Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
I’m surprised you completely lose it… is variable TX power and adaptive modulation on? 6GHz is nice that rain fade isn’t much of a problem, but multipath is a bigger problem, especially on flat land like Florida (although the trees help absorb some of the multipath). For many long links, 11GHz is actually better in the lower rain rate regions for long distance shots (I’ve engineered 70 mile shots with >99.99% uptime in 11GHz). Paul I agree though… 6GHz with 3ft antennas is most likely your best option at longer distances. 6GHz Space Diversity is the optimal solution… but not typically used by WISP’s. Daniel White | Managing Director SAF North America LLC Cell: (303) 746-3590 Skype: danieldwhite E-mail: <mailto:daniel.wh...@saftehnika.com> daniel.wh...@saftehnika.com From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 7:09 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium Sean, We have a 12 mile 11 Ghz link engineered by SAF for 99.994 with 3 ft. dishes (again in Florida – heavy humidity ALL the time) . It is installed within 1 dB of the calculated spec. And, we lose it completely a couple times complete a few times each year with heavy rains. And, we do get some VERY heavy rains during the summer. So, for me to plan on any longer distance than 12 miles at 11 Ghz with 3ft. dishes would not make sense to me. I can explore the 6 Ghz smaller dish option. 3 ft. dishes is about the max I can imagine using on the Rohn 25G 190 ft. tower even though it has multiple custom anti-twist supports. Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett via Af Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:04 PM To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium 6ghz is now able to use smaller antenna sizes. Also 11ghz with adaptive modulation should be just fine during heavy rain events. We have a 30 mile 11ghz shot in CO and it's never dropped during a rain event. And we had some massive downpours that dropped a couple inches of rain in less than an hour. On Monday, November 24, 2014, Paul McCall via Af mailto:af@afmug.com> > wrote: Unfortunately, the 14, 15, 16 mile links in Florida would be fairly difficult at 11 ghz, even with 4ft dishes, which I cant load up on a Rohn 25G tower. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett via Af Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 2:25 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for PTP. the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. same thing with backhauls. 2 cents -sean On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af > wrote: > > Cambium, > > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend to > us for this type of problem/solution? > > Paul > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com > ] On Behalf Of Paul > McCall via Af > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers. > Everything is OSPF but logically... > > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist > devices) is "fed" by... > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 > 5 Ghz > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable > bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G > > Tower R then feeds... > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act. > There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to > each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the > backside links. > > The challenge... > > First of all, I need more BW to each tower
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
Friends don't let friends build Rohn 25. ;-) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Paul McCall via Af" To: af@afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 8:09:06 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium Sean, We have a 12 mile 11 Ghz link engineered by SAF for 99.994 with 3 ft. dishes (again in Florida – heavy humidity ALL the time) . It is installed within 1 dB of the calculated spec. And, we lose it completely a couple times complete a few times each year with heavy rains. And, we do get some VERY heavy rains during the summer. So, for me to plan on any longer distance than 12 miles at 11 Ghz with 3ft. dishes would not make sense to me. I can explore the 6 Ghz smaller dish option. 3 ft. dishes is about the max I can imagine using on the Rohn 25G 190 ft. tower even though it has multiple custom anti-twist supports. Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett via Af Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:04 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium 6ghz is now able to use smaller antenna sizes. Also 11ghz with adaptive modulation should be just fine during heavy rain events. We have a 30 mile 11ghz shot in CO and it's never dropped during a rain event. And we had some massive downpours that dropped a couple inches of rain in less than an hour. On Monday, November 24, 2014, Paul McCall via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: Unfortunately, the 14, 15, 16 mile links in Florida would be fairly difficult at 11 ghz, even with 4ft dishes, which I cant load up on a Rohn 25G tower. From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett via Af Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 2:25 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for PTP. the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. same thing with backhauls. 2 cents -sean On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: > > Cambium, > > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend to > us for this type of problem/solution? > > Paul > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers. > Everything is OSPF but logically... > > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist > devices) is "fed" by... > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable bandwidth and > feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G > > Tower R then feeds... > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act. > There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to > each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the > backside links. > > The challenge... > > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I need > better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect and then > I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. > > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other than a > ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is inexpensive. > > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsynced can it sync, now or tomorrow? > Latency with sync? > > Paul > > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Matt via Af > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > > Hi, > > > > Please allow me to clarify. > > > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync&#x
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
Sean, We have a 12 mile 11 Ghz link engineered by SAF for 99.994 with 3 ft. dishes (again in Florida – heavy humidity ALL the time) . It is installed within 1 dB of the calculated spec. And, we lose it completely a couple times complete a few times each year with heavy rains. And, we do get some VERY heavy rains during the summer. So, for me to plan on any longer distance than 12 miles at 11 Ghz with 3ft. dishes would not make sense to me. I can explore the 6 Ghz smaller dish option. 3 ft. dishes is about the max I can imagine using on the Rohn 25G 190 ft. tower even though it has multiple custom anti-twist supports. Paul From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett via Af Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:04 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium 6ghz is now able to use smaller antenna sizes. Also 11ghz with adaptive modulation should be just fine during heavy rain events. We have a 30 mile 11ghz shot in CO and it's never dropped during a rain event. And we had some massive downpours that dropped a couple inches of rain in less than an hour. On Monday, November 24, 2014, Paul McCall via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote: Unfortunately, the 14, 15, 16 mile links in Florida would be fairly difficult at 11 ghz, even with 4ft dishes, which I cant load up on a Rohn 25G tower. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett via Af Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 2:25 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for PTP. the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. same thing with backhauls. 2 cents -sean On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af > wrote: > > Cambium, > > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend to > us for this type of problem/solution? > > Paul > > -Original Message- > From: Af > [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] > On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers. > Everything is OSPF but logically... > > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist > devices) is "fed" by... > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 > 5 Ghz > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable > bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G > > Tower R then feeds... > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act. > There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to > each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the > backside links. > > The challenge... > > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I need > better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect and then > I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. > > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other than a > ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is inexpensive. > > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or tomorrow? > Latency with sync? > > Paul > > > -Original Message- > From: Af > [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] > On Behalf Of Matt via Af > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > > Hi, > > > > Please allow me to clarify. > > > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE > > ports. > > > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. > > GPS capabilities will be dis
