Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links?
I think it would be really tough for them to accomplish them, being atheros and all. Most you get is athstats. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Doug Clark wrote: > I was just compiling them, BUT the simple answer is Joshs' > They could do most of it in AirControl. > > > > > *---Original Message---* > > *From:* Josh Luthman > *Date:* 9/23/2012 3:49:54 PM > *To:* WISPA General List > *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links? > > The amazing stats you get from a Moto PTP. > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Jon Auer wrote: > > What would you like them to add for monitoring and troubleshooting? > On Sep 23, 2012 4:22 PM, "Doug Clark" wrote: > +1 on the fact that radio's should only be a transparent bridge. I > do love all the features that some manufacturers give you to trouble shoot > problems though. > UBNT is not one of those companies... They lack a lot when it comes > to trouble shooting and monitoring the link!! > > > > > *---Original Message---* > > *From:* Fred Goldstein > *Date:* 9/23/2012 9:43:40 AM > *To:* WISPA General List ; WISPA General > List > *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links? > > At 9/23/2012 06:17 AM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: > >Hi All, > > > >I have noticed that lately many collegues are using Ubiquiti Nanobridge > >M5 (the one with small parabolic dish) and the product is nice for the > >signal (more or less). > > > >Unfortunately, I do not see in the *same price range*, the same product > >from Mikrotik. The only thing that I see is "SEXTANT 5HnD" which is > >declared to be 18dBi (much less that the 23dBi DECLARED by Ubiquiti) > > Antenna gain is almost entirely a function of size; with a dish, it's > pretty straightforward. The NM5 has 326 and 400 mm dish versions, > for 22 and 25 dB nominal gain. The Sextant is 250 mm; the SXT is 140 > mm. Smaller dishes means less directivity and lower gain, but also > less wind load and visibility. Neither one is "better" in that > regard; they're just different. And they tend to price out a bit > better than buying a radio and dish separately, but not by much. > > >What I do not like of Ubiquiti is that compared to mikrotik it has much > >less features, for example no mac-ping/mac-telnet or multiple SSID (ok > >you can have multiple SSID if you use the CLI and the linux command line > >and maybe it will be implemented in the future) > > > >Therefore, I really wonder if those 18 vs 23 are real or just what you > >think from your field experience. > > Those features are just software and have nothing to do with the gain > of the antenna. It's like comparing horsepower of a car's engine > with the comfort of the seats. Personally I don't think the radio > unit itself should do more than pass along Ethernet frames > transparently, and respond to management, but since everybody's > working from a Linux kernel and that already has lots of other > capabilities, people expect their radios to also be routers. > > > -- > Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > +1 617 795 2701 > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > -- > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links?
Ya, Baby!! ---Original Message--- From: Zach Mann Date: 9/23/2012 4:01:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links? This is best for short links. :) On Sep 23, 2012 4:57 PM, "Doug Clark" wrote: ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links?
