Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
I wouldn't be too sure that was real noise... we had similar issues with our first B11 link (it even showed a ton of noise on the spectrum analyzer), and ended up having to replace the radios. After replacing those first crummy made-in-California radios, with the newer, superior Chinese version it worked fine. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:35 PM, Bill Prince wrote: > In San Mateo and Santa Clara valley there are a _LOT_ of 11 GHz paths > criss-crossing all over the place. Like it or not, the noise floor is not > as quiet as you might expect. We first tried the B11 on a link from the > mountain SW of San Mateo shooting to kind of central San Mateo. It was > abysmal. Would not get close to full modulation, and only half duplex; > which is a bigger deal than some think. It also dropped the connection to > almost nothing intermittently. We replaced it with an AF11x, and while it's > not quite getting full modulation, it is darn close. And it stays up, and > it runs full dux. > > 'nuff said. We don't use B11s anymore. > > > bp > > > On 7/17/2018 7:41 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > >> On 7/16/18 9:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote: >> >>> They also seem to be a lot better in higher noise environments. >>> >> >> Um, how are you seeing "higher noise" in a licensed band? >> >> > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
In San Mateo and Santa Clara valley there are a _LOT_ of 11 GHz paths criss-crossing all over the place. Like it or not, the noise floor is not as quiet as you might expect. We first tried the B11 on a link from the mountain SW of San Mateo shooting to kind of central San Mateo. It was abysmal. Would not get close to full modulation, and only half duplex; which is a bigger deal than some think. It also dropped the connection to almost nothing intermittently. We replaced it with an AF11x, and while it's not quite getting full modulation, it is darn close. And it stays up, and it runs full dux. 'nuff said. We don't use B11s anymore. bp On 7/17/2018 7:41 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 7/16/18 9:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote: They also seem to be a lot better in higher noise environments. Um, how are you seeing "higher noise" in a licensed band? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
I thought that was the case - 1x80FD should just be half the capacity of the full 2x80, the rest of the options stay the same. I'm not really sure why you'd want to use a fixed ration in FD mode... in TDD, you would need to use a fixed ratio if you wanted to sync multiple links, but there's not really any point in that if you're running on separate tx and rx channels. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > Tim, > > Actually even in the 1x80FDD mode, the radio will do traffic split other > than 50/50, which kind of makes it a unique animal. > > one of the reason we did not feel the need to switch out the B11 for AF11x > on the 1x80, cause due to traffic split, the B11's performance was coming > very close to what the AF11x would do on the 56mhz channel duplex. > > Regards. > > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > http://www.snappytelecom.net > > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 > > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > > -- > > *From: *"Tim Hardy" > *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 8:04:57 PM > > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > > I’ll look but there’s nothing other than 50/50 with the 1x80 FDD option. > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:27 PM Mathew Howard > wrote: > >> I think those rates are what you'd get with a 50/50 traffic split - if >> it's running in flexible mode, you should be able to get close to double >> that in one direction... but it's been awhile since I've played with >> settings on a B11, so I could be wrong. >> >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Faisal Imtiaz >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Something is off in your Mimosa # see picture attached.. >>> >>> Respectfully, >>> >>> Faisal Imtiaz >>> Snappy Internet & Telecom >>> http://www.snappytelecom.net >>> >>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >>> >>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *From: *"Tim Hardy" >>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >>> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:32:32 PM >>> >>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >>> >>> I realize that these are theoretical values supplied by the manufacturer >>> and attaining these is another matter entirely. But, I thought it might >>> help to see a comparison of supplied specs. >>> >>> Manufacturers are supposed to provide the “air-rate” that does not >>> include header compression, overhead bits, etc. but from what I remember it >>> was not possible to get this from either UBNT or Mimosa. So, the claims of >>> throughput are all over the place and its not easy to compare radios based >>> on manufacturer supplied data. If you look at an Aviat spec sheet, you >>> will see an Airlink capacity and a Max Ethernet Capacity based on 64 byte >>> frames, physical layer, with DAC GE3. Mimosa supplied data is confusing as >>> all data that I saw before I retired last October was listed in full duplex >>> and considered everything on a path. For example, they publish 1472 Mbps >>> for the 2X80 radio but this takes an astonishing 8 chains to accomplish >>> vs.UBNT’s 4 chains for the full duplex rate. I won't even go into the >>> havoc that the TDD radios create for efficient use of the spectrum - >>> especially in bands where 98% of the installed base is FDD. That would >>> take too long and its not the point of this post. >>> Not knowing what assumptions were used for either radio, I did a >>> comparison of their 80 MHz channel plan radio configurations (using their >>> listed data)and this is what I found: >>> >>> To accurately compare radio to radio, one must compare the Mimosa TD-FD >>> (based on 2-streams or chains) values to UBNTs Mimo (based on 2-streams or >>> chains) values and the data rates listed below are assumed each direction. >>> >>> 80 MHz channel plan radio >>> >>> UBNT - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path >>> >>> 1024 QAM 688 Mbps -52.5 dBm 10-6 BER >>> 256 QAM 550 Mbps -60.5 dBm 10-6 BER >>> QPSK 138 Mbps -81.5 dBm 10-6 BER >>> >>> Mimosa - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path >>> >>> 256 QAM 368 Mbps -64.5 dBm 10-6 BER >>> QPSK 83 Mbps -82 dBm 10-6 BER >>> >>> The Mimosa radio catch
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
Tim, Actually even in the 1x80FDD mode, the radio will do traffic split other than 50/50, which kind of makes it a unique animal. one of the reason we did not feel the need to switch out the B11 for AF11x on the 1x80, cause due to traffic split, the B11's performance was coming very close to what the AF11x would do on the 56mhz channel duplex. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > From: "Tim Hardy" > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 8:04:57 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > I’ll look but there’s nothing other than 50/50 with the 1x80 FDD option. > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:27 PM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: >> I think those rates are what you'd get with a 50/50 traffic split - if it's >> running in flexible mode, you should be able to get close to double that in >> one >> direction... but it's been awhile since I've played with settings on a B11, >> so >> I could be wrong. >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net > >> wrote: >>> Something is off in your Mimosa # see picture attached.. >>> Respectfully, >>> Faisal Imtiaz >>> Snappy Internet & Telecom >>> http://www.snappytelecom.net >>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >>>> From: "Tim Hardy" < thardy...