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
+1.. I have couple in play now shot links of about 3 miles with 8x8 modulation getting 60+Mbs both directions. 12mile LOS would be much with good dishes On 11/24/2014 8:41 PM, Gino Villarini via Af wrote: ptp450s� Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>" <mailto:af@afmug.com>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>" <mailto:af@afmug.com>> Date: Monday, November 24, 2014 at 10:30 PM To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>" <mailto:af@afmug.com>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium Unfortunately, the 14, 15, 16 mile links in Florida would be fairly difficult at 11 ghz, even with 4ft dishes, which I cant load up on a Rohn 25G tower. *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Sean Heskett via Af *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 2:25 PM *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for PTP. the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. same thing with backhauls. 2 cents -sean On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af <mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote: > > Cambium, > > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend to us for this type of problem/solution? > > Paul > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM > To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... > > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G > > Tower R then feeds... > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the backside links. > > The challenge... > > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. > > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is inexpensive. > > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or tomorrow? Latency with sync? > > Paul > > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf Of Matt via Af > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM > To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > > Hi, > > > > Please allow me to clarify. > > > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE ports. > > > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). > > > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 and will apply to both products. > > Reading this spec sheet. > > http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf > > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode) --
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
Depends very much on how close to full utilization the links are (in Mbps). If you have a link drop to QPSK 1/2 during massive rain fades and only 40 Mbps of throughput, for a very short time, will that cause massive packet loss and customer problems? There's lots of good radios that can stay linked and maintain an OSPF router-to-router connection down to -83 or thereabouts but the data rates will truly suck.
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
6ghz is now able to use smaller antenna sizes. Also 11ghz with adaptive modulation should be just fine during heavy rain events. We have a 30 mile 11ghz shot in CO and it's never dropped during a rain event. And we had some massive downpours that dropped a couple inches of rain in less than an hour. On Monday, November 24, 2014, Paul McCall via Af wrote: > Unfortunately, the 14, 15, 16 mile links in Florida would be fairly > difficult at 11 ghz, even with 4ft dishes, which I cant load up on a Rohn > 25G tower. > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com > ] *On Behalf Of *Sean > Heskett via Af > *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 2:25 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium > > > > i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). > > we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for > PTP. > > the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like the > difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are both > cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. same > thing with backhauls. > > 2 cents > > > > -sean > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af > wrote: > > > > Cambium, > > > > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend > to us for this type of problem/solution? > > > > Paul > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com > ] On Behalf Of Paul > McCall via Af > > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM > > To: af@afmug.com > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > > > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other > towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... > > > > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several > anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... > > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik > RB912 5 Ghz > > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of > usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A > > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 > > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G > > > > Tower R then feeds... > > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of > usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of > usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of > usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of > usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > > > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling > act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect > (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT > radios on the backside links. > > > > The challenge... > > > > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I > need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect > and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. > > > > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other > than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is > inexpensive. > > > > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or > tomorrow? Latency with sync? > > > > Paul > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com > ] On Behalf Of Matt > via Af > > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM > > To: af@afmug.com > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Please allow me to clarify. > > > > > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 > FE ports. > > > > > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the > > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary > PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on > board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). > > > > > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release > 2.4 and will apply to both products. > > > > Reading this spec sheet. > > > > > http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf > > > > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame > > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode) >
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
ptp450s… Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>> Date: Monday, November 24, 2014 at 10:30 PM To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium Unfortunately, the 14, 15, 16 mile links in Florida would be fairly difficult at 11 ghz, even with 4ft dishes, which I cant load up on a Rohn 25G tower. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett via Af Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 2:25 PM To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for PTP. the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. same thing with backhauls. 2 cents -sean On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote: > > Cambium, > > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend to > us for this type of problem/solution? > > Paul > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf > Of Paul McCall via Af > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers. > Everything is OSPF but logically... > > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist > devices) is "fed" by... > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 > 5 Ghz > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable > bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G > > Tower R then feeds... > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act. > There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to > each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the > backside links. > > The challenge... > > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I need > better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect and then > I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. > > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other than a > ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is inexpensive. > > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or tomorrow? > Latency with sync? > > Paul > > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf > Of Matt via Af > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > > Hi, > > > > Please allow me to clarify. > > > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE > > ports. > > > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. > > GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board > > GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). > > > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 > > and will apply to both products. > > Reading this spec sheet. > > http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf > > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode)
