Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
Iirc Lots of wifi cards can tx on 5 and 10 MHz channels but would still receive at 20 MHz Sent from my Motorola Startac... On Nov 23, 2009, at 2:35 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Less chance of an issue but the issue is more damaging is this point. On 11/23/09, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: However, if the noise is outside of the 10mhz channel size (say 5mhz on each side), the 10mhz link will work perfect, while the 20mhz link will have loss and latency. With smaller channel sizes, you have LESS of a chance of having noise issues. Travis Microserv Jayson Baker wrote: Doesn't matter. If the interference is there, it's there. If your radio has no where to spread out the signal and avoid that interference, you're dead. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.comwrote: Right but you have another 6db to get a stronger signal. On 11/22/09, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com wrote: Yes, you get more signal, but you have much less spectrum for your spread spectrum radio to operate in. Spread spectrum doesn't always use the full 20MHz, it will skip around -- that's the spread part of it. So if you lower that to 5MHz, then you have virtually no spread and anything that may be inside that 5MHz will cause you a much more deteriorated performance than if it was in your 20MHz. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: I should think the opposite is true. Halve the signal, improve signal to noise 3 dB. Half it again and the improvement is 6 dB signal to noise. Should give you way more margin. My tests prove that out. At 08:44 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: IIRC, 5MHz and 10MHz is more sucepstible to interference than 20MHz. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS ilopezli...@sandboxitsolutions.com wrote: I'm gonna have to set up the environment again. Only thing I cant simulate right now is distance. As long as it wasnt some voodoo config setting that made it work better, I might have to play with the Mobile NS2's settings for it to play nicely. OT: What is CCQ? -Israel Josh Luthman wrote: It is very weird isn't it? Vi is better the Emacs. On 11/22/09, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg mailto:ch...@shelbybb.comch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 mailto:ch...@shelbybb.comch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of mailto:os10ru...@gmail.comos10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel mailto:os10ru...@gmail.comos10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes mailto:os10ru...@gmail.comos10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w/ 24dBi Directional (HPOL Alignment) -70dbm RSSI Any ideas? We are planning on using 10MHz channels H-Pol to combat any future spectrum pollution and voice calls over this network is expected. -Israel WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: mailto:wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelesshttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg mailto:ch...@shelbybb.comch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 mailto:ch...@shelbybb.comch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of mailto:os10ru...@gmail.comos10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel mailto:os10ru...@gmail.comos10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes mailto:os10ru...@gmail.comos10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
nicely. OT: What is CCQ? -Israel Josh Luthman wrote: It is very weird isn't it? Vi is better the Emacs. On 11/22/09, Mike mailto:m...@aweiowa.comm...@aweiowa.com wrote: Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg mailto:ch...@shelbybb.comch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 mailto:ch...@shelbybb.comch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of mailto:os10ru...@gmail.comos10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel mailto:os10ru...@gmail.comos10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes mailto:os10ru...@gmail.comos10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
: IIRC, 5MHz and 10MHz is more sucepstible to interference than 20MHz. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS mailto:ilopezli...@sandboxitsolutions.comilopezli...@sandboxitsolutions.com wrote: I'm gonna have to set up the environment again. Only thing I cant simulate right now is distance. As long as it wasnt some voodoo config setting that made it work better, I might have to play with the Mobile NS2's settings for it to play nicely. OT: What is CCQ? -Israel Josh Luthman wrote: It is very weird isn't it? Vi is better the Emacs. On 11/22/09, Mike mailto:m...@aweiowa.comm...@aweiowa.com wrote: Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg mailto:ch...@shelbybb.comch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 mailto:ch...@shelbybb.comch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of mailto:os10ru...@gmail.comos10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel mailto:os10ru...@gmail.comos10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
Yeah, the new AirOS firmware is supposed to give priority to voice. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 5:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Are you running the latest firmare on the units? I think they just released a new firmware in the last couple of days that fixes many problems. Travis Microserv Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w/ 24dBi Directional (HPOL Alignment) -70dbm RSSI Any ideas? We are planning on using 10MHz channels H-Pol to combat any future spectrum pollution and voice calls over this network is expected. -Israel 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] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
