Re: [AFMUG] B11 power in a pinch

[Steve Jones]

Thanks for the input guys, ended up finding it, it was in another jobs
project box, but good to know there are all these options.

On Sep 2, 2017 2:31 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappytelecom.net> wrote:

> yep.. including the AF24 48v or even the AF5x (48v) or Netonix Switch etc
> etc etc ... pretty much anything :)
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
> *To: *"af" <af@afmug.com>
> *Sent: *Saturday, September 2, 2017 3:01:39 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B11 power in a pinch
>
> I would guess an ePMP 2000 power supply would work, they'll take pretty
> much aby 48v poe punout you can throw at it.
>
> On Sep 2, 2017 1:32 PM, "Steve Jones" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is pinout. Im assuming epmp 2000 ap power supply wont work. I havent
>> checked packetflux website yet for the gigabit powerinjector to see if the
>> jumpers will let me do it cause im driving
>>
>> On Sep 2, 2017 1:07 PM, "Jaime Fink" <ja...@mimosa.co> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah really any 48VDC injector, it takes 802.3at PoE.
>>
>> > On Sep 2, 2017, at 10:53 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > We have an awol mimosa power supply and a crew hanging radios. What can
>> i use to power one of these. I have a syncinjector and i think agigabit
>> powerinjector. Some 48v power supplies and i think a 65 volt power supply
>> from cmm4. I dont have a mimosa power supply handy to reference. I think i
>> have a couple spare af24 original power supplies too, if i recall they were
>> an odd duck.
>> > Im in a real pinch here and am driving between sites looking to see if
>> somebody dropped it.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] B11 power in a pinch

[Faisal Imtiaz]

yep.. including the AF24 48v or even the AF5x (48v) or Netonix Switch etc etc 
etc ... pretty much anything :) 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
> To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2017 3:01:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 power in a pinch

> I would guess an ePMP 2000 power supply would work, they'll take pretty much 
> aby
> 48v poe punout you can throw at it.

> On Sep 2, 2017 1:32 PM, "Steve Jones" < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > wrote:

>> This is pinout. Im assuming epmp 2000 ap power supply wont work. I havent
>> checked packetflux website yet for the gigabit powerinjector to see if the
>> jumpers will let me do it cause im driving

>> On Sep 2, 2017 1:07 PM, "Jaime Fink" < ja...@mimosa.co > wrote:

>>> Yeah really any 48VDC injector, it takes 802.3at PoE.

>>> > On Sep 2, 2017, at 10:53 AM, Steve Jones < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > 
>>> > wrote:

>>>> We have an awol mimosa power supply and a crew hanging radios. What can i 
>>>> use to
>>>> power one of these. I have a syncinjector and i think agigabit 
>>>> powerinjector.
>>>> Some 48v power supplies and i think a 65 volt power supply from cmm4. I 
>>>> dont
>>>> have a mimosa power supply handy to reference. I think i have a couple 
>>>> spare
>>> > af24 original power supplies too, if i recall they were an odd duck.
>>>> Im in a real pinch here and am driving between sites looking to see if 
>>>> somebody
>>> > dropped it.

Re: [AFMUG] B11 power in a pinch

[Mathew Howard]

I would guess an ePMP 2000 power supply would work, they'll take pretty
much aby 48v poe punout you can throw at it.

On Sep 2, 2017 1:32 PM, "Steve Jones"  wrote:

> This is pinout. Im assuming epmp 2000 ap power supply wont work. I havent
> checked packetflux website yet for the gigabit powerinjector to see if the
> jumpers will let me do it cause im driving
>
> On Sep 2, 2017 1:07 PM, "Jaime Fink"  wrote:
>
> Yeah really any 48VDC injector, it takes 802.3at PoE.
>
> > On Sep 2, 2017, at 10:53 AM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
> >
> > We have an awol mimosa power supply and a crew hanging radios. What can
> i use to power one of these. I have a syncinjector and i think agigabit
> powerinjector. Some 48v power supplies and i think a 65 volt power supply
> from cmm4. I dont have a mimosa power supply handy to reference. I think i
> have a couple spare af24 original power supplies too, if i recall they were
> an odd duck.
> > Im in a real pinch here and am driving between sites looking to see if
> somebody dropped it.
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] B11 power in a pinch

[Jaime Fink]

http://backhaul.help.mimosa.co/backhaul-faq-voltage-input-specifications

Here's the specs on the inputs. It's pretty flexible on pin options it accepts.

On Sep 2, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:

This is pinout. Im assuming epmp 2000 ap power supply wont work. I havent 
checked packetflux website yet for the gigabit powerinjector to see if the 
jumpers will let me do it cause im driving

On Sep 2, 2017 1:07 PM, "Jaime Fink" > 
wrote:
Yeah really any 48VDC injector, it takes 802.3at PoE.

> On Sep 2, 2017, at 10:53 AM, Steve Jones 
> > wrote:
>
> We have an awol mimosa power supply and a crew hanging radios. What can i use 
> to power one of these. I have a syncinjector and i think agigabit 
> powerinjector. Some 48v power supplies and i think a 65 volt power supply 
> from cmm4. I dont have a mimosa power supply handy to reference. I think i 
> have a couple spare af24 original power supplies too, if i recall they were 
> an odd duck.
> Im in a real pinch here and am driving between sites looking to see if 
> somebody dropped it.

<20170902_131452.jpg>

Re: [AFMUG] B11 power in a pinch

[Jaime Fink]

Yeah really any 48VDC injector, it takes 802.3at PoE. 

> On Sep 2, 2017, at 10:53 AM, Steve Jones  wrote:
> 
> We have an awol mimosa power supply and a crew hanging radios. What can i use 
> to power one of these. I have a syncinjector and i think agigabit 
> powerinjector. Some 48v power supplies and i think a 65 volt power supply 
> from cmm4. I dont have a mimosa power supply handy to reference. I think i 
> have a couple spare af24 original power supplies too, if i recall they were 
> an odd duck.
> Im in a real pinch here and am driving between sites looking to see if 
> somebody dropped it.

Re: [AFMUG] B11 power in a pinch

[Bill Prince]

Pretty sure you can use an 802.3af injector on Mimosa.


bp


On 9/2/2017 10:53 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
We have an awol mimosa power supply and a crew hanging radios. What 
can i use to power one of these. I have a syncinjector and i think 
agigabit powerinjector. Some 48v power supplies and i think a 65 volt 
power supply from cmm4. I dont have a mimosa power supply handy to 
reference. I think i have a couple spare af24 original power supplies 
too, if i recall they were an odd duck.
Im in a real pinch here and am driving between sites looking to see if 
somebody dropped it.

[AFMUG] B11 power in a pinch

[Steve Jones]

We have an awol mimosa power supply and a crew hanging radios. What can i
use to power one of these. I have a syncinjector and i think agigabit
powerinjector. Some 48v power supplies and i think a 65 volt power supply
from cmm4. I dont have a mimosa power supply handy to reference. I think i
have a couple spare af24 original power supplies too, if i recall they were
an odd duck.
Im in a real pinch here and am driving between sites looking to see if
somebody dropped it.

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Ken Hohhof]

If the lowest xmt pwr setting still give you too hot a signal at the rcv
side, would it be rude to suggest you need a different radio system, or
maybe a different band like 18 or 23 GHz or even 60+ GHz?  11 GHz is not
intended for super short links, sweet spot is probably around 5 miles
depending on rain region.

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:45 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

 

RF absorbing foam can give you whatever loss you desire.  

 

From: Gino Villarini 

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 4:36 AM

To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>  

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

 

Attach 1/2" thick plywood to the radome at both ends? 

 

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com> > on behalf of
Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com> >
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> " <af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com> >
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:29 AM
To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> " <af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

 

A block of wood you say? 

 

Is this radio a witch!? :-)

 


 

Gino Villarini


President


Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968



On Jan 31, 2017 3:24 AM, "Gino Villarini" <g...@aeronetpr.com
<mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com> > wrote:

Some dampening material in front of the antenna, maybe wood? 

 

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com> > on behalf of
Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net <mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net> >
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> " <af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com> >
Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:17 PM
To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> " <af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

 

Thanks Chris & Chris.. for asking the question I had and answering it.  :)

 

For Chris T.

 

For those of us for who 10db is till too hot... 

   Do you think Engineering can come with with some sort of a insert that we
could possibly install in the wave guide .. which could say dampen 3-5 db
worth of Tx Power ? 

 

I think such 'disc' would be very helpful for the short links like the one
Chris & others have ..

 

Regards

 

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <tel:(305)%20663-5518> 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <tel:(305)%20663-5518>  Option 2 or Email:
supp...@snappytelecom.net <mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net> 

 


 

Gino Villarini


President


Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968




  _  


From: "Chris Trout" <ch...@mimosa.co <mailto:ch...@mimosa.co> >
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:00:31 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Chris,

 

Yes, there is a hardware limitation. The diode detectors used in the PA to
control Tx power lose dynamic range at low power. I've raised your request
to our engineering team for future product designs.

