 192.168.51.180 56 64 1ms
13 192.168.51.180 56 64 1ms
14 192.168.51.180 56 64 1ms
15 192.168.51.180 56 64 1ms
16 192.168.51.180 56 64 1ms
17 192.168.51.180 56 64 0ms
sent=18 received=18 packet-loss=0% min-rtt=0ms avg-rtt=1ms max-rtt=3ms
On 30MHz I see 264mbps.
Imho best option for small channels. With big channels Mimosa is great.
Von: Af [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Mathew Howard
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 21:23
An: af <[email protected]>
Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS PTP
But you can't use sync in ePTP mode... here's what I get pinging across a PTP
link with 2.5ms frames, with an average of around 5mbps going across it.
Testing between the Mikrotiks at each end, I can average around 80mbps on a
20mhz channel.
0 10.1.27.25 56 64 10ms
1 10.1.27.25 56 64 9ms
2 10.1.27.25 56 64 6ms
3 10.1.27.25 56 64 8ms
4 10.1.27.25 56 64 8ms
5 10.1.27.25 56 64 13ms
6 10.1.27.25 56 64 8ms
7 10.1.27.25 56 64 7ms
8 10.1.27.25 56 64 11ms
9 10.1.27.25 56 64 8ms
10 10.1.27.25 56 64 9ms
sent=11 received=11 packet-loss=0% min-rtt=6ms avg-rtt=8ms max-rtt=13ms
I wouldn't really put them in the same class as a B5c... the B5c is capable of
a lot more throughput and has some nice gimmicks like being able to run two
separate channels and make changes without taking the link down... but latency
isn't too much different (actually a lot better in ePTP mode).
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Josh Luthman <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Latency in 2.5ms frames from router through AP to SM (16 subs) doing 7-9mbps
> ping 172.16.10.178
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=14 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
62x15 mbps speed test in flexible mode
Haven't used a B5c and that's a ptp product...if you do ePTP mode on ePMP
product you get ~1ms
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 Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Matt <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
What kind of luck are people having with the ePMP PTP using GPS?
Throughput and latency? How do they compare to the Mimosa B5c?