Hey, I'll +1 that all day. Not sure that kind of capability is in the Ubiquiti vs Mikrotik ballpark though. On Sep 23, 2012 4:49 PM, "Josh Luthman" wrote: > The amazing stats you get from a Moto PTP. > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Jon Auer wrote: > >> What would you like them to add for monitoring and troubleshooting? >> On Sep 23, 2012 4:22 PM, "Doug Clark" wrote: >> >>> +1 on the fact that radio's should only be a transparent bridge. I >>> do love all the features that some manufacturers give you to trouble shoot >>> problems though. >>> UBNT is not one of those companies... They lack a lot when it comes >>> to trouble shooting and monitoring the link!! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *---Original Message-------* >>> >>> *From:* Fred Goldstein >>> *Date:* 9/23/2012 9:43:40 AM >>> *To:* WISPA General List ; WISPA General >>> List >>> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links? >>> >>> At 9/23/2012 06:17 AM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: >>> >Hi All, >>> > >>> >I have noticed that lately many collegues are using Ubiquiti Nanobridge >>> >M5 (the one with small parabolic dish) and the product is nice for the >>> >signal (more or less). >>> > >>> >Unfortunately, I do not see in the *same price range*, the same product >>> >from Mikrotik. The only thing that I see is "SEXTANT 5HnD" which is >>> >declared to be 18dBi (much less that the 23dBi DECLARED by Ubiquiti) >>> >>> Antenna gain is almost entirely a function of size; with a dish, it's >>> pretty straightforward. The NM5 has 326 and 400 mm dish versions, >>> for 22 and 25 dB nominal gain. The Sextant is 250 mm; the SXT is 140 >>> mm. Smaller dishes means less directivity and lower gain, but also >>> less wind load and visibility. Neither one is "better" in that >>> regard; they're just different. And they tend to price out a bit >>> better than buying a radio and dish separately, but not by much. >>> >>> >What I do not like of Ubiquiti is that compared to mikrotik it has much >>> >less features, for example no mac-ping/mac-telnet or multiple SSID (ok >>> >you can have multiple SSID if you use the CLI and the linux command line >>> >and maybe it will be implemented in the future) >>> > >>> >Therefore, I really wonder if those 18 vs 23 are real or just what you >>> >think from your field experience. >>> >>> Those features are just software and have nothing to do with the gain >>> of the antenna. It's like comparing horsepower of a car's engine >>> with the comfort of the seats. Personally I don't think the radio >>> unit itself should do more than pass along Ethernet frames >>> transparently, and respond to management, but since everybody's >>> working from a Linux kernel and that already has lots of other >>> capabilities, people expect their radios to also be routers. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com >>> ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ >>> +1 617 795 2701 >>> >>> ___ >>> Wireless mailing list >>> Wireless@wispa.org >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> ___ >>> Wireless mailing list >>> Wireless@wispa.org >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links?
short (for me) is less than 10km > How short of a link are you looking at? Run the numbers first, bigger > doesn't always mean better and you might find yourself having to turn > down the radios so you're not screaming at each other. > > On 09/23/2012 11:43 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: >> At 9/23/2012 06:17 AM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I have noticed that lately many collegues are using Ubiquiti Nanobridge >>> M5 (the one with small parabolic dish) and the product is nice for the >>> signal (more or less). >>> >>> Unfortunately, I do not see in the *same price range*, the same product >> >from Mikrotik. The only thing that I see is "SEXTANT 5HnD" which is >>> declared to be 18dBi (much less that the 23dBi DECLARED by Ubiquiti) >> Antenna gain is almost entirely a function of size; with a dish, it's >> pretty straightforward. The NM5 has 326 and 400 mm dish versions, >> for 22 and 25 dB nominal gain. The Sextant is 250 mm; the SXT is 140 >> mm. Smaller dishes means less directivity and lower gain, but also >> less wind load and visibility. Neither one is "better" in that >> regard; they're just different. And they tend to price out a bit >> better than buying a radio and dish separately, but not by much. >> >>> What I do not like of Ubiquiti is that compared to mikrotik it has much >>> less features, for example no mac-ping/mac-telnet or multiple SSID (ok >>> you can have multiple SSID if you use the CLI and the linux command line >>> and maybe it will be implemented in the future) >>> >>> Therefore, I really wonder if those 18 vs 23 are real or just what you >>> think from your field experience. >> Those features are just software and have nothing to do with the gain >> of the antenna. It's like comparing horsepower of a car's engine >> with the comfort of the seats. Personally I don't think the radio >> unit itself should do more than pass along Ethernet frames >> transparently, and respond to management, but since everybody's >> working from a Linux kernel and that already has lots of other >> capabilities, people expect their radios to also be routers. >> >> >> -- >> Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com >> ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ >> +1 617 795 2701 >> >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links?
