Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
Have you tested pseudobridge to achieve a similar affect without WDS? -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net] Sent: 28 April 2010 01:41 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? Yes, WDS adds significant overhead. But.. its not a real problem because there is a hardware solution to fix it. Thats why I've been an advocate for faster processor CPE SBCs for like ever. And its why we dont use low cost $50 slow processor CPEs. When using 533Mhz and 680mMhz processors it really shouldn't matter anymore, there is plenty of CPU horsepower. When we were doing MT throughoput testing last week on 433AH, we were getting much slower throughput with WDS than Station mode and routing, BUT the bottle neck was not CPU usage. We never exceeded 20% CPU usage, even with WDS. WDS on MT is slower, but for different reasons than CPU that I have not yet learned. With StarOS and 533 boards, we had almost 40% higher CPU usage with WDS, BUT WDS passed traffic just as fast as any of its routing or station modes, with plenty of CPU to spare. One of the tests we are going to run this week, is repeating the WDS tests using RB600 or RB800s which use netwqork processor for IO, to verify whether there was a different type of hardware bottle neck on the RB433AH other than CPU. But I'm predicting its a software issue contributing the the slowness. If you are selling a sub a 10mb service, ther is plenty of CPU respources even with low cost CPEs. And if need to passfull capacity, (using 20-30mpbs plus) There should be plenty of revenue comming in to justify paying an extra $50 one time for faster CPUs. My arguement is that all commercial grade stuff bridges well... Canopy, Trango, Alvarion, what ever. These devices do NOT have fast processors compared to the MT type SBCs available on the street today. The MTs should be capable of bridging (WDS) just the same, from a hardware perspective, and I'd say the same for UBQT. I want to make you I'm clear... we run bridged radio links. But we do not run a bridged network. We use routers at customer's Demarc before they connect to us, and we run a router at the cell site behind every AP. But we want Radio Links to look like a long patch cable for management reasons, and flexibility reasons. Also note that using WDS Slave has different issues of consideration. In that case the client (slave) operates like an AP. All sort of RF efficienties could arise. But the goal was to use StationWDS, which was meant as a solution to operate like a station, except to add the second MAC Address to the header. Its something that should be efficent to do, without much RF trade off, in theory. But because MT is someone secrative on exactly what they are doing to achieve Station WDS, its impossible for me to conclude accurately, and I can only guess, and measure the results.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry paul.hen...@skyline-networks.com To: wireless wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:41 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? Hey Tom, Do you have any issues/limitations running 100% WDS instead of a standard routed network? Would have thought WDS + NStreme would cause CPU related issues and extra overhead might limit the amount of bandwidth available per AP? Many thanks, Paul. -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net] Sent: 27 April 2010 05:34 To: wa4...@arrl.net; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? Yes. We let and encourage all our customers to pick their own routers (so they are liable for their decission, not us), which is why we like to bridge at customer CPE end. The reason we need 5-9 eth ports is for when we serve shopping centers or industrial park warehouse type clients. We run one CPE to the building, but there is not anywhere inside the building for us to put indoor equipment. There is also rarely reliable AC power on the roof, without eating the cost of electrician and painful permitting. So we put a 5-9 eth port device on the roof, fed by POE. Then we run a CAT5 for each customer accross the roof, and enter each customer's suite/bay through/underneith their AIRConditioning Unit entry, usually located on the roof. Landlords hate seeing cable dropped over edge of building, so they like it when we do it that way. We then power the roof equipment (POE) from one of the customer's suites. If they cancel, we just move the POE to another suite, and change their port to teh POE port at the outdoor equipment. This model has worked wonderfully for us. We can go install a new building for about $300 with one client, and easilly accommodate the rest of the tenants as we follow back
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
I have seen Pseudobridge on the Mikrotik side give OSPF issues. For the customer side no issues. But with OSPF and pseudobridge you have duplicate Mac addresses due to the nature of how it works. This can cause issues when running OSPF, at least in our experience. Had a network of 90 some backhauls all in pseudobridge. After converting to WDS many issues disappeared. -- Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net/blog Wisp Consulting Tower Climbing Network Support From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:33:35 -0400 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? Pseudobridge has tested to perform almost exactly the same as Station mode. It does NOT have the same slowness side effects as WDS. For us, it looks like pseduobridge might work for us for the client side, because we dont use layer2 protocols across the wireless link to the customer... That might not be the case for other WISPs that have more dynamic provisioning. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry paul.hen...@skyline-networks.com To: wireless wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 4:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? Have you tested pseudobridge to achieve a similar affect without WDS? -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net] Sent: 28 April 2010 01:41 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? Yes, WDS adds significant overhead. But.. its not a real problem because there is a hardware solution to fix it. Thats why I've been an advocate for faster processor CPE SBCs for like ever. And its why we dont use low cost $50 slow processor CPEs. When using 533Mhz and 680mMhz processors it really shouldn't matter anymore, there is plenty of CPU horsepower. When we were doing MT throughoput testing last week on 433AH, we were getting much slower throughput with WDS than Station mode and routing, BUT the bottle neck was not CPU usage. We never exceeded 20% CPU usage, even with WDS. WDS on MT is slower, but for different reasons than CPU that I have not yet learned. With StarOS and 533 boards, we had almost 40% higher CPU usage with WDS, BUT WDS passed traffic just as fast as any of its routing or station modes, with plenty of CPU to spare. One of the tests we are going to run this week, is repeating the WDS tests using RB600 or RB800s which use netwqork processor for IO, to verify whether there was a different type of hardware bottle neck on the RB433AH other than CPU. But I'm predicting its a software issue contributing the the slowness. If you are selling a sub a 10mb service, ther is plenty of CPU respources even with low cost CPEs. And if need to passfull capacity, (using 20-30mpbs plus) There should be plenty of revenue comming in to justify paying an extra $50 one time for faster CPUs. My arguement is that all commercial grade stuff bridges well... Canopy, Trango, Alvarion, what ever. These devices do NOT have fast processors compared to the MT type SBCs available on the street today. The MTs should be capable of bridging (WDS) just the same, from a hardware perspective, and I'd say the same for UBQT. I want to make you I'm clear... we run bridged radio links. But we do not run a bridged network. We use routers at customer's Demarc before they connect to us, and we run a router at the cell site behind every AP. But we want Radio Links to look like a long patch cable for management reasons, and flexibility reasons. Also note that using WDS Slave has different issues of consideration. In that case the client (slave) operates like an AP. All sort of RF efficienties could arise. But the goal was to use StationWDS, which was meant as a solution to operate like a station, except to add the second MAC Address to the header. Its something that should be efficent to do, without much RF trade off, in theory. But because MT is someone secrative on exactly what they are doing to achieve Station WDS, its impossible for me to conclude accurately, and I can only guess, and measure the results.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry paul.hen...@skyline-networks.com To: wireless wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:41 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? Hey Tom, Do you have any issues/limitations running 100% WDS instead of a standard routed network? Would have thought WDS + NStreme would cause CPU related issues and extra overhead might limit the amount of bandwidth available per AP? Many thanks, Paul. -Original