@gmail.com > >>>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:32:32 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >>>> I realize that these are theoretical values supplied by the manufacturer >>>> and >>>> attaining these is another matter entirely. But, I thought it might help >>>> to see >>>> a comparison of supplied specs. >>>> Manufacturers are supposed to provide the “air-rate” that does not include >>>> header compression, overhead bits, etc. but from what I remember it was not >>>> possible to get this from either UBNT or Mimosa. So, the claims of >>>> throughput >>>> are all over the place and its not easy to compare radios based on >>>> manufacturer >>>> supplied data. If you look at an Aviat spec sheet, you will see an Airlink >>>> capacity and a Max Ethernet Capacity based on 64 byte frames, physical >>>> layer, >>>> with DAC GE3. Mimosa supplied data is confusing as all data that I saw >>>> before I >>>> retired last October was listed in full duplex and considered everything >>>> on a >>>> path. For example, they publish 1472 Mbps for the 2X80 radio but this >>>> takes an >>>> astonishing 8 chains to accomplish vs.UBNT’s 4 chains for the full duplex >>>> rate. >>>> I won't even go into the havoc that the TDD radios create for efficient >>>> use of >>>> the spectrum - especially in bands where 98% of the installed base is FDD. >>>> That >>>> would take too long and its not the point of this post. >>>> Not knowing what assumptions were used for either radio, I did a >>>> comparison of >>>> their 80 MHz channel plan radio configurations (using their listed data)and >>>> this is what I found: >>>> To accurately compare radio to radio, one must compare the Mimosa TD-FD >>>> (based >>>> on 2-streams or chains) values to UBNTs Mimo (based on 2-streams or chains) >>>> values and the data rates listed below are assumed each direction. >>>> 80 MHz channel plan radio >>>> UBNT - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path >>>> 1024 QAM 688 Mbps -52.5 dBm 10-6 BER >>>> 256 QAM 550 Mbps -60.5 dBm 10-6 BER >>>> QPSK 138 Mbps -81.5 dBm 10-6 BER >>>> Mimosa - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path >>>> 256 QAM 368 Mbps -64.5 dBm 10-6 BER >>>> QPSK 83 Mbps -82 dBm 10-6 BER >>>> The Mimosa radio catches up to UBNT when 2X80 is used and the throughput >>>> values >>>> listed here double. I also listed the radio thresholds as there was some >>>> talk >>>> about difficulty holding the higher modulation in the UBNT radio. >>>> Hopefully, >>>> this shows why since the B11 wou
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
Sometimes that’s all that is available - otherwise why would they have the option? > On Jul 17, 2018, at 8:24 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: > > Why use the FDD option? It’s still better to use the 2x80 mode and let it > dynamically adjust where the priority is. > > Rory > > From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>] On > Behalf Of Tim Hardy > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:05 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > > I’ll look but there’s nothing other than 50/50 with the 1x80 FDD option. > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:27 PM Mathew Howard <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote: > I think those rates are what you'd get with a 50/50 traffic split - if it's > running in flexible mode, you should be able to get close to double that in > one direction... but it's been awhile since I've played with settings on a > B11, so I could be wrong. > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote: > > Something is off in your Mimosa # see picture attached.. > > Respectfully, > > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > http://www.snappytelecom.net <http://www.snappytelecom.net/> > > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 > > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > <mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net> > > From: "Tim Hardy" mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:32:32 PM > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > I realize that these are theoretical values supplied by the manufacturer and > attaining these is another matter entirely. But, I thought it might help to > see a comparison of supplied specs. > > Manufacturers are supposed to provide the “air-rate” that does not include > header compression, overhead bits, etc. but from what I remember it was not > possible to get this from either UBNT or Mimosa. So, the claims of > throughput are all over the place and its not easy to compare radios based on > manufacturer supplied data. If you look at an Aviat spec sheet, you will see > an Airlink capacity and a Max Ethernet Capacity based on 64 byte frames, > physical layer, with DAC GE3. Mimosa supplied data is confusing as all data > that I saw before I retired last October was listed in full duplex and > considered everything on a path. For example, they publish 1472 Mbps for the > 2X80 radio but this takes an astonishing 8 chains to accomplish vs.UBNT’s 4 > chains for the full duplex rate. I won't even go into the havoc that the TDD > radios create for efficient use of the spectrum - especially in bands where > 98% of the installed base is FDD. That would take too long and its not the > point of this post. > > Not knowing what assumptions were used for either radio, I did a comparison > of their 80 MHz channel plan radio configurations (using their listed > data)and this is what I found: > > To accurately compare radio to radio, one must compare the Mimosa TD-FD > (based on 2-streams or chains) values to UBNTs Mimo (based on 2-streams or > chains) values and the data rates listed below are assumed each direction. > > 80 MHz channel plan radio > > UBNT - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path > > 1024 QAM 688 Mbps -52.5 dBm 10-6 BER > 256 QAM 550 Mbps -60.5 dBm 10-6 BER > QPSK 138 Mbps -81.5 dBm 10-6 BER > > Mimosa - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path > > 256 QAM 368 Mbps -64.5 dBm 10-6 BER > QPSK 83 Mbps -82 dBm 10-6 BER > > The Mimosa radio catches up to UBNT when 2X80 is used and the throughput > values listed here double. I also listed the radio thresholds as there was > some talk about difficulty holding the higher modulation in the UBNT radio. > Hopefully, this shows why since the B11 would have a minimum of 12 db > additional fade margin (difference between 256 QAM and 1024 QAM) right off > the bat - plus the Mimosa radio runs at about 24 dBm vs 18-19 dBm for UBNT at > the highest modulation. > > Thought I’d add SAF Lumina just for grins. The 80 MHz channel plan radio has > a 56 MHz occupied bandwidth. > > SAF Lumina - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path > > 256 QAM 732 Mbps -63.5 dBm 10-6 BER > 4 QAM 134 Mbps -87.0 dBm 10-6 BER > > On Jul 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Jeremy <mailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > AFAIK The Trango Lynx secret sauce was header compression, and those numbers > vary based on your average packet size. Le
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
Why use the FDD option? It’s still better to use the 2x80 mode and let it dynamically adjust where the priority is. Rory From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tim Hardy Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:05 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 I’ll look but there’s nothing other than 50/50 with the 1x80 FDD option. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:27 PM Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote: I think those rates are what you'd get with a 50/50 traffic split - if it's running in flexible mode, you should be able to get close to double that in one direction... but it's been awhile since I've played with settings on a B11, so I could be wrong. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Faisal Imtiaz mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote: Something is off in your Mimosa # see picture attached.. Respectfully, Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net From: "Tim Hardy" mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:32:32 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 I realize that these are theoretical values supplied by the manufacturer and attaining these is another matter entirely. But, I thought it might help to see a comparison of supplied specs. Manufacturers are supposed to provide the “air-rate” that does not include header compression, overhead bits, etc. but from what I remember it was not possible to get this from either UBNT or Mimosa. So, the claims of throughput are all over the place and its not easy to compare radios based on manufacturer supplied data. If you look at an Aviat spec sheet, you will see an Airlink capacity and a Max Ethernet Capacity based on 64 byte frames, physical layer, with DAC GE3. Mimosa supplied data is confusing as all data that I saw before I retired last October was listed in full duplex and considered everything on a path. For example, they publish 1472 Mbps for the 2X80 radio but this takes an astonishing 8 chains to accomplish vs.UBNT’s 4 chains for the full duplex rate. I won't even go into the havoc that the TDD radios create for efficient use of the spectrum - especially in bands where 98% of the installed base is FDD. That would take too long and its not the point of this post. Not knowing what assumptions were used for either radio, I did a comparison of their 80 MHz channel plan radio configurations (using their listed data)and this is what I found: To accurately compare radio to radio, one must compare the Mimosa TD-FD (based on 2-streams or chains) values to UBNTs Mimo (based on 2-streams or chains) values and the data rates listed below are assumed each direction. 