 

Chris Trout

Mimosa Networks, Inc.

 

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com> > on behalf of
Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net <mailto:ch...@velociter.net> >
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> " <af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com> >
Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 8:23 AM
To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> " <af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

 

In my case, even 10dB output on both sides is still too hot. Is the 10dB
minimum power output a hardware limitation or is it possible you can throw
that on the feature requests pile?

 

Thanks,

 

Chris Wright

Network Administrator

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Trout
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:39 PM
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

 

Hi Faisal,

 

TPC is designed to do this automatically, but so far we have limited how
much change it can make, and are still tuning its behavior in cases of
unequal power per side of the link, very low RSSI on one or more chains, and
very high RSSI. Some of these changes will be included in the next backhaul
firmware release. 

 

In our experience, targeting 30 dB of SNR per chain results in the best
performance, so for now we recommend adjusting Tx power to get near that
level, and then let TPC manage fine adjustments from there. 

 

Chris Trout

Mimosa Networks, Inc.

 

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com> > on behalf of
Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@sn

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Chuck McCown]

RF absorbing foam can give you whatever loss you desire.  

From: Gino Villarini 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 4:36 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Attach 1/2” thick plywood to the radome at both ends? 

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Josh Reynolds 
<j...@kyneticwifi.com>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:29 AM
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP


A block of wood you say? 

Is this radio a witch!? :-)




  Gino Villarini
 
  President 
  Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 




On Jan 31, 2017 3:24 AM, "Gino Villarini" <g...@aeronetpr.com> wrote:

  Some dampening material in front of the antenna, maybe wood? 

  From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Faisal Imtiaz 
<fai...@snappytelecom.net>
  Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
  Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:17 PM
  To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP


  Thanks Chris & Chris.. for asking the question I had and answering it.  :)


  For Chris T.


  For those of us for who 10db is till too hot... 

 Do you think Engineering can come with with some sort of a insert that we 
could possibly install in the wave guide .. which could say dampen 3-5 db worth 
of Tx Power ? 


  I think such 'disc' would be very helpful for the short links like the one 
Chris & others have ..


  Regards


  Faisal Imtiaz
  Snappy Internet & Telecom
  7266 SW 48 Street
  Miami, FL 33155
  Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

  Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net



Gino Villarini
   
President 
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 





--

From: "Chris Trout" <ch...@mimosa.co>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:00:31 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Chris,



Yes, there is a hardware limitation. The diode detectors used in the PA to 
control Tx power lose dynamic range at low power. I’ve raised your request to 
our engineering team for future product designs.



Chris Trout

Mimosa Networks, Inc.



From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Chris Wright 
<ch...@velociter.net>
    Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 8:23 AM
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP



In my case, even 10dB output on both sides is still too hot. Is the 10dB 
minimum power output a hardware limitation or is it possible you can throw that 
on the feature requests pile?



Thanks,



Chris Wright

    Network Administrator



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Trout
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:39 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP



Hi Faisal,



TPC is designed to do this automatically, but so far we have limited how 
much change it can make, and are still tuning its behavior in cases of unequal 
power per side of the link, very low RSSI on one or more chains, and very high 
RSSI. Some of these changes will be included in the next backhaul firmware 
release. 



In our experience, targeting 30 dB of SNR per chain results in the best 
performance, so for now we recommend adjusting Tx power to get near that level, 
and then let TPC manage fine adjustments from there. 



Chris Trout

Mimosa Networks, Inc.



From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Faisal Imtiaz 
<fai...@snappytelecom.net>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 10:36 AM
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP



Hi Chris,



What is the optimum  SNR or aka the sweet spot.



Which actually leads to another question which I have...



On my link, I had to manually reduce TX Power to 10dBm (lowest possible) in 
order to end up with a SNR of 35/37...



Can we possible see this being done by TPC vs a manual power decrease ?



Regards.



Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net





----

  From: "Chris Trout" <ch...@mimosa.co>
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:32:32 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

  Great point, Tim. I have updated our documentation.



  Transmit compression start

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Faisal Imtiaz]

I was thinking more along the lines of something like such... 

https://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/Laird%20Technologies/EMI_MicroAbsorb_Cat.pdf
 

adding plywood infront of the antenna while sounding easy is not the most 
practical thing to do... depending on where the antenna is mounted 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Gino Villarini" <g...@aeronetpr.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 6:36:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> Attach 1/2” thick plywood to the radome at both ends?

> From: Af < af-boun...@afmug.com > on behalf of Josh Reynolds <
> j...@kyneticwifi.com >
> Reply-To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com >
> Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:29 AM
> To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com >
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> A block of wood you say?

> Is this radio a witch!? :-)

> Gino Villarini
> President
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

> On Jan 31, 2017 3:24 AM, "Gino Villarini" < g...@aeronetpr.com > wrote:

>> Some dampening material in front of the antenna, maybe wood?

>> From: Af < af-boun...@afmug.com > on behalf of Faisal Imtiaz <
>> fai...@snappytelecom.net >
>> Reply-To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com >
>> Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:17 PM
>> To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com >
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>> Thanks Chris & Chris.. for asking the question I had and answering it. :)

>> For Chris T.

>> For those of us for who 10db is till too hot...
>> Do you think Engineering can come with with some sort of a insert that we 
>> could
>> possibly install in the wave guide .. which could say dampen 3-5 db worth of 
>> Tx
>> Power ?

>> I think such 'disc' would be very helpful for the short links like the one 
>> Chris
>> & others have ..

>> Regards

>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>> Gino Villarini
>> President
>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

>>> From: "Chris Trout" < ch...@mimosa.co >
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:00:31 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>>> Hi Chris,

>>> Yes, there is a hardware limitation. The diode detectors used in the PA to
>>> control Tx power lose dynamic range at low power. I’ve raised your request 
>>> to
>>> our engineering team for future product designs.

>>> Chris Trout

>>> Mimosa Networks, Inc.

>>> From: Af < af-boun...@afmug.com > on behalf of Chris Wright <
>>> ch...@velociter.net >
>>> Reply-To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com >
>>> Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 8:23 AM
>>> To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com >
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>>> In my case, even 10dB output on both sides is still too hot. Is the 10dB 
>>> minimum
>>> power output a hardware limitation or is it possible you can throw that on 
>>> the
>>> feature requests pile?

>>> Thanks,

>>> Chris Wright

>>> Network Administrator

>>> From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Chris Trout
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:39 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>>> Hi Faisal,

>>> TPC is designed to do this automatically, but so far we have limited how 
>>> much
>>> change it can make, and are still tuning its behavior in cases of unequal 
>>> power
>>> per side of the link, very low RSSI on one or more chains, and very high 
>>> RSSI.
>>> Some of these changes will be included in the next backhaul firmware 
>>> release.

>>> In our experience, targeting 30 dB of SNR per chain results in the best
>>> performance, so for now we recommend adjusting Tx power to get near that 
>>> level,
>>> and then let TPC manage fine adjustments from there.

>>> Chris Trout

>>> Mimosa Networks, Inc.

>>> From: Af < af-boun...@afmug.com > on behalf of Faisal Imtiaz <
>>> fai...@snappytelecom.net >
>>> R

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Gino Villarini]

Attach 1/2” thick plywood to the radome at both ends?

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of Josh 
Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com<mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 7:29 AM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

A block of wood you say?

Is this radio a witch!? :-)




Gino Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]

On Jan 31, 2017 3:24 AM, "Gino Villarini" 
<g...@aeronetpr.com<mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com>> wrote:
Some dampening material in front of the antenna, maybe wood?

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of 
Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:17 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Thanks Chris & Chris.. for asking the question I had and answering it.  :)

For Chris T.

For those of us for who 10db is till too hot...
   Do you think Engineering can come with with some sort of a insert that we 
could possibly install in the wave guide .. which could say dampen 3-5 db worth 
of Tx Power ?

I think such 'disc' would be very helpful for the short links like the one 
Chris & others have ..

Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232<tel:(305)%20663-5518>

Help-desk: (305)663-5518<tel:(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>




Gino Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]


From: "Chris Trout" <ch...@mimosa.co<mailto:ch...@mimosa.co>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:00:31 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Hi Chris,

Yes, there is a hardware limitation. The diode detectors used in the PA to 
control Tx power lose dynamic range at low power. I’ve raised your request to 
our engineering team for future product designs.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of Chris 
Wright <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 8:23 AM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

In my case, even 10dB output on both sides is still too hot. Is the 10dB 
minimum power output a hardware limitation or is it possible you can throw that 
on the feature requests pile?