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
Yup... same here. OSPF does not work with anything but WDS. Travis Microserv Justin Wilson wrote: I have seen Pseudobridge on the Mikrotik side give OSPF issues. For the customer side no issues. But with OSPF and pseudobridge you have duplicate Mac addresses due to the nature of how it works. This can cause issues when running OSPF, at least in our experience. Had a network of 90 some backhauls all in pseudobridge. After converting to WDS many issues disappeared. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
Yes, WDS adds significant overhead. But.. its not a real problem because there is a hardware solution to fix it. Thats why I've been an advocate for faster processor CPE SBCs for like ever. And its why we dont use low cost $50 slow processor CPEs. When using 533Mhz and 680mMhz processors it really shouldn't matter anymore, there is plenty of CPU horsepower. When we were doing MT throughoput testing last week on 433AH, we were getting much slower throughput with WDS than Station mode and routing, BUT the bottle neck was not CPU usage. We never exceeded 20% CPU usage, even with WDS. WDS on MT is slower, but for different reasons than CPU that I have not yet learned. With StarOS and 533 boards, we had almost 40% higher CPU usage with WDS, BUT WDS passed traffic just as fast as any of its routing or station modes, with plenty of CPU to spare. One of the tests we are going to run this week, is repeating the WDS tests using RB600 or RB800s which use netwqork processor for IO, to verify whether there was a different type of hardware bottle neck on the RB433AH other than CPU. But I'm predicting its a software issue contributing the the slowness. If you are selling a sub a 10mb service, ther is plenty of CPU respources even with low cost CPEs. And if need to passfull capacity, (using 20-30mpbs plus) There should be plenty of revenue comming in to justify paying an extra $50 one time for faster CPUs. My arguement is that all commercial grade stuff bridges well... Canopy, Trango, Alvarion, what ever. These devices do NOT have fast processors compared to the MT type SBCs available on the street today. The MTs should be capable of bridging (WDS) just the same, from a hardware perspective, and I'd say the same for UBQT. I want to make you I'm clear... we run bridged radio links. But we do not run a bridged network. We use routers at customer's Demarc before they connect to us, and we run a router at the cell site behind every AP. But we want Radio Links to look like a long patch cable for management reasons, and flexibility reasons. Also note that using WDS Slave has different issues of consideration. In that case the client (slave) operates like an AP. All sort of RF efficienties could arise. But the goal was to use StationWDS, which was meant as a solution to operate like a station, except to add the second MAC Address to the header. Its something that should be efficent to do, without much RF trade off, in theory. But because MT is someone secrative on exactly what they are doing to achieve Station WDS, its impossible for me to conclude accurately, and I can only guess, and measure the results.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry paul.hen...@skyline-networks.com To: wireless wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:41 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? Hey Tom, Do you have any issues/limitations running 100% WDS instead of a standard routed network? Would have thought WDS + NStreme would cause CPU related issues and extra overhead might limit the amount of bandwidth available per AP? Many thanks, Paul. -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net] Sent: 27 April 2010 05:34 To: wa4...@arrl.net; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? Yes. We let and encourage all our customers to pick their own routers (so they are liable for their decission, not us), which is why we like to bridge at customer CPE end. The reason we need 5-9 eth ports is for when we serve shopping centers or industrial park warehouse type clients. We run one CPE to the building, but there is not anywhere inside the building for us to put indoor equipment. There is also rarely reliable AC power on the roof, without eating the cost of electrician and painful permitting. So we put a 5-9 eth port device on the roof, fed by POE. Then we run a CAT5 for each customer accross the roof, and enter each customer's suite/bay through/underneith their AIRConditioning Unit entry, usually located on the roof. Landlords hate seeing cable dropped over edge of building, so they like it when we do it that way. We then power the roof equipment (POE) from one of the customer's suites. If they cancel, we just move the POE to another suite, and change their port to teh POE port at the outdoor equipment. This model has worked wonderfully for us. We can go install a new building for about $300 with one client, and easilly accommodate the rest of the tenants as we follow back with sales, without having to replicate any work or disrupt any pre-existing customers there. With the MT being an integrated Radio and Switch, provisioning and remote troubleshooting is really easy. The only flaw is AC Power might not be harded for power outages. So after
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
3' and a metal enclosure. grin - Original Message - From: Ryan Spott rsp...@cspott.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? Wow, So my question would be, what sort of separation is required to keep the noise down? ryan On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com wrote: If anyone is like me and ever wondered how bad that stacking cards of the same band in RB333 or RB433 interfere with each other, well, I finally answered my own question. I've been wondering this for the past 3 years and no one could really give an answer, or show proof. Well I bought a spectrum analyzer and decided to do some testing. I plugged the spectrum analyzer directly into the antenna port on a disabled card that was stacked on top of a card that was transmitting. Bleed-over on the adjacent channels started at -76 Won't be doing that anymore! Just thought I would share this valuable information with the list. For more tests at different channel widths and such check out this thread. http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7 http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7t=30657p=204642#p204642 t=30657p=204642#p204642 Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's How do you know that you cant? UBQTs are MIPs processors and MT has MIPs compiled OSs. Has anyone tried? I'd argue the opposite... I love Mikrotik Hardware, the one entity that understands the value of making Mutli-port ethernet at the CPE, with super fast processors. Wonder if Ubiquiti OS will load on 433AH? or RB800? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blair Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? The following is IMHO... YMMV... Only the R5H. Bought a lot of 5 a while back. Price looked good vs XR5. Started testing them... when hooked to the same ant, reported noise floor varied by 10db. tx power, as reported by the other end of the link varied by 7db. Units with strong tx had high error rates at higher modulations. thought bad batch, swapped out 4 of them. 1 of the new ones was ok, other 3 as bad as ones I swapped. Returned those 3 for credit. used the 2 I had left in CPE's. one went deaf after T-storm, (lost 20db of sensitivity) Other still in service. My XR5's all match on reported noise floor within 2db. Tx power matches within 2db I've never had any XR's bad out of the wrapper, and only 1 failed in the field. (direct lighting strike) MikroTik makes great router software, and has learned to make good SBC's (routerboards) IMHO, their radio cards are 'not good'. (i'd have used another word, but I don't want banned from the list!) Ubiquity makes GREAT radios. And good CPE's. They can't make good software for an AP or router if their lives depend on it... I use routerboard with XR cards for my AP's and backhauls... I use Nano's, Loco's, and bullets for my CPE's now. MikroTik and Ubiquity together. I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's Kurt Fankhauser wrote: What ad luck did you have with the mikrotik cards, and also what model card did you use? I only use the R5H from them. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 10:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? I'd love to see the same test with ubiquity XR cards I've had such bad luck with mikrotik's radio cards I don't use them any more Because of the channel overlap, I've always put only one xr-2 or xr-9 per metal enclosure. However, I often put two xr-5 cards in the same enclosure, and separate them by 2 channels or more, and do the same with CM9's on the 5.x bands. -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