80 MHz channel plan radio UBNT - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path 1024 QAM 688 Mbps -52.5 dBm 10-6 BER 256 QAM 550 Mbps -60.5 dBm 10-6 BER QPSK 138 Mbps -81.5 dBm 10-6 BER Mimosa - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path 256 QAM 368 Mbps -64.5 dBm 10-6 BER QPSK 83 Mbps -82 dBm 10-6 BER The Mimosa radio catches up to UBNT when 2X80 is used and the throughput values listed here double. I also listed the radio thresholds as there was some talk about difficulty holding the higher modulation in the UBNT radio. Hopefully, this shows why since the B11 would have a minimum of 12 db additional fade margin (difference between 256 QAM and 1024 QAM) right off the bat - plus the Mimosa radio runs at about 24 dBm vs 18-19 dBm for UBNT at the highest modulation. Thought I’d add SAF Lumina just for grins. The 80 MHz channel plan radio has a 56 MHz occupied bandwidth. SAF Lumina - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path 256 QAM 732 Mbps -63.5 dBm 10-6 BER 4 QAM 134 Mbps -87.0 dBm 10-6 BER On Jul 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Jeremy mailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com>> wrote: AFAIK The Trango Lynx secret sauce was header compression, and those numbers vary based on your average packet size. Lets of small packets = less overall throughput / larger packets = larger overall throughput capability. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Eric Kuhnke mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> wrote: ubnt does not publish the specific FEC coding types and percentages for the AF11's modulations. What it's doing under the hood is kind of opaque... On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Adam Moffett mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote: This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data sheets: A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields 486mbps Full Duplex at 1024QAM. An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full Duplex. What's the deal? Lower cyclic prefix on AF11? -Adam On 7/17/2018 2:2
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
I’ll look but there’s nothing other than 50/50 with the 1x80 FDD option. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:27 PM Mathew Howard wrote: > I think those rates are what you'd get with a 50/50 traffic split - if > it's running in flexible mode, you should be able to get close to double > that in one direction... but it's been awhile since I've played with > settings on a B11, so I could be wrong. > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Faisal Imtiaz > wrote: > >> >> Something is off in your Mimosa # see picture attached.. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> http://www.snappytelecom.net >> >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >> >> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >> >> -- >> >> *From: *"Tim Hardy" >> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:32:32 PM >> >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >> >> I realize that these are theoretical values supplied by the manufacturer >> and attaining these is another matter entirely. But, I thought it might >> help to see a comparison of supplied specs. >> >> Manufacturers are supposed to provide the “air-rate” that does not >> include header compression, overhead bits, etc. but from what I remember it >> was not possible to get this from either UBNT or Mimosa. So, the claims of >> throughput are all over the place and its not easy to compare radios based >> on manufacturer supplied data. If you look at an Aviat spec sheet, you >> will see an Airlink capacity and a Max Ethernet Capacity based on 64 byte >> frames, physical layer, with DAC GE3. Mimosa supplied data is confusing as >> all data that I saw before I retired last October was listed in full duplex >> and considered everything on a path. For example, they publish 1472 Mbps >> for the 2X80 radio but this takes an astonishing 8 chains to accomplish >> vs.UBNT’s 4 chains for the full duplex rate. I won't even go into the >> havoc that the TDD radios create for efficient use of the spectrum - >> especially in bands where 98% of the installed base is FDD. That would >> take too long and its not the point of this post. >> >> Not knowing what assumptions were used for either radio, I did a >> comparison of their 80 MHz channel plan radio configurations (using their >> listed data)and this is what I found: >> >> To accurately compare radio to radio, one must compare the Mimosa TD-FD >> (based on 2-streams or chains) values to UBNTs Mimo (based on 2-streams or >> chains) values and the data rates listed below are assumed each direction. >> >> 80 MHz channel plan radio >> >> UBNT - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path >> >> 1024 QAM 688 Mbps -52.5 dBm 10-6 BER >> 256 QAM 550 Mbps -60.5 dBm 10-6 BER >> QPSK 138 Mbps -81.5 dBm 10-6 BER >> >> Mimosa - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path >> >> 256 QAM 368 Mbps -64.5 dBm 10-6 BER >> QPSK 83 Mbps -82 dBm 10-6 BER >> >> The Mimosa radio catches up to UBNT when 2X80 is used and the throughput >> values listed here double. I also listed the radio thresholds as there was >> some talk about difficulty holding the higher modulation in the UBNT >> radio. Hopefully, this shows why since the B11 would have a minimum of 12 >> db additional fade margin (difference between 256 QAM and 1024 QAM) right >> off the bat - plus the Mimosa radio runs at about 24 dBm vs 18-19 dBm for >> UBNT at the highest modulation. >> >> Thought I’d add SAF Lumina just for grins. The 80 MHz channel plan radio >> has a 56 MHz occupied bandwidth. >> >> SAF Lumina - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the >> path >> >> 256 QAM 732 Mbps -63.5 dBm 10-6 BER >> 4 QAM 134 Mbps -87.0 dBm 10-6 BER >> >> On Jul 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Jeremy wrote: >> >> AFAIK The Trango Lynx secret sauce was header compression, and those >> numbers vary based on your average packet size. Lets of small packets = >> less overall throughput / larger packets = larger overall throughput >> capability. >> >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Eric Kuhnke >> wrote: >> >>> ubnt does not publish the specific FEC coding types and percentages for >>> the AF11's modulations. What it's doing under the hood is kind of opaque... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Adam Moffett >>&
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
I think those rates are what you'd get with a 50/50 traffic split - if it's running in flexible mode, you should be able to get close to double that in one direction... but it's been awhile since I've played with settings on a B11, so I could be wrong. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > > Something is off in your Mimosa # see picture attached.. > > Respectfully, > > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > http://www.snappytelecom.net > > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 > > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > > -- > > *From: *"Tim Hardy" > *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:32:32 PM > > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > > I realize that these are theoretical values supplied by the manufacturer > and attaining these is another matter entirely. But, I thought it might > help to see a comparison of supplied specs. > > Manufacturers are supposed to provide the “air-rate” that does not include > header compression, overhead bits, etc. but from what I remember it was not > possible to get this from either UBNT or Mimosa. So, the claims of > throughput are all over the place and its not easy to compare radios based > on manufacturer supplied data. If you look at an Aviat spec sheet, you > will see an Airlink capacity and a Max Ethernet Capacity based on 64 byte > frames, physical layer, with DAC GE3. Mimosa supplied data is confusing as > all data that I saw before I retired last October was listed in full duplex > and considered everything on a path. For example, they publish 1472 Mbps > for the 2X80 radio but this takes an astonishing 8 chains to accomplish > vs.UBNT’s 4 chains for the full duplex rate. I won't even go into the > havoc that