Thanks,

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Trout
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:39 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Faisal,

TPC is designed to do this automatically, but so far we have limited how much 
change it can make, and are still tuning its behavior in cases of unequal power 
per side of the link, very low RSSI on one or more chains, and very high RSSI. 
Some of these changes will be included in the next backhaul firmware release.

In our experience, targeting 30 dB of SNR per chain results in the best 
performance, so for now we recommend adjusting Tx power to get near that level, 
and then let TPC manage fine adjustments from there.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of 
Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 10:36 AM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Chris,

What is the optimum  SNR or aka the sweet spot.

Which actually leads to another question which I have...

On my link, I had to manually reduce TX Power to 10dBm (lowest possible) in 
order to end up with a SNR of 35/37...

Can we possible see this being done by TPC vs a manual power decrease ?

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Josh Reynolds]

A block of wood you say?

Is this radio a witch!? :-)

On Jan 31, 2017 3:24 AM, "Gino Villarini" <g...@aeronetpr.com> wrote:

> Some dampening material in front of the antenna, maybe wood?
>
> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Faisal Imtiaz <
> fai...@snappytelecom.net>
> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:17 PM
> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
> Thanks Chris & Chris.. for asking the question I had and answering it.  :)
>
> For Chris T.
>
> For those of us for who 10db is till too hot...
>Do you think Engineering can come with with some sort of a insert that
> we could possibly install in the wave guide .. which could say dampen 3-5
> db worth of Tx Power ?
>
> I think such 'disc' would be very helpful for the short links like the one
> Chris & others have ..
>
> Regards
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
>
>
> *Gino Villarini*
> President
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Chris Trout" <ch...@mimosa.co>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Monday, January 30, 2017 9:00:31 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>
>
> Yes, there is a hardware limitation. The diode detectors used in the PA to
> control Tx power lose dynamic range at low power. I’ve raised your request
> to our engineering team for future product designs.
>
>
>
> Chris Trout
>
> Mimosa Networks, Inc.
>
>
>
> *From: *Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Chris Wright <
> ch...@velociter.net>
> *Reply-To: *"af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> *Date: *Monday, January 30, 2017 at 8:23 AM
> *To: *"af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
>
>
> In my case, even 10dB output on both sides is still too hot. Is the 10dB
> minimum power output a hardware limitation or is it possible you can throw
> that on the feature requests pile?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Chris Wright
>
> Network Administrator
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Chris Trout
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:39 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
>
>
> Hi Faisal,
>
>
>
> TPC is designed to do this automatically, but so far we have limited how
> much change it can make, and are still tuning its behavior in cases of
> unequal power per side of the link, very low RSSI on one or more chains,
> and very high RSSI. Some of these changes will be included in the next
> backhaul firmware release.
>
>
>
> In our experience, targeting 30 dB of SNR per chain results in the best
> performance, so for now we recommend adjusting Tx power to get near that
> level, and then let TPC manage fine adjustments from there.
>
>
>
> Chris Trout
>
> Mimosa Networks, Inc.
>
>
>
> *From: *Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Faisal Imtiaz <
> fai...@snappytelecom.net>
> *Reply-To: *"af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 10:36 AM
> *To: *"af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>
>
> What is the optimum  SNR or aka the sweet spot.
>
>
>
> Which actually leads to another question which I have...
>
>
>
> On my link, I had to manually reduce TX Power to 10dBm (lowest possible)
> in order to end up with a SNR of 35/37...
>
>
>
> Can we possible see this being done by TPC vs a manual power decrease ?
>
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Chris Trout" <ch...@mimosa.co>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:32:32 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
> Great point, Tim. I have updated our documentation.
>
>
>
> Transmit compression starts at 27 dBm Tx power on backhaul products. TPC
> backs off from this 

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Gino Villarini]

Some dampening material in front of the antenna, maybe wood?

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of 
Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:17 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Thanks Chris & Chris.. for asking the question I had and answering it.  :)

For Chris T.

For those of us for who 10db is till too hot...
   Do you think Engineering can come with with some sort of a insert that we 
could possibly install in the wave guide .. which could say dampen 3-5 db worth 
of Tx Power ?

I think such 'disc' would be very helpful for the short links like the one 
Chris & others have ..

Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>




Gino Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]


From: "Chris Trout" <ch...@mimosa.co<mailto:ch...@mimosa.co>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:00:31 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Hi Chris,

Yes, there is a hardware limitation. The diode detectors used in the PA to 
control Tx power lose dynamic range at low power. I’ve raised your request to 
our engineering team for future product designs.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of Chris 
Wright <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 8:23 AM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

In my case, even 10dB output on both sides is still too hot. Is the 10dB 
minimum power output a hardware limitation or is it possible you can throw that 
on the feature requests pile?

Thanks,

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Trout
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:39 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Faisal,

TPC is designed to do this automatically, but so far we have limited how much 
change it can make, and are still tuning its behavior in cases of unequal power 
per side of the link, very low RSSI on one or more chains, and very high RSSI. 
Some of these changes will be included in the next backhaul firmware release.

In our experience, targeting 30 dB of SNR per chain results in the best 
performance, so for now we recommend adjusting Tx power to get near that level, 
and then let TPC manage fine adjustments from there.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of 
Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 10:36 AM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Chris,

What is the optimum  SNR or aka the sweet spot.

Which actually leads to another question which I have...

On my link, I had to manually reduce TX Power to 10dBm (lowest possible) in 
order to end up with a SNR of 35/37...

Can we possible see this being done by TPC vs a manual power decrease ?

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Trout" <ch...@mimosa.co<mailto:ch...@mimosa.co>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:32:32 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Great point, Tim. I have updated our documentation.

Transmit compression starts at 27 dBm Tx power on backhaul products. TPC backs 
off from this value automatically if SNR allows.

Mimosa backhaul radios are capable of associating at relatively high Rx power 
levels (between -30 and -20 dBm). However, higher power levels cause the 
receivers to saturate, and this increases the error vector magnitude (EVM). For 
this reason, Mimosa recommends designing links

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Thanks Chris & Chris.. for asking the question I had and answering it. :) 

For Chris T. 

For those of us for who 10db is till too hot... 
Do you think Engineering can come with with some sort of a insert that we could 
possibly install in the wave guide .. which could say dampen 3-5 db worth of Tx 
Power ? 

I think such 'disc' would be very helpful for the short links like the one 
Chris & others have .. 

Regards 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Chris Trout" <ch...@mimosa.co>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:00:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> Hi Chris,

> Yes, there is a hardware limitation. The diode detectors used in the PA to
> control Tx power lose dynamic range at low power. I’ve raised your request to
> our engineering team for future product designs.

> Chris Trout

> Mimosa Networks, Inc.

> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Chris Wright 
> <ch...@velociter.net>
> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 8:23 AM
> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> In my case, even 10dB output on both sides is still too hot. Is the 10dB 
> minimum
> power output a hardware limitation or is it possible you can throw that on the
> feature requests pile?

> Thanks,

> Chris Wright

> Network Administrator

> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Trout
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:39 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> Hi Faisal,

> TPC is designed to do this automatically, but so far we have limited how much
> change it can make, and are still tuning its behavior in cases of unequal 
> power
> per side of the link, very low RSSI on one or more chains, and very high RSSI.
> Some of these changes will be included in the next backhaul firmware release.

> In our experience, targeting 30 dB of SNR per chain results in the best
> performance, so for now we recommend adjusting Tx power to get near that 
> level,
> and then let TPC manage fine adjustments from there.

> Chris Trout

> Mimosa Networks, Inc.

> From: Af < af-boun...@afmug.com > on behalf of Faisal Imtiaz <
> fai...@snappytelecom.net >
> Reply-To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com >
> Date: Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 10:36 AM
> To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com >
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> Hi Chris,

> What is the optimum SNR or aka the sweet spot.

> Which actually leads to another question which I have...

> On my link, I had to manually reduce TX Power to 10dBm (lowest possible) in
> order to end up with a SNR of 35/37...

> Can we possible see this being done by TPC vs a manual power decrease ?

> Regards.

> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>> From: "Chris Trout" < ch...@mimosa.co >
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:32:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>> Great point, Tim. I have updated our documentation.

>> Transmit compression starts at 27 dBm Tx power on backhaul products. TPC 
>> backs
>> off from this value automatically if SNR allows.

>> Mimosa backhaul radios are capable of associating at relatively high Rx power
>> levels (between -30 and -20 dBm). However, higher power levels cause the
>> receivers to saturate, and this increases the error vector magnitude (EVM). 
>> For
>> this reason, Mimosa recommends designing links with -30 dBm or lower received
>> power to avoid saturation.

>> To optimize RF performance, adjust Tx power on the AP while monitoring both 
>> Rx
>> power and EVM on the Station side of the link. Tx power should be set to a
>> value that results in the lowest EVM value.

>> The only reason why some compression or saturation may be acceptable is in 
>> the
>> case of low SNR, which has a larger effect on overall performance.

