Yes, the TDMA Window can be set to 2ms, 4ms or 8ms - I'm not sure what the
actual effect is on peak throughput, but it obviously makes a big
difference to latency... which is more important in this case. I'm running
it at 2ms.

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:

> IIRC, the latency is configurable, depending on what peak throughput
> you're after.
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
> *To: *"af" <af@afmug.com>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:19:05 AM
>
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results
>
> That's similar to what I'm seeing. we only have one link up so far, but
> pinging between the routers on each end of the link, I get an average of
> 5ms and minimum of 4ms.
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net>
> wrote:
>
>>  We just did some optimization of our 3 Mimosa links and latency is
>> about 18ms over 3 hops with a 50/50 setting on the traffic split so
>> basically 6ms per hop.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 15, 2015 2:03 PM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results
>>
>>
>>
>> Argh, "It wouldn't surprise me"...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Jason McKemie <
>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'd be curious to see how this actually worked at an end user's
>> location.  I wouldn't surprise me if these guys did some sort of trickery
>> or prioritization for demonstration purposes...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't have thought it would, but it kinda supports my point that if
>> you can control the other metrics, latency can go much higher on VoIP calls.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>  <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> *From: *"Jeremy" <jeremysmi...@gmail.com>
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Saturday, February 14, 2015 9:51:28 PM
>>
>>
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results
>>
>> I talked to the Exede guys at AF.  After running a speedtest with 650+ms
>> of latency they told me that their VoIP works perfectly.  I called BS and
>> they had it hooked up and said feel free.  I called my wife and had about a
>> five minute conversation.  I have noticed worse lag on the AT&T VoIP
>> service locally (like where you are constantly talking over the top of each
>> other).  It had two very small, almost unnoticeable, points where it
>> 'chopped out' a bit.  I was completely blown away.  Apparently VoIP can
>> work fine with 700ms latency.  I never would have believed it if I hadn't
>> seen it myself.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Well if there is a mention of latency (and whether there is or isn't)
>> will speak volumes about the influence (or lack thereof) of the satellite
>> broadband industry.  And if there is a specification for latency (and I've
>> never understood why there isn't), then it should surely be < 500 ms, and
>> more reasonably < 100 ms, or possibly < 200 ms.  I think the tolerance
>> breakpoint for any VoIP-type service is in the area of 200-250 ms.
>>
>>
>> Exede claims to support some type of VoIP service these days.  Has anyone
>> had the opportunity to see how this actually works (or doesn't)?
>>
>>  bp
>>
>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/14/2015 9:34 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>
>>   I guess we really don’t know what latency, usage limit or price is
>> acceptable because the FCC hasn’t told us yet.  The Report & Order
>> resulting from Proceeding 14-126 didn’t set benchmarks for them.  Maybe
>> Mike says 100 ms because that’s the limit for CAF II funding.  Round trip
>> to the Internet exchange point.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net>
>>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 14, 2015 11:11 AM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results
>>
>>
>>
>> 100 ms end to end. That user device to the far server. If you're like
>> Josh in Alaska, there's 30 - 40 ms before you even get anywhere in the
>> cables down to Seattle. The Internet seems to work okay for him.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> *From: *"Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> <af...@kwisp.com>
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Saturday, February 14, 2015 10:12:19 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results
>>
>> I think Kurt’s point, which I agree with, is this is a PTP product, and
>> backhaul latencies get multiplied by the number of hops, while you only
>> have one “last mile”.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can perhaps use licensed or other FDD radios for the first few hops
>> and go cheap with the last few hops at the farthest reaches of your
>> network, especially if there is a plan to upgrade these in the future.
>> That doesn’t work so good though if you have a backhaul ring.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Rory that 10 ms isn’t a bid deal.  I don’t agree with Mike
>> that 100 ms doesn’t really matter.  The problem is that a whole bunch of 10
>> ms links adds up to 100 ms.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also I worry that some CDN’s use fancy new TCP stacks that back off based
>> on latency rather than packet loss as an indicator of congestion.  I think
>> they are wrong to assume that everyone uses infinite buffers for queuing
>> rather than packet drop, but they don’t ask my opinion.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* John Woodfield <john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz>
>>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 14, 2015 10:01 AM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results
>>
>>
>>
>> Not to mention the UBNT gear under load has at least that much latency...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John Woodfield Delmarva WiFi http://www.delmarvawifi.com cell (410)
>> 708-1937
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net> <r...@triadwireless.net>
>> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 10:10am
>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> <af@afmug.com> <af@afmug.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results
>>
>> ADSL latencies used to be over 40ms or more.  Cable latencies are about
>> 10ms from my router to the first hop so 10ms isn’t that big a deal.   I
>> agree with you Mike.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 14, 2015 7:45 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results
>>
>>
>>
>> A lot of WISPs get hardons over low latencies, but as long as end-to-end
>> is under 100 ms or so, it doesn't really matter.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> *From: *"Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com>
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Saturday, February 14, 2015 8:39:27 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results
>>
>> I wonder if WISPs are going to be part of a trend toward higher latencies.
