I'm not sure your assessment of UBNT not recommending to use airmax on PTP as a general statement hold true. It is unlikely that they would have built in a specific PTP noack mode into airmax configuration if it was their suggestion not to use it. I use it on lots of links and it works very well.
You are incorrect in saying airmax and nstream cannot increase throughput in comparison with 802.11n. In the real world in the wild a lot of times it is only airmax or nstream that will even let a link perform reliably, regardless of what the textbook says. Not to mention it allows our throughput to increase in contrast to your statement. Scott Carullo Technical Operations 877-804-3001 x102 ---------------------------------------- From: "Vyacheslav Vasilyev" <s...@unidata.com.ua> Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2010 3:50 PM To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Subject: Re: [WISPA] mikrotik vs ubiquiti 2010/9/5 Jeromie Reeves <jree...@18-30chat.net> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Vyacheslav Vasilyev <s...@unidata.com.ua> wrote: > What is a Rockets PPS with airmax on? Ubnt does not recomend to use Airmax On in ptp due to lower performance. We did not test it. Ubnt , MT and any other atheros 802.11n based products have aprox equal max throughput in standard 802.11n mode. But when airmax and nstreme are ON they have different performance. Tecnically Airmax is polling ( round robin algorithm ) like nstreme or turbocell/ outdoor router Proxim . Ubnt polling uses latest Atheros chipset clock timing ( ubnt calls it "tdma" ) , that may be usefull only in ptmp . Nstreme 2 is Nstreme 1, that also uses clock of atheros chipset So both airmax and Nstreme 1,2 can not increase max throughput in ptp in comparison with standard 802.11n (hardware atheros aggregation On, 2 chains) in ptp in ideal conditions( no interference). Nstreme 1,2 is able to improve 802.11n link in comparison with standard 802.11n ( Nstreme Off) mode in presence of interference or/and multipath fading due to it's feature of link parameter adaptation according packets losses rate. I do not know is Airmax support link adaptation ( modulation ) or not . I suppose -not yet. > We tested TDMA freebsd Sam Lefler MAC 802.11a implementation .at the simular > platform ( Alix, CM9) . It also has poor throughput at small packet size > ( but much better then standard 802,11a) and it is may be improved by > using more powerfull h/w. Ive read up on Sams work and have been very impressed. I looked at the BSD TDMA driver back in late 08 or early 09 (been a while), when I did it was missing glue and needed a bit of polish. It looked like adding GPS sync to it would have only been a matter of getting 2 or more AP's to hold then start on the same signal and keep the timing windows synced. Software TDMA Linux/freebsd implementation based on 802.11 chipset hardware is separate issue . I think it may be useful in ptp and our test showed promising results. With regards to ptmp IMHO it is not viable. There is standard fixed TDMA BWA techhology called fixed wimax 802.16-2004/2009. There is 802.16-2004 miniPCI cards - ASIC hardware TDMA implementation . There is TDMA 802.16-2004 BS/CPE Linux based software. For what a lot of people want full software TDMA implemenation? Vyacheslav Vasilyev UNIDATA Fixed BWA solution ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 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/