I was just compiling them, BUT the simple answer is Joshs' They could do most of it in AirControl. ---Original Message--- From: Josh Luthman Date: 9/23/2012 3:49:54 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links? The amazing stats you get from a Moto PTP. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Jon Auer wrote: What would you like them to add for monitoring and troubleshooting? On Sep 23, 2012 4:22 PM, "Doug Clark" wrote: +1 on the fact that radio's should only be a transparent bridge. I do love all the features that some manufacturers give you to trouble shoot problems though. UBNT is not one of those companies... They lack a lot when it comes to trouble shooting and monitoring the link!! ---Original Message--- From: Fred Goldstein Date: 9/23/2012 9:43:40 AM To: WISPA General List; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links? At 9/23/2012 06:17 AM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: >Hi All, > >I have noticed that lately many collegues are using Ubiquiti Nanobridge >M5 (the one with small parabolic dish) and the product is nice for the >signal (more or less). > >Unfortunately, I do not see in the *same price range*, the same product >from Mikrotik. The only thing that I see is "SEXTANT 5HnD" which is >declared to be 18dBi (much less that the 23dBi DECLARED by Ubiquiti) Antenna gain is almost entirely a function of size; with a dish, it's pretty straightforward. The NM5 has 326 and 400 mm dish versions, for 22 and 25 dB nominal gain. The Sextant is 250 mm; the SXT is 140 mm. Smaller dishes means less directivity and lower gain, but also less wind load and visibility. Neither one is "better" in that regard; they're just different. And they tend to price out a bit better than buying a radio and dish separately, but not by much. >What I do not like of Ubiquiti is that compared to mikrotik it has much >less features, for example no mac-ping/mac-telnet or multiple SSID (ok >you can have multiple SSID if you use the CLI and the linux command line >and maybe it will be implemented in the future) > >Therefore, I really wonder if those 18 vs 23 are real or just what you >think from your field experience. Those features are just software and have nothing to do with the gain of the antenna. It's like comparing horsepower of a car's engine with the comfort of the seats. Personally I don't think the radio unit itself should do more than pass along Ethernet frames transparently, and respond to management, but since everybody's working from a Linux kernel and that already has lots of other capabilities, people expect their radios to also be routers. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links?
The amazing stats you get from a Moto PTP. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Jon Auer wrote: > What would you like them to add for monitoring and troubleshooting? > On Sep 23, 2012 4:22 PM, "Doug Clark" wrote: > >> +1 on the fact that radio's should only be a transparent bridge. I >> do love all the features that some manufacturers give you to trouble shoot >> problems though. >> UBNT is not one of those companies... They lack a lot when it comes >> to trouble shooting and monitoring the link!! >> >> >> >> >> *---Original Message---* >> >> *From:* Fred Goldstein >> *Date:* 9/23/2012 9:43:40 AM >> *To:* WISPA General List ; WISPA General >> List >> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links? >> >> At 9/23/2012 06:17 AM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: >> >Hi All, >> > >> >I have noticed that lately many collegues are using Ubiquiti Nanobridge >> >M5 (the one with small parabolic dish) and the product is nice for the >> >signal (more or less). >> > >> >Unfortunately, I do not see in the *same price range*, the same product >> >from Mikrotik. The only thing that I see is "SEXTANT 5HnD" which is >> >declared to be 18dBi (much less that the 23dBi DECLARED by Ubiquiti) >> >> Antenna gain is almost entirely a function of size; with a dish, it's >> pretty straightforward. The NM5 has 326 and 400 mm dish versions, >> for 22 and 25 dB nominal gain. The Sextant is 250 mm; the SXT is 140 >> mm. Smaller dishes means less directivity and lower gain, but also >> less wind load and visibility. Neither one is "better" in that >> regard; they're just different. And they tend to price out a bit >> better than buying a radio and dish separately, but not by much. >> >> >What I do not like of Ubiquiti is that compared to mikrotik it has much >> >less features, for example no mac-ping/mac-telnet or multiple SSID (ok >> >you can have multiple SSID if you use the CLI and the linux command line >> >and maybe it will be implemented in the future) >> > >> >Therefore, I really wonder if those 18 vs 23 are real or just what you >> >think from your field experience. >> >> Those features are just software and have nothing to do with the gain >> of the antenna. It's like comparing horsepower of a car's engine >> with the comfort of the seats. Personally I don't think the radio >> unit itself should do more than pass along Ethernet frames >> transparently, and respond to management, but since everybody's >> working from a Linux kernel and that already has lots of other >> capabilities, people expect their radios to also be routers. >> >> >> -- >> Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com >> ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ >> +1 617 795 2701 >> >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links?