Newest as in the firmware that came out on Saturday? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Israel Lopez-LISTS Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w/ 24dBi Directional (HPOL Alignment) -70dbm RSSI Any ideas? We are planning on using 10MHz channels H-Pol to combat any future spectrum pollution and voice calls over this network is expected. -Israel 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] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
No. I didn't upgrade firmware on Saturday. I checked firmware on Friday and upgraded the units. Files used are: NanoStation2-v3.5.build4494.bin Bullet2HP-v3.5.build4494.bin I'm gonna go setup the gear this afternoon. Robert West wrote: Newest as in the firmware that came out on Saturday? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Israel Lopez-LISTS Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w/ 24dBi Directional (HPOL Alignment) -70dbm RSSI Any ideas? We are planning on using 10MHz channels H-Pol to combat any future spectrum pollution and voice calls over this network is expected. -Israel 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/ 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] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
Sorry, yeah, that's the latest. Was late Friday when it came out. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Israel Lopez-LISTS Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 4:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? No. I didn't upgrade firmware on Saturday. I checked firmware on Friday and upgraded the units. Files used are: NanoStation2-v3.5.build4494.bin Bullet2HP-v3.5.build4494.bin I'm gonna go setup the gear this afternoon. Robert West wrote: Newest as in the firmware that came out on Saturday? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Israel Lopez-LISTS Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w/ 24dBi Directional (HPOL Alignment) -70dbm RSSI Any ideas? We are planning on using 10MHz channels H-Pol to combat any future spectrum pollution and voice calls over this network is expected. -Israel 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/ 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] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
Are you running the latest firmare on the units? I think they just released a new firmware in the last couple of days that fixes many problems. Travis Microserv Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w/ 24dBi Directional (HPOL Alignment) -70dbm RSSI Any ideas? We are planning on using 10MHz channels H-Pol to combat any future spectrum pollution and voice calls over this network is expected. -Israel 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] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w/ 24dBi Directional (HPOL Alignment) -70dbm RSSI Any ideas? We are planning on using 10MHz channels H-Pol to combat any future spectrum pollution and voice calls over this network is expected. -Israel 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] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
@Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w/ 24dBi Directional (HPOL Alignment) -70dbm RSSI Any ideas? We are planning on using 10MHz channels H-Pol to combat any future spectrum pollution and voice calls over this network is expected. -Israel 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] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w/ 24dBi Directional (HPOL Alignment) -70dbm RSSI Any ideas? We are planning on using 10MHz channels H-Pol to combat any future spectrum pollution and voice calls over this network is expected. -Israel 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] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w/ 24dBi Directional (HPOL Alignment) -70dbm RSSI Any ideas? We are planning on using 10MHz channels H-Pol to combat any future spectrum pollution and voice calls over this network is expected. -Israel 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/ 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] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w/ 24dBi Directional (HPOL Alignment) -70dbm RSSI Any ideas? We are planning on using 10MHz channels H-Pol to combat any future spectrum pollution and voice calls over this network is expected. -Israel 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/ 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
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w/ 24dBi Directional (HPOL Alignment) -70dbm RSSI Any ideas? We are planning on using 10MHz channels H-Pol to combat any future spectrum pollution and voice calls over this network is expected. -Israel 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
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w/ 24dBi Directional (HPOL Alignment) -70dbm RSSI Any ideas? We are planning on using 10MHz channels H-Pol to combat any future spectrum pollution and voice calls over this network is expected. -Israel 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] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w/ 24dBi Directional (HPOL Alignment) -70dbm RSSI Any ideas? We are planning on using 10MHz channels H-Pol to combat any future spectrum pollution and voice calls over this network is expected. -Israel WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
It is very weird isn't it? Vi is better the Emacs. On 11/22/09, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w/ 24dBi Directional (HPOL Alignment) -70dbm RSSI Any ideas? We are planning on using 10MHz channels H-Pol to combat any future spectrum pollution and voice calls over this network is expected. -Israel