the TDD radios create for efficient use of the spectrum - > especially in bands where 98% of the installed base is FDD. That would > take too long and its not the point of this post. > > Not knowing what assumptions were used for either radio, I did a > comparison of their 80 MHz channel plan radio configurations (using their > listed data)and this is what I found: > > To accurately compare radio to radio, one must compare the Mimosa TD-FD > (based on 2-streams or chains) values to UBNTs Mimo (based on 2-streams or > chains) values and the data rates listed below are assumed each direction. > > 80 MHz channel plan radio > > UBNT - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path > > 1024 QAM 688 Mbps -52.5 dBm 10-6 BER > 256 QAM 550 Mbps -60.5 dBm 10-6 BER > QPSK 138 Mbps -81.5 dBm 10-6 BER > > Mimosa - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the path > > 256 QAM 368 Mbps -64.5 dBm 10-6 BER > QPSK 83 Mbps -82 dBm 10-6 BER > > The Mimosa radio catches up to UBNT when 2X80 is used and the throughput > values listed here double. I also listed the radio thresholds as there was > some talk about difficulty holding the higher modulation in the UBNT > radio. Hopefully, this shows why since the B11 would have a minimum of 12 > db additional fade margin (difference between 256 QAM and 1024 QAM) right > off the bat - plus the Mimosa radio runs at about 24 dBm vs 18-19 dBm for > UBNT at the highest modulation. > > Thought I’d add SAF Lumina just for grins. The 80 MHz channel plan radio > has a 56 MHz occupied bandwidth. > > SAF Lumina - Both Polarizations bit rates specified per direction on the > path > > 256 QAM 732 Mbps -63.5 dBm 10-6 BER > 4 QAM 134 Mbps -87.0 dBm 10-6 BER > > On Jul 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Jeremy wrote: > > AFAIK The Trango Lynx secret sauce was header compression, and those > numbers vary based on your average packet size. Lets of small packets = > less overall throughput / larger packets = larger overall throughput > capability. > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Eric Kuhnke > wrote: > >> ubnt does not publish the specific FEC coding types and percentages for >> the AF11's modulations. What it's doing under the hood is kind of opaque... >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Adam Moffett >> wrote: >> >>> This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data >>> sheets: >>> >>> A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields 486mbps >>> Full Duplex at 1024QAM. >>> An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full >>> Duplex. >>> >>> What's the deal? Lower cyclic prefix on AF11? >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/17/2018 2:28 PM, Mathew Howard
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
amp; Telecom >> http://www.snappytelecom.net <http://www.snappytelecom.net/> >> >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >> >> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >> <mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net> >> >> From: "Mike Hammett" mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> >> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >> I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz >> spectrum in my area. >> >> >> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional 256 >> QAM radio. >> >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >> >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> From: "Jason McKemie" > <mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>> >> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM >> Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >> >> More dependable, predictable, etc. >> I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that >> radio, I like just about everything else on the AF11. >> >> I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the B11 >> with the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. I'd >> like to hear if you've had a different experience. >> >> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett > <mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote: >> Define "better". >> >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >> >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> From: "Jason McKemie" > <mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>> >> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > <mailto:Af@af.afmug.com>> >> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM >> Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >> >> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some >> guidance as to which has worked better? >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
Right, but Adam mentioned speeds excluding compression. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Jeremy" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:25:10 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 AFAIK The Trango Lynx secret sauce was header compression, and those numbers vary based on your average packet size. Lets of small packets = less overall throughput / larger packets = larger overall throughput capability. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Eric Kuhnke < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > wrote: ubnt does not publish the specific FEC coding types and percentages for the AF11's modulations. What it's doing under the hood is kind of opaque... On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Adam Moffett < dmmoff...@gmail.com > wrote: This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data sheets: A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields 486mbps Full Duplex at 1024QAM. An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full Duplex. What's the deal? Lower cyclic prefix on AF11? -Adam On 7/17/2018 2:28 PM, Mathew Howard wrote: With limited spectrum, it's an accurate statement. On a single polarity, 56mhz channel an AF-11 will get slightly less throughput than something like an old SAF Lumina (and the AF11 is using 1024QAM vs 256QAM, to get not even as much capacity, which means it needs a higher link budget). However, if spectrum isn't a problem, you need to spend a lot more money to get similar throughput to either of these radios with anything else. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net > wrote: >>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional >>> 256 QAM radio. One should take that with a grain of salt ! In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement. How is pans out in reality is questionable ! :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net From: "Mike Hammett" < af...@ics-il.net > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz spectrum in my area. Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional 256 QAM radio. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP From: "Jason McKemie" < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 More dependable, predictable, etc. I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that radio, I like just about everything else on the AF11. I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the B11 with the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. I'd like to hear if you've had a different experience. On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: Define "better". - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP From: "Jason McKemie" < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < Af@af.afmug.com > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some guidance as to which has worked better? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
