Tom, can you confirm if your test RB532's had connection tracking disabled

Yes, connection tracking was disabled.

and cpu set at 330MHz?

Most likely No.  I do not know how to set that, so it is set at default.
Does this overclock the board? Or some other purpose?

There is a company in the UK
that mass produces outdoor grade Mikrotik solutions with 1GHz x86 CPU's so
that the CPU is no longer the bottle neck. We are in the process of tested a
few off the shelf x86 boards in outdoor enclosures using 56byte random TCP
data in both directions at the same time on a single CM9 in turbo mode and
have been able to get 37-38Mbps in both directions (about 75Mbps aggregate)
which seems to be better than most other more expensive options. These
results don't change if we then use larger packets of 1500bytes.

I made contact with them as well. They have some exciting products. But they are pricey compared to the self made systems. Meaning they are charging for the value of the faster solution, not by the cost to make it. Concern buying from them is not as much cost, as availabilty, buying only from one source that is out of country. However, we are still keeping them in mind.

Tom DeReggi



-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler
Sent: 12 August 2006 06:48
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

If you are interested, here is the real world test results from my
house to the office through a middle repeater, so it involves 4
Atheros radios and three of our WAR4 533 MHz systems.  The middle
repeater has 4 radios, two of which are used in this test.  The end
points are x86 servers, (a 600 MHz P3 and a 2.4 GHz P4  both running
new V3 x86PC) so the test shows available throughput and does not load
the radios with the speed test software.  Our own speed test shows a
bit higher but is in the right ballpark and also uses tcp.


war-platform ~ > traceroute
traceroute to (, 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 (  1.017 ms  0.593 ms  0.536 ms
2 (  1.426 ms  1.519 ms  1.242 ms
3 (  2.176 ms  2.467 ms  2.256 ms
4 (  3.058 ms  2.852 ms  2.545 ms
war-platform ~ > iperf -c
Client connecting to, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
[  8] local port 4716 connected with port 5001
[  8]  0.0-10.0 sec  61.6 MBytes  51.6 Mbits/sec
war-platform ~ > iperf -c -d
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
Client connecting to, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
[ 10] local port 4717 connected with port 5001
[  9] local port 5001 connected with port 1340
[ 10]  0.0-10.0 sec  25.9 MBytes  21.7 Mbits/sec
[  9]  0.0-10.0 sec  42.6 MBytes  35.6 Mbits/sec
war-platform ~ >
war-platform ~ > starutil he1pm3 -rx
rx rate: 5598 KB/sec  (Press Ctrl-C to exit)
war-platform ~ >

Next week I will upgrade our server 100 km away to V3 for x86PC and
report the results for the following system that goes through 4
repeaters (radio in and radio out mid point) and a unit at each end,
so 10 radios are involved.  The remote server does not have iperf but
I have shown the results of our own speedtest which the first test
shows is pretty close to what iperf will show.

war-platform ~ > traceroute
traceroute to (, 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 (  1.031 ms  0.683 ms  0.548 ms
2 (  1.701 ms  1.253 ms  1.895 ms
3 (  2.737 ms  2.982 ms  2.267 ms
4 (  3.649 ms  2.653 ms  2.51 ms
5 (  4.644 ms  3.539 ms  3.661 ms
6 (  5.651 ms  4.832 ms  5.519 ms
7 (  7.248 ms  5.907 ms  5.803 ms
8 (  7.314 ms  6.75 ms  5.856 ms
war-platform ~ >
war-platform ~ > starutil password -rx
rx rate: 2306 KB/sec  (Press Ctrl-C to exit)
war-platform ~ >

On 8/11/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Task: Test Max Speed doable using Mikrotik NStreme 2 (two MPCI cards in

test environment...

AMD 3Ghz Laptop wired -> Mikrotik 532 w/ CM9 -> Mikrotik 532 w/CM9 ->
to HP PIII-800Mhz Laptop.
Connected in a lab environment, zero noise.

Mikrotik OS ver 2.9.28

Test software 1: IPerf TCP running on both Laptops.
Test software 2: Mikrotik Bandwidth test running on Mikrotiks.

Test Method 1 (running test to/from Laptops): used about 80% CPU power on
Mikrotik board to pass the traffic.

Test Method 2 (running to.from MIkrotik): used about 100% CPU power on

However, interesting enough, the results of the speed tests, whichever
method used, were just about identical, give or take 1 mbps.

The results of tests were....

Maximum speed transferable in one direction 20Mhz channel: 16.6 mbps.
Maximum speed transferable in both direction simultaneously (adding
the values) 20.8 mbps (13.8 mbps and 7 mbps in the other).
Maximum speed transferable in one direction 10 mhz channel: 15.8 mbps.
Maximum speed transferable in both directions 10 Mhz channel: 19 mbps
mbps and 9 mbps)
Maximum speed transferable in one direction Turbo Mode speed: 18 mbps
Maximum speed transferable in both direction simultaneously Turbo Mode
(adding together the values): 22mbps.

