What would you like them to add for monitoring and troubleshooting? On Sep 23, 2012 4:22 PM, "Doug Clark" <d...@txox.com> wrote:
> +1 on the fact that radio's should only be a transparent bridge. I > do love all the features that some manufacturers give you to trouble shoot > problems though. > UBNT is not one of those companies....... They lack a lot when it comes > to trouble shooting and monitoring the link!! > > > > > *-------Original Message-------* > > *From:* Fred Goldstein <fgoldst...@ionary.com> > *Date:* 9/23/2012 9:43:40 AM > *To:* WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org>; WISPA General > List<wireless@wispa.org> > *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links? > > At 9/23/2012 06:17 AM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote: > >Hi All, > > > >I have noticed that lately many collegues are using Ubiquiti Nanobridge > >M5 (the one with small parabolic dish) and the product is nice for the > >signal (more or less). > > > >Unfortunately, I do not see in the *same price range*, the same product > >from Mikrotik. The only thing that I see is "SEXTANT 5HnD" which is > >declared to be 18dBi (much less that the 23dBi DECLARED by Ubiquiti) > > Antenna gain is almost entirely a function of size; with a dish, it's > pretty straightforward. The NM5 has 326 and 400 mm dish versions, > for 22 and 25 dB nominal gain. The Sextant is 250 mm; the SXT is 140 > mm. Smaller dishes means less directivity and lower gain, but also > less wind load and visibility. Neither one is "better" in that > regard; they're just different. And they tend to price out a bit > better than buying a radio and dish separately, but not by much. > > >What I do not like of Ubiquiti is that compared to mikrotik it has much > >less features, for example no mac-ping/mac-telnet or multiple SSID (ok > >you can have multiple SSID if you use the CLI and the linux command line > >and maybe it will be implemented in the future) > > > >Therefore, I really wonder if those 18 vs 23 are real or just what you > >think from your field experience. > > Those features are just software and have nothing to do with the gain > of the antenna. It's like comparing horsepower of a car's engine > with the comfort of the seats. Personally I don't think the radio > unit itself should do more than pass along Ethernet frames > transparently, and respond to management, but since everybody's > working from a Linux kernel and that already has lots of other > capabilities, people expect their radios to also be routers. > > > -- > Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > +1 617 795 2701 > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
