To be honest, I'd bet you are in a sidelobe or very close and every so often it drops into the sidelobe.
My techs don't believe me when I tell them that H/V signals should be very similar within 2-3 dB of each other or they will not work properly. Case in point, techs installed a link that was -71/-58. The antenna needed final adjustment on the elevation. Brought the signal to -60/-58 and the link is now stable. I have seen this issue with both UBNT and MikroTik products. Regards, Chuck On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists <[email protected]>wrote: > On 4/24/2012 10:02 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > >> Bad card, pigtail, jumper, feedhorn? >> >> > Trust me, we exhausted just about every possibility of hardware failure. > All it did was cost me a lot of money before we figured the 802.11a > solution out. I can't even claim credit for that - Travis Johnson was the > one who suggested it because he has been having the same issues with > 802.11n. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > > > >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Matt Larsen - Lists"<[email protected]> >> To: "Mikrotik >> discussions"<mikrotik@mail.**butchevans.com<[email protected]> >> > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 11:01:07 AM >> Subject: Re: [Mikrotik] 802.11n vs 802.11a >> >> All of the 802.11n paths that had problems tended to have one chain out >> of four (tx/rx on both polarities) that was much worse than the >> others. This lead to the big variances in CCQ, is what I have been >> told. I don't have a good technical explanation for it other than >> 802.11a modulation ended up making the links much more solid and got our >> CCQs back up to 90%+. >> >> We do still have one 65+ mile shot using the 802.11n modulations and it >> appears to be working fine, but that link is on 4' Radiowaves dishes, >> plenty of clearance along the path and has -65 signals on all of the >> chains. It is also a backup link at this point and not running a lot >> of traffic so it doesn't see the same kind of load that my other links >> are getting. Before we figured this problem out, we were seeing great >> results on testing on the long 802.11n links but they would start >> getting real flaky when we put heavy loads on them. >> >> Matt Larsen >> vistabeam.com >> >> >> On 4/24/2012 9:43 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> >>> Wouldn't multipath be *better* for N? >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Matt Larsen - Lists"<[email protected]> >>> To: "Mikrotik >>> discussions"<mikrotik@mail.**butchevans.com<[email protected]> >>> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:25:15 AM >>> Subject: [Mikrotik] 802.11n vs 802.11a >>> >>> We are finding out that 802.11n links do some weird things when they get >>> over 25 miles.They will run 70meg and then drop to 5 even though the >>> signals and other RF conditions have not changed.As you can imagine, >>> this makes latency go all over the place.We found that by setting them >>> to 802.11a mode, we can get them to carry 30meg consistently with a much >>> narrower range of latency results. This is reflected in much higher >>> CCQ% on the 802.11a links vs the 802.11n links. Also seems like >>> Nstreme (not NV2) with a framer policy of 'none' and CSMA disabled is >>> the most stable setup. >>> >>> >>> Just thought some folks might find this useful. Butch has said that >>> some of our 802.11n problems may have had to do with multipath. YMMV. >>> >>> >>> Matt Larsen >>> vistabeam.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL:<http://www.butchevans.**com/pipermail/mikrotik/** >>> attachments/20120424/30a02561/**attachment.html<http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20120424/30a02561/attachment.html> >>> > >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> Mikrotik mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.butchevans.com/**mailman/listinfo/mikrotik<http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik> >>> >>> Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik >>> RouterOS >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> Mikrotik mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.butchevans.com/**mailman/listinfo/mikrotik<http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik> >>> >>> Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik >>> RouterOS >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >> Mikrotik mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.butchevans.com/**mailman/listinfo/mikrotik<http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik> >> >> Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik >> RouterOS >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Mikrotik mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.butchevans.com/**mailman/listinfo/mikrotik<http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik> >> >> Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik >> RouterOS >> >> > ______________________________**_________________ > Mikrotik mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.butchevans.com/**mailman/listinfo/mikrotik<http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik> > > Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik > RouterOS > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20120424/9f1fef53/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Mikrotik mailing list [email protected] http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik RouterOS