What would you like them to add for monitoring and troubleshooting? On Sep 23, 2012 4:22 PM, "Doug Clark" wrote: > +1 on the fact that radio's should only be a transparent bridge. I > do love all the features that some manufacturers give you to trouble shoot > problems though. > UBNT is not one of those companies... They lack a lot when it comes > to trouble shooting and monitoring the link!! > > > > > *---Original Message---* > > *From:* Fred Goldstein > *Date:* 9/23/2012 9:43:40 AM > *To:* WISPA General List ; WISPA General > List > *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links? > > At 9/23/2012 06:17 AM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: > >Hi All, > > > >I have noticed that lately many collegues are using Ubiquiti Nanobridge > >M5 (the one with small parabolic dish) and the product is nice for the > >signal (more or less). > > > >Unfortunately, I do not see in the *same price range*, the same product > >from Mikrotik. The only thing that I see is "SEXTANT 5HnD" which is > >declared to be 18dBi (much less that the 23dBi DECLARED by Ubiquiti) > > Antenna gain is almost entirely a function of size; with a dish, it's > pretty straightforward. The NM5 has 326 and 400 mm dish versions, > for 22 and 25 dB nominal gain. The Sextant is 250 mm; the SXT is 140 > mm. Smaller dishes means less directivity and lower gain, but also > less wind load and visibility. Neither one is "better" in that > regard; they're just different. And they tend to price out a bit > better than buying a radio and dish separately, but not by much. > > >What I do not like of Ubiquiti is that compared to mikrotik it has much > >less features, for example no mac-ping/mac-telnet or multiple SSID (ok > >you can have multiple SSID if you use the CLI and the linux command line > >and maybe it will be implemented in the future) > > > >Therefore, I really wonder if those 18 vs 23 are real or just what you > >think from your field experience. > > Those features are just software and have nothing to do with the gain > of the antenna. It's like comparing horsepower of a car's engine > with the comfort of the seats. Personally I don't think the radio > unit itself should do more than pass along Ethernet frames > transparently, and respond to management, but since everybody's > working from a Linux kernel and that already has lots of other > capabilities, people expect their radios to also be routers. > > > -- > Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > +1 617 795 2701 > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links?
+1 on the fact that radio's should only be a transparent bridge. I do love all the features that some manufacturers give you to trouble shoot problems though. UBNT is not one of those companies... They lack a lot when it comes to trouble shooting and monitoring the link!! ---Original Message--- From: Fred Goldstein Date: 9/23/2012 9:43:40 AM To: WISPA General List; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links? At 9/23/2012 06:17 AM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: >Hi All, > >I have noticed that lately many collegues are using Ubiquiti Nanobridge >M5 (the one with small parabolic dish) and the product is nice for the >signal (more or less). > >Unfortunately, I do not see in the *same price range*, the same product >from Mikrotik. The only thing that I see is "SEXTANT 5HnD" which is >declared to be 18dBi (much less that the 23dBi DECLARED by Ubiquiti) Antenna gain is almost entirely a function of size; with a dish, it's pretty straightforward. The NM5 has 326 and 400 mm dish versions, for 22 and 25 dB nominal gain. The Sextant is 250 mm; the SXT is 140 mm. Smaller dishes means less directivity and lower gain, but also less wind load and visibility. Neither one is "better" in that regard; they're just different. And they tend to price out a bit better than buying a radio and dish separately, but not by much. >What I do not like of Ubiquiti is that compared to mikrotik it has much >less features, for example no mac-ping/mac-telnet or multiple SSID (ok >you can have multiple SSID if you use the CLI and the linux command line >and maybe it will be implemented in the future) > >Therefore, I really wonder if those 18 vs 23 are real or just what you >think from your field experience. Those features are just software and have nothing to do with the gain of the antenna. It's like comparing horsepower of a car's engine with the comfort of the seats. Personally I don't think the radio unit itself should do more than pass along Ethernet frames transparently, and respond to management, but since everybody's working from a Linux kernel and that already has lots of other capabilities, people expect their radios to also be routers. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links?
