It's easy to use. Way better than PTP820 as far as having any employee grab replacement. Single radio covers the whole network...is huge.
Jon Langeler Michwave Technologies, Inc. > On Jan 14, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Lewis Bergman <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > User interface was always a big deal to me. More important than the money. > To me is the deciding factor as most of the gigs gear pompous out very > similar bs/hz/$. The UI and SIMPLE are big factors in being able to restore > lossy service and preventing recurring outages. > > What kind of UI does the AF11 have? I have always thought that ubnt was heavy > on pretty but light on real and helpful details. > >> On Jan 14, 2017 10:36 AM, "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: >> Which cannot be determined without taking system margin into account. >> >> >> >> Cost must also take into account antennas, licensing, tower rent, and >> scarcity of spectrum. So if one system needs larger antennas, those cost >> money, and may increase tower rent. >> >> >> >> It’s too easy to focus on just radio cost and max throughput. You are on >> the right track with your last line. Can it do the job at hand. But you >> need to look at more than just the max throughput on the spec sheet to >> determine that. >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard >> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 10:25 AM >> To: af <af@afmug.com> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our UBNT AF11x experience >> >> >> >> Well, comparing bits/mhz/$, I really don't think anything else comes close >> to the AF11... the B11 might beat it on bits/$ (it's close anyway, and it >> has the advantage of more overall capacity... and SFP), and plenty of other >> radios can beat it on bits/mhz, but comparing all three the AF11 is a pretty >> clear winner. >> >> So what it really comes down to, is if it can handle enough bandwidth for a >> given link in the available spectrum. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:07 AM, Gino Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com> wrote: >> >> I’ll guess that is the way to get them produced at way lower price… >> >> >> >> I always use the bits/mhz/$ when comparing radios >> >> >> >> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Josh Reynolds >> <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> >> Date: Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 12:56 AM >> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our UBNT AF11x experience >> >> >> >> There's an ongoing discussion about this. It seems it has to do with the >> hitless ARQ modulation change support. >> >> >> >> Basically, it's a trade-off. >> >> >> >> >> >> Gino Villarini >> >> President >> >> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 >> >> <image002.png> >> >> On Jan 13, 2017 10:14 PM, "Mike Hammett" <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: >> >> I love how Gary says they use so much better, newer technology... but they >> get worse throughput. *sigh* >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> >> The Brothers WISP >> >> >> >> >> From: "Tim Hardy" <tha...@comsearch.com> >> To: af@afmug.com >> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 5:54:53 PM >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our UBNT AF11x experience >> >> Post 6 here discusses the use of ARQ rather than FEC. >> >> https://community.ubnt.com/t5/airFiber/AF11x-Capacity/td-p/1737631 >> >> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of George Skorup >> <geo...@cbcast.com> >> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 6:41:10 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our UBNT AF11x experience >> >> >> >> Which I don't understand. Sounds like strong FEC? >> >> On 1/13/2017 5:36 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >> >> According to Link Planner, PTP820S (IP20S) gets around 243M at 256QAM, 347M >> at 2048QAM (350M with header compression). So add that to George’s >> Trango/Exalt/SAF list. >> >> >> >> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Gustaf >> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 5:20 PM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our UBNT AF11x experience >> >> >> >> Real usable capacity at Layer 2 Ethernet depends on several variables >> besides the modulation level and the regulatory bandwidth. For 1024 QAM >> there are 10 bits per symbol so theoretically one would expect to get 400 >> Mbps in a 40 MHz channel (10 bits x 40 MHz symbol rate). >> >> >> >> To actually make a radio that meets FCC spectrum masks, a reduction of the >> symbol rate down to around 35 MHz is required plus filtering, giving a max >> of 350 Mbps over the air. >> >> >> >> After that, Forward Error Correction (FEC) is required which is typically >> around 85-90 % for most microwave radios using LDPC, giving a net throughput >> of around 300 to 315 Mbps. >> >> >> >> Add header compression at layer 2 which in the worst case for large packets >> adds about 2.5 % improvement and you get to around 325 Mbps, which is what >> Trango and others get on a single 40 MHz channel with the newest technology. >> >> >> >> Ubiquiti maybe using a lower FEC rate like 75-80% (or a lower symbol rate if >> the filtering is not steep enough) and no header compression, which would >> give them about 250 Mbps for large packets. >> >> >> >> Hope that helps! >> >> >> >> Chris Gustaf >> >> Trango Systems >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> What other radios will only do 250Mbps (502.4Mbps capacity according to the >> data sheet...) on one 40mhz single polarity channel at 256qam? The other's >> I've looked at are typically around 300Mbps... >> >> Not that I'm saying the AF11 is a bad radio, I plan on putting up at least a >> few of them this year... but I find it a little funny that they use 1024qam >> as a selling point, when it can't do as much throughput at 1024qam as other >> radios do at 256qam. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I think this whole thread can be summed up that there's no magical way to >> get around the shannon limit and bps/Hz coding efficiency for a given >> channel size and modulation... From the technical perspective of people >> who have to really understand the FDX capacity of a new PTP link, the ubnt >> marketing department is divorced from reality, it's not 1200 Mbps no matter >> how many slick PDFs they publish. >> >> One 40 MHz channel single polarity at 1024QAM 5/6 code rate is going to be >> nearly the same efficiency bps/Hz from many different manufacturers. >> Multiply as necessary for dual polarity or for larger channel sizes such as >> 60, 80 or 112 MHz. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net> >> wrote: >> >> FYI... on a "single" 40mhz channel 'dual polarity' (mimo) the expected >> throughput on Af11x is 500meg duplex. >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> From: "Josh Baird" <joshba...@gmail.com> >> To: af@afmug.com >> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 10:30:10 AM >> >> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our UBNT AF11x experience >> >> But if I can get 80mhz channels in both polarities (running at 56Mhz/1024QAM >> with this radio), I should be able to at least double he capacity of my >> PTP-800 link which can do 228Mbps. Right? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: >> >> At 40 MHz and a single polarity, you're looking at an almost insignificant >> increase in throughput. >> >> Their claim is 1.2 gb+. >> Cut that in half as they're advertising the aggregate, so 600 mb+. >> That's using both polarities, so now only 300 mb+. >> Only I haven't heard of anyone getting much more than 500 in a single >> direction (they may certainly exist, I just haven't seen them), so now that >> 300 is really only 250. >> >> >> Not much of an upgrade unless you can also get larger channels in both >> polarities. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> >> The Brothers WISP >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: "Josh Baird" <joshba...@gmail.com> >> To: af@afmug.com >> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 11:47:42 AM >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our UBNT AF11x experience >> >> This PTP800 is only capable of running at 40Mhz (ODU-A) so it can only do >> 228Mbps full-duplex. The AF11x should be able to do much more than that, >> right? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Gino Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com> wrote: >> >> IIRC, PTP800 is Remec Style, you'll need Remec to N connector adapters >> (AF11x is N) >> >> >> >> What do you expect to achieve with this upgrade? Not much capacity >> difference between PTP800 and AF11x, maybe 50-80- mbps more. Only if you >> have a xpic license you can double your throughput with the af11x >> >> >> >> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> >> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> >> Date: Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 9:12 AM >> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our UBNT AF11x experience >> >> >> >> Good news - thanks for sharing. >> >> >> >> Somewhat un-related question: >> >> >> >> I have a PTP-800 link using these dishes: >> >> >> >> http://www.hol4g.com/AC/product.aspx?number=ANC-VHLP3-11W-RR1&p=237127&sc=0 >> >> >> >> Do you know if I can re-use these dishes with the AF11x? Do I need adapters? >> >> >> >> Josh >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Gino Villarini >> >> President >> >> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 >> >> >> >> <image003.png> >> >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Gino Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com> wrote: >> >> Hey all, just dropping by to share our experience with AF11x, we habe been >> beta testing the unit since Sept and for the last 3 months, the unit has >> been rock solid. >> >> We are very happy with its performance, just wished it had a SFP port! >> >> This unit replaced a Mimosa B11 unit that we were having some intermitent >> throughtput issues, >> >> The swap was easy since we reused the Jirous Dishes and only had to add the >> af11x adapters to it, >> >> The link went live on 9/21/16 and on the first weeks we experienced some >> lockups, but after a revised beta fw was applied, all issues went away. >> >> For UBNT, please add SFP port and continue the good work towards a af6x and >> af18x >> >> >> >> Gino Villarini >> >> President >> >> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 >> >> >> >> <image003.png> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