AFAIK The Trango Lynx secret sauce was header compression, and those numbers vary based on your average packet size. Lets of small packets = less overall throughput / larger packets = larger overall throughput capability. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > ubnt does not publish the specific FEC coding types and percentages for > the AF11's modulations. What it's doing under the hood is kind of opaque... > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Adam Moffett > wrote: > >> This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data >> sheets: >> >> A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields 486mbps >> Full Duplex at 1024QAM. >> An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full >> Duplex. >> >> What's the deal? Lower cyclic prefix on AF11? >> >> -Adam >> >> >> >> On 7/17/2018 2:28 PM, Mathew Howard wrote: >> >> With limited spectrum, it's an accurate statement. On a single polarity, >> 56mhz channel an AF-11 will get slightly less throughput than something >> like an old SAF Lumina (and the AF11 is using 1024QAM vs 256QAM, to get not >> even as much capacity, which means it needs a higher link budget). However, >> if spectrum isn't a problem, you need to spend a lot more money to get >> similar throughput to either of these radios with anything else. >> >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Faisal Imtiaz >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old >>> traditional 256 QAM radio. >>> >>> One should take that with a grain of salt ! >>> In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement. >>> How is pans out in reality is questionable ! >>> >>> :) >>> >>> Faisal Imtiaz >>> Snappy Internet & Telecom >>> http://www.snappytelecom.net >>> >>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >>> >>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *From: *"Mike Hammett" >>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >>> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM >>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >>> >>> I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz >>> spectrum in my area. >>> >>> >>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional >>> 256 QAM radio. >>> >>> >>> >>> - >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >>> >>> >>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >>> -- >>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" >>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >>> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM >>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >>> >>> More dependable, predictable, etc. >>> I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that >>> radio, I like just about everything else on the AF11. >>> >>> I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the >>> B11 with the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. >>> I'd like to hear if you've had a different experience. >>> >>> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett wrote: >>> >>>> Define "better". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - >>>> Mike Hammett >>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >>&
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
ubnt does not publish the specific FEC coding types and percentages for the AF11's modulations. What it's doing under the hood is kind of opaque... On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Adam Moffett wrote: > This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data > sheets: > > A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields 486mbps > Full Duplex at 1024QAM. > An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full > Duplex. > > What's the deal? Lower cyclic prefix on AF11? > > -Adam > > > > On 7/17/2018 2:28 PM, Mathew Howard wrote: > > With limited spectrum, it's an accurate statement. On a single polarity, > 56mhz channel an AF-11 will get slightly less throughput than something > like an old SAF Lumina (and the AF11 is using 1024QAM vs 256QAM, to get not > even as much capacity, which means it needs a higher link budget). However, > if spectrum isn't a problem, you need to spend a lot more money to get > similar throughput to either of these radios with anything else. > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Faisal Imtiaz > wrote: > >> >>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old >> traditional 256 QAM radio. >> >> One should take that with a grain of salt ! >> In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement. >> How is pans out in reality is questionable ! >> >> :) >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> http://www.snappytelecom.net >> >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >> >> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >> >> -- >> >> *From: *"Mike Hammett" >> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >> >> I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz >> spectrum in my area. >> >> >> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional >> 256 QAM radio. >> >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >> >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> -- >> *From: *"Jason McKemie" >> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM >> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >> >> More dependable, predictable, etc. >> I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that >> radio, I like just about everything else on the AF11. >> >> I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the B11 >> with the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. I'd >> like to hear if you've had a different experience. >> >> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett wrote: >> >>> Define "better". >>> >>> >>> >>> - >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >>> >>> >>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >>> -- >>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" >>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >>> *Sent: *Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM >>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >>> >>> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some >>> guidance as to which has worked better? >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >>> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> > > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
We've been through that before... I don't remember what the explanation was, but yeah, something with the way Ubiquiti does things makes it much less spectrally efficient than most other licensed radios (the B11 being the exception). On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: > This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data > sheets: > > A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields 486mbps > Full Duplex at 1024QAM. > An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full > Duplex. > > What's the deal? Lower cyclic prefix on AF11? > > -Adam > > > > On 7/17/2018 2:28 PM, Mathew Howard wrote: > > With limited spectrum, it's an accurate statement. On a single polarity, > 56mhz channel an AF-11 will get slightly less throughput than something > like an old SAF Lumina (and the AF11 is using 1024QAM vs 256QAM, to get not > even as much capacity, which means it needs a higher link budget). However, > if spectrum isn't a problem, you need to spend a lot more money to get > similar throughput to either of these radios with anything else. > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Faisal Imtiaz > wrote: > >> >>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old >> traditional 256 QAM radio. >> >> One should take that with a grain of salt ! >> In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement. >> How is pans out in reality is questionable ! >> >> :) >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> http://www.snappytelecom.net >> >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >> >> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >> >> -- >> >> *From: *"Mike Hammett" >> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >> >> I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz >> spectrum in my area. >> >> >> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional >> 256 QAM radio. >> >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >> >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> -- >> *From: *"Jason McKemie" >> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM >> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >> >> More dependable, predictable, etc. >> I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that >> radio, I like just about everything else on the AF11. >> >> I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the B11 >> with the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. I'd >> like to hear if you've had a different experience. >> >> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett wrote: >> >>> Define "better". >>> >>> >>> >>> - >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >>> >>> >>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >>> -- >>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" >>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >>> *Sent: *Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM >>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >>> >>> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some >>> guidance as to which has worked better? >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >>> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> > > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
This brings up what I've been wondering when looking at the AF11 data
sheets:
A Trango Lynx on a 56mhz channel SISO without compression yields 486mbps
Full Duplex at 1024QAM.