>> Chris Trout

>> Mimosa Networks, Inc.

>> From: Af < af-boun...@afmug.com > on behalf of "Hardy, Tim" <
>> tha...@comsearch.com >
>> Reply-To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com >
>> Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 6:47 PM
>> To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com >
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>> Chris,

&

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Chris Trout]

Hi Chris,

Yes, there is a hardware limitation. The diode detectors used in the PA to 
control Tx power lose dynamic range at low power. I’ve raised your request to 
our engineering team for future product designs.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Monday, January 30, 2017 at 8:23 AM
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

In my case, even 10dB output on both sides is still too hot. Is the 10dB 
minimum power output a hardware limitation or is it possible you can throw that 
on the feature requests pile?

Thanks,

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Trout
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:39 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Faisal,

TPC is designed to do this automatically, but so far we have limited how much 
change it can make, and are still tuning its behavior in cases of unequal power 
per side of the link, very low RSSI on one or more chains, and very high RSSI. 
Some of these changes will be included in the next backhaul firmware release.

In our experience, targeting 30 dB of SNR per chain results in the best 
performance, so for now we recommend adjusting Tx power to get near that level, 
and then let TPC manage fine adjustments from there.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of 
Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 10:36 AM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Chris,

What is the optimum  SNR or aka the sweet spot.

Which actually leads to another question which I have...

On my link, I had to manually reduce TX Power to 10dBm (lowest possible) in 
order to end up with a SNR of 35/37...

Can we possible see this being done by TPC vs a manual power decrease ?

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Trout" <ch...@mimosa.co<mailto:ch...@mimosa.co>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:32:32 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Great point, Tim. I have updated our documentation.

Transmit compression starts at 27 dBm Tx power on backhaul products. TPC backs 
off from this value automatically if SNR allows.

Mimosa backhaul radios are capable of associating at relatively high Rx power 
levels (between -30 and -20 dBm). However, higher power levels cause the 
receivers to saturate, and this increases the error vector magnitude (EVM). For 
this reason, Mimosa recommends designing links with -30 dBm or lower received 
power to avoid saturation.

To optimize RF performance, adjust Tx power on the AP while monitoring both Rx 
power and EVM on the Station side of the link. Tx power should be set to a 
value that results in the lowest EVM value.

The only reason why some compression or saturation may be acceptable is in the 
case of low SNR, which has a larger effect on overall performance.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of 
"Hardy, Tim" <tha...@comsearch.com<mailto:tha...@comsearch.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 6:47 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Chris,

It might help us design these properly if we knew what the saturation levels 
were.  We have these for most other radios.

Thanks,

Tim
____________
From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of Chris 
Trout <ch...@mimosa.co<mailto:ch...@mimosa.co>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:22:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

The PHY (Layer 1) is affected by EVM and PER which cause changes in modulation.
The MAC (Layer 2), where TDMA lives, makes use of the PHY but does not change 
it directly.
Changes in the amount and direction of traffic across the link do affect EVM 
and PER, however.

It is likely that the PHY rate is more stable on your link at 1300 Mbps (MCS7) 
than at 1560 Mbps (MCS8), and Auto TDMA is reacting f

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Chris Wright]

In my case, even 10dB output on both sides is still too hot. Is the 10dB 
minimum power output a hardware limitation or is it possible you can throw that 
on the feature requests pile?

Thanks,

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Trout
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:39 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Faisal,

TPC is designed to do this automatically, but so far we have limited how much 
change it can make, and are still tuning its behavior in cases of unequal power 
per side of the link, very low RSSI on one or more chains, and very high RSSI. 
Some of these changes will be included in the next backhaul firmware release.

In our experience, targeting 30 dB of SNR per chain results in the best 
performance, so for now we recommend adjusting Tx power to get near that level, 
and then let TPC manage fine adjustments from there.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of 
Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 10:36 AM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Chris,

What is the optimum  SNR or aka the sweet spot.

Which actually leads to another question which I have...

On my link, I had to manually reduce TX Power to 10dBm (lowest possible) in 
order to end up with a SNR of 35/37...

Can we possible see this being done by TPC vs a manual power decrease ?

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Trout" <ch...@mimosa.co<mailto:ch...@mimosa.co>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:32:32 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Great point, Tim. I have updated our documentation.

Transmit compression starts at 27 dBm Tx power on backhaul products. TPC backs 
off from this value automatically if SNR allows.

Mimosa backhaul radios are capable of associating at relatively high Rx power 
levels (between -30 and -20 dBm). However, higher power levels cause the 
receivers to saturate, and this increases the error vector magnitude (EVM). For 
this reason, Mimosa recommends designing links with -30 dBm or lower received 
power to avoid saturation.

To optimize RF performance, adjust Tx power on the AP while monitoring both Rx 
power and EVM on the Station side of the link. Tx power should be set to a 
value that results in the lowest EVM value.

The only reason why some compression or saturation may be acceptable is in the 
case of low SNR, which has a larger effect on overall performance.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of 
"Hardy, Tim" <tha...@comsearch.com<mailto:tha...@comsearch.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 6:47 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Chris,

It might help us design these properly if we knew what the saturation levels 
were.  We have these for most other radios.

Thanks,

Tim

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of Chris 
Trout <ch...@mimosa.co<mailto:ch...@mimosa.co>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:22:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

The PHY (Layer 1) is affected by EVM and PER which cause changes in modulation.
The MAC (Layer 2), where TDMA lives, makes use of the PHY but does not change 
it directly.
Changes in the amount and direction of traffic across the link do affect EVM 
and PER, however.

It is likely that the PHY rate is more stable on your link at 1300 Mbps (MCS7) 
than at 1560 Mbps (MCS8), and Auto TDMA is reacting faster to changing 
conditions since it sends a shorter duration of packets for training the PHY 
rate.

As others have recommended, reducing power will avoid saturating the receiver, 
and reduce (improve) EVM. I think that is what we may be seeing here on a very 
short link.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of Chris 
Wright <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>&qu

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Chris Trout]

Hi Faisal,

TPC is designed to do this automatically, but so far we have limited how much 
change it can make, and are still tuning its behavior in cases of unequal power 
per side of the link, very low RSSI on one or more chains, and very high RSSI. 
Some of these changes will be included in the next backhaul firmware release.

In our experience, targeting 30 dB of SNR per chain results in the best 
performance, so for now we recommend adjusting Tx power to get near that level, 
and then let TPC manage fine adjustments from there.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Faisal Imtiaz 
<fai...@snappytelecom.net>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 10:36 AM
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Chris,

What is the optimum  SNR or aka the sweet spot.

Which actually leads to another question which I have...

On my link, I had to manually reduce TX Power to 10dBm (lowest possible) in 
order to end up with a SNR of 35/37...

Can we possible see this being done by TPC vs a manual power decrease ?

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net


From: "Chris Trout" <ch...@mimosa.co>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:32:32 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Great point, Tim. I have updated our documentation.

Transmit compression starts at 27 dBm Tx power on backhaul products. TPC backs 
off from this value automatically if SNR allows.

Mimosa backhaul radios are capable of associating at relatively high Rx power 
levels (between -30 and -20 dBm). However, higher power levels cause the 
receivers to saturate, and this increases the error vector magnitude (EVM). For 
this reason, Mimosa recommends designing links with -30 dBm or lower received 
power to avoid saturation.

To optimize RF performance, adjust Tx power on the AP while monitoring both Rx 
power and EVM on the Station side of the link. Tx power should be set to a 
value that results in the lowest EVM value.

The only reason why some compression or saturation may be acceptable is in the 
case of low SNR, which has a larger effect on overall performance.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of "Hardy, Tim" <tha...@comsearch.com>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 6:47 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Chris,

It might help us design these properly if we knew what the saturation levels 
were.  We have these for most other radios.

Thanks,

Tim

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Chris Trout <ch...@mimosa.co>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:22:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

The PHY (Layer 1) is affected by EVM and PER which cause changes in modulation.
The MAC (Layer 2), where TDMA lives, makes use of the PHY but does not change 
it directly.
Changes in the amount and direction of traffic across the link do affect EVM 
and PER, however.

It is likely that the PHY rate is more stable on your link at 1300 Mbps (MCS7) 
than at 1560 Mbps (MCS8), and Auto TDMA is reacting faster to changing 
conditions since it sends a shorter duration of packets for training the PHY 
rate.

As others have recommended, reducing power will avoid saturating the receiver, 
and reduce (improve) EVM. I think that is what we may be seeing here on a very 
short link.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 1:55 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Traffic Split set to Auto:
PHY1300/1300

Traffic Split set to 75/25, 8ms window:
PHY1560/1300

Anyone can see why one should prefer setting the Traffic Split to 75/25 – it 
provides more bandwidth in one direction.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Cc: Chris Wright
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Chris,

I want to compare something with my link...