I'm very interested in your reported data. Its nice to see the results actually using a spectrum analyzer. Actually, we thought it was possibly advantageous to have the slots stacked because of the ease to fasten a isolation barrier between cards. And we feared that cards side by side would equally get interference comming from reflections from the metal case walls, trapped inside the case. What we did was take card stock cut to size and wrap it with aluminum foil, and then put that inside a static bag. We always mount the SBC with the card Slots at the top side of the case. We then slide the static bag inbetween the two cards, and follow up with a peice of electrical tape. Even if the electrical tape unsticks over time, the isolation barrier is resting in a position where it would likely stay in place over time. We also are more selective on which cards we use in these stacked slots. We never use a dual antenna port card, unless both have a pigtail on it. As well, prefer mmcx ports because they have better isolation than UFL. Some report that UFL actually has lower loss of its own signal than mmcx so UFL preferred in systems with single cards. But when stacking cards, isolation of mmcx may be more advantageous. Its also relevent to point out a large part of RF escape can be the pigtail itself, if not a high quality pigtail, so one should avoid having the multiple pigtail paths interwine, when possible. It should also be noted that the locations in which RF is injected into an adjacent circuit is not always as it seems. For example... If can be absorbed simply circuit board to circuit board, not only through antenna ports. Or it can even be injected in through the mPCI slot's pins or DC power pins. It might be interesting to try to discover for sure where exactly the majority of the bleed is getting transferred from one card to the other, to know how to best isolate. Since you now have the Analyzer, and the know how to test, would you mind repeating your tests, after inserting foil isolation (like I described above), to see how it compares, to without foil isolation or to slots positioned side by side alledged not to experience similar bleed levels? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? Kurt, I always put laminated foil between the cards. You able to try putting a shield of aluminum foil between to see if that does anything useful? Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 4:44 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? If you physically move them to anywhere but on top of each other, like the sides or above or below then the bleed over goes away. So if you mounted them side by side in a RB600 or RB800 then your ok. Heres some pics of that. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Spott Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? Wow, So my question would be, what sort of separation is required to keep the noise down? ryan On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com wrote: If anyone is like me and ever wondered how bad that stacking cards of the same band in RB333 or RB433 interfere with each other, well, I finally answered my own question. I've been wondering this for the past 3 years and no one could really give an answer, or show proof. Well I bought a spectrum analyzer and decided to do some testing. I plugged the spectrum analyzer directly into the antenna port on a disabled card that was stacked on top of a card that was transmitting. Bleed-over on the adjacent channels started at -76 Won't be doing that anymore! Just thought I would share this valuable information with the list. For more tests at different channel widths and such check out this thread. http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7 http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7t=30657p=204642#p204642 t=30657p=204642#p204642 Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
OOPs. I just looked at your pictures, and see you were using R5H mmcx single antenna port cards, properly terminating Nconnectors, and thick pigtails. Clearly there is no better way to test accurately than how you tested. That is a big surprise, and valuable to know. Would still be interested in seeing the real results of how much foil isolation will help or not. It would also be interesting in getting data comparing RB600 or 800 (side by side slots) when actually in a metal case. The RF results may be much different out of the case. What really matters is how much worse stacking the slots is, inside a case compared to other SBCs inside a case. And it would be great to see how this compares with other card brands. Is it the R5H, an AMPed card causing the loss, or the fact that it is stacked? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 11:27 AM Subject: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? If anyone is like me and ever wondered how bad that stacking cards of the same band in RB333 or RB433 interfere with each other, well, I finally answered my own question. I've been wondering this for the past 3 years and no one could really give an answer, or show proof. Well I bought a spectrum analyzer and decided to do some testing. I plugged the spectrum analyzer directly into the antenna port on a disabled card that was stacked on top of a card that was transmitting. Bleed-over on the adjacent channels started at -76 Won't be doing that anymore! Just thought I would share this valuable information with the list. For more tests at different channel widths and such check out this thread. http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7 http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7t=30657p=204642#p204642 t=30657p=204642#p204642 Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
From what I have heard memory requirements are much higher in RouterOS. I'd expect Mikrotik went out of their way to break it on Ubnt, too. Not to mention the fact that you'll need to buy a MT license for each device (even at $35/cpe that adds up). Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's How do you know that you cant? UBQTs are MIPs processors and MT has MIPs compiled OSs. Has anyone tried? I'd argue the opposite... I love Mikrotik Hardware, the one entity that understands the value of making Mutli-port ethernet at the CPE, with super fast processors. Wonder if Ubiquiti OS will load on 433AH? or RB800? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blair Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? The following is IMHO... YMMV... Only the R5H. Bought a lot of 5 a while back. Price looked good vs XR5. Started testing them... when hooked to the same ant, reported noise floor varied by 10db. tx power, as reported by the other end of the link varied by 7db. Units with strong tx had high error rates at higher modulations. thought bad batch, swapped out 4 of them. 1 of the new ones was ok, other 3 as bad as ones I swapped. Returned those 3 for credit. used the 2 I had left in CPE's. one went deaf after T-storm, (lost 20db of sensitivity) Other still in service. My XR5's all match on reported noise floor within 2db. Tx power matches within 2db I've never had any XR's bad out of the wrapper, and only 1 failed in the field. (direct lighting strike) MikroTik makes great router software, and has learned to make good SBC's (routerboards) IMHO, their radio cards are 'not good'. (i'd have used another word, but I don't want banned from the list!) Ubiquity makes GREAT radios. And good CPE's. They can't make good software for an AP or router if their lives depend on it... I use routerboard with XR cards for my AP's and backhauls... I use Nano's, Loco's, and bullets for my CPE's now. MikroTik and Ubiquity together. I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's Kurt Fankhauser wrote: What ad luck did you have with the mikrotik cards, and also what model card did you use? I only use the R5H from them. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 10:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? I'd love to see the same test with ubiquity XR cards I've had such bad luck with mikrotik's radio cards I don't use them any more Because of the channel overlap, I've always put only one xr-2 or xr-9 per metal enclosure. However, I often put two xr-5 cards in the same enclosure, and separate them by 2 channels or more, and do the same with CM9's on the 5.x bands. -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