An AF11X SISO on the same channel size at 1024QAM yields 344mbps Full
Duplex.
What's the deal? Lower cyclic prefix on AF11?
-Adam
On 7/17/2018 2:28 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
With limited spectrum, it's an accurate statement. On a single
polarity, 56mhz channel an AF-11 will get slightly less throughput
than something like an old SAF Lumina (and the AF11 is using 1024QAM
vs 256QAM, to get not even as much capacity, which means it needs a
higher link budget). However, if spectrum isn't a problem, you need to
spend a lot more money to get similar throughput to either of these
radios with anything else.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Faisal Imtiaz
mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote:
>>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old
traditional 256 QAM radio.
One should take that with a grain of salt !
In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement.
How is pans out in reality is questionable !
:)
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
http://www.snappytelecom.net
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
*From: *"Mike Hammett" mailto:af...@ics-il.net>>
*To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little
11 GHz spectrum in my area.
Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old
traditional 256 QAM radio.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
*From: *"Jason McKemie" mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>>
*To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
More dependable, predictable, etc.
I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP
on that radio, I like just about everything else on the AF11.
I've just read about several instances where people have
replaced the B11 with the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one
the opposite way around. I'd like to hear if you've had a
different experience.
On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote:
Define "better".
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
--------
*From: *"Jason McKemie" mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>>
*To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:Af@af.afmug.com>>
*Sent: *Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
Does anyone have experience with both of these that can
provide some guidance as to which has worked better?
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
With limited spectrum, it's an accurate statement. On a single polarity, 56mhz channel an AF-11 will get slightly less throughput than something like an old SAF Lumina (and the AF11 is using 1024QAM vs 256QAM, to get not even as much capacity, which means it needs a higher link budget). However, if spectrum isn't a problem, you need to spend a lot more money to get similar throughput to either of these radios with anything else. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > >>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old > traditional 256 QAM radio. > > One should take that with a grain of salt ! > In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement. > How is pans out in reality is questionable ! > > :) > > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > http://www.snappytelecom.net > > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 > > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > > -- > > *From: *"Mike Hammett" > *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > > I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz > spectrum in my area. > > > Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional > 256 QAM radio. > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > -- > *From: *"Jason McKemie" > *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM > *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > > More dependable, predictable, etc. > I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that > radio, I like just about everything else on the AF11. > > I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the B11 > with the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. I'd > like to hear if you've had a different experience. > > On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett wrote: > >> Define "better". >> >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >> >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> -- >> *From: *"Jason McKemie" >> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >> *Sent: *Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM >> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >> >> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some >> guidance as to which has worked better? >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
As always, YMMV, but neither platform has better efficiency than previous-gen traditional platforms. Traditional platforms have always delivered what the spec sheet says and thus far, they can't compare. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Faisal Imtiaz" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:00:53 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional >>> 256 QAM radio. One should take that with a grain of salt ! In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement. How is pans out in reality is questionable ! :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz spectrum in my area. Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional 256 QAM radio. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Jason McKemie" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 More dependable, predictable, etc. I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that radio, I like just about everything else on the AF11. I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the B11 with the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. I'd like to hear if you've had a different experience. On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: Define "better". - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP From: "Jason McKemie" < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < Af@af.afmug.com > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some guidance as to which has worked better? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>>> Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional >>> 256 QAM radio. One should take that with a grain of salt ! In absolute terms, yes that could be an accurate statement. How is pans out in reality is questionable ! :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > From: "Mike Hammett" > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 1:36:15 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz spectrum > in > my area. > Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional 256 > QAM > radio. > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > Midwest Internet Exchange > The Brothers WISP > From: "Jason McKemie" > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM > Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > More dependable, predictable, etc. > I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that radio, > I > like just about everything else on the AF11. > I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the B11 with > the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. I'd like to > hear if you've had a different experience. > On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: >> Define "better". >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> The Brothers WISP >> From: "Jason McKemie" < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > >> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < Af@af.afmug.com > >> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM >> Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some >> guidance as >> to which has worked better? >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
I don't have an incentive to use either as there is so little 11 GHz spectrum in my area. Neither radio has much better performance than a 10 year old traditional 256 QAM radio. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Jason McKemie" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:32:20 PM Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 More dependable, predictable, etc. I take it you like the B11? I like the radio interface and SFP on that radio, I like just about everything else on the AF11. I've just read about several instances where people have replaced the B11 with the AF11fx - I haven't read a single one the opposite way around. I'd like to hear if you've had a different experience. On Tuesday, July 17, 2018, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: Define "better". - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP From: "Jason McKemie" < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < Af@af.afmug.com > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some guidance as to which has worked better? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