Can you please share what's the listed PHY rates were on your PCN for the link.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>

________
From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velocite

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Gino Villarini]

Yeap, ATPC is needed to overcome rainfade

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of 
Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 2:36 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Chris,

What is the optimum  SNR or aka the sweet spot.

Which actually leads to another question which I have...

On my link, I had to manually reduce TX Power to 10dBm (lowest possible) in 
order to end up with a SNR of 35/37...

Can we possible see this being done by TPC vs a manual power decrease ?

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>




Gino Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]


From: "Chris Trout" <ch...@mimosa.co<mailto:ch...@mimosa.co>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:32:32 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Great point, Tim. I have updated our documentation.

Transmit compression starts at 27 dBm Tx power on backhaul products. TPC backs 
off from this value automatically if SNR allows.

Mimosa backhaul radios are capable of associating at relatively high Rx power 
levels (between -30 and -20 dBm). However, higher power levels cause the 
receivers to saturate, and this increases the error vector magnitude (EVM). For 
this reason, Mimosa recommends designing links with -30 dBm or lower received 
power to avoid saturation.

To optimize RF performance, adjust Tx power on the AP while monitoring both Rx 
power and EVM on the Station side of the link. Tx power should be set to a 
value that results in the lowest EVM value.

The only reason why some compression or saturation may be acceptable is in the 
case of low SNR, which has a larger effect on overall performance.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of 
"Hardy, Tim" <tha...@comsearch.com<mailto:tha...@comsearch.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 6:47 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Chris,

It might help us design these properly if we knew what the saturation levels 
were.  We have these for most other radios.

Thanks,

Tim

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of Chris 
Trout <ch...@mimosa.co<mailto:ch...@mimosa.co>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:22:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

The PHY (Layer 1) is affected by EVM and PER which cause changes in modulation.
The MAC (Layer 2), where TDMA lives, makes use of the PHY but does not change 
it directly.
Changes in the amount and direction of traffic across the link do affect EVM 
and PER, however.

It is likely that the PHY rate is more stable on your link at 1300 Mbps (MCS7) 
than at 1560 Mbps (MCS8), and Auto TDMA is reacting faster to changing 
conditions since it sends a shorter duration of packets for training the PHY 
rate.

As others have recommended, reducing power will avoid saturating the receiver, 
and reduce (improve) EVM. I think that is what we may be seeing here on a very 
short link.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of Chris 
Wright <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 1:55 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Traffic Split set to Auto:
PHY1300/1300

Traffic Split set to 75/25, 8ms window:
PHY1560/1300

Anyone can see why one should prefer setting the Traffic Split to 75/25 – it 
provides more bandwidth in one direction.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Cc: Chris Wright
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Chris,

I want to comp

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Hi Chris, 

What is the optimum SNR or aka the sweet spot. 

Which actually leads to another question which I have... 

On my link, I had to manually reduce TX Power to 10dBm (lowest possible) in 
order to end up with a SNR of 35/37... 

Can we possible see this being done by TPC vs a manual power decrease ? 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Chris Trout" <ch...@mimosa.co>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:32:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> Great point, Tim. I have updated our documentation.

> Transmit compression starts at 27 dBm Tx power on backhaul products. TPC backs
> off from this value automatically if SNR allows.

> Mimosa backhaul radios are capable of associating at relatively high Rx power
> levels (between -30 and -20 dBm). However, higher power levels cause the
> receivers to saturate, and this increases the error vector magnitude (EVM). 
> For
> this reason, Mimosa recommends designing links with -30 dBm or lower received
> power to avoid saturation.

> To optimize RF performance, adjust Tx power on the AP while monitoring both Rx
> power and EVM on the Station side of the link. Tx power should be set to a
> value that results in the lowest EVM value.

> The only reason why some compression or saturation may be acceptable is in the
> case of low SNR, which has a larger effect on overall performance.

> Chris Trout

> Mimosa Networks, Inc.

> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of "Hardy, Tim" 
> <tha...@comsearch.com>
> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 6:47 PM
> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> Chris,

> It might help us design these properly if we knew what the saturation levels
> were. We have these for most other radios.

> Thanks,

> Tim

> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Chris Trout <ch...@mimosa.co>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:22:14 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> The PHY (Layer 1) is affected by EVM and PER which cause changes in 
> modulation.

> The MAC (Layer 2), where TDMA lives, makes use of the PHY but does not change 
> it
> directly.

> Changes in the amount and direction of traffic across the link do affect EVM 
> and
> PER, however.

> It is likely that the PHY rate is more stable on your link at 1300 Mbps (MCS7)
> than at 1560 Mbps (MCS8), and Auto TDMA is reacting faster to changing
> conditions since it sends a shorter duration of packets for training the PHY
> rate.

> As others have recommended, reducing power will avoid saturating the receiver,
> and reduce (improve) EVM. I think that is what we may be seeing here on a very
> short link.

> Chris Trout

> Mimosa Networks, Inc.

> From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Chris Wright 
> <ch...@velociter.net>
> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 1:55 PM
> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> Traffic Split set to Auto:

> PHY 1300/1300

> Traffic Split set to 75/25, 8ms window:

> PHY 1560/1300

> Anyone can see why one should prefer setting the Traffic Split to 75/25 – it
> provides more bandwidth in one direction.

> Chris Wright

> Network Administrator

> From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:35 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Cc: Chris Wright
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> Hi Chris,

> I want to compare something with my link...

> Can you please share what's the listed PHY rates were on your PCN for the 
> link.

> Regards.

> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>> From: "Chris Wright" < ch...@velociter.net >
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:21:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>> Power is already at the minimum (10dBm) on both sides. 2.2km link.

>> Chris Wright

>> Network Administrator

>> From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:56 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>> > SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

>> Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range...

>&

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Chris Trout]

Great point, Tim. I have updated our documentation.

Transmit compression starts at 27 dBm Tx power on backhaul products. TPC backs 
off from this value automatically if SNR allows.

Mimosa backhaul radios are capable of associating at relatively high Rx power 
levels (between -30 and -20 dBm). However, higher power levels cause the 
receivers to saturate, and this increases the error vector magnitude (EVM). For 
this reason, Mimosa recommends designing links with -30 dBm or lower received 
power to avoid saturation.

To optimize RF performance, adjust Tx power on the AP while monitoring both Rx 
power and EVM on the Station side of the link. Tx power should be set to a 
value that results in the lowest EVM value.

The only reason why some compression or saturation may be acceptable is in the 
case of low SNR, which has a larger effect on overall performance.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of "Hardy, Tim" <tha...@comsearch.com>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 6:47 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Chris,

It might help us design these properly if we knew what the saturation levels 
were.  We have these for most other radios.

Thanks,

Tim

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Chris Trout <ch...@mimosa.co>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:22:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

The PHY (Layer 1) is affected by EVM and PER which cause changes in modulation.
The MAC (Layer 2), where TDMA lives, makes use of the PHY but does not change 
it directly.
Changes in the amount and direction of traffic across the link do affect EVM 
and PER, however.

It is likely that the PHY rate is more stable on your link at 1300 Mbps (MCS7) 
than at 1560 Mbps (MCS8), and Auto TDMA is reacting faster to changing 
conditions since it sends a shorter duration of packets for training the PHY 
rate.

As others have recommended, reducing power will avoid saturating the receiver, 
and reduce (improve) EVM. I think that is what we may be seeing here on a very 
short link.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 1:55 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Traffic Split set to Auto:
PHY1300/1300

Traffic Split set to 75/25, 8ms window:
PHY1560/1300

Anyone can see why one should prefer setting the Traffic Split to 75/25 – it 
provides more bandwidth in one direction.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Cc: Chris Wright
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Chris,

I want to compare something with my link...

Can you please share what's the listed PHY rates were on your PCN for the link.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:21:12 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Power is already at the minimum (10dBm) on both sides. 2.2km link.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range...
it will improve thruput and allow for the higher modulation.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Firmware 1.4.4
SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.
Sent via mobile phone.

On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
<fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote:
What version for firmware is on the radio ?

and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).

I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
But I can als

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Hardy, Tim]

Chris,

It might help us design these properly if we knew what the saturation levels 
were.  We have these for most other radios.

Thanks,

Tim

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Chris Trout <ch...@mimosa.co>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:22:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

The PHY (Layer 1) is affected by EVM and PER which cause changes in modulation.
The MAC (Layer 2), where TDMA lives, makes use of the PHY but does not change 
it directly.
Changes in the amount and direction of traffic across the link do affect EVM 
and PER, however.

It is likely that the PHY rate is more stable on your link at 1300 Mbps (MCS7) 
than at 1560 Mbps (MCS8), and Auto TDMA is reacting faster to changing 
conditions since it sends a shorter duration of packets for training the PHY 
rate.