Note: Turbo mode tested in two configurations, (A) the lowest 5.8G channel
send and highest 5.8G channel for receive, and (B) 5.8Ghz to send and
Note: All 5.8Ghz test results were at 54 mbps speed modulation, and
it to slower speed/modulation lowered the test speed results.
Note: Test performed with RSSI somewhere between -60 and -68, without
antennas, but w/ high quality pigtails w/Bulk head N, Pointing N
to each other.
Note: Re-tried tests with antennas used, to increase RSSI (-50 to -60 db),
but it did not improve results.
Note: All tests done when in NStreme2 mode, using two cards on each end.
Note: Both boards mounted in Mikrotik Plastic Large Case (sweet cases) and
using 18V (.8amp) via POE.

One thing that was really odd...  Mikrotik has a value for TX rssi and RX
rssi. The TX rssi was the exact RX rssi acheived at the otehr radio in all
cases in any slot, in any configuration.
However, the CM9 in the TOP Slot of the 532 board consistently showed an
average of 10 db worse TX RSSI. (sometimes around -75 db).  Swapping TX
did not help. TX from the top slot on either of the Mikrotik CPEs showed
same results.  The only way I was able to make the TX rssis the same on
CPEs simultaneously was to set the BOTTOM port/CM9 on each Mikrotik to be
the TX radio.  This indicated that the 532 board possibly might have a
problem to the top slot. In this configuration, at 54mbps, RSSI was about
-65 TX and RX on both CPEs.

My conclusion of this experiment was that the ideal configuration for a
MIkrotik 532 board is with 10Mhz channels in NStreme2 mode.
Because Spectrum efficiency is maximized, Interference avoidance
Cost low, and very little aggregate speed benefit acheived by using the
larger channel sizes.

My second conclusion was that the 532 router board is inadequate, based on
processor bottlenecks, to acheive higher speeds than 20 mbps aggregate
throughput. (LAB test is best case scenario!)
And if using 20Mhz channels or higher, I don't see the point of using
Nstreme2, as 1 CM9 in straight 802.11a mode on a 532 board has been tested
to be able to pass about 14 mbps aggregate.

Mikrotik's website claims that 35 mbps aggregate can be acheived with
Celeron 700Mhz CPU PCs. Although that is a grand accomplishment at very
cost, there are significant disadvantages of that configuration in real
world deployments. Such as where do you put the PC in a shared Tenant
building, so it is close enough to the roof, so the COAX to antenna is not
going to loose valuable db, or where power is gotten from, or how is it
going to be rebooted by a customer if the power input is not from
suite? I'm sure there are many places that Full Size PCs could be
appropriate to use, but its not going to be realistic for us, until there
a 700Mhz Celeron able to be POE fed and mounted in an outdoor style CPE

What this has done is brought to my attention the value of products like
Alvarion BH40/BH100s and Trango Atlas PtPs, that can be taken for granted.
In single radio designs, BH40s usually can push 24 mbps with old 3.0
firmware, BH100 reported by some in the greater than 40mbps ranges, and
Trango Atlas PTP easilly pushes 36 mbps in most deployments, using the
tests that I used above.  So Mikrotik 532s are not a replacement for my
Trango backhauls yet!

However, on a positive note, I liked the Mikrotik Full Size CPE case,
costing only $45, allowing extra room for cable splicing boxes (to split
to other radios fed off the Mikrotik's 2nd and 3rd ports) plenty of places
to tie down pigtails, and easy plastic to drill/make holes for
Bulk N-connectors that will not pivote when moving.  I also need to think
hard that the Nstreme2 -10Mhz channel configuraton might become the
backhaul configuration to replace slower 10mbps backhauls, doubling
in the same amount of spectrum as previous options.

Feedback from others desired.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

----- Original Message -----
From: Travis Johnson
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] RouterBoard 532s


I never received an email from their support group, John Tully or anyone
else about this issue. My guess (after a month of no responses) is they
not aware of the issue and are now trying to fix it. It still surprises me
they have not publicly said anything.


Eric Rogers wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a resolution on this issue? If you browse
Mikrotik's site, the thread has been removed.


-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Sam Tetherow
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:18 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] RouterBoard 532s

Here is a thread from the MT forums on it.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Mac Dearman wrote:

Where did you get that info from Travis? Links, source...etc?

Mac Dearman



*On Behalf Of *Travis Johnson
*Sent:* Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:58 PM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] RouterBoard 532s

Maybe they pulled them off production due to the NOISE they are
blowing all over the 50-450Mhz spectrum. :(


Kelly Shaw wrote:

Anyone know of a source with RouterBoard 532s in stock?

I normally can get them from WispRouter but they won't respond to my
phone calls about them...

Kelly Shaw

Pure Internet <>

__________ NOD32 1.1657 (20060713) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.



WISPA Wireless List:



WISPA Wireless List:



Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
WISPA Wireless List:



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/416 - Release Date: 10/08/2006

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release Date: 11/08/2006

WISPA Wireless List:



WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to