More gain and less tx power tends to be better. On Sep 23, 2012 12:32 PM, "Bret Clark" wrote: > How short of a link are you looking at? Run the numbers first, bigger > doesn't always mean better and you might find yourself having to turn > down the radios so you're not screaming at each other. > > On 09/23/2012 11:43 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > > At 9/23/2012 06:17 AM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I have noticed that lately many collegues are using Ubiquiti Nanobridge > >> M5 (the one with small parabolic dish) and the product is nice for the > >> signal (more or less). > >> > >> Unfortunately, I do not see in the *same price range*, the same product > > >from Mikrotik. The only thing that I see is "SEXTANT 5HnD" which is > >> declared to be 18dBi (much less that the 23dBi DECLARED by Ubiquiti) > > Antenna gain is almost entirely a function of size; with a dish, it's > > pretty straightforward. The NM5 has 326 and 400 mm dish versions, > > for 22 and 25 dB nominal gain. The Sextant is 250 mm; the SXT is 140 > > mm. Smaller dishes means less directivity and lower gain, but also > > less wind load and visibility. Neither one is "better" in that > > regard; they're just different. And they tend to price out a bit > > better than buying a radio and dish separately, but not by much. > > > >> What I do not like of Ubiquiti is that compared to mikrotik it has much > >> less features, for example no mac-ping/mac-telnet or multiple SSID (ok > >> you can have multiple SSID if you use the CLI and the linux command line > >> and maybe it will be implemented in the future) > >> > >> Therefore, I really wonder if those 18 vs 23 are real or just what you > >> think from your field experience. > > Those features are just software and have nothing to do with the gain > > of the antenna. It's like comparing horsepower of a car's engine > > with the comfort of the seats. Personally I don't think the radio > > unit itself should do more than pass along Ethernet frames > > transparently, and respond to management, but since everybody's > > working from a Linux kernel and that already has lots of other > > capabilities, people expect their radios to also be routers. > > > > > >-- > >Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > >ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > >+1 617 795 2701 > > > > ___ > > Wireless mailing list > > Wireless@wispa.org > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links?
How short of a link are you looking at? Run the numbers first, bigger doesn't always mean better and you might find yourself having to turn down the radios so you're not screaming at each other. On 09/23/2012 11:43 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > At 9/23/2012 06:17 AM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I have noticed that lately many collegues are using Ubiquiti Nanobridge >> M5 (the one with small parabolic dish) and the product is nice for the >> signal (more or less). >> >> Unfortunately, I do not see in the *same price range*, the same product > >from Mikrotik. The only thing that I see is "SEXTANT 5HnD" which is >> declared to be 18dBi (much less that the 23dBi DECLARED by Ubiquiti) > Antenna gain is almost entirely a function of size; with a dish, it's > pretty straightforward. The NM5 has 326 and 400 mm dish versions, > for 22 and 25 dB nominal gain. The Sextant is 250 mm; the SXT is 140 > mm. Smaller dishes means less directivity and lower gain, but also > less wind load and visibility. Neither one is "better" in that > regard; they're just different. And they tend to price out a bit > better than buying a radio and dish separately, but not by much. > >> What I do not like of Ubiquiti is that compared to mikrotik it has much >> less features, for example no mac-ping/mac-telnet or multiple SSID (ok >> you can have multiple SSID if you use the CLI and the linux command line >> and maybe it will be implemented in the future) >> >> Therefore, I really wonder if those 18 vs 23 are real or just what you >> think from your field experience. > Those features are just software and have nothing to do with the gain > of the antenna. It's like comparing horsepower of a car's engine > with the comfort of the seats. Personally I don't think the radio > unit itself should do more than pass along Ethernet frames > transparently, and respond to management, but since everybody's > working from a Linux kernel and that already has lots of other > capabilities, people expect their radios to also be routers. > > >-- >Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com >ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ >+1 617 795 2701 > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links?