As others have recommended, reducing power will avoid saturating the receiver, 
and reduce (improve) EVM. I think that is what we may be seeing here on a very 
short link.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 1:55 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Traffic Split set to Auto:
PHY1300/1300

Traffic Split set to 75/25, 8ms window:
PHY1560/1300

Anyone can see why one should prefer setting the Traffic Split to 75/25 – it 
provides more bandwidth in one direction.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Cc: Chris Wright
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Chris,

I want to compare something with my link...

Can you please share what's the listed PHY rates were on your PCN for the link.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:21:12 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Power is already at the minimum (10dBm) on both sides. 2.2km link.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range...
it will improve thruput and allow for the higher modulation.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Firmware 1.4.4
SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.
Sent via mobile phone.

On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
<fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote:
What version for firmware is on the radio ?

and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).

I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings including 
flow control ..
our B11's plug into netonix Switches

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re using the 
most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re doing it 
wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers – and 
yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”

When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me as 
much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can 
download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my 
speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> at the edge, nor anyone else’s beyond my 
edge).

When TDMA is A

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Chris Trout]

The PHY (Layer 1) is affected by EVM and PER which cause changes in modulation.
The MAC (Layer 2), where TDMA lives, makes use of the PHY but does not change 
it directly.
Changes in the amount and direction of traffic across the link do affect EVM 
and PER, however.

It is likely that the PHY rate is more stable on your link at 1300 Mbps (MCS7) 
than at 1560 Mbps (MCS8), and Auto TDMA is reacting faster to changing 
conditions since it sends a shorter duration of packets for training the PHY 
rate.

As others have recommended, reducing power will avoid saturating the receiver, 
and reduce (improve) EVM. I think that is what we may be seeing here on a very 
short link.

Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 1:55 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Traffic Split set to Auto:
PHY1300/1300

Traffic Split set to 75/25, 8ms window:
PHY1560/1300

Anyone can see why one should prefer setting the Traffic Split to 75/25 – it 
provides more bandwidth in one direction.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Cc: Chris Wright
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Chris,

I want to compare something with my link...

Can you please share what's the listed PHY rates were on your PCN for the link.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:21:12 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Power is already at the minimum (10dBm) on both sides. 2.2km link.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range...
it will improve thruput and allow for the higher modulation.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Firmware 1.4.4
SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.
Sent via mobile phone.

On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
<fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote:
What version for firmware is on the radio ?

and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).

I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings including 
flow control ..
our B11's plug into netonix Switches

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re using the 
most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re doing it 
wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers – and 
yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”

When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me as 
much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can 
download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my 
speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> at the edge, nor anyone else’s beyond my 
edge).

When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as it’s 
100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per client is 
greatly increased (150+mbps).

So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted 
speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> results they love seeing as they run them 
every thirty seconds 

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Ken Hohhof]

11 GHz backhaul with 20 ms roundtrip delay causes my head to hurt greatly, why 
would you ever want to configure something like that?

 

On a licensed backhaul, I’d say 5 ms is about where you start questioning if 
this is really a licensed backhaul, and ideally you’d like sub-millisecond 
because backhauls can be daisy-chained.

 

At 20 ms, the benefits had better be YUGE!  Like it poops rainbows and ponies, 
or the vendor pays you to buy it.

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jaime Fink
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 4:20 PM
To: Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>; af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

 

Yes, sync settings of 2/4/8 ms timing window introduce a natural 5/10/20 RT 
delay respectively. Dynamic/auto mode is NOT syncable but reduces latency to 
about 1-2ms range.

 

Jaime Fink •  <http://www.mimosa.co> Mimosa • CPO & Co-Founder

 

On January 25, 2017 at 2:13:43 PM, Josh Luthman (j...@imaginenetworksllc.com 
<mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> ) wrote:

Why are we looking at 8ms of latency on this radio?  Does it offer sync?  The 
website doesn't say.




 

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

 

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net 
<mailto:ch...@velociter.net> > wrote:

Traffic Split set to Auto:

PHY1300/1300

 

Traffic Split set to 75/25, 8ms window:

PHY1560/1300

 

Anyone can see why one should prefer setting the Traffic Split to 75/25 – it 
provides more bandwidth in one direction.

 

Chris Wright

Network Administrator

 

From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net 
<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net> ]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Cc: Chris Wright


Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

 

Hi Chris, 

 

I want to compare something with my link... 

 

Can you please share what's the listed PHY rates were on your PCN for the link.

 

Regards.

 

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <tel:(305)%20663-5518> 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <tel:(305)%20663-5518>  Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net <mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net> 

 


  _  


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net <mailto:ch...@velociter.net> >
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:21:12 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Power is already at the minimum (10dBm) on both sides. 2.2km link.

 

Chris Wright

Network Administrator

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

 

>SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

 

Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range...

it will improve thruput and allow for the higher modulation.

 

Regards.

 

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <tel:(305)%20663-5518> 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <tel:(305)%20663-5518>  Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net <mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net> 

 


  _  


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net <mailto:ch...@velociter.net> >
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Firmware 1.4.4

SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.

Sent via mobile phone.


On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net 
<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net> > wrote:

What version for firmware is on the radio ? 

 

and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).

 

I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...

But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings including 
flow control ..

our B11's plug into netonix Switches 

 

Regards.

 

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <tel:(305)%20663-5518> 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <tel:(305)%20663-5518>  Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net <mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net> 

 


  _  


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net <mailto:ch...@velociter.net> >
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re using the 
most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re doing it 
wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers – and 
yours too – don’t do technically correct 

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Josh Luthman]

>From my perspective this Auto/non sync MAC seems infinitely superior.  You
can only sync with B11 and have to do the same master/slave on the same
tower.

Or you can do it like every other 11 GHz backhaul and just use frequency
separation while getting more bandwidth with less latency...


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Jaime Fink <ja...@mimosa.co> wrote:

> Yes, there is a 10% hit on throughput on each decrement of sync timing.
>
> Unless you have an explicit nearby B11 you’re trying to sync with and have
> a PCN for in an alternate direction, we clearly would recommend using Auto
> for latency and dynamic bandwidth features.
>
> Jaime Fink • Mimosa <http://www.mimosa.co> • CPO & Co-Founder
>
> On January 25, 2017 at 2:20:48 PM, Mathew Howard (mhoward...@gmail.com)
> wrote:
>
> They do offer sync, but I'm not sure what the advantage is of using an 8ms
> TDMA window (they support 2ms, 4ms and 8ms)... more capacity, maybe? I have
> ours running in Auto, and I'm seeing 1ms average ping times across it.
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Why are we looking at 8ms of latency on this radio?  Does it offer sync?
>> The website doesn't say.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
>> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Traffic Split set to Auto:
>>>
>>> PHY1300/1300
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Traffic Split set to 75/25, 8ms window:
>>>
>>> PHY1560/1300
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone can see why one should prefer setting the Traffic Split to 75/25
>>> – it provides more bandwidth in one direction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris Wright
>>>
>>> Network Administrator
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:35 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Cc:* Chris Wright
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I want to compare something with my link...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you please share what's the listed PHY rates were on your PCN for
>>> the link.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>>> Miami, FL 33155
>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>>>
>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
>>> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *From:* "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:21:12 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>>
>>> Power is already at the minimum (10dBm) on both sides. 2.2km link.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris Wright
>>>
>>> Network Administrator
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
>>> Behalf Of* Faisal Imtiaz
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:56 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range...
>>>
>>> it will improve thruput and allow for the higher modulation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>>> Miami, FL 33155
>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>>>
>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
>>> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *From:* "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
&g

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Jaime Fink]

Yes, there is a 10% hit on throughput on each decrement of sync timing.

Unless you have an explicit nearby B11 you’re trying to sync with and have a 
PCN for in an alternate direction, we clearly would recommend using Auto for 
latency and dynamic bandwidth features.

Jaime Fink • Mimosa<http://www.mimosa.co> • CPO & Co-Founder


On January 25, 2017 at 2:20:48 PM, Mathew Howard 
(mhoward...@gmail.com<mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>) wrote:

They do offer sync, but I'm not sure what the advantage is of using an 8ms TDMA 
window (they support 2ms, 4ms and 8ms)... more capacity, maybe? I have ours 
running in Auto, and I'm seeing 1ms average ping times across it.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Josh Luthman 
<j...@imaginenetworksllc.com<mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
Why are we looking at 8ms of latency on this radio?  Does it offer sync?  The 
website doesn't say.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340<tel:(937)%20552-2340>
Direct: 937-552-2343<tel:(937)%20552-2343>
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Chris Wright 
<ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>> wrote:
Traffic Split set to Auto:
PHY1300/1300

Traffic Split set to 75/25, 8ms window:
PHY1560/1300

Anyone can see why one should prefer setting the Traffic Split to 75/25 – it 
provides more bandwidth in one direction.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Faisal Imtiaz 
[mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Cc: Chris Wright

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Chris,

I want to compare something with my link...

