AF24 is only going to be 5 9's reliable to about 1-2 miles depending on your rain zone. for 2-4 miles you could use 23Ghz (way more EIRP than 24Ghz) 4-8 miles 18Ghz 8-20 miles 11 Ghz and anything longer than that 6Ghz. unless you can mount really big dishes for 11.
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Gino A. Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com> wrote: > For 6-10 miles 24 ghz its way out of the question. Stick to 11 ghz. > > From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of David Coudron < > david.coud...@advantenon.com> > Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> > Date: Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 6:57 PM > To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> > Subject: [AFMUG] 24 GHz vs 11 GHz > > I know this topic has come up before, but thought I would throw it out > again to hear additional thoughts as products continue to evolve. We have > been doing primarily 5 GHz backhaul using Mimosa products for the last > couple of years. Their frequency reuse has really helped us, but we are > starting to see more locations that have lots of noise. We’d like to make > the jump to higher frequencies and are looking at 11 GHz and 24 GHz for > that. The links we need are fairly short, 6-10 miles max, which pushes > the limits of the 24 GHz solutions, but with a very clean line of site we > think we are in range for the links we are looking at as far as the design > tools tell us. For 11 GHz, we would likely stay with the Mimosa product > line, we know it pretty well and have all the management tools in place for > it. For 24 GHz we’d likely go with the Ubiquiti AF 24 or AF 24 HD. We > have worked with Ubiquiti stuff here and there, and just don’t have much > familiarity with any other options outside of AirFiber. Here is where we > see the Pros and Cons of the two options: > > > > Mimosa 11 GHz Pros: > > 1. Licensed, should be clean spectrum for the full term of the license > and require less babysitting for interference > 2. Should support longer links, but that isn’t a big consideration for > us as it looks like everything we will need is under the limits of the HD > for sure and likely the AF 24 as well > 3. Little less susceptible to rain fade > > > > Cons: > > 1. Have to mess around with the license and there is a cost associated > with it > 2. Have to buy the dish separately, and know which to use before > applying for the license > 3. Not quite as much throughput (when compared to the AF 24 HD) > 4. More expensive that the AF 24 (but likely a little less than the HD) > > > > > > Ubiquiti AF 24 Pros: > > 1. All in one unit, easy to figure out what to have on hand for all > links > 2. No messing around with licenses, making it much quicker to deploy > 3. Higher throughput on the HD > > > > Cons: > > 1. Unlicensed. Might fight other noise out there, and even quiet > links now might have noise later > 2. Not as familiar with this tool set as we are with Mimosa, although > this isn’t a big consideration as we have worked with lots of Ubiquiti > products > 3. Cost of HD is pretty high for an unlicensed link > > > > Here are some questions we are hoping for help with: > > 1. How much room in the unlicensed band is there to move channels if > you see other noise out there? We have been looking but are finding it > tough to figure out if we run wide channels, and see noise, will we be able > to move to other channels. > 2. Is it reasonable to think you can push 1.2 aggregate IP traffic > across any of the three options B11, AF24 or AF24HD? Seems like a well > planned link with great line of site at 6 miles should be able to, but > looking for some real world experience. > 3. Any oddball items we should take into consideration other than the > ones already mentioned here? Or are we missing some obvious questions? > > > > Thanks, > > > > David Coudron > > > > > > *Gino A. Villarini* > President > Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 > > -- Adair Winter VP, Network Operations / Co-Owner Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071 C: 806.231.7180 http://www.amarillowireless.net <http://www.amarillowireless.net>
