That comment may have been made in the context of a particular model(specific product code) of radio... but sounds like your link radios were done with a specific BOM..
Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Craig Baird" <cr...@xpressweb.com> > To: af@afmug.com > Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 12:04:27 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration > Thanks Faisal. I hope that's the case. If it were just some random > person who made the post, I wouldn't worry so much about it. But the > post was made by one of the Cambium guys themselves. > > Craig > > > Quoting Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net>: > >> I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics.. >> However I would make a general statement .. >> >> There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link, >> there may be some context to these old wives tails, most folks in >> the industry tend to take it for face value, very few end up >> examining it for merit of correctness. Comments made by folks in the >> public forums can be the best or the worst of such examples. >> >> From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have >> the link working, then anything else would be an old wives tale. >> >> BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look >> at what Mimosa B11's can do with them.... and yes these folks did >> challenge the accepted status quo in licensed links.. >> >> Regards/ >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> 7266 SW 48 Street >> Miami, FL 33155 >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >> >> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Craig Baird" <cr...@xpressweb.com> >>> To: af@afmug.com >>> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM >>> Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration >> >>> So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link. We >>> recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a >>> little bit of frame loss that we are investigating. While looking >>> into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns >>> me. On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when >>> dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band. >>> There is no explanation of why this is the case. In our situation, >>> the radios are in separate sub-bands. When we did the frequency >>> coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in different >>> sub-bands. I passed those channels along to our vendor who worked >>> with Cambium to get a BOM. At no point did anyone say that this was a >>> problem. So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble across this >>> post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will be. Both links >>> are up and running. Signal on both is right where it should be (-39 >>> on one, -40 on the other). Both are running at maximum modulation. >>> There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces. There is >>> no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside >>> from possibly this frame loss thing. However, if I mute the radios on >>> one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related. >>> >>> In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized. On one >>> side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios. On the >>> other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish. >>> >>> So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use >>> radios from different sub-bands. Are we in for trouble at some point? >>> >>> Craig >>