Can you please share what's the listed PHY rates were on your PCN for the link.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232<tel:(305)%20663-5518>

Help-desk: (305)663-5518<tel:(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:21:12 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Power is already at the minimum (10dBm) on both sides. 2.2km link.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range...
it will improve thruput and allow for the higher modulation.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232<tel:(305)%20663-5518>

Help-desk: (305)663-5518<tel:(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Firmware 1.4.4
SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.
Sent via mobile phone.

On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
<fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote:
What version for firmware is on the radio ?

and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).

I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings including 
flow control ..
our B11's plug into netonix Switches

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232<tel:(305)%20663-5518>

Help-desk: (305)663-5518<tel:(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re using the 
most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re doing it 
wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers – and 
yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”

When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me as 
much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can 
download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my 
speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> at t

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Mathew Howard]

Jaime, am I understanding correctly that you should always get the most
capacity in one direction by using dynamic/auto mode?

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Mathew Howard]

They do offer sync, but I'm not sure what the advantage is of using an 8ms
TDMA window (they support 2ms, 4ms and 8ms)... more capacity, maybe? I have
ours running in Auto, and I'm seeing 1ms average ping times across it.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>
wrote:

> Why are we looking at 8ms of latency on this radio?  Does it offer sync?
> The website doesn't say.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net> wrote:
>
>> Traffic Split set to Auto:
>>
>> PHY1300/1300
>>
>>
>>
>> Traffic Split set to 75/25, 8ms window:
>>
>> PHY1560/1300
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone can see why one should prefer setting the Traffic Split to 75/25 –
>> it provides more bandwidth in one direction.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Wright
>>
>> Network Administrator
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:35 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Cc:* Chris Wright
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>>
>>
>> I want to compare something with my link...
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you please share what's the listed PHY rates were on your PCN for the
>> link.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>>
>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
>> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *From: *"Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:21:12 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>
>> Power is already at the minimum (10dBm) on both sides. 2.2km link.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Wright
>>
>> Network Administrator
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
>> Behalf Of *Faisal Imtiaz
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:56 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>
>>
>>
>> >SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
>>
>>
>>
>> Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range...
>>
>> it will improve thruput and allow for the higher modulation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>>
>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
>> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *From: *"Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>
>> Firmware 1.4.4
>>
>> SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
>>
>> Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.
>>
>> Sent via mobile phone.
>>
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> What version for firmware is on the radio ?
>>
>>
>>
>> and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).
>>
>>
>>
>> I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
>>
>> But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings
>> including flow control ..
>>
>> our B11's plug into netonix Switches
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>>
>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
>> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *From: *"Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
>> *Subject: *

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Jaime Fink]

Yes, sync settings of 2/4/8 ms timing window introduce a natural 5/10/20 RT 
delay respectively. Dynamic/auto mode is NOT syncable but reduces latency to 
about 1-2ms range.

Jaime Fink • Mimosa<http://www.mimosa.co> • CPO & Co-Founder


On January 25, 2017 at 2:13:43 PM, Josh Luthman 
(j...@imaginenetworksllc.com<mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>) wrote:

Why are we looking at 8ms of latency on this radio?  Does it offer sync?  The 
website doesn't say.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Chris Wright 
<ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>> wrote:
Traffic Split set to Auto:
PHY1300/1300

Traffic Split set to 75/25, 8ms window:
PHY1560/1300

Anyone can see why one should prefer setting the Traffic Split to 75/25 – it 
provides more bandwidth in one direction.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Faisal Imtiaz 
[mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Cc: Chris Wright

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Chris,

I want to compare something with my link...

Can you please share what's the listed PHY rates were on your PCN for the link.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232<tel:(305)%20663-5518>

Help-desk: (305)663-5518<tel:(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:21:12 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Power is already at the minimum (10dBm) on both sides. 2.2km link.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range...
it will improve thruput and allow for the higher modulation.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232<tel:(305)%20663-5518>

Help-desk: (305)663-5518<tel:(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Firmware 1.4.4
SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.
Sent via mobile phone.

On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
<fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote:
What version for firmware is on the radio ?

and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).

I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings including 
flow control ..
our B11's plug into netonix Switches

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232<tel:(305)%20663-5518>

Help-desk: (305)663-5518<tel:(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>

________
From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re using the 
most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re doing it 
wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers – and 
yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”

When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me as 
much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can 
download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my 
speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> at the edge, nor anyone else’s beyond my 
edge).

When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as it’s 
100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per client is 
greatly increased (150+mbps).

So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted 
speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> results they love seeing as they run them 
every thirty seconds ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. 
Or I give myself

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Josh Luthman]

Why are we looking at 8ms of latency on this radio?  Does it offer sync?
The website doesn't say.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net> wrote:

> Traffic Split set to Auto:
>
> PHY1300/1300
>
>
>
> Traffic Split set to 75/25, 8ms window:
>
> PHY1560/1300
>
>
>
> Anyone can see why one should prefer setting the Traffic Split to 75/25 –
> it provides more bandwidth in one direction.
>
>
>
> Chris Wright
>
> Network Administrator
>
>
>
> *From:* Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:35 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Cc:* Chris Wright
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>
>
> I want to compare something with my link...
>
>
>
> Can you please share what's the listed PHY rates were on your PCN for the
> link.
>
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:21:12 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
> Power is already at the minimum (10dBm) on both sides. 2.2km link.
>
>
>
> Chris Wright
>
> Network Administrator
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On
> Behalf Of *Faisal Imtiaz
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:56 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
>
>
> >SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
>
>
>
> Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range...
>
> it will improve thruput and allow for the higher modulation.
>
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
> Firmware 1.4.4
>
> SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
>
> Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.
>
> Sent via mobile phone.
>
>
> On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net>
> wrote:
>
> What version for firmware is on the radio ?
>
>
>
> and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).
>
>
>
> I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
>
> But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings
> including flow control ..
>
> our B11's plug into netonix Switches
>
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
> According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re
> using the most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds,
> they’re doing it wrong (I concede that while this may be technically
> correct, my customers – and yours too – don’t do technically correct very
> well.”
>
>
>
> When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me
> as much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can
> download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my speedtest.net at the
> edge, nor anyone else’s beyond my edge).
>
>
>
> When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as
> it’s 100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per
> client is greatly increased (150+mbps).
>
>
>
> So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted
> speedtest.net results they love seeing as they run them every thirty
> seconds ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. Or I
> give myself some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my
> 100mbps clients can see is 20mbps.
>
>
>
> What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload
> 150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit
> up Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their
> idea that I should test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings.
> I’ve been a Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right
> now.
>
>
>
> Chris Wright
>
> Network Administrator
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Chris Wright]

Traffic Split set to Auto:
PHY1300/1300

Traffic Split set to 75/25, 8ms window:
PHY1560/1300

Anyone can see why one should prefer setting the Traffic Split to 75/25 – it 
provides more bandwidth in one direction.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Cc: Chris Wright
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Hi Chris,

I want to compare something with my link...

Can you please share what's the listed PHY rates were on your PCN for the link.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:21:12 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Power is already at the minimum (10dBm) on both sides. 2.2km link.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range...
it will improve thruput and allow for the higher modulation.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Firmware 1.4.4
SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.
Sent via mobile phone.

On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
<fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote:
What version for firmware is on the radio ?

and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).

I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings including 
flow control ..
our B11's plug into netonix Switches

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re using the 
most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re doing it 
wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers – and 
yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”

When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me as 
much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can 
download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my 
speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> at the edge, nor anyone else’s beyond my 
edge).

When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as it’s 
100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per client is 
greatly increased (150+mbps).

So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted 
speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> results they love seeing as they run them 
every thirty seconds ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. 
Or I give myself some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 
100mbps clients can see is 20mbps.

What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload 
150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit up 
Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their idea that 
I should test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings. I’ve been a 
Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Hi Chris, 

I want to compare something with my link... 

Can you please share what's the listed PHY rates were on your PCN for the link. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:21:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> Power is already at the minimum (10dBm) on both sides. 2.2km link.

> Chris Wright

> Network Administrator

> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:56 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> > SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

> Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range...

> it will improve thruput and allow for the higher modulation.

> Regards.

> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>> From: "Chris Wright" < ch...@velociter.net >
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>> Firmware 1.4.4

>> SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

>> Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.

>> Sent via mobile phone.

>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net > 
>> wrote:

>>> What version for firmware is on the radio ?

>>> and What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).

>>> I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...

>>> But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings 
>>> including
>>> flow control ..

>>> our B11's plug into netonix Switches

>>> Regards.