>>
>>
>>
>> It used to be customers mainly did web browsing and really noticed
>> whether the websites snapped up immediately or lagged.  Now everyone is
>> streaming, streaming, streaming.  And websites are more worried about
>> tracking cookies and on-the-fly ad auctions for your eyeballs than
>> responsiveness.  Plus people use mobile devices and are accustomed to the
>> higher last mile latency of 3G and LTE.
>>
>>
>>
>> Still it’s a little disappointing to backslide on latency because
>> customers don’t value quick response like they used to.  They just want
>> mass quantities of data to watch video, as cheap as possible.
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess gamers still care about ping times.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Erich Kaiser <er...@northcentraltower.com>
>>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 14, 2015 7:44 AM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results
>>
>>
>>
>> I would assume AF5x is going to be the same issue if you are using GPS?
>>
>>
>>
>> Erich Kaiser
>>
>> North Central Tower Consulting
>>
>> er...@northcentraltower.com
>>
>> Office: 630-621-4804
>>
>> Cell: 630-777-9291
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Kurt Fankhauser <li...@wavelinc.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I can't afford 8-12ms of latency 7 hops out... Time for some Full Duplex
>> links I suppose....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kurt Fankhauser
>>
>> Wavelinc Communications
>>
>> P.O. Box 126
>>
>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>>
>> http://www.wavelinc.com
>>
>> tel. 419-562-6405
>>
>> fax. 419-617-0110
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Erich Kaiser <
>> er...@northcentraltower.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Mimosa seems awesome so far (Except for lack of SNMP support, which
>> is coming in April).  If you have GPS sync it seems to run between
>> 8ms-12ms.
>>
>>
>>
>> Erich Kaiser
>>
>> North Central Tower Consulting
>>
>> er...@northcentraltower.com
>>
>> Office: 630-621-4804
>>
>> Cell: 630-777-9291
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Kurt Fankhauser <li...@wavelinc.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I was hoping to replace a Ligowave link I have that's running on 40mhz. I
>> don't feel like burning up a whole 80mhz of spectrum through, so I think
>> I'll be buying a PTP-650 especially since I need DFS freq's.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kurt Fankhauser
>>
>> Wavelinc Communications
>>
>> P.O. Box 126
>>
>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>>
>> http://www.wavelinc.com
>>
>> tel. 419-562-6405
>>
>> fax. 419-617-0110
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I see that they sell them on the 'Trango store' now too.  Pretty sweet.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, that is what I was told at Animal Farm also.  It seems like doing
>> something specific or something in the wrong order makes them not work.
>> Next time I guess I'll have to follow directions, LOL.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Kurt Fankhauser <li...@wavelinc.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Jeremy,
>>
>>
>>
>> I ended up having to default the units and then follow the quick start
>> guide to the T. There must be some bugs to work out in the firmware cause
>> when I ordered them the guy told me to follow the quick start to the T.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kurt Fankhauser
>>
>> Wavelinc Communications
>>
>> P.O. Box 126
>>
>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>>
>> http://www.wavelinc.com
>>
>> tel. 419-562-6405
>>
>> fax. 419-617-0110
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I also didn't follow the guide the first time.  On subsequent attempts I
>> did, but it seemed like something was wrong with them at that point.
>> Anyway, it's nice to see someone having some success.  The platform looks
>> like it has a lot of potential.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Kurt Fankhauser <li...@wavelinc.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Jeremy,
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes I had issues but I didn't call support. It took me almost 2 hours to
>> get the two radios to see each other but I finally got them too. I wasn't
>> following the PTP quick start guide like I was told to. When I initially
>> configured the radios I disabled the 2nd port (called WAN) in the manual.
>> For some reason they would not link until I turned it back on. Even though
>> I wasn't using the WAN port.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kurt Fankhauser
>>
>> Wavelinc Communications
>>
>> P.O. Box 126
>>
>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>>
>> http://www.wavelinc.com
>>
>> tel. 419-562-6405
>>
>> fax. 419-617-0110
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  I had some issues with the configuration and couldn't ever get them to
>> pass traffic.  Did you run into any issues that required support?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  I saw that too when I was reviewing the brochure this morning. I was
>> just assuming they were considering this a long range product.  Kurt, do
>> you mind telling me what those radios cost?
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Kurt Fankhauser
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 13, 2015 7:36 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Trango Altum AC PTP test results
>>
>>
>>
>> Just got done testing a Trango Altum AC PTP link on the bench. Units are
>> 25db integrated panels. Did a 40mhz channel test and 80mhz via UDP. I tried
>> a TCP test between two RB2011's and best I seen was 175-180'ish and that
>> was with both 40 and 80mhz channels. CPU seemed to be maxing out on the
>> 2011's.
>>
>>
>>
>> Has UNI-1 bands and ISM bands. I was hoping it had the middle DFS bands
>> but it doesn't :(
>>
>>
>>
>> Kurt Fankhauser
>>
>> Wavelinc Communications
>>
>> P.O. Box 126
>>
>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>>
>> http://www.wavelinc.com
>>
>> tel. 419-562-6405
>>
>> fax. 419-617-0110
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Reply via email to