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
Unfortunately, the 14, 15, 16 mile links in Florida would be fairly difficult at 11 ghz, even with 4ft dishes, which I cant load up on a Rohn 25G tower. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett via Af Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 2:25 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for PTP. the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. same thing with backhauls. 2 cents -sean On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote: > > Cambium, > > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend to > us for this type of problem/solution? > > Paul > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf > Of Paul McCall via Af > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers. > Everything is OSPF but logically... > > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist > devices) is "fed" by... > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 > 5 Ghz > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable > bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G > > Tower R then feeds... > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act. > There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to > each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the > backside links. > > The challenge... > > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I need > better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect and then > I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. > > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other than a > ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is inexpensive. > > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or tomorrow? > Latency with sync? > > Paul > > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf > Of Matt via Af > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > > Hi, > > > > Please allow me to clarify. > > > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE > > ports. > > > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. > > GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board > > GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). > > > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 > > and will apply to both products. > > Reading this spec sheet. > > http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf > > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode)
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
An announcement is probably a bit of a stretch, a release that soon would be a dream. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: > And you will release them at AnimalFarm, right...? > > *From:* Chuck Macenski via Af > *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 2:57 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium > > We are working on a couple of thing you are going to like :) > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Eric Kuhnke via Af wrote: > >> Any plans for a 3.5 or 3.65 GHz AirFiber, using a similar system to the >> AF5? >> >> With integrated antennas, it'd be pretty big, but I could see it being >> useful in some applications where an AF24 won't reach far enough (8-9km and >> 99.999% max modulation over one year). >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af >> wrote: >> >>> Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af >>> wrote: >>> >>>> i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP >>>> vendor). >>>> >>>> we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed >>>> for PTP. >>>> >>>> the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like >>>> the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are >>>> both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. >>>> same thing with backhauls. >>>> >>>> 2 cents >>>> >>>> -sean >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Cambium, >>>> > >>>> > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you >>>> recommend to us for this type of problem/solution? >>>> > >>>> > Paul >>>> > >>>> > -Original Message- >>>> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via >>>> Af >>>> > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM >>>> > To: af@afmug.com >>>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >>>> > >>>> > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other >>>> towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... >>>> > >>>> > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several >>>> anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... >>>> > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a >>>> Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz >>>> > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of >>>> usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A >>>> > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 >>>> > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G >>>> > >>>> > Tower R then feeds... >>>> > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of >>>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>>> > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>>> > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>>> > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>>> > >>>> > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling >>>> act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect >>>> (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT >>>> radios on the backside links. >>>> > >>>> > The challenge... >>>> > >>>> > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, >>>> I need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect >>>> and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. >>>> > >>>> > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other >>>> than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is >>>> inexpensive. >>>> > >>>> > The PT
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
And you will release them at AnimalFarm, right...? From: Chuck Macenski via Af Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 2:57 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium We are working on a couple of thing you are going to like :) On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Eric Kuhnke via Af wrote: Any plans for a 3.5 or 3.65 GHz AirFiber, using a similar system to the AF5? With integrated antennas, it'd be pretty big, but I could see it being useful in some applications where an AF24 won't reach far enough (8-9km and 99.999% max modulation over one year). On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af wrote: Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af wrote: i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for PTP. the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. same thing with backhauls. 2 cents -sean On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: > > Cambium, > > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend to us for this type of problem/solution? > > Paul > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... > > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G > > Tower R then feeds... > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the backside links. > > The challenge... > > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. > > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is inexpensive. > > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or tomorrow? Latency with sync? > > Paul > > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > > Hi, > > > > Please allow me to clarify. > > > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE ports. > > > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). > > > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 and will apply to both products. > > Reading this spec sheet. > > http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf > > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode)
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium (and WBMFG)
Where is my hack saw...
-Original Message-
From: Matt Jenkins via Af
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 2:57 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium (and WBMFG)
Sounds like we need an AirFiber WaveGuide test adapter.
Chuck, are you busy this Thanksgiving weekend?
Matthew Jenkins
SmarterBroadband
m...@sbbinc.net
530.272.4000
On 11/24/2014 01:44 PM, Eric Kuhnke via Af wrote:
If you were willing to hack apart an existing AF5, you could probably
build waveguide from the hollow tubular center feed coming up from the PCB
in the center of each of the two dishes, and run it to a waveguide-fed 5
GHz band dish... Such as a pair of 3' diameter Andrew/Commscope.
Would probably require hacking of the end reflector of each integrated
dish's feed and putting on a custom CNC machined, waveguide adapter.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Mike Hammett via Af <mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
Is there a waveguide combiner\splitter?
If they made both AFs connectorized, could you plumb them both
into the same dish for the same path?
Would obviously need a dish that accepted waveguide.
No clue how the RF performance of a dish would be in both of those
bands simultaneously.
-
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>
*From: *"Eric Kuhnke via Af" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
*To: *af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Sent: *Monday, November 24, 2014 3:37:19 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
I agree, I want an AF5 connectorized. From the perspective of ubnt
engineering in Chicago, I bet a connectorized AF5 scares the hell
out of them, because they're selling airfibers to
enterprise/clueless customers that don't understand the technical
properties of different types of PTP microwave dishes.
