Thanks Mike, I didn't have a chance to read through that earlier... it looks like it pretty much confirms what I already thought... 80ghz and 24ghz should be pretty similar as far as reliability goes. But I'm not sure if it's going to be possible to figure out if the Metrolinq 2.5 is realistic option without trying it... but it's cheap enough that it might be worth while to just pick up a link and throw it up there to see what happens.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: > Earlier I linked to posts helping you do the math to determine how likely > you'll have how much fade. > > > > ----- > 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> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> > *To: *"af" <af@afmug.com> > *Sent: *Wednesday, July 19, 2017 4:02:27 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] 70/80ghz links > > Yeah, I'm aware of the differences between 60ghz and 70/80ghz... I'm > assuming that it will work (according to Siklu's link budget calculator, I > should be able to get 99.999% availability). The thing I'm wondering about > now is if 60ghz will work with the new Ignitenet gear. I'm assuming I would > have some rain fade issues if it did work, but I might be able to deal with > that by putting up 24ghz links in parallel... but whether or not messing > around with all that instead of just going with 80ghz and being done with > it is another matter. > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Brian Webster <i...@wirelessmapping.com> > wrote: > >> 70 and 80 GHz RF performance is going to be a lot better than 60 GHz. ^0 >> GHz has a heavy attenuation due to the oxygen molecules being resonant at >> the frequency, move up high in the spectrum past that resonance and RF >> performance improves. So don’t necessarily assume if 60 GHz didn’t work 70 >> or 80 won’t either. 70/80 Ghz is kind of light licensed so you will have to >> deal with that but it’s not as bad as 11 or 18 GHz. >> >> >> >> Thank You, >> >> Brian Webster >> >> www.wirelessmapping.com >> >> www.Broadband-Mapping.com >> >> >> >> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 19, 2017 10:15 AM >> *To:* af >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 70/80ghz links >> >> >> >> I actually tried using Metrolinqs on half of this link when they first >> came out, but I was never able to get it to even link... but I'm not sure >> if the 64.8ghz channel was supported at the time, so maybe it would be >> different now? >> >> I guess a realistic option might be to split the 24ghz link to two hops >> as well, which should easily get the availability I want, and then bond it >> to a 60ghz link to add capacity... >> >> Speaking of bonding, it looks like the Siklu 2x00 series only has 1Gbps >> ports... so I'm assuming to get full capacity I would have to bond two >> ports together? They aren't doing like Ubiquiti and calling 1Gbps full >> duplex 2Gbps are they? >> >> >> > > >
