If you do the standard 4xAP so you can do 2 channels and back to back frequency reuse, 90 degrees is one direction...
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:12 AM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> wrote: > actually you don't want them all in one direction, you want the clients > evenly spread in a 90* swath so that you can take advantage of the MU-MIMO. > > we have clients connected out to 8 miles running in 6x (which is 64qam). > > it actually saves on tower rent because to do the same thing with regular > 450 APs (which we were prior to deploying the 450m's) you would need 3 APs > each using 20Mhz so 60Mhz total of spectrum used. > > win, win, win. > > but i also wouldn't install them at every tower. > > 2 cents > > -sean > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:58 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> > wrote: >> >> I'm just saying it doesn't make sense, unless all your clients are >> short range, in all one direction, and tower rent is costly. >> >> It's a niche of a niche. >> >> (I'm not saying it is a bad product, I'm not saying that at all, I'm >> just saying it's not the second coming like people make it out to be.) >> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:55 AM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> wrote: >> > Then by all means don’t deploy any 450m’s josh. Geeze dude take a chill >> > pill. >> > >> > I’m just stating what I have on my network in a real world environment, >> > earning me real world dollars and conserving much needed spectrum. >> > >> > It’s not the right tool for every situation, BUT under the right >> > conditions >> > the 450m delivers. >> > >> > Cheers bud >> > >> > -sean >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:46 PM Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Further note: You can see I did those calcs at 1024QAM, so reduce that >> >> down the 256QAM for closer to real numbers :) >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Let's break this down a bit. >> >> > >> >> > Firstly, what outdoor PTMP platform is really using WiFi anymore? >> >> > *shakes head* >> >> > >> >> > Mu-MIMO only works if the clients are sufficiently spread apart >> >> > (physically), and their tx/rx windows can fit into almost the same >> >> > timeframe. Any degradation in signal of one client that ends up in >> >> > the >> >> > same window as other clients reduces the overall capacity of the AP >> >> > (like in many other situations). It can, in some situations, lead to >> >> > cumulative transfer windows where overall throughput ends up getting >> >> > reduced as the rx/tx hold time for the other clients end up taking a >> >> > hit in efficiency. This is one of the few failings of MU-MIMO, not >> >> > even taking into account "massive" systems like 14x14 that end up >> >> > costing quite a bit in overall power budget due to the number of >> >> > elements, further meaning that your range is severely limited in a >> >> > system like this... so only decent in very dense situations. That's a >> >> > unique niche. >> >> > >> >> > So, 80 clients. That's a pretty average number for a modern system >> >> > (450, Mimosa, AC Prism Gen2). >> >> > >> >> > 30Mbps per client... okay, but most customers are actually streaming. >> >> > Let's throw another margin on top of that and say a few Mbps for >> >> > gaming. 10Mbps is a nice round number. Now, that data gets sent in >> >> > most services in bursts and buffered, so it's not continuous. Let's >> >> > take that average number down to about 8 Mbps. Now let's assume that >> >> > maybe 70% of those 80 customers is doing something like that, and >> >> > that's probably a generous number. 56 customers. So 56 customers x >> >> > 8Mbps = 448Mbps. On a 20Mhz channel? Wait, this doesn't seem to work >> >> > out! >> >> > >> >> > Soo.... 1024 QAM on a 20MHz channel gives you 250Mbps, very roughly. >> >> > If you're optimistic about modern patterns, you're between an 80/20 >> >> > and a 60/40 Download/Upload ratio on a split GPS synced system. >> >> > >> >> > 80/20 = 200Mbps Down, 50Mbps Up >> >> > 60/40 = 150 Down, 100Mbps Up >> >> > >> >> > Let's say for the sake of argument that you're in the 80/20 camp, >> >> > giving you 200Mbps to work with in above perfect conditions, gives >> >> > you >> >> > 3.57 Mbps per subscriber. Roughly 4M/sub, good for 480p streaming. >> >> > >> >> > That's a very expensive platform for that kind of throughput and >> >> > subscriber count with such limitations in range and needed a "perfect >> >> > storm" of client distribution and data patterns to really take >> >> > advantage of. With working GPS in all modern platforms, I would be >> >> > hard pressed to not use an additional 20mhz channel if available, or >> >> > just cut the channel width in half to 10MHz each, and put up 4 >> >> > Mimosas >> >> > or 4 Gen2 Prism radios and have far more than 4x the possible >> >> > subscriber account, improved tx/rx efficiency, improved range >> >> > (increasing distance and SNR in many situations), and greatly reduced >> >> > cost. >> >> > >> >> > Again, I'm far more excited about the 4x increase in spectral >> >> > efficiency via OFDMA that doesn't cause you to cut down on tx/rx >> >> > chains for multi-client transmission (costing your range, per client >> >> > snr, and per-client throughput in the process). MU-MIMO is and will >> >> > always be a niche hack that never lived up to what was promised. >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Sean Heskett <af...@zirkel.us> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> Being able to load a 450m AP with 80 subs and deliver 30mbps service >> >> >> to >> >> >> all >> >> >> of them at peak Netflix time in a 20mhz channel without breaking a >> >> >> sweat is >> >> >> worth every penny. >> >> >> >> >> >> But it’s one tool in the tool box and isn’t the best solution for >> >> >> every >> >> >> deployment. >> >> >> >> >> >> 2 cents >> >> >> >> >> >> -sean >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:32 PM Josh Reynolds >> >> >> <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The more I dig into MU-MIMO, the more I realize it's not all that >> >> >>> great. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I am far more excited by the 9 client simultaneous transmissions in >> >> >>> 802.11ax via OFDMA. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:00 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>> > 450 still does a few things that ePMP doesn't. >> >> >>> > Plus there's that 14 chain MU-MIMO thing......ePMP will probably >> >> >>> > never >> >> >>> > have >> >> >>> > something like that. >> >> >>> > UI is still sluggish on ePMP. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > On the other hand ePMP has gotten so many feature improvements >> >> >>> > over >> >> >>> > these >> >> >>> > past few years that it's gotten really hard to argue with the >> >> >>> > value >> >> >>> > it >> >> >>> > provides. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > ------ Original Message ------ >> >> >>> > From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> >> >> >>> > To: af@afmug.com >> >> >>> > Sent: 2/12/2018 8:27:56 PM >> >> >>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mini wisp >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > The UI server was probably the worst I have ever seen. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > So, less than 25 subs per site, what speed packages do you sell >> >> >>> > to >> >> >>> > those >> >> >>> > 25? >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > Packetflux GPS sync. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > From: Joe Novak >> >> >>> > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 5:20 PM >> >> >>> > To: af@afmug.com >> >> >>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mini wisp >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > What didn't you like about it? The interface came a long way >> >> >>> > since >> >> >>> > the >> >> >>> > early >> >> >>> > days of EPMP. We've got quite a bit deployed. A lot of people are >> >> >>> > having >> >> >>> > weird GPS situations come up with the on-board GPS, we have this >> >> >>> > problem >> >> >>> > once in a while too. Our packetflux sites are rock solid though. >> >> >>> > That is >> >> >>> > assuming density isn't more then 25 per AP, because then I don't >> >> >>> > exactly >> >> >>> > have enough experience with it. Most of our APs are sitting right >> >> >>> > around >> >> >>> > 25 >> >> >>> > customers, and according to airtime we still have quite a bit of >> >> >>> > room. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Jaime Solorza >> >> >>> > <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> >> >> >>> > wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> I separated frequencies to three I found cleanest on AFx5s...On >> >> >>> >> Rockets >> >> >>> >> and Powerbeams I choose one frequency and shut off the rest on >> >> >>> >> APs >> >> >>> >> and >> >> >>> >> on >> >> >>> >> PowerBeams I only use two...this method has worked well since >> >> >>> >> August of >> >> >>> >> 2017 >> >> >>> >> when I replaced all the radios on this network and have had to >> >> >>> >> change >> >> >>> >> them >> >> >>> >> since. Two of the WISPs live in Fabens and work with us on >> >> >>> >> issues. >> >> >>> >> The >> >> >>> >> other one from El Paso uses my services once in a while and >> >> >>> >> works >> >> >>> >> with >> >> >>> >> us as >> >> >>> >> well. Texas Gas put up allot of 5GHz units around Fabens but >> >> >>> >> still >> >> >>> >> no >> >> >>> >> issues. I used larger dishes at Wells and lift stations as well. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Jaime Solorza >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> On Feb 12, 2018 4:50 PM, "Jaime Solorza" >> >> >>> >> <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> >> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> Two AF5x on same tower, One AP on second tower 20 ft away...all >> >> >>> >>> other >> >> >>> >>> radios within 4 mile radius... >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> Jaime Solorza >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> On Feb 12, 2018 4:43 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> >> >> >>> >>> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> All on the same tower, right? >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> From: Jaime Solorza >> >> >>> >>>> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 4:41 PM >> >> >>> >>>> To: Animal Farm >> >> >>> >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] mini wisp >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> Yes..I have two AF5X links as PTP and 25 radios all in 5 GHz >> >> >>> >>>> off >> >> >>> >>>> 4 >> >> >>> >>>> APs >> >> >>> >>>> in Fabens, Texas sharing spectrum with 3 WISPs...no issues... >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> Jaime Solorza >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> On Feb 12, 2018 4:32 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> >> >> >>> >>>> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>> Talking to a friend that wants to build a small wisp. He is >> >> >>> >>>>> about >> >> >>> >>>>> 5.5 >> >> >>> >>>>> miles from a backbone connection. I would suggest AF5X to >> >> >>> >>>>> him >> >> >>> >>>>> but >> >> >>> >>>>> he is >> >> >>> >>>>> gonna want to use 5 GHz for his wisp I presume. >> >> >>> >>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>> Can an AF5X and some 5 GHz cambium (or others) access points >> >> >>> >>>>> peacefully >> >> >>> >>>>> coexist on a tower? >> >> >>> >>>>> Very rural area. Not expecting much interference other than >> >> >>> >>>>> home >> >> >>> >>>>> routers. >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > > >