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
I'm gonna have to set up the environment again. Only thing I cant simulate right now is distance. As long as it wasnt some voodoo config setting that made it work better, I might have to play with the Mobile NS2's settings for it to play nicely. OT: What is CCQ? -Israel Josh Luthman wrote: It is very weird isn't it? Vi is better the Emacs. On 11/22/09, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
IIRC, 5MHz and 10MHz is more sucepstible to interference than 20MHz. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS ilopezli...@sandboxitsolutions.com wrote: I'm gonna have to set up the environment again. Only thing I cant simulate right now is distance. As long as it wasnt some voodoo config setting that made it work better, I might have to play with the Mobile NS2's settings for it to play nicely. OT: What is CCQ? -Israel Josh Luthman wrote: It is very weird isn't it? Vi is better the Emacs. On 11/22/09, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
From http://www.ubnt.com/forum/showthread.php?p=53556: Client Connection Quality On Nov 22, 2009, at 9:38 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: I'm gonna have to set up the environment again. Only thing I cant simulate right now is distance. As long as it wasnt some voodoo config setting that made it work better, I might have to play with the Mobile NS2's settings for it to play nicely. OT: What is CCQ? -Israel Josh Luthman wrote: It is very weird isn't it? Vi is better the Emacs. On 11/22/09, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
LOL, I guess my little image didn't get embedded. Some connections are 12, some 48, and the closest 54. Mike At 08:13 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: It is very weird isn't it? Vi is better the Emacs. On 11/22/09, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
Am I reading it correctly that your AP is transmitting at 12Mbit modulation on a 5MHz channel, which is 3MBit aggregate at best case scenario? If you do a speed test, what is the best download you can get out of it? 3-400kB/s? On an aggregate level, your VoIP would probably have an issue the first time one of the other CPE's start's receiving data. Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 9:54 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? LOL, I guess my little image didn't get embedded. Some connections are 12, some 48, and the closest 54. Mike At 08:13 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: It is very weird isn't it? Vi is better the Emacs. On 11/22/09, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
There are 5 customers on it. It is horizontal, and yes, 5 MHz. I call it my trouble sector. I put on a handful of those distant trouble customers. The greatly improved signal to noise makes it work quite well. I don't think any of them are doing VOIP. I see greater than 12 on a couple of them? At 09:04 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: Am I reading it correctly that your AP is transmitting at 12Mbit modulation on a 5MHz channel, which is 3MBit aggregate at best case scenario? If you do a speed test, what is the best download you can get out of it? 3-400kB/s? On an aggregate level, your VoIP would probably have an issue the first time one of the other CPE's start's receiving data. Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 9:54 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? LOL, I guess my little image didn't get embedded. Some connections are 12, some 48, and the closest 54. Mike At 08:13 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: It is very weird isn't it? Vi is better the Emacs. On 11/22/09, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
I should think the opposite is true. Halve the signal, improve signal to noise 3 dB. Half it again and the improvement is 6 dB signal to noise. Should give you way more margin. My tests prove that out. At 08:44 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: IIRC, 5MHz and 10MHz is more sucepstible to interference than 20MHz. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS ilopezli...@sandboxitsolutions.com wrote: I'm gonna have to set up the environment again. Only thing I cant simulate right now is distance. As long as it wasnt some voodoo config setting that made it work better, I might have to play with the Mobile NS2's settings for it to play nicely. OT: What is CCQ? -Israel Josh Luthman wrote: It is very weird isn't it? Vi is better the Emacs. On 11/22/09, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
I think what he is trying to say that given a noise pattern on your 2.4ISM band, a 20MHz signal may be in that noise about lets say 25% of your bandwidth footprint. If you decide to drop down to 5MHz and move your center frequency right onto that noise then you might have just put yourself right on top of the noise. It would seem more susceptible to the noise even if you have the power to get over it. In my case; I'm replacing a network that is a 40MHz 802.11G WDS network that works 'decently' 800kbps-3mbps if you have a good day, an 100kbps on a bad day. It makes sense when we dropped down to a 20MHz channel that the performance dropped. *There are other problems that we are addressing, thermal resets, no QoS, no firmware upgrades, cheap equipment, bad design etc,.* This is in Honduras. We noted other ISM2.4 users at around 3km away using a 9dBi omni vpol using WiSPY 2.4x approximately -81 to -78 dbm in some spots on the 2.4Band. HPOL made it much quieter. -Israel Mike wrote: I should think the opposite is true. Halve the signal, improve signal to noise 3 dB. Half it again and the improvement is 6 dB signal to noise. Should give you way more margin. My tests prove that out. At 08:44 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: IIRC, 5MHz and 10MHz is more sucepstible to interference than 20MHz. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS ilopezli...@sandboxitsolutions.com wrote: I'm gonna have to set up the environment again. Only thing I cant simulate right now is distance. As long as it wasnt some voodoo config setting that made it work better, I might have to play with the Mobile NS2's settings for it to play nicely. OT: What is CCQ? -Israel Josh Luthman wrote: It is very weird isn't it? Vi is better the Emacs. On 11/22/09, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