yeah, but wouldn't it be nice to use UBQT CPE for 95% of the installs, and still be able to use a 3-9 eth port SBC when it is needed the remainig 5%, without having to deploy a new AP? Of course, there is the option to use MT AP and UBQT CPE, but that wont happen in my network until the two share a common embedded speed testing tool, and verified common working polling or bridging (WDS) methods. I dont mind mismatching hardware brands, but prefer not to mismatch OSs, for the above reasons. I'd gladly pay a $100 license to prevent the install of a second AP that generates a new reocurring cost to have colocated. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? From what I have heard memory requirements are much higher in RouterOS. I'd expect Mikrotik went out of their way to break it on Ubnt, too. Not to mention the fact that you'll need to buy a MT license for each device (even at $35/cpe that adds up). Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's How do you know that you cant? UBQTs are MIPs processors and MT has MIPs compiled OSs. Has anyone tried? I'd argue the opposite... I love Mikrotik Hardware, the one entity that understands the value of making Mutli-port ethernet at the CPE, with super fast processors. Wonder if Ubiquiti OS will load on 433AH? or RB800? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blair Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? The following is IMHO... YMMV... Only the R5H. Bought a lot of 5 a while back. Price looked good vs XR5. Started testing them... when hooked to the same ant, reported noise floor varied by 10db. tx power, as reported by the other end of the link varied by 7db. Units with strong tx had high error rates at higher modulations. thought bad batch, swapped out 4 of them. 1 of the new ones was ok, other 3 as bad as ones I swapped. Returned those 3 for credit. used the 2 I had left in CPE's. one went deaf after T-storm, (lost 20db of sensitivity) Other still in service. My XR5's all match on reported noise floor within 2db. Tx power matches within 2db I've never had any XR's bad out of the wrapper, and only 1 failed in the field. (direct lighting strike) MikroTik makes great router software, and has learned to make good SBC's (routerboards) IMHO, their radio cards are 'not good'. (i'd have used another word, but I don't want banned from the list!) Ubiquity makes GREAT radios. And good CPE's. They can't make good software for an AP or router if their lives depend on it... I use routerboard with XR cards for my AP's and backhauls... I use Nano's, Loco's, and bullets for my CPE's now. MikroTik and Ubiquity together. I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's Kurt Fankhauser wrote: What ad luck did you have with the mikrotik cards, and also what model card did you use? I only use the R5H from them. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 10:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? I'd love to see the same test with ubiquity XR cards I've had such bad luck with mikrotik's radio cards I don't use them any more Because of the channel overlap, I've always put only one xr-2 or xr-9 per metal enclosure. However, I often put two xr-5 cards in the same enclosure, and separate them by 2 channels or more, and do the same with CM9's on the 5.x bands. -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
I've been using MT APs and Ubnt CPEs. Been very happy with them. I do lose the speed test on the CPE, but it hasn't really been a big loss compared to what I save (something like $215 to $70 per CPE). Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: yeah, but wouldn't it be nice to use UBQT CPE for 95% of the installs, and still be able to use a 3-9 eth port SBC when it is needed the remainig 5%, without having to deploy a new AP? Of course, there is the option to use MT AP and UBQT CPE, but that wont happen in my network until the two share a common embedded speed testing tool, and verified common working polling or bridging (WDS) methods. I dont mind mismatching hardware brands, but prefer not to mismatch OSs, for the above reasons. I'd gladly pay a $100 license to prevent the install of a second AP that generates a new reocurring cost to have colocated. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? From what I have heard memory requirements are much higher in RouterOS. I'd expect Mikrotik went out of their way to break it on Ubnt, too. Not to mention the fact that you'll need to buy a MT license for each device (even at $35/cpe that adds up). Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's How do you know that you cant? UBQTs are MIPs processors and MT has MIPs compiled OSs. Has anyone tried? I'd argue the opposite... I love Mikrotik Hardware, the one entity that understands the value of making Mutli-port ethernet at the CPE, with super fast processors. Wonder if Ubiquiti OS will load on 433AH? or RB800? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blair Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? The following is IMHO... YMMV... Only the R5H. Bought a lot of 5 a while back. Price looked good vs XR5. Started testing them... when hooked to the same ant, reported noise floor varied by 10db. tx power, as reported by the other end of the link varied by 7db. Units with strong tx had high error rates at higher modulations. thought bad batch, swapped out 4 of them. 1 of the new ones was ok, other 3 as bad as ones I swapped. Returned those 3 for credit. used the 2 I had left in CPE's. one went deaf after T-storm, (lost 20db of sensitivity) Other still in service. My XR5's all match on reported noise floor within 2db. Tx power matches within 2db I've never had any XR's bad out of the wrapper, and only 1 failed in the field. (direct lighting strike) MikroTik makes great router software, and has learned to make good SBC's (routerboards) IMHO, their radio cards are 'not good'. (i'd have used another word, but I don't want banned from the list!) Ubiquity makes GREAT radios. And good CPE's. They can't make good software for an AP or router if their lives depend on it... I use routerboard with XR cards for my AP's and backhauls... I use Nano's, Loco's, and bullets for my CPE's now. MikroTik and Ubiquity together. I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's Kurt Fankhauser wrote: What ad luck did you have with the mikrotik cards, and also what model card did you use? I only use the R5H from them. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 10:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? I'd love to see the same test with ubiquity XR cards I've had such bad luck with mikrotik's radio cards I don't use them any more Because of the channel overlap, I've always put only one xr-2 or xr-9 per metal enclosure. However, I often put two xr-5 cards
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
Are you bridging at the AP and CPE, and does it work? Something something that was brought to my attention is that UBQT has Iperf built in at teh command line. So technically, if we used UBQT at the CPE and MT as AP, we could still do speed tests easilly, since all our MT APs plug into our proprietary cell site routers which have Iperf. But does it bridge OK? We dont really need the MT AP. What we do need is 5-9 port CPEs everyonce in a while, which locks us into the MT solutions in some locations, or we ahve to add one more component of failure. Truthfully, that is probably what we are going to start doing, where we decide to use UBQT. Run UBQT radios, then put a MT router at the end where we need 5-9 ports. They are pretty inexpensive now, its not that big a deal anymore to duplicate expense. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? I've been using MT APs and Ubnt CPEs. Been very happy with them. I do lose the speed test on the CPE, but it hasn't really been a big loss compared to what I save (something like $215 to $70 per CPE). Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: yeah, but wouldn't it be nice to use UBQT CPE for 95% of the installs, and still be able to use a 3-9 eth port SBC when it is needed the remainig 5%, without having to deploy a new AP? Of course, there is the option to use MT AP and UBQT CPE, but that wont happen in my network until the two share a common embedded speed testing tool, and verified common working polling or bridging (WDS) methods. I dont mind mismatching hardware brands, but prefer not to mismatch OSs, for the above reasons. I'd gladly pay a $100 license to prevent the install of a second AP that generates a new reocurring cost to have colocated. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? From what I have heard memory requirements are much higher in RouterOS. I'd expect Mikrotik went out of their way to break it on Ubnt, too. Not to mention the fact that you'll need to buy a MT license for each device (even at $35/cpe that adds up). Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's How do you know that you cant? UBQTs are MIPs processors and MT has MIPs compiled OSs. Has anyone tried? I'd argue the opposite... I love Mikrotik Hardware, the one entity that understands the value of making Mutli-port ethernet at the CPE, with super fast processors. Wonder if Ubiquiti OS will load on 433AH? or RB800? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blair Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? The following is IMHO... YMMV... Only the R5H. Bought a lot of 5 a while back. Price looked good vs XR5. Started testing them... when hooked to the same ant, reported noise floor varied by 10db. tx power, as reported by the other end of the link varied by 7db. Units with strong tx had high error rates at higher modulations. thought bad batch, swapped out 4 of them. 1 of the new ones was ok, other 3 as bad as ones I swapped. Returned those 3 for credit. used the 2 I had left in CPE's. one went deaf after T-storm, (lost 20db of sensitivity) Other still in service. My XR5's all match on reported noise floor within 2db. Tx power matches within 2db I've never had any XR's bad out of the wrapper, and only 1 failed in the field. (direct lighting strike) MikroTik makes great router software, and has learned to make good SBC's (routerboards) IMHO, their radio cards are 'not good'. (i'd have used another word, but I don't want banned from the list!) Ubiquity makes GREAT radios. And good CPE's. They can't make good software for an AP or router if their lives depend on it... I
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
It seems to bridge ok, but I primarily NAT the customers. I've read reports it doesn't carry OSPF packets right. On 4/26/10, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: Are you bridging at the AP and CPE, and does it work? Something something that was brought to my attention is that UBQT has Iperf built in at teh command line. So technically, if we used UBQT at the CPE and MT as AP, we could still do speed tests easilly, since all our MT APs plug into our proprietary cell site routers which have Iperf. But does it bridge OK? We dont really need the MT AP. What we do need is 5-9 port CPEs everyonce in a while, which locks us into the MT solutions in some locations, or we ahve to add one more component of failure. Truthfully, that is probably what we are going to start doing, where we decide to use UBQT. Run UBQT radios, then put a MT router at the end where we need 5-9 ports. They are pretty inexpensive now, its not that big a deal anymore to duplicate expense. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? I've been using MT APs and Ubnt CPEs. Been very happy with them. I do lose the speed test on the CPE, but it hasn't really been a big loss compared to what I save (something like $215 to $70 per CPE). Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: yeah, but wouldn't it be nice to use UBQT CPE for 95% of the installs, and still be able to use a 3-9 eth port SBC when it is needed the remainig 5%, without having to deploy a new AP? Of course, there is the option to use MT AP and UBQT CPE, but that wont happen in my network until the two share a common embedded speed testing tool, and verified common working polling or bridging (WDS) methods. I dont mind mismatching hardware brands, but prefer not to mismatch OSs, for the above reasons. I'd gladly pay a $100 license to prevent the install of a second AP that generates a new reocurring cost to have colocated. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? From what I have heard memory requirements are much higher in RouterOS. I'd expect Mikrotik went out of their way to break it on Ubnt, too. Not to mention the fact that you'll need to buy a MT license for each device (even at $35/cpe that adds up). Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's How do you know that you cant? UBQTs are MIPs processors and MT has MIPs compiled OSs. Has anyone tried? I'd argue the opposite... I love Mikrotik Hardware, the one entity that understands the value of making Mutli-port ethernet at the CPE, with super fast processors. Wonder if Ubiquiti OS will load on 433AH? or RB800? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blair Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? The following is IMHO... YMMV... Only the R5H. Bought a lot of 5 a while back. Price looked good vs XR5. Started testing them... when hooked to the same ant, reported noise floor varied by 10db. tx power, as reported by the other end of the link varied by 7db. Units with strong tx had high error rates at higher modulations. thought bad batch, swapped out 4 of them. 1 of the new ones was ok, other 3 as bad as ones I swapped. Returned those 3 for credit. used the 2 I had left in CPE's. one went deaf after T-storm, (lost 20db of sensitivity) Other still in service. My XR5's all match on reported noise floor within 2db. Tx power matches within 2db I've never had any XR's bad out of the wrapper, and only 1 failed in the field. (direct lighting strike) MikroTik makes great router software, and has learned to make good SBC's (routerboards) IMHO, their radio cards are 'not good'. (i'd have used
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
On 26 April 2010 20:28, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: It seems to bridge ok, but I primarily NAT the customers. I've read reports it doesn't carry OSPF packets right. It seems to behave ok if you do WDS AP/WDS Client and enable Multicast. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
FWIW... The Ubiquiti Rocket M's are SBC, running Linux/ Open-wrt, and have the following processor... on them... - Atheros MIPS 24KC, 400MHz Memory Information 64MB SDRAM, 8MB Flash Operating Temperature -30C to 75C Networking Interface 1 X 10/100 BASE-TX (Cat. 5, RJ-45) Ethernet Interface - If you want to 'dumb' them down to be a simple bridge and pass traffic via the Mikrotik... sure that is possible... If you want to use them in the routed mode, with the Mikrotik doing the 'core routing' at the pop, that is also possible. Using the SDK, there are folks who have easily added Quagga / OSPF / OSLR to the Rocket M's The only draw back is that ... you have to use the command line to configure the settings. Keep in mind that the MIPS 24KC, 400 mhz processor is the same processor that powers the Mikrotik 4XX (RB 450/433/411) series boards. Using something like a Tycon Power 5port NC poe switch, you can easily reduce the component count at the POP... Regards Faisal On 4/26/2010 8:12 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Are you bridging at the AP and CPE, and does it work? Something something that was brought to my attention is that UBQT has Iperf built in at teh command line. So technically, if we used UBQT at the CPE and MT as AP, we could still do speed tests easilly, since all our MT APs plug into our proprietary cell site routers which have Iperf. But does it bridge OK? We dont really need the MT AP. What we do need is 5-9 port CPEs everyonce in a while, which locks us into the MT solutions in some locations, or we ahve to add one more component of failure. Truthfully, that is probably what we are going to start doing, where we decide to use UBQT. Run UBQT radios, then put a MT router at the end where we need 5-9 ports. They are pretty inexpensive now, its not that big a deal anymore to duplicate expense. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthmanj...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? I've been using MT APs and Ubnt CPEs. Been very happy with them. I do lose the speed test on the CPE, but it hasn't really been a big loss compared to what I save (something like $215 to $70 per CPE). Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: yeah, but wouldn't it be nice to use UBQT CPE for 95% of the installs, and still be able to use a 3-9 eth port SBC when it is needed the remainig 5%, without having to deploy a new AP? Of course, there is the option to use MT AP and UBQT CPE, but that wont happen in my network until the two share a common embedded speed testing tool, and verified common working polling or bridging (WDS) methods. I dont mind mismatching hardware brands, but prefer not to mismatch OSs, for the above reasons. I'd gladly pay a $100 license to prevent the install of a second AP that generates a new reocurring cost to have colocated. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthmanj...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? From what I have heard memory requirements are much higher in RouterOS. I'd expect Mikrotik went out of their way to break it on Ubnt, too. Not to mention the fact that you'll need to buy a MT license for each device (even at $35/cpe that adds up). Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's How do you know that you cant? UBQTs are MIPs processors and MT has MIPs compiled OSs. Has anyone tried? I'd argue the opposite... I love Mikrotik Hardware, the one entity that understands the value of making Mutli-port ethernet at the CPE, with super fast processors. Wonder if Ubiquiti OS will load on 433AH? or RB800? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blair Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? The following is IMHO... YMMV... Only the R5H. Bought a lot of 5