If you could guarantee that a FDD, two dish AF5 setup was always
installed with a pair of high quality, >70dB f/b ratio Jirous
dishes or similar, it'd work great.
When Bubba hooks up a connectorized AF5 to a random pair of noisy,
low quality, unshielded PTP dishes, terrible things will happen.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Mike Hammett via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
Until they give me what I want (connectorized).
-
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>
*From: *"Eric Kuhnke via Af" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
*To: *af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Sent: *Monday, November 24, 2014 3:32:48 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
he's asking for a 12 mile link... if the goal is to maximize
the clean, empty 5.x GHz spectrum for PtMP use by end user
customers, an airfiber5 backhaul is ruled out.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)?
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite
licensed PTP vendor).
we keep all the unlicensed bands available for
PMP...we use licensed for PTP.
the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed
backhaul is like the difference between a Ford Focus
and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are both cars that
drive on roads but that's about where the similarities
end. same thing with backhauls.
2 cents
-sean
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
>
> Cambium,
>
> Can you please make a suggestion as to what
equipment that you recommend to us for this type of
problem/solution?
>
> Paul
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf Of Paul
McCall via Af
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
Anything you'd want to test on a Chicago area network? :-p - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Chuck Macenski via Af" To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 3:57:08 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium We are working on a couple of thing you are going to like :) On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Eric Kuhnke via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: Any plans for a 3.5 or 3.65 GHz AirFiber, using a similar system to the AF5? With integrated antennas, it'd be pretty big, but I could see it being useful in some applications where an AF24 won't reach far enough (8-9km and 99.999% max modulation over one year). On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for PTP. the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. same thing with backhauls. 2 cents -sean On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: > > Cambium, > > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend to > us for this type of problem/solution? > > Paul > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers. > Everything is OSPF but logically... > > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist > devices) is "fed" by... > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable bandwidth and > feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G > > Tower R then feeds... > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act. > There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to > each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the > backside links. > > The challenge... > > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I need > better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect and then > I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. > > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other than a > ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is inexpensive. > > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsynced can it sync, now or tomorrow? > Latency with sync? > > Paul > > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Matt via Af > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > > Hi, > > > > Please allow me to clarify. > > > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE > > ports. > > > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. > > GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board > > GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). > > > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 > > and will apply to both products. > > Reading this spec sheet. > > http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf > > > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode)
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium (and WBMFG)
Sounds like we need an AirFiber WaveGuide test adapter.
Chuck, are you busy this Thanksgiving weekend?
Matthew Jenkins
SmarterBroadband
m...@sbbinc.net
530.272.4000
On 11/24/2014 01:44 PM, Eric Kuhnke via Af wrote:
If you were willing to hack apart an existing AF5, you could probably
build waveguide from the hollow tubular center feed coming up from the
PCB in the center of each of the two dishes, and run it to a
waveguide-fed 5 GHz band dish... Such as a pair of 3' diameter
Andrew/Commscope.
Would probably require hacking of the end reflector of each integrated
dish's feed and putting on a custom CNC machined, waveguide adapter.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Mike Hammett via Af <mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
Is there a waveguide combiner\splitter?
If they made both AFs connectorized, could you plumb them both
into the same dish for the same path?
Would obviously need a dish that accepted waveguide.
No clue how the RF performance of a dish would be in both of those
bands simultaneously.
-
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>
*From: *"Eric Kuhnke via Af" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
*To: *af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Sent: *Monday, November 24, 2014 3:37:19 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
I agree, I want an AF5 connectorized. From the perspective of ubnt
engineering in Chicago, I bet a connectorized AF5 scares the hell
out of them, because they're selling airfibers to
enterprise/clueless customers that don't understand the technical
properties of different types of PTP microwave dishes.
If you could guarantee that a FDD, two dish AF5 setup was always
installed with a pair of high quality, >70dB f/b ratio Jirous
dishes or similar, it'd work great.
When Bubba hooks up a connectorized AF5 to a random pair of noisy,
low quality, unshielded PTP dishes, terrible things will happen.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Mike Hammett via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
Until they give me what I want (connectorized).
-
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>
*From: *"Eric Kuhnke via Af" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
*To: *af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Sent: *Monday, November 24, 2014 3:32:48 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
he's asking for a 12 mile link... if the goal is to maximize
the clean, empty 5.x GHz spectrum for PtMP use by end user
customers, an airfiber5 backhaul is ruled out.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)?
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite
licensed PTP vendor).
we keep all the unlicensed bands available for
PMP...we use licensed for PTP.
the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed
backhaul is like the difference between a Ford Focus
and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are both cars that
drive on roads but that's about where the similarities
end. same thing with backhauls.
2 cents
-sean
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
>
> Cambium,
>
> Can you please make a suggestion as to what
equipment that you recommend to us for this type of
problem/solution?
