What published specs have you seen on the airFiber latency? I asked one of the
UBNT guys and they said it's microsecond. On any network I've managed, anything
sub 1ms is acceptable.
Dylan
-Original Message-
From: John van Oppen [mailto:jvanop...@spectrumnet.us]
Sent: Saturday, March
I was told to expect 0.1ms by UBNT. Haven't seen this published, though.
Josh
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Dylan Bouterse dy...@corp.power1.com wrote:
What published specs have you seen on the airFiber latency? I asked one of
the UBNT guys and they said it's microsecond. On any network
...@puck.nether.net, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org
Subject: RE: airFiber
I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes
tricky.
Thanks,
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:45 PM
To: Eugen Leitl
Cc
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM
To: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org
Subject: RE: airFiber
I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes
tricky.
Thanks,
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber
Claims are actually Up to 1.4 Gbps and Up to 13 km; those two
conditions probably cannot be satisfied together.
1.4 Gbps
On 3/31/2012 6:12 AM, Andrew McConachie wrote:
Is this any different than what GigaBeam tried before they went bankrupt.
http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=177145
Their website only shows a control panel login now so I think they've
gone completely out of business. The only
On 3/31/2012 6:14 AM, ML wrote:
Often such a feature is an option within the radio configuration.
Where wired side
link follows wireless link. To me that never seemed like a good idea
because I need
to get into the radio during a wireless link-down situation. Maybe if
there was
an OOB
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 7:14 AM, ML m...@kenweb.org wrote:
Often such a feature is an option within the radio configuration. Where
wired side
link follows wireless link. To me that never seemed like a good idea
because I need
to get into the radio during a wireless link-down situation.
Often such a feature is an option within the radio configuration. Where wired
side
link follows wireless link. To me that never seemed like a good idea because
I need
to get into the radio during a wireless link-down situation. Maybe if there
was
an OOB ethernet port it could work but
We actually have a lot of the old gigabeam radios in service, they are faster
than the published specs of the airfiber links (1G full duplex vs 750 mbit/sec
fd) and lower latency due to their very simplistic design. To be honest,
from a network engineering standpoint, the gigabeams were
as it's millimeter
wavelength. That coupled with the fact it is a directional PTP product, you
will be able to get a good amount of density of 24GHz PTP links using the same
frequency in a small area (downtown for instance).
Another point, the GPS on the airFiber will also allow for frequency
interference to your backhaul and you've got serious
issues. You possibly have downgraded service or no service at many towers
involving lots of customers.
Another point, the GPS on the airFiber will also allow for frequency reuse to
a point. I would like to see smaller channel sizes though. I hear
: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
On Mar 30, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Dylan Bouterse wrote:
A couple of thoughts. First, it's not fair to compare 24GHz to 2.4 or even
5Gig range due to the wave length. You will get 2.4GHz bleed through walls,
windows, etc. VERY close to a 5GHz transmitter you
) FLSPEED x106
From: Drew Weaver drew.wea...@thenap.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM
To: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org
Subject: RE: airFiber
I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes
Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:34:21PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber
Yeah, I got this note the other day. I am very interested in
hearing about folks experience with this hardware once
I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes
tricky.
Thanks,
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:45 PM
To: Eugen Leitl
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: airFiber
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06
Drew Weaver (drew.weaver) writes:
I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes
tricky.
Thanks,
-Drew
Define perfect line of sight ? How is this different from any other
wireless
link and the associated Fresnel zone ?
They are taking pre-orders now for a (hopefully) June delivery. I'm
at a conference now and got the rundown yesterday from Ubiquiti. This
product was designed completely from the ground up by the former
Motorola Canopy 100 team. It -should- deliver ~700mbit in both
directions @ full duplex.
, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM
To: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org
Subject: RE: airFiber
I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes
tricky.
Thanks,
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent
On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Josh Baird wrote:
Anyhow, check the
video out on ubnt.com for an introduction and technical overview -
it's worth watching.
The claim is a huge decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth for wisps between
10 and 100 times. I have just finished the preparation of
possible that the
competitor's product which matches AirFiber is only penny more, which it's not,
but that's all one could logically conclude from UBNT's statement - for the
same price you get a lot more bandwidth _not_ how much more you'd have to spend
to get that performance level from
with what you're
saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They are seeing 24 Ghz
as only for backhaul - no connections to end users. I guess
point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
Ghz. AirFiber
to be that 24 Ghz would likely
never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They are seeing 24 Ghz
as only for backhaul - no connections to end users. I guess
point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
Ghz. AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional. It needs
point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
Ghz.
The whole point of these unlicensed bands is that their usage is not
tightly controlled. I imagine hardware for use still should comply
with FCC's part 15 rules though.
AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional
guess
point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
Ghz.
The whole point of these unlicensed bands is that their usage is not
tightly controlled. I imagine hardware for use still should comply
with FCC's part 15 rules though.
AirFiber appears to be fairly highly
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
Cost will continue to drop, fact of the matter is the beam width is
rather narrow and they attenuate rather well so you can have a fair
number of them deployed without co-channel interference. if you pack a
tower full of
connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
Ghz. AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional. It needs to
be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz
available @ 24 Ghz.
It also sounded like there was a decent possibility of supporting
licensed 21 / 25 Ghz spectrum
28 matches
Mail list logo