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
OSPF does not like Proxy ARP, hence the WDS requirement. I have not turned on multicast when doing this. On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Jeremy Parr jeremyp...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 April 2010 20:28, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: It seems to bridge ok, but I primarily NAT the customers. I've read reports it doesn't carry OSPF packets right. It seems to behave ok if you do WDS AP/WDS Client and enable Multicast. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
On 04/26/2010 08:12 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Are you bridging at the AP and CPE, and does it work? Something something that was brought to my attention is that UBQT has Iperf built in at teh command line. So technically, if we used UBQT at the CPE and MT as AP, we could still do speed tests easilly, since all our MT APs plug into our proprietary cell site routers which have Iperf. But does it bridge OK? We dont really need the MT AP. What we do need is 5-9 port CPEs everyonce in a while, which locks us into the MT solutions in some locations, or we ahve to add one more component of failure. Truthfully, that is probably what we are going to start doing, where we decide to use UBQT. Run UBQT radios, then put a MT router at the end where we need 5-9 ports. They are pretty inexpensive now, its not that big a deal anymore to duplicate expense. Hey Tom...didya ever think of letting the customer supply there own router behind the RF CPE? Leon WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
I don't know about the newer M line but I know before that (speaking of the NS, PS, Bullet, Microstation, Picostation) at least one hurdle people were running into in their quest to put what they thought was better firmware into the UBNT line was memory. There just wasn't enough. It would be nice if there was UBNT gear with RouterOS preloaded, similar to how dd-WRT has partnered with some hardware manufacturers to offer their hardware with dd-WRT preloaded. Greg On Apr 26, 2010, at 4:51 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's How do you know that you cant? UBQTs are MIPs processors and MT has MIPs compiled OSs. Has anyone tried? I'd argue the opposite... I love Mikrotik Hardware, the one entity that understands the value of making Mutli-port ethernet at the CPE, with super fast processors. Wonder if Ubiquiti OS will load on 433AH? or RB800? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blair Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? The following is IMHO... YMMV... Only the R5H. Bought a lot of 5 a while back. Price looked good vs XR5. Started testing them... when hooked to the same ant, reported noise floor varied by 10db. tx power, as reported by the other end of the link varied by 7db. Units with strong tx had high error rates at higher modulations. thought bad batch, swapped out 4 of them. 1 of the new ones was ok, other 3 as bad as ones I swapped. Returned those 3 for credit. used the 2 I had left in CPE's. one went deaf after T-storm, (lost 20db of sensitivity) Other still in service. My XR5's all match on reported noise floor within 2db. Tx power matches within 2db I've never had any XR's bad out of the wrapper, and only 1 failed in the field. (direct lighting strike) MikroTik makes great router software, and has learned to make good SBC's (routerboards) IMHO, their radio cards are 'not good'. (i'd have used another word, but I don't want banned from the list!) Ubiquity makes GREAT radios. And good CPE's. They can't make good software for an AP or router if their lives depend on it... I use routerboard with XR cards for my AP's and backhauls... I use Nano's, Loco's, and bullets for my CPE's now. MikroTik and Ubiquity together. I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's Kurt Fankhauser wrote: What ad luck did you have with the mikrotik cards, and also what model card did you use? I only use the R5H from them. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 10:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? I'd love to see the same test with ubiquity XR cards I've had such bad luck with mikrotik's radio cards I don't use them any more Because of the channel overlap, I've always put only one xr-2 or xr-9 per metal enclosure. However, I often put two xr-5 cards in the same enclosure, and separate them by 2 channels or more, and do the same with CM9's on the 5.x bands. -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
Um Yeah. Kinda thought the same thing... - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? I'm very interested in your reported data. Its nice to see the results actually using a spectrum analyzer. Actually, we thought it was possibly advantageous to have the slots stacked because of the ease to fasten a isolation barrier between cards. And we feared that cards side by side would equally get interference comming from reflections from the metal case walls, trapped inside the case. What we did was take card stock cut to size and wrap it with aluminum foil, and then put that inside a static bag. We always mount the SBC with the card Slots at the top side of the case. We then slide the static bag inbetween the two cards, and follow up with a peice of electrical tape. Even if the electrical tape unsticks over time, the isolation barrier is resting in a position where it would likely stay in place over time. We also are more selective on which cards we use in these stacked slots. We never use a dual antenna port card, unless both have a pigtail on it. As well, prefer mmcx ports because they have better isolation than UFL. Some report that UFL actually has lower loss of its own signal than mmcx so UFL preferred in systems with single cards. But when stacking cards, isolation of mmcx may be more advantageous. Its also relevent to point out a large part of RF escape can be the pigtail itself, if not a high quality pigtail, so one should avoid having the multiple pigtail paths interwine, when possible. It should also be noted that the locations in which RF is injected into an adjacent circuit is not always as it seems. For example... If can be absorbed simply circuit board to circuit board, not only through antenna ports. Or it can even be injected in through the mPCI slot's pins or DC power pins. It might be interesting to try to discover for sure where exactly the majority of the bleed is getting transferred from one card to the other, to know how to best isolate. Since you now have the Analyzer, and the know how to test, would you mind repeating your tests, after inserting foil isolation (like I described above), to see how it compares, to without foil isolation or to slots positioned side by side alledged not to experience similar bleed levels? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? Kurt, I always put laminated foil between the cards. You able to try putting a shield of aluminum foil between to see if that does anything useful? Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 4:44 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? If you physically move them to anywhere but on top of each other, like the sides or above or below then the bleed over goes away. So if you mounted them side by side in a RB600 or RB800 then your ok. Heres some pics of that. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Spott Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? Wow, So my question would be, what sort of separation is required to keep the noise down? ryan On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com wrote: If anyone is like me and ever wondered how bad that stacking cards of the same band in RB333 or RB433 interfere with each other, well, I finally answered my own question. I've been wondering this for the past 3 years and no one could really give an answer, or show proof. Well I bought a spectrum analyzer and decided to do some testing. I plugged the spectrum analyzer directly into the antenna port on a disabled card that was stacked on top of a card that was transmitting. Bleed-over on the adjacent channels started at -76 Won't be doing that anymore! Just thought I would share this valuable information with the list. For more tests at different channel widths and such check out this thread. http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7 http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7t=30657p=204642#p204642 t=30657p=204642#p204642 Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