Yeah, you can just set it to 50/50 and pretend it's full duplex (although you really don't want to do that unless you're using sync, since it'll make the latency go way up), but there's also the mode where it transmits and receives on different channels, which should act a bit more like an FDD radio, but it's still actually half duplex. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > It's not Full Duplex, it's just a 50/50 ratio of half duplex. > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > -- > *From: *"Dennis Burgess" > *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > *Sent: *Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:00:47 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > > I believe the B11 has a Full duplex mode of operation. Its 750/750 or > something like that. > > > > > > > > *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer * > > Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition” > > *Link Technologies, Inc* -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services > > *Office*: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net > > Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com > > > > *From:* AF *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince > *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 11:13 PM > *To:* af@af.afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > > > > AF11x by a long shot. They run full duplex for one. They also seem to be a > lot better in higher noise environments. We don't have any B11s any more. > > > > bp > > > > > > On 7/16/2018 6:02 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: > > Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some > guidance as to which has worked better? > > > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
They have a mode that works pretty much the same as a full duplex radio, but it's still not a true full duplex radio... and it's going to lose a lot of capacity, since it can only use a single 80mhz channel in each direction that way. I suspect that it's not going to get any more capacity than an AF11 in that mode (if it can even do as much). On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote: > I believe the B11 has a Full duplex mode of operation. Its 750/750 or > something like that. > > > > > > > > *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer * > > Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition” > > *Link Technologies, Inc* -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services > > *Office*: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net > > Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com > > > > *From:* AF *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince > *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2018 11:13 PM > *To:* af@af.afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > > > > AF11x by a long shot. They run full duplex for one. They also seem to be a > lot better in higher noise environments. We don't have any B11s any more. > > > > bp > > > > > > On 7/16/2018 6:02 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: > > Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some > guidance as to which has worked better? > > > > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
I believe the B11 has a Full duplex mode of operation. Its 750/750 or something like that. Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition” Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net<http://www.linktechs.net/> Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com From: AF On Behalf Of Bill Prince Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 11:13 PM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 AF11x by a long shot. They run full duplex for one. They also seem to be a lot better in higher noise environments. We don't have any B11s any more. bp On 7/16/2018 6:02 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some guidance as to which has worked better? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
Well, for you, I assume working "better" would be the one with an SFP port :) On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:43 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > Define "better". > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > -------------- > *From: *"Jason McKemie" > *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > *Sent: *Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM > *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > > Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some > guidance as to which has worked better? > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
Define "better". - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Jason McKemie" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:02:34 PM Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some guidance as to which has worked better? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
On 7/16/18 9:12 PM, Bill Prince wrote: They also seem to be a lot better in higher noise environments. Um, how are you seeing "higher noise" in a licensed band? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
Right, both have good points and bad points. Neither of them are technically as good as most other 11ghz radios, but they're both a lot cheaper, and/or are capable of more throughput. We have more AF-11 links than B11 links running at this point, because they're a better fit for those links, but on the links where we do have B11's, they are already pushing more data than the AF-11 is capable of. B11's certainly have some peculiarities, but there are not other 11ghz radios that can push a full gig in one direction for anywhere close to the same price (granted, if a link needs to push that much data, it's probably worth spending more money on, but that's another subject). B11's also have an SFP port, which seems to be important to some people... personally, I think the AF-11 is a better radio, but they both have their place. On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:04 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > >>> few reviews that seem to indicate B11 does not work as well as the > AF11x > > I was purposely staying away from subjective, opinions. > > Yes there are folks who will make the argument one way or another.. > and there are many folks who are happy, rather very happy with their B11's > & AF11x > > We happen to be operating both B11's and AF11x, both have their own set > of 'peculiarities' and we are happy with both products. > > Technically speaking it is hard to do an apples to apples > comparison > our B11's are on a 1x80mhz channel, performance wise the meet our > expectations, and are/were not worth it to be replaced by AF11x. > B11's have a very unique feature, the ability to do 75/25, 50/50, or 25/75 > traffic splits on the fly > > Our AF11x are on 40meg as well as a 1x80mhz channel ... they do provide > full duplex thru put, and can be a bit challenging on maintaining full 10x > modulation. > Some folks have found actual throughput issues, we have not needed to > push ours to the edges. > > Putting up Two AF11x links is feasible, as long as it is a practically > viable option. (space / tower rent cost etc etc). > > Both are good radios. > > Regards. > > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > http://www.snappytelecom.net > > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 > > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > > -- > > *From: *"Jason McKemie" > *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > *Sent: *Monday, July 16, 2018 9:24:55 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > > Yes, I've read a few reviews that seem to indicate that the B11 does not > work as well as the AF11x - just curious if others have seen the same > thing. Could just about put up 2 AF11x links in 40Mhz channels for the > same price as one B11. > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Matt Hoppes rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote: > >> Out perform does not equal “work better” though. >> >> On Jul 16, 2018, at 21:13, Faisal Imtiaz >> wrote: >> >> What would you like to know? There have been many discussions on this >> list and other lists in regards to a comparison of the two ? >> >> Reader's digest version would be as follows:- >> >> If you can get what is called a 2x80 channel, then the B11 will out >> perform >> If you can only get less than a 2x80, then AF11x can out perform >> >> (purely from a top speed comparison basis ) >> ( 2x80 is two 80mhz channels in both polarities H, and you are >> allowed to TX & RX on both channels) >> (1 x 80 is two 80mhz channels in both polarities H, the traditional >> licensed radios High & Low channels, each side can only TX in on of the two >> designated channels). >> >> >> Regards. >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> http://www.snappytelecom.net >> >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >> >> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >> >> -- >> >> *From: *"Jason McKemie" >> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >> *Sent: *Monday, July 16, 2018 9:02:34 PM >> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >> >> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some >> guidance as to which has worked better? >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