>
> Paul
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf Of Paul
McCall via Af
> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM
> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
>
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
We are working on a couple of thing you are going to like :) On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Eric Kuhnke via Af wrote: > Any plans for a 3.5 or 3.65 GHz AirFiber, using a similar system to the > AF5? > > With integrated antennas, it'd be pretty big, but I could see it being > useful in some applications where an AF24 won't reach far enough (8-9km and > 99.999% max modulation over one year). > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af > wrote: > >> Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af >> wrote: >> >>> i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). >>> >>> we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for >>> PTP. >>> >>> the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like >>> the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are >>> both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. >>> same thing with backhauls. >>> >>> 2 cents >>> >>> -sean >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Cambium, >>> > >>> > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you >>> recommend to us for this type of problem/solution? >>> > >>> > Paul >>> > >>> > -Original Message- >>> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af >>> > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM >>> > To: af@afmug.com >>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >>> > >>> > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other >>> towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... >>> > >>> > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several >>> anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... >>> > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a >>> Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz >>> > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of >>> usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A >>> > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 >>> > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G >>> > >>> > Tower R then feeds... >>> > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of >>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>> > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>> > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>> > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>> > >>> > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling >>> act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect >>> (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT >>> radios on the backside links. >>> > >>> > The challenge... >>> > >>> > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, >>> I need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect >>> and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. >>> > >>> > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other >>> than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is >>> inexpensive. >>> > >>> > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or >>> tomorrow? Latency with sync? >>> > >>> > Paul >>> > >>> > >>> > -Original Message- >>> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af >>> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM >>> > To: af@afmug.com >>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >>> > >>> > > Hi, >>> > > >>> > > Please allow me to clarify. >>> > > >>> > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two >>> 10/100 FE ports. >>> > > >>> > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the >>> > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to >>> proprietary PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still >>> use the on board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). >>> > > >>> > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in >>> Release 2.4 and will apply to both products. >>> > >>> > Reading this spec sheet. >>> > >>> > >>> http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf >>> > >>> > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame >>> > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode) >>> >> >> >
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
If you were willing to hack apart an existing AF5, you could probably build waveguide from the hollow tubular center feed coming up from the PCB in the center of each of the two dishes, and run it to a waveguide-fed 5 GHz band dish... Such as a pair of 3' diameter Andrew/Commscope. Would probably require hacking of the end reflector of each integrated dish's feed and putting on a custom CNC machined, waveguide adapter. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: > Is there a waveguide combiner\splitter? > > If they made both AFs connectorized, could you plumb them both into the > same dish for the same path? > > Would obviously need a dish that accepted waveguide. > > No clue how the RF performance of a dish would be in both of those bands > simultaneously. > > > > - > 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> > > -- > *From: *"Eric Kuhnke via Af" > *To: *af@afmug.com > *Sent: *Monday, November 24, 2014 3:37:19 PM > > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium > > I agree, I want an AF5 connectorized. From the perspective of ubnt > engineering in Chicago, I bet a connectorized AF5 scares the hell out of > them, because they're selling airfibers to enterprise/clueless customers > that don't understand the technical properties of different types of PTP > microwave dishes. > > If you could guarantee that a FDD, two dish AF5 setup was always installed > with a pair of high quality, >70dB f/b ratio Jirous dishes or similar, it'd > work great. > > When Bubba hooks up a connectorized AF5 to a random pair of noisy, low > quality, unshielded PTP dishes, terrible things will happen. > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: > >> Until they give me what I want (connectorized). >> >> >> >> - >> 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> >> >> -- >> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke via Af" >> *To: *af@afmug.com >> *Sent: *Monday, November 24, 2014 3:32:48 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium >> >> >> he's asking for a 12 mile link... if the goal is to maximize the clean, >> empty 5.x GHz spectrum for PtMP use by end user customers, an airfiber5 >> backhaul is ruled out. >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af >> wrote: >> >>> Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af >>> wrote: >>> >>>> i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP >>>> vendor). >>>> >>>> we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed >>>> for PTP. >>>> >>>> the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like >>>> the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are >>>> both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. >>>> same thing with backhauls. >>>> >>>> 2 cents >>>> >>>> -sean >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Cambium, >>>> > >>>> > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you >>>> recommend to us for this type of problem/solution? >>>> > >>>> > Paul >>>> > >>>> > -Original Message- >>>> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via >>>> Af >>>> > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM >>>> > To: af@afmug.com >>>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >>>> > >>>> > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other >>>> towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... >>>> > >>>> > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several >>>> anti-
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
Is there a waveguide combiner\splitter? If they made both AFs connectorized, could you plumb them both into the same dish for the same path? Would obviously need a dish that accepted waveguide. No clue how the RF performance of a dish would be in both of those bands simultaneously. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Eric Kuhnke via Af" To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 3:37:19 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium I agree, I want an AF5 connectorized. From the perspective of ubnt engineering in Chicago, I bet a connectorized AF5 scares the hell out of them, because they're selling airfibers to enterprise/clueless customers that don't understand the technical properties of different types of PTP microwave dishes. If you could guarantee that a FDD, two dish AF5 setup was always installed with a pair of high quality, >70dB f/b ratio Jirous dishes or similar, it'd work great. When Bubba hooks up a connectorized AF5 to a random pair of noisy, low quality, unshielded PTP dishes, terrible things will happen. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Mike Hammett via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: Until they give me what I want (connectorized). - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com From: "Eric Kuhnke via Af" < af@afmug.com > To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 3:32:48 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium he's asking for a 12 mile link... if the goal is to maximize the clean, empty 5.x GHz spectrum for PtMP use by end user customers, an airfiber5 backhaul is ruled out. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for PTP. the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. same thing with backhauls. 2 cents -sean On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: > > Cambium, > > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend to > us for this type of problem/solution? > > Paul > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers. > Everything is OSPF but logically... > > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist > devices) is "fed" by... > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable bandwidth and > feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G > > Tower R then feeds... > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act. > There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to > each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the > backside links. > > The challenge... > > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I need > better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect and then > I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. > > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other than a > ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is inexpensive. > > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsynced can it sync, now or tomorrow? > Latency with sync? > > Paul > > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Matt via Af > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > > Hi, > >
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