Thanks, good points. Anyone ever learn what method StarOS finally converted to, to reliably bridge and use WDS? Their later V3 product does it nicely. Its took them a number of tries and revs to get it tweaked right, for PtMP, but the end product is nice, and its all automatic if StarOS on both ends. I would think it was likely that they used standard open source methods, replicatable in OpenWRT. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? FWIW... The Ubiquiti Rocket M's are SBC, running Linux/ Open-wrt, and have the following processor... on them... - Atheros MIPS 24KC, 400MHz Memory Information 64MB SDRAM, 8MB Flash Operating Temperature -30C to 75C Networking Interface 1 X 10/100 BASE-TX (Cat. 5, RJ-45) Ethernet Interface - If you want to 'dumb' them down to be a simple bridge and pass traffic via the Mikrotik... sure that is possible... If you want to use them in the routed mode, with the Mikrotik doing the 'core routing' at the pop, that is also possible. Using the SDK, there are folks who have easily added Quagga / OSPF / OSLR to the Rocket M's The only draw back is that ... you have to use the command line to configure the settings. Keep in mind that the MIPS 24KC, 400 mhz processor is the same processor that powers the Mikrotik 4XX (RB 450/433/411) series boards. Using something like a Tycon Power 5port NC poe switch, you can easily reduce the component count at the POP... Regards Faisal On 4/26/2010 8:12 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Are you bridging at the AP and CPE, and does it work? Something something that was brought to my attention is that UBQT has Iperf built in at teh command line. So technically, if we used UBQT at the CPE and MT as AP, we could still do speed tests easilly, since all our MT APs plug into our proprietary cell site routers which have Iperf. But does it bridge OK? We dont really need the MT AP. What we do need is 5-9 port CPEs everyonce in a while, which locks us into the MT solutions in some locations, or we ahve to add one more component of failure. Truthfully, that is probably what we are going to start doing, where we decide to use UBQT. Run UBQT radios, then put a MT router at the end where we need 5-9 ports. They are pretty inexpensive now, its not that big a deal anymore to duplicate expense. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthmanj...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? I've been using MT APs and Ubnt CPEs. Been very happy with them. I do lose the speed test on the CPE, but it hasn't really been a big loss compared to what I save (something like $215 to $70 per CPE). Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: yeah, but wouldn't it be nice to use UBQT CPE for 95% of the installs, and still be able to use a 3-9 eth port SBC when it is needed the remainig 5%, without having to deploy a new AP? Of course, there is the option to use MT AP and UBQT CPE, but that wont happen in my network until the two share a common embedded speed testing tool, and verified common working polling or bridging (WDS) methods. I dont mind mismatching hardware brands, but prefer not to mismatch OSs, for the above reasons. I'd gladly pay a $100 license to prevent the install of a second AP that generates a new reocurring cost to have colocated. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthmanj...@imaginenetworksllc.com To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? From what I have heard memory requirements are much higher in RouterOS. I'd expect Mikrotik went out of their way to break it on Ubnt, too. Not to mention the fact that you'll need to buy a MT license for each device (even at $35/cpe that adds up). Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's How
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
Yes. We let and encourage all our customers to pick their own routers (so they are liable for their decission, not us), which is why we like to bridge at customer CPE end. The reason we need 5-9 eth ports is for when we serve shopping centers or industrial park warehouse type clients. We run one CPE to the building, but there is not anywhere inside the building for us to put indoor equipment. There is also rarely reliable AC power on the roof, without eating the cost of electrician and painful permitting. So we put a 5-9 eth port device on the roof, fed by POE. Then we run a CAT5 for each customer accross the roof, and enter each customer's suite/bay through/underneith their AIRConditioning Unit entry, usually located on the roof. Landlords hate seeing cable dropped over edge of building, so they like it when we do it that way. We then power the roof equipment (POE) from one of the customer's suites. If they cancel, we just move the POE to another suite, and change their port to teh POE port at the outdoor equipment. This model has worked wonderfully for us. We can go install a new building for about $300 with one client, and easilly accommodate the rest of the tenants as we follow back with sales, without having to replicate any work or disrupt any pre-existing customers there. With the MT being an integrated Radio and Switch, provisioning and remote troubleshooting is really easy. The only flaw is AC Power might not be harded for power outages. So after we earn some revenue for a while, we'll sometimes go back, and buildout our own power source. I was pretty excited about the Tycon Outdoor battery backup case, because I think they'd work well for this application. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Leon D. Zetekoff wa4...@backwoodswireless.net To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? On 04/26/2010 08:12 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Are you bridging at the AP and CPE, and does it work? Something something that was brought to my attention is that UBQT has Iperf built in at teh command line. So technically, if we used UBQT at the CPE and MT as AP, we could still do speed tests easilly, since all our MT APs plug into our proprietary cell site routers which have Iperf. But does it bridge OK? We dont really need the MT AP. What we do need is 5-9 port CPEs everyonce in a while, which locks us into the MT solutions in some locations, or we ahve to add one more component of failure. Truthfully, that is probably what we are going to start doing, where we decide to use UBQT. Run UBQT radios, then put a MT router at the end where we need 5-9 ports. They are pretty inexpensive now, its not that big a deal anymore to duplicate expense. Hey Tom...didya ever think of letting the customer supply there own router behind the RF CPE? Leon WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
There is enough RAM (64mb), there just isn't a large enough Flash, only 8k. So not easy getting MT on a UBQT. But the otherway around could work. Meaning putting UBQT OS (more or less OpenWRT) onto the MT. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:30 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? I don't know about the newer M line but I know before that (speaking of the NS, PS, Bullet, Microstation, Picostation) at least one hurdle people were running into in their quest to put what they thought was better firmware into the UBNT line was memory. There just wasn't enough. It would be nice if there was UBNT gear with RouterOS preloaded, similar to how dd-WRT has partnered with some hardware manufacturers to offer their hardware with dd-WRT preloaded. Greg On Apr 26, 2010, at 4:51 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's How do you know that you cant? UBQTs are MIPs processors and MT has MIPs compiled OSs. Has anyone tried? I'd argue the opposite... I love Mikrotik Hardware, the one entity that understands the value of making Mutli-port ethernet at the CPE, with super fast processors. Wonder if Ubiquiti OS will load on 433AH? or RB800? