The 110 PTP unit has sync on board...disabled...expect that's to keep us from buying that unit and swapping the radios for a connectorized unit without sync. :-)
I expect that, like the connectorized radio without sync, that you can take sync from a different source, like a CMM4. Jeff Broadwick ConVergence Technologies, Inc. 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell jbroadw...@converge-tech.com > On Nov 22, 2014, at 12:31 PM, Paul McCall via Af <af@afmug.com> wrote: > > For Cambium.... we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers. > Everything is OSPF but logically... > > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist > devices) is "fed" by... > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable bandwidth > and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G > > Tower R then feeds... > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act. > There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to > each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the > backside links. > > The challenge... > > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I need > better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect and then > I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. > > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other than a > ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is inexpensive. > > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsynced.... can it sync, now or tomorrow? > Latency with sync? > > Paul > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > >> Hi, >> >> Please allow me to clarify. >> >> The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE >> ports. >> >> The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the >> single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. >> GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board >> GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). >> >> The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 >> and will apply to both products. > > Reading this spec sheet. > > http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf > >>>> LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame >>>> Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode)