I agree, I want an AF5 connectorized. From the perspective of ubnt engineering in Chicago, I bet a connectorized AF5 scares the hell out of them, because they're selling airfibers to enterprise/clueless customers that don't understand the technical properties of different types of PTP microwave dishes. If you could guarantee that a FDD, two dish AF5 setup was always installed with a pair of high quality, >70dB f/b ratio Jirous dishes or similar, it'd work great. When Bubba hooks up a connectorized AF5 to a random pair of noisy, low quality, unshielded PTP dishes, terrible things will happen. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: > Until they give me what I want (connectorized). > > > > - > 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> > > -- > *From: *"Eric Kuhnke via Af" > *To: *af@afmug.com > *Sent: *Monday, November 24, 2014 3:32:48 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium > > > he's asking for a 12 mile link... if the goal is to maximize the clean, > empty 5.x GHz spectrum for PtMP use by end user customers, an airfiber5 > backhaul is ruled out. > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af > wrote: > >> Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af >> wrote: >> >>> i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). >>> >>> we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for >>> PTP. >>> >>> the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like >>> the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are >>> both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. >>> same thing with backhauls. >>> >>> 2 cents >>> >>> -sean >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Cambium, >>> > >>> > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you >>> recommend to us for this type of problem/solution? >>> > >>> > Paul >>> > >>> > -Original Message- >>> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af >>> > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM >>> > To: af@afmug.com >>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >>> > >>> > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other >>> towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... >>> > >>> > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several >>> anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... >>> > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a >>> Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz >>> > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of >>> usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A >>> > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 >>> > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G >>> > >>> > Tower R then feeds... >>> > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of >>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>> > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>> > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>> > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>> > >>> > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling >>> act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect >>> (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT >>> radios on the backside links. >>> > >>> > The challenge... >>> > >>> > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, >>> I need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect >>> and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. >>> > >>> > So, what woul
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
Until they give me what I want (connectorized). - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Eric Kuhnke via Af" To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 3:32:48 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium he's asking for a 12 mile link... if the goal is to maximize the clean, empty 5.x GHz spectrum for PtMP use by end user customers, an airfiber5 backhaul is ruled out. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for PTP. the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. same thing with backhauls. 2 cents -sean On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: > > Cambium, > > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend to > us for this type of problem/solution? > > Paul > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers. > Everything is OSPF but logically... > > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist > devices) is "fed" by... > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable bandwidth and > feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G > > Tower R then feeds... > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act. > There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to > each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the > backside links. > > The challenge... > > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I need > better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect and then > I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. > > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other than a > ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is inexpensive. > > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsynced can it sync, now or tomorrow? > Latency with sync? > > Paul > > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Matt via Af > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > > Hi, > > > > Please allow me to clarify. > > > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE > > ports. > > > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. > > GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board > > GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). > > > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 > > and will apply to both products. > > Reading this spec sheet. > > http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf > > > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode)
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
Any plans for a 3.5 or 3.65 GHz AirFiber, using a similar system to the AF5? With integrated antennas, it'd be pretty big, but I could see it being useful in some applications where an AF24 won't reach far enough (8-9km and 99.999% max modulation over one year). On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af wrote: > Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af wrote: > >> i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). >> >> we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for >> PTP. >> >> the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like >> the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are >> both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. >> same thing with backhauls. >> >> 2 cents >> >> -sean >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: >> > >> > Cambium, >> > >> > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you >> recommend to us for this type of problem/solution? >> > >> > Paul >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af >> > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM >> > To: af@afmug.com >> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >> > >> > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other >> towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... >> > >> > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several >> anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... >> > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik >> RB912 5 Ghz >> > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of >> usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A >> > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 >> > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G >> > >> > Tower R then feeds... >> > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of >> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >> > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >> > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >> > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >> > >> > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling >> act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect >> (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT >> radios on the backside links. >> > >> > The challenge... >> > >> > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I >> need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect >> and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. >> > >> > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other >> than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is >> inexpensive. >> > >> > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or >> tomorrow? Latency with sync? >> > >> > Paul >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af >> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM >> > To: af@afmug.com >> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >> > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > Please allow me to clarify. >> > > >> > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two >> 10/100 FE ports. >> > > >> > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the >> > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary >> PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on >> board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). >> > > >> > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in >> Release 2.4 and will apply to both products. >> > >> > Reading this spec sheet. >> > >> > >> http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf >> > >> > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame >> > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode) >> > >
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
he's asking for a 12 mile link... if the goal is to maximize the clean, empty 5.x GHz spectrum for PtMP use by end user customers, an airfiber5 backhaul is ruled out. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af wrote: > Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af wrote: > >> i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). >> >> we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for >> PTP. >> >> the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like >> the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are >> both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. >> same thing with backhauls. >> >> 2 cents >> >> -sean >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: >> > >> > Cambium, >> > >> > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you >> recommend to us for this type of problem/solution? >> > >> > Paul >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af >> > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM >> > To: af@afmug.com >> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >> > >> > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other >> towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... >> > >> > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several >> anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... >> > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik >> RB912 5 Ghz >> > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of >> usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A >> > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 >> > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G >> > >> > Tower R then feeds... >> > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of >> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >> > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >> > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >> > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >> > >> > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling >> act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect >> (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT >> radios on the backside links. >> > >> > The challenge... >> > >> > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I >> need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect >> and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. >> > >> > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other >> than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is >> inexpensive. >> > >> > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or >> tomorrow? Latency with sync? >> > >> > Paul >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af >> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM >> > To: af@afmug.com >> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >> > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > Please allow me to clarify. >> > > >> > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two >> 10/100 FE ports. >> > > >> > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the >> > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary >> PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on >> board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). >> > > >> > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in >> Release 2.4 and will apply to both products. >> > >> > Reading this spec sheet. >> > >> > >> http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf >> > >> > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame >> > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode) >> > >