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blair Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? The following is IMHO... YMMV... Only the R5H. Bought a lot of 5 a while back. Price looked good vs XR5. Started testing them... when hooked to the same ant, reported noise floor varied by 10db. tx power, as reported by the other end of the link varied by 7db. Units with strong tx had high error rates at higher modulations. thought bad batch, swapped out 4 of them. 1 of the new ones was ok, other 3 as bad as ones I swapped. Returned those 3 for credit. used the 2 I had left in CPE's. one went deaf after T-storm, (lost 20db of sensitivity) Other still in service. My XR5's all match on reported noise floor within 2db. Tx power matches within 2db I've never had any XR's bad out of the wrapper, and only 1 failed in the field. (direct lighting strike) MikroTik makes great router software, and has learned to make good SBC's (routerboards) IMHO, their radio cards are 'not good'. (i'd have used another word, but I don't want banned from the list!) Ubiquity makes GREAT radios. And good CPE's. They can't make good software for an AP or router if their lives depend on it... I use routerboard with XR cards for my AP's and backhauls... I use Nano's, Loco's, and bullets for my CPE's now. MikroTik and Ubiquity together. I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's Kurt Fankhauser wrote: What ad luck did you have with the mikrotik cards, and also what model card did you use? I only use the R5H from them. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 10:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? I'd love to see the same test with ubiquity XR cards I've had such bad luck with mikrotik's radio cards I don't use them any more Because of the channel overlap, I've always put only one xr-2 or xr-9 per metal enclosure. However, I often put two xr-5 cards in the same enclosure, and separate them by 2 channels or more, and do the same with CM9's on the 5.x bands. -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
The following is IMHO... YMMV... Only the R5H. Bought a lot of 5 a while back. Price looked good vs XR5. Started testing them... when hooked to the same ant, reported noise floor varied by 10db. tx power, as reported by the other end of the link varied by 7db. Units with strong tx had high error rates at higher modulations. thought bad batch, swapped out 4 of them. 1 of the new ones was ok, other 3 as bad as ones I swapped. Returned those 3 for credit. used the 2 I had left in CPE's. one went deaf after T-storm, (lost 20db of sensitivity) Other still in service. My XR5's all match on reported noise floor within 2db. Tx power matches within 2db I've never had any XR's bad out of the wrapper, and only 1 failed in the field. (direct lighting strike) MikroTik makes great router software, and has learned to make good SBC's (routerboards) IMHO, their radio cards are 'not good'. (i'd have used another word, but I don't want banned from the list!) Ubiquity makes GREAT radios. And good CPE's. They can't make good software for an AP or router if their lives depend on it... I use routerboard with XR cards for my AP's and backhauls... I use Nano's, Loco's, and bullets for my CPE's now. MikroTik and Ubiquity together. I just wish I could load Router OS on my Ubiquity CPE's Kurt Fankhauser wrote: What ad luck did you have with the mikrotik cards, and also what model card did you use? I only use the R5H from them. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 10:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? I'd love to see the same test with ubiquity XR cards I've had such bad luck with mikrotik's radio cards I don't use them any more Because of the channel overlap, I've always put only one xr-2 or xr-9 per metal enclosure. However, I often put two xr-5 cards in the same enclosure, and separate them by 2 channels or more, and do the same with CM9's on the 5.x bands. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
Have you tried snapping a ufl connector, just the connector - no cable, on to the open antenna port on the offending cards connector? It should help shield the rf that spews from multi-antenna port cards. Dave Hulsebus Portative Technologies, LLC 1995 Allison Lane, Suite 100 Corydon, IN 47112 www.portative.com Kurt Fankhauser wrote: If you physically move them to anywhere but on top of each other, like the sides or above or below then the bleed over goes away. So if you mounted them side by side in a RB600 or RB800 then your ok. Heres some pics of that. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Spott Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? Wow, So my question would be, what sort of separation is required to keep the noise down? ryan On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com wrote: If anyone is like me and ever wondered how bad that stacking cards of the same band in RB333 or RB433 interfere with each other, well, I finally answered my own question. I've been wondering this for the past 3 years and no one could really give an answer, or show proof. Well I bought a spectrum analyzer and decided to do some testing. I plugged the spectrum analyzer directly into the antenna port on a disabled card that was stacked on top of a card that was transmitting. Bleed-over on the adjacent channels started at -76 Won't be doing that anymore! Just thought I would share this valuable information with the list. For more tests at different channel widths and such check out this thread. http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7 http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7t=30657p=204642#p204642 t=30657p=204642#p204642 Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
Wow, So my question would be, what sort of separation is required to keep the noise down? ryan On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com wrote: If anyone is like me and ever wondered how bad that stacking cards of the same band in RB333 or RB433 interfere with each other, well, I finally answered my own question. I've been wondering this for the past 3 years and no one could really give an answer, or show proof. Well I bought a spectrum analyzer and decided to do some testing. I plugged the spectrum analyzer directly into the antenna port on a disabled card that was stacked on top of a card that was transmitting. Bleed-over on the adjacent channels started at -76 Won't be doing that anymore! Just thought I would share this valuable information with the list. For more tests at different channel widths and such check out this thread. http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7 http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7t=30657p=204642#p204642 t=30657p=204642#p204642 Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
Can I add lead curtains between them as well? Is there soe other dampening material I can use? ryan On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com wrote: If you physically move them to anywhere but on top of each other, like the sides or above or below then the bleed over goes away. So if you mounted them side by side in a RB600 or RB800 then your ok. Heres some pics of that. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Spott Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? Wow, So my question would be, what sort of separation is required to keep the noise down? ryan On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com wrote: If anyone is like me and ever wondered how bad that stacking cards of the same band in RB333 or RB433 interfere with each other, well, I finally answered my own question. I've been wondering this for the past 3 years and no one could really give an answer, or show proof. Well I bought a spectrum analyzer and decided to do some testing. I plugged the spectrum analyzer directly into the antenna port on a disabled card that was stacked on top of a card that was transmitting. Bleed-over on the adjacent channels started at -76 Won't be doing that anymore! Just thought I would share this valuable information with the list. For more tests at different channel widths and such check out this thread. http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7 http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7t=30657p=204642#p204642 t=30657p=204642#p204642 Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?
So what kind of throughput are you getting from that setup? LOL! Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 11:28 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere? If anyone is like me and ever wondered how bad that stacking cards of the same band in RB333 or RB433 interfere with each other, well, I finally answered my own question. I've been wondering this for the past 3 years and no one could really give an answer, or show proof. Well I bought a spectrum analyzer and decided to do some testing. I plugged the spectrum analyzer directly into the antenna port on a disabled card that was stacked on top of a card that was transmitting. Bleed-over on the adjacent channels started at -76 Won't be doing that anymore! Just thought I would share this valuable information with the list. For more tests at different channel widths and such check out this thread. http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7 http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7t=30657p=204642#p204642 t=30657p=204642#p204642 Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