>>> few reviews that seem to indicate B11 does not work as well as the AF11x I was purposely staying away from subjective, opinions. Yes there are folks who will make the argument one way or another.. and there are many folks who are happy, rather very happy with their B11's & AF11x We happen to be operating both B11's and AF11x, both have their own set of 'peculiarities' and we are happy with both products. Technically speaking it is hard to do an apples to apples comparison our B11's are on a 1x80mhz channel, performance wise the meet our expectations, and are/were not worth it to be replaced by AF11x. B11's have a very unique feature, the ability to do 75/25, 50/50, or 25/75 traffic splits on the fly Our AF11x are on 40meg as well as a 1x80mhz channel ... they do provide full duplex thru put, and can be a bit challenging on maintaining full 10x modulation. Some folks have found actual throughput issues, we have not needed to push ours to the edges. Putting up Two AF11x links is feasible, as long as it is a practically viable option. (space / tower rent cost etc etc). Both are good radios. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > From: "Jason McKemie" > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 9:24:55 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > Yes, I've read a few reviews that seem to indicate that the B11 does not work > as > well as the AF11x - just curious if others have seen the same thing. Could > just > about put up 2 AF11x links in 40Mhz channels for the same price as one B11. > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Matt Hoppes < > mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net > > wrote: >> Out perform does not equal “work better” though. >> On Jul 16, 2018, at 21:13, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net > wrote: >>> What would you like to know? There have been many discussions on this list >>> and >>> other lists in regards to a comparison of the two ? >>> Reader's digest version would be as follows:- >>> If you can get what is called a 2x80 channel, then the B11 will out perform >>> If you can only get less than a 2x80, then AF11x can out perform >>> (purely from a top speed comparison basis ) >>> ( 2x80 is two 80mhz channels in both polarities H, and you are allowed to >>> TX & >>> RX on both channels) >>> (1 x 80 is two 80mhz channels in both polarities H, the traditional >>> licensed >>> radios High & Low channels, each side can only TX in on of the two >>> designated >>> channels). >>> Regards. >>> Faisal Imtiaz >>> Snappy Internet & Telecom >>> http://www.snappytelecom.net >>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >>>> From: "Jason McKemie" < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > >>>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < Af@af.afmug.com > >>>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 9:02:34 PM >>>> Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >>>> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some >>>> guidance as >>>> to which has worked better? >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
AF-11 is cheaper, more consistent, and more spectrally efficient. The B11 is is can do a few hundred meg more, if you have the channels available. If ~650mbps full duplex is good enough for you, I don't see any good reason to go with a B11 over an AF-11. On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 8:31 PM Matt Hoppes wrote: > You think? I believe there is a story on the UBNT community about doing > just that :) > > On Jul 16, 2018, at 21:24, Jason McKemie > wrote: > > Yes, I've read a few reviews that seem to indicate that the B11 does not > work as well as the AF11x - just curious if others have seen the same > thing. Could just about put up 2 AF11x links in 40Mhz channels for the > same price as one B11. > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Matt Hoppes < > mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote: > >> Out perform does not equal “work better” though. >> >> On Jul 16, 2018, at 21:13, Faisal Imtiaz >> wrote: >> >> What would you like to know? There have been many discussions on this >> list and other lists in regards to a comparison of the two ? >> >> Reader's digest version would be as follows:- >> >> If you can get what is called a 2x80 channel, then the B11 will out >> perform >> If you can only get less than a 2x80, then AF11x can out perform >> >> (purely from a top speed comparison basis ) >> ( 2x80 is two 80mhz channels in both polarities H, and you are >> allowed to TX & RX on both channels) >> (1 x 80 is two 80mhz channels in both polarities H, the traditional >> licensed radios High & Low channels, each side can only TX in on of the two >> designated channels). >> >> >> Regards. >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> http://www.snappytelecom.net >> >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >> >> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >> >> -- >> >> *From: *"Jason McKemie" >> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >> *Sent: *Monday, July 16, 2018 9:02:34 PM >> *Subject: *[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >> >> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some >> guidance as to which has worked better? >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
You think? I believe there is a story on the UBNT community about doing just that :) > On Jul 16, 2018, at 21:24, Jason McKemie > wrote: > > Yes, I've read a few reviews that seem to indicate that the B11 does not work > as well as the AF11x - just curious if others have seen the same thing. > Could just about put up 2 AF11x links in 40Mhz channels for the same price as > one B11. > >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Matt Hoppes >> wrote: >> Out perform does not equal “work better” though. >> >>> On Jul 16, 2018, at 21:13, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: >>> >>> What would you like to know? There have been many discussions on this list >>> and other lists in regards to a comparison of the two ? >>> >>> Reader's digest version would be as follows:- >>> >>> If you can get what is called a 2x80 channel, then the B11 will out perform >>> If you can only get less than a 2x80, then AF11x can out perform >>> >>> (purely from a top speed comparison basis ) >>> ( 2x80 is two 80mhz channels in both polarities H, and you are allowed >>> to TX & RX on both channels) >>> (1 x 80 is two 80mhz channels in both polarities H, the traditional >>> licensed radios High & Low channels, each side can only TX in on of the two >>> designated channels). >>> >>> >>> Regards. >>> >>> Faisal Imtiaz >>> Snappy Internet & Telecom >>> http://www.snappytelecom.net >>> >>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >>> >>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >>> >>> From: "Jason McKemie" >>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 9:02:34 PM >>> Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 >>> Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some >>> guidance as to which has worked better? >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
What would you like to know? There have been many discussions on this list and other lists in regards to a comparison of the two ? Reader's digest version would be as follows:- If you can get what is called a 2x80 channel, then the B11 will out perform If you can only get less than a 2x80, then AF11x can out perform (purely from a top speed comparison basis ) ( 2x80 is two 80mhz channels in both polarities H, and you are allowed to TX & RX on both channels) (1 x 80 is two 80mhz channels in both polarities H, the traditional licensed radios High & Low channels, each side can only TX in on of the two designated channels). Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > From: "Jason McKemie" > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 9:02:34 PM > Subject: [AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11 > Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some guidance > as > to which has worked better? > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
[AFMUG] AF-11FX vs B11
Does anyone have experience with both of these that can provide some guidance as to which has worked better? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