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
Young lady, I'm an expert on humans. Now open your mouth and lets have a look at that brain. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af wrote: > uh Zoidberg that is... > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af > wrote: > >> Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af >> wrote: >> >>> i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). >>> >>> we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for >>> PTP. >>> >>> the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like >>> the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are >>> both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. >>> same thing with backhauls. >>> >>> 2 cents >>> >>> -sean >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Cambium, >>> > >>> > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you >>> recommend to us for this type of problem/solution? >>> > >>> > Paul >>> > >>> > -Original Message- >>> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af >>> > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM >>> > To: af@afmug.com >>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >>> > >>> > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other >>> towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... >>> > >>> > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several >>> anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... >>> > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a >>> Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz >>> > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of >>> usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A >>> > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 >>> > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G >>> > >>> > Tower R then feeds... >>> > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of >>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>> > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>> > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>> > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >>> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>> > >>> > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling >>> act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect >>> (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT >>> radios on the backside links. >>> > >>> > The challenge... >>> > >>> > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, >>> I need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect >>> and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. >>> > >>> > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other >>> than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is >>> inexpensive. >>> > >>> > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or >>> tomorrow? Latency with sync? >>> > >>> > Paul >>> > >>> > >>> > -Original Message- >>> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af >>> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM >>> > To: af@afmug.com >>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >>> > >>> > > Hi, >>> > > >>> > > Please allow me to clarify. >>> > > >>> > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two >>> 10/100 FE ports. >>> > > >>> > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the >>> > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to >>> proprietary PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still >>> use the on board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). >>> > > >>> > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in >>> Release 2.4 and will apply to both products. >>> > >>> > Reading this spec sheet. >>> > >>> > >>> http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf >>> > >>> > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame >>> > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode) >>> >> >> >
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
uh Zoidberg that is... On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Chuck Macenski via Af wrote: > Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af wrote: > >> i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). >> >> we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for >> PTP. >> >> the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like >> the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are >> both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. >> same thing with backhauls. >> >> 2 cents >> >> -sean >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: >> > >> > Cambium, >> > >> > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you >> recommend to us for this type of problem/solution? >> > >> > Paul >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af >> > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM >> > To: af@afmug.com >> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >> > >> > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other >> towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... >> > >> > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several >> anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... >> > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik >> RB912 5 Ghz >> > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of >> usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A >> > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 >> > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G >> > >> > Tower R then feeds... >> > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of >> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >> > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >> > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >> > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of >> usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >> > >> > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling >> act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect >> (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT >> radios on the backside links. >> > >> > The challenge... >> > >> > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I >> need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect >> and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. >> > >> > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other >> than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is >> inexpensive. >> > >> > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or >> tomorrow? Latency with sync? >> > >> > Paul >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af >> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM >> > To: af@afmug.com >> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >> > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > Please allow me to clarify. >> > > >> > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two >> 10/100 FE ports. >> > > >> > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the >> > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary >> PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on >> board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). >> > > >> > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in >> Release 2.4 and will apply to both products. >> > >> > Reading this spec sheet. >> > >> > >> http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf >> > >> > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame >> > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode) >> > >
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
Why not Zoidburg (airFiber)? On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Sean Heskett via Af wrote: > i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). > > we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for > PTP. > > the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like the > difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are both > cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. same > thing with backhauls. > > 2 cents > > -sean > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: > > > > Cambium, > > > > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend > to us for this type of problem/solution? > > > > Paul > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af > > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM > > To: af@afmug.com > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > > > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other > towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... > > > > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several > anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... > > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik > RB912 5 Ghz > > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of > usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A > > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 > > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G > > > > Tower R then feeds... > > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of > usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of > usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of > usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of > usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > > > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling > act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect > (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT > radios on the backside links. > > > > The challenge... > > > > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I > need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect > and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. > > > > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other > than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is > inexpensive. > > > > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or > tomorrow? Latency with sync? > > > > Paul > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af > > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM > > To: af@afmug.com > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Please allow me to clarify. > > > > > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 > FE ports. > > > > > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the > > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary > PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on > board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). > > > > > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release > 2.4 and will apply to both products. > > > > Reading this spec sheet. > > > > > http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf > > > > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame > > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode) >
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