At 9/23/2012 06:17 AM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: >Hi All, > >I have noticed that lately many collegues are using Ubiquiti Nanobridge >M5 (the one with small parabolic dish) and the product is nice for the >signal (more or less). > >Unfortunately, I do not see in the *same price range*, the same product >from Mikrotik. The only thing that I see is "SEXTANT 5HnD" which is >declared to be 18dBi (much less that the 23dBi DECLARED by Ubiquiti) Antenna gain is almost entirely a function of size; with a dish, it's pretty straightforward. The NM5 has 326 and 400 mm dish versions, for 22 and 25 dB nominal gain. The Sextant is 250 mm; the SXT is 140 mm. Smaller dishes means less directivity and lower gain, but also less wind load and visibility. Neither one is "better" in that regard; they're just different. And they tend to price out a bit better than buying a radio and dish separately, but not by much. >What I do not like of Ubiquiti is that compared to mikrotik it has much >less features, for example no mac-ping/mac-telnet or multiple SSID (ok >you can have multiple SSID if you use the CLI and the linux command line >and maybe it will be implemented in the future) > >Therefore, I really wonder if those 18 vs 23 are real or just what you >think from your field experience. Those features are just software and have nothing to do with the gain of the antenna. It's like comparing horsepower of a car's engine with the comfort of the seats. Personally I don't think the radio unit itself should do more than pass along Ethernet frames transparently, and respond to management, but since everybody's working from a Linux kernel and that already has lots of other capabilities, people expect their radios to also be routers. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links?
The slightly bigger one is 25. I am positive the gain is better. Maybe not 7dbi but it is very close. On Sep 23, 2012 6:17 AM, "Paolo Di Francesco" wrote: > Hi All, > > I have noticed that lately many collegues are using Ubiquiti Nanobridge > M5 (the one with small parabolic dish) and the product is nice for the > signal (more or less). > > Unfortunately, I do not see in the *same price range*, the same product > from Mikrotik. The only thing that I see is "SEXTANT 5HnD" which is > declared to be 18dBi (much less that the 23dBi DECLARED by Ubiquiti) > > What I do not like of Ubiquiti is that compared to mikrotik it has much > less features, for example no mac-ping/mac-telnet or multiple SSID (ok > you can have multiple SSID if you use the CLI and the linux command line > and maybe it will be implemented in the future) > > Therefore, I really wonder if those 18 vs 23 are real or just what you > think from your field experience. > > Thank you in advance > > > -- > > > Ing. Paolo Di Francesco > > Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale > > Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo > > C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 > Fax : +39-091-8772072 > assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 > web: http://www.level7.it > > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] which one is better for short links?
Hi All, I have noticed that lately many collegues are using Ubiquiti Nanobridge M5 (the one with small parabolic dish) and the product is nice for the signal (more or less). Unfortunately, I do not see in the *same price range*, the same product from Mikrotik. The only thing that I see is "SEXTANT 5HnD" which is declared to be 18dBi (much less that the 23dBi DECLARED by Ubiquiti) What I do not like of Ubiquiti is that compared to mikrotik it has much less features, for example no mac-ping/mac-telnet or multiple SSID (ok you can have multiple SSID if you use the CLI and the linux command line and maybe it will be implemented in the future) Therefore, I really wonder if those 18 vs 23 are real or just what you think from your field experience. Thank you in advance -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
