I've seen odd issues with af5x and high interference areas. I mostly have it sorted but it was a pain and only in the upload direction so I was able to stabilize it by dropping it to 6x and using split channels.
I wouldn't want to put up a link that has no growth potential past 100mbit with the variety of equipment out now. On Aug 31, 2016 6:36 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> wrote: > I am going AF5X on the 5 GHz links. > > > -----Original Message----- From: George Skorup Sent: Wednesday, August 31, > 2016 6:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF3X vs 450PTP 3.65 > Did Matt say if they did the PTP version of the integrated panel 3GHz SM > yet? But no sync-over-power, timing port only on that. > > If it was me, I'd save the 3.65 spectrum and do ePTP mode in 5GHz. You can > get the Force110 PTP/AP Lite radios and do sync if you want. > > On 8/31/2016 2:44 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > >> I have some 3.65 M series backhaul links to upgrade, I think it's 5 >> Powerbridges and 1 Rocket. Not ready to go licensed on these links. >> >> Has anyone done a spec comparison or better yet field comparision between >> Ubiquiti's AF3X and Cambium's 450PTP? They are fairly similar, the AF3X is >> more expensive than the 450PTP because Ubiquiti prices it a lot higher than >> the AF5X. Cambium has an integrated panel version of the 450SM but doesn't >> seem to have the PTP version of that, otherwise it might be a plus when >> replacing Powerbridges. And Ubiquiti doesn't seem to have a 3 GHz version >> of their smallest airFiber dish, which would have been a plus for AF3X. >> >> I don't see achieving max throughput on an AF3X since 30-50 MHz channels >> don't seem usable. So that maybe takes away some of the airFiber secret >> sauce. >> >> I guess another approach would be to use a 450 Lite AP and an SM, since >> those are parts we already use and stock. Yet another approach would be to >> use the lower 5 GHz bands instead of 3.65. >> >> > >