i would go licensed gear from SAF (or your favorite licensed PTP vendor). we keep all the unlicensed bands available for PMP...we use licensed for PTP. the difference between a wifi backhaul and a licensed backhaul is like the difference between a Ford Focus and a Ferrari F12berlinetta. they are both cars that drive on roads but that's about where the similarities end. same thing with backhauls. 2 cents -sean On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: > > Cambium, > > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend to us for this type of problem/solution? > > Paul > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... > > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... > Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz > This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A > Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 > This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G > > Tower R then feeds... > Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the backside links. > > The challenge... > > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. > > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is inexpensive. > > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or tomorrow? Latency with sync? > > Paul > > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > > Hi, > > > > Please allow me to clarify. > > > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE ports. > > > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the > > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). > > > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 and will apply to both products. > > Reading this spec sheet. > > http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf > > >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame > >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode)
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
If your budget extends as far as an unrestricted-license version of the PTP650 in the 5.x GHz bands, you are in my opinion better served by going to a licensed part 101 type solution... The PTP650 is the same price or higher than some 11 GHz licensed band full-link products on the market today, when used with 3'/4' size antennas. Get something that will operate in a single polarity, 40 MHz or 60 MHz wide channel, 1024QAM with ACM+ATPC and you will have greater reliability and throughput vs. a PTP650. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Brian Sullivan via Af wrote: > PTP 650 with Sync. > > > On 11/24/2014 9:51 AM, Gino Villarini via Af wrote: > >> Ptp 450 >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> @gvillarini >> >> >> >> On Nov 24, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: >>> >>> Cambium, >>> >>> Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend >>> to us for this type of problem/solution? >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af >>> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM >>> To: af@afmug.com >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >>> >>> For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other >>> towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... >>> >>> Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several >>> anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... >>> Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik >>> RB912 5 Ghz >>> This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable >>> bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A >>> Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 >>> This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G >>> >>> Tower R then feeds... >>> Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable >>> bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>> Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable >>> bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>> Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable >>> bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>> Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable >>> bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >>> >>> To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling >>> act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect >>> (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT >>> radios on the backside links. >>> >>> The challenge... >>> >>> First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I >>> need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect >>> and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. >>> >>> So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other >>> than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is >>> inexpensive. >>> >>> The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or >>> tomorrow? Latency with sync? >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af >>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM >>> To: af@afmug.com >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force >>> >>> Hi, Please allow me to clarify. The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE ports. The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 and will apply to both products. >>> Reading this spec sheet. >>> >>> http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/ >>> Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf >>> >>> LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame >> Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode) >> > >
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
PTP 650 with Sync. On 11/24/2014 9:51 AM, Gino Villarini via Af wrote: Ptp 450 Gino A. Villarini @gvillarini On Nov 24, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: Cambium, Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend to us for this type of problem/solution? Paul -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G Tower R then feeds... Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the backside links. The challenge... First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is inexpensive. The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or tomorrow? Latency with sync? Paul -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force Hi, Please allow me to clarify. The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE ports. The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 and will apply to both products. Reading this spec sheet. http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode)
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
Ptp 450 Gino A. Villarini @gvillarini > On Nov 24, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Paul McCall via Af wrote: > > Cambium, > > Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend to > us for this type of problem/solution? > > Paul > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > > For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers. > Everything is OSPF but logically... > > Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist > devices) is "fed" by... >Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz >This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable bandwidth > and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A >Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 >This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G > > Tower R then feeds... >Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) >Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable > bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) > > To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act. > There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to > each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the > backside links. > > The challenge... > > First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I need > better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect and then > I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. > > So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other than a > ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is inexpensive. > > The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or tomorrow? > Latency with sync? > > Paul > > > -Original Message- > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > >> Hi, >> >> Please allow me to clarify. >> >> The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE >> ports. >> >> The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the >> single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. >> GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board >> GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). >> >> The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 >> and will apply to both products. > > Reading this spec sheet. > > http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf > LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode)
Re: [AFMUG] For Cambium
Paul, If you will hit me up offlist at seth.po...@cambiumnetworks.com I will try to engineer something for you. Thanks, Seth Poché Cambium Networks – Regional Technical Manager Cell: 940-781-5707 -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:48 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] For Cambium Cambium, Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend to us for this type of problem/solution? Paul -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G Tower R then feeds... Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the backside links. The challenge... First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is inexpensive. The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or tomorrow? Latency with sync? Paul -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > Hi, > > Please allow me to clarify. > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE > ports. > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. > GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board > GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 > and will apply to both products. Reading this spec sheet. http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode)
[AFMUG] For Cambium
Cambium, Can you please make a suggestion as to what equipment that you recommend to us for this type of problem/solution? Paul -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall via Af Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers. Everything is OSPF but logically... Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist devices) is "fed" by... Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable bandwidth and feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5 This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G Tower R then feeds... Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable bandwidth. (Rohn 25G 120 ft.) To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act. There are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to each other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the backside links. The challenge... First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C. And, I need better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect and then I get customer complaints etc. I hate that. So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other than a ton of licensed links? Obviously, the gear I am using now is inexpensive. The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or tomorrow? Latency with sync? Paul -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force > Hi, > > Please allow me to clarify. > > The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE > ports. > > The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the > single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. > GPS capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board > GPS chip to track satellites and provide coordinates). > > The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 > and will apply to both products. Reading this spec sheet. http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf >>>LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame >>>Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode)