Yes, you get more signal, but you have much less spectrum for your spread spectrum radio to operate in. Spread spectrum doesn't always use the full 20MHz, it will skip around -- that's the spread part of it. So if you lower that to 5MHz, then you have virtually no spread and anything that may be inside that 5MHz will cause you a much more deteriorated performance than if it was in your 20MHz. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: I should think the opposite is true. Halve the signal, improve signal to noise 3 dB. Half it again and the improvement is 6 dB signal to noise. Should give you way more margin. My tests prove that out. At 08:44 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: IIRC, 5MHz and 10MHz is more sucepstible to interference than 20MHz. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS ilopezli...@sandboxitsolutions.com wrote: I'm gonna have to set up the environment again. Only thing I cant simulate right now is distance. As long as it wasnt some voodoo config setting that made it work better, I might have to play with the Mobile NS2's settings for it to play nicely. OT: What is CCQ? -Israel Josh Luthman wrote: It is very weird isn't it? Vi is better the Emacs. On 11/22/09, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
Right but you have another 6db to get a stronger signal. On 11/22/09, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com wrote: Yes, you get more signal, but you have much less spectrum for your spread spectrum radio to operate in. Spread spectrum doesn't always use the full 20MHz, it will skip around -- that's the spread part of it. So if you lower that to 5MHz, then you have virtually no spread and anything that may be inside that 5MHz will cause you a much more deteriorated performance than if it was in your 20MHz. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: I should think the opposite is true. Halve the signal, improve signal to noise 3 dB. Half it again and the improvement is 6 dB signal to noise. Should give you way more margin. My tests prove that out. At 08:44 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: IIRC, 5MHz and 10MHz is more sucepstible to interference than 20MHz. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS ilopezli...@sandboxitsolutions.com wrote: I'm gonna have to set up the environment again. Only thing I cant simulate right now is distance. As long as it wasnt some voodoo config setting that made it work better, I might have to play with the Mobile NS2's settings for it to play nicely. OT: What is CCQ? -Israel Josh Luthman wrote: It is very weird isn't it? Vi is better the Emacs. On 11/22/09, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
Doesn't matter. If the interference is there, it's there. If your radio has no where to spread out the signal and avoid that interference, you're dead. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.comwrote: Right but you have another 6db to get a stronger signal. On 11/22/09, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com wrote: Yes, you get more signal, but you have much less spectrum for your spread spectrum radio to operate in. Spread spectrum doesn't always use the full 20MHz, it will skip around -- that's the spread part of it. So if you lower that to 5MHz, then you have virtually no spread and anything that may be inside that 5MHz will cause you a much more deteriorated performance than if it was in your 20MHz. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: I should think the opposite is true. Halve the signal, improve signal to noise 3 dB. Half it again and the improvement is 6 dB signal to noise. Should give you way more margin. My tests prove that out. At 08:44 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: IIRC, 5MHz and 10MHz is more sucepstible to interference than 20MHz. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS ilopezli...@sandboxitsolutions.com wrote: I'm gonna have to set up the environment again. Only thing I cant simulate right now is distance. As long as it wasnt some voodoo config setting that made it work better, I might have to play with the Mobile NS2's settings for it to play nicely. OT: What is CCQ? -Israel Josh Luthman wrote: It is very weird isn't it? Vi is better the Emacs. On 11/22/09, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
Less chance of an issue but the issue is more damaging is this point. On 11/23/09, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: However, if the noise is outside of the 10mhz channel size (say 5mhz on each side), the 10mhz link will work perfect, while the 20mhz link will have loss and latency. With smaller channel sizes, you have LESS of a chance of having noise issues. Travis Microserv Jayson Baker wrote: Doesn't matter. If the interference is there, it's there. If your radio has no where to spread out the signal and avoid that interference, you're dead. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.comwrote: Right but you have another 6db to get a stronger signal. On 11/22/09, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com wrote: Yes, you get more signal, but you have much less spectrum for your spread spectrum radio to operate in. Spread spectrum doesn't always use the full 20MHz, it will skip around -- that's the spread part of it. So if you lower that to 5MHz, then you have virtually no spread and anything that may be inside that 5MHz will cause you a much more deteriorated performance than if it was in your 20MHz. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: I should think the opposite is true. Halve the signal, improve signal to noise 3 dB. Half it again and the improvement is 6 dB signal to noise. Should give you way more margin. My tests prove that out. At 08:44 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: IIRC, 5MHz and 10MHz is more sucepstible to interference than 20MHz. On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS ilopezli...@sandboxitsolutions.com wrote: I'm gonna have to set up the environment again. Only thing I cant simulate right now is distance. As long as it wasnt some voodoo config setting that made it work better, I might have to play with the Mobile NS2's settings for it to play nicely. OT: What is CCQ? -Israel Josh Luthman wrote: It is very weird isn't it? Vi is better the Emacs. On 11/22/09, Mike m...@aweiowa.com wrote: Josh: I thought that too. I have a handful of customers on a 5 MHz sector. Winbox shows this: Emacs! Mike At 07:32 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: I believe when you half the channels the rates also get halved - from 54mbit to 27mbit max (that is from 20mhz to 10mhz channels). I also can't see why you're voice would be having problems in half or quarter channels unless there is a software bug. It should only improve unless you're using all available bandwidth. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --- Albert Einstein On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote: First, you should have a better signal than -70 at 5Miles away with a 24dB/NS2 antenna and a B2HP/9dB omni. I get 65 or better with a 19dB panel. Don't forget, 10MHz channel is 1/2 available bandwidth and 5MHz is 1/4 available bandwidth. Really, you will get about 7-10MBit aggregate (depending on how many customers) on a 5MHz channel connected at 54MBit, which requires signals at -74dBm with a good fade margin (10dB). Also, the TX power is significantly less for 54MBps (23dBm) vs 24MBps(28dBm), less than half. Likely, you are connecting at 48MBps or 36Mbps, which at that rate your total available real case bandwidth is as little as 4MBps, while at 20MHz you are at 15+. A narrower channel should not affect your transmission, likely will make signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame
Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice?
signals better, roughly double (+3dBm) from 20-10, and double from 10-5(total +6dBm). Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 10MHz, 5MHz - unstable for voice? Well next time definitely bring more food! Beef jerky and granola bars. In my testing the narrower channels just made things slower. I was testing in a pristine area where there was no other 5.8GHz going on. From what I hear if the environment had been polluted performance might have actually gone up with the narrower channels. From what I've read narrower channels doesn't effect packet size or transport. But switching to WDS bridged does. Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Its not in the field, but it is sitting here in my bedroom looking cool :). I was thinking that using the 10/5MHz bandwidth required one to setup something else. I'm not that familiar with the use of half/quarter rate channels and how that affects the frame transport/packet size etc,. I wonder if it was environment based rather than 'software/configuration' based. If I get some time this evening I might setup the gear again for more focused testing (Testing in the field with volunteers who are cold and hungry dont usually respond well to testing plans). -Israel os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Just for kicks I'd try WDS bridged. Do you have control from where you're at now? Is the equipment still set up? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: @Travis Johnson - Yes Upgraded to newest firmware for the two units @os10rules - Nope, Fixed was simple AP and Mobile was Station modes os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: Running WDS bridged? Greg On Nov 22, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Israel Lopez-LISTS wrote: Hey All, I did some field tests (for overseas volunteer project) with some Ubituiti gear; Nanostation2 Bullet2HP. One thing that was surprising was the performance degradation when switching from 20MHz to 10MHz/5MHz. Our tests were Raw Bandwidth Tests(AirOS), Video (VLC UDP Stream), Voice (Trixbox G711 Voice Call), and MTR (Latency, Jitter) I still have data to collect and prepare a report for the tech team, but we did notice that when we switched to 10 or 5MHz bandwidth our voice calls was greatly degraded. Only one way; from Fixed to Mobile I could hear the Fixed station easily. Mobile to Fixed the voice was choppy. We started to get packet loss massive jitter on 10MHz, just going back to 20MHz made the links stable. Fixed Station: On a mountain side - HPOL 9dBI Omni Directional with a Bullet2HP @400mW Mobile Station: 8km away near large body of water - Bullet2HP @400mW w/ 24dBi Directional (HPOL Alignment) -70dbm RSSI Any ideas? We are planning on using 10MHz channels H-Pol