>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>>> Miami, FL 33155
>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>>>> From: "Chris Wright" < ch...@velociter.net >
>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
>>>> Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>>> According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re 
>>>> using the
>>>> most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re 
>>>> doing it
>>>> wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers 
>>>> – and
>>>> yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”

>>>> When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me 
>>>> as
>>>> much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can
>>>> download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my speedtest.net at the 
>>>> edge,
>>>> nor anyone else’s beyond my edge).

>>>> When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as 
>>>> it’s
>>>> 100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per 
>>>> client is
>>>> greatly increased (150+mbps).

>>>> So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted
>>>> speedtest.net results they love seeing as they run them every thirty 
>>>> seconds
>>>> ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. Or I give myself
>>>> some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 100mbps clients 
>>>> can
>>>> see is 20mbps.

>>>> What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload
>>>> 150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit 
>>>> up
>>>> Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their idea 
>>>> that
>>>> I should test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings. I’ve been a
>>>> Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.

>>>> Chris Wright

>>>> Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Chris Trout]

We don’t believe there is any software bug here, and it is important to note 
that the speed tests were performed while the link was heavily utilized. PHY 
rates were 1300 Mbps, and existing throughput was 766 Mbps aggregate at the 
time. These details were left out earlier in the thread.

Auto TDMA provides half the latency of a fixed TDMA with 8ms window, and as we 
know, TCP performs better with lower latency. Switching to Auto TDMA allocates 
more capacity in the direction where it is needed, further reducing latency for 
all clients, and improving TCP speed test results.

Mimosa always recommends running speed tests on links in isolation to identify 
the source of any bottlenecks. This usually entails running a standard test 
such as iPerf across the link with nothing in between. We have nothing against 
speedtest.net, and regularly see speed test results that approach link capacity 
when the link throughput is not near capacity.

With fixed TDMA time slots, the MAC rate and performance are consistent, but 
latency is higher. Here is an example using the settings we saw on that 
specific link:
Tx: 1300 PHY * 90% Efficiency with 8ms * 75% traffic split = 877.5 Mbps MAC 
rate (658 with TCP overhead)
Rx: 1300 PHY * 90% Efficiency with 8ms * 25% traffic split = 292.5 Mbps MAC 
rate (219 with TCP overhead)
Latency = 8ms TDMA window * 2.5 = 20 ms

With Auto TDMA, the MAC rate shown on the Dashboard does not represent the full 
Auto TDMA capacity. It shows a 75% traffic split in both directions in all 
conditions, while Auto TDMA is capable of traffic splits beyond that. Thanks, 
Chris for pointing that out, and sorry for the misunderstanding.

Here is the calculation that the Dashboard shows.
Tx: 1300 PHY * 80% Efficiency * 75% traffic split = 780 Mbps MAC rate
Rx: 1300 PHY * 80% Efficiency * 75% traffic split = 780 Mbps MAC rate
Latency = 1-10ms depending on load

The Tx MAC rate appears fixed and lower in Auto TDMA, but is isn’t necessarily. 
Instead, the MAC rate could be as much as the calculation below since Auto TDMA 
adapts the split to traffic demand:
Tx: 1300 PHY * 80% Efficiency * 90% traffic split (auto) = 936 Mbps MAC rate


Chris Trout
Mimosa Networks, Inc.

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Gino Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:49 AM
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Ouch, I’ve been slapped! Lol!

Thanks Tim for reminding us stuff we forget with age

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of Tim 
Hardy <tha...@comsearch.com<mailto:tha...@comsearch.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:46 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

“Or mis-align your B11 link”

Strictly illegal!

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 1:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

AF24Š

Or mis-align your B11 link

On 1/25/17, 2:36 PM, "Af on behalf of Daniel White" 
<af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>



Gino Villarini

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968


[cid:image001.png@01D27705.9B00FA00]
on behalf of afmu...@gmail.com<mailto:afmu...@gmail.com>> wrote:

>Not with a B11.
>
>If the equipment is at the minimum TX power and that high of a SNR is
>going to cause problems... then it¹s the wrong gear for that path.
>
>Siklu or SIAE 80GHz would be my first bet for a 2.2km link.
>
>Daniel White
>Managing Director ­ Hardware Distribution Sales
>ConVergence Technologies
>Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
>dwh...@converge-tech.com<mailto:dwh...@converge-tech.com>
>



Gino Villarini

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968


[cid:image001.png@01D27705.9B00FA00]
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:36 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>
>> On 1/25/17 09:30, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>> > Thanks for pointing that out !
>> >
>> > So any thoughts on how to 'attenuate' the signal ?
>>
>>
>> I would guess waveguide and attenuators, but I don't have any personal
>> experience with a B11.
>>
>> ~Seth
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Gino Villarini]

Ouch, I’ve been slapped! Lol!

Thanks Tim for reminding us stuff we forget with age

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of Tim 
Hardy <tha...@comsearch.com<mailto:tha...@comsearch.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:46 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

“Or mis-align your B11 link”

Strictly illegal!

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 1:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

AF24Š

Or mis-align your B11 link

On 1/25/17, 2:36 PM, "Af on behalf of Daniel White" 
<af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>



Gino Villarini

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968


[cid:image001.png@01D27711.655CB6D0]
on behalf of afmu...@gmail.com<mailto:afmu...@gmail.com>> wrote:

>Not with a B11.
>
>If the equipment is at the minimum TX power and that high of a SNR is
>going to cause problems... then it¹s the wrong gear for that path.
>
>Siklu or SIAE 80GHz would be my first bet for a 2.2km link.
>
>Daniel White
>Managing Director ­ Hardware Distribution Sales
>ConVergence Technologies
>Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
>dwh...@converge-tech.com<mailto:dwh...@converge-tech.com>
>



Gino Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]

>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:36 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>
>> On 1/25/17 09:30, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>> > Thanks for pointing that out !
>> >
>> > So any thoughts on how to 'attenuate' the signal ?
>>
>>
>> I would guess waveguide and attenuators, but I don't have any personal
>> experience with a B11.
>>
>> ~Seth
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Chuck McCown]

Hey, we have “alternative legalities” here

From: Hardy, Tim 
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:46 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

“Or mis-align your B11 link”

 

Strictly illegal!

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 1:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

 

AF24Š

Or mis-align your B11 link

On 1/25/17, 2:36 PM, "Af on behalf of Daniel White" <af-boun...@afmug.com

   

  Gino Villarini
 
  President
 
  Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
 



on behalf of afmu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Not with a B11.
>
>If the equipment is at the minimum TX power and that high of a SNR is
>going to cause problems... then it¹s the wrong gear for that path.
>
>Siklu or SIAE 80GHz would be my first bet for a 2.2km link.
>
>Daniel White
>Managing Director ­ Hardware Distribution Sales
>ConVergence Technologies
>Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
>dwh...@converge-tech.com
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:36 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>
>> On 1/25/17 09:30, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>> > Thanks for pointing that out !
>> >
>> > So any thoughts on how to 'attenuate' the signal ?
>>
>>
>> I would guess waveguide and attenuators, but I don't have any personal
>> experience with a B11.
>>
>> ~Seth
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Hardy, Tim]

“Or mis-align your B11 link”

Strictly illegal!

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 1:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

AF24Š

Or mis-align your B11 link

On 1/25/17, 2:36 PM, "Af on behalf of Daniel White" <af-boun...@afmug.com



Gino Villarini

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968


[cid:image001.png@01D27711.655CB6D0]
on behalf of afmu...@gmail.com<mailto:afmu...@gmail.com>> wrote:

>Not with a B11.
>
>If the equipment is at the minimum TX power and that high of a SNR is
>going to cause problems... then it¹s the wrong gear for that path.
>
>Siklu or SIAE 80GHz would be my first bet for a 2.2km link.
>
>Daniel White
>Managing Director ­ Hardware Distribution Sales
>ConVergence Technologies
>Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
>dwh...@converge-tech.com<mailto:dwh...@converge-tech.com>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:36 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>
>> On 1/25/17 09:30, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>> > Thanks for pointing that out !
>> >
>> > So any thoughts on how to 'attenuate' the signal ?
>>
>>
>> I would guess waveguide and attenuators, but I don't have any personal
>> experience with a B11.
>>
>> ~Seth
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Gino Villarini]

AF24Š

Or mis-align your B11 link

On 1/25/17, 2:36 PM, "Af on behalf of Daniel White" <af-boun...@afmug.com



Gino Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]

on behalf of afmu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Not with a B11.
>
>If the equipment is at the minimum TX power and that high of a SNR is
>going to cause problems... then it¹s the wrong gear for that path.
>
>Siklu or SIAE 80GHz would be my first bet for a 2.2km link.
>
>Daniel White
>Managing Director ­ Hardware Distribution Sales
>ConVergence Technologies
>Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
>dwh...@converge-tech.com
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:36 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>
>> On 1/25/17 09:30, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>> > Thanks for pointing that out !
>> >
>> > So any thoughts on how to 'attenuate' the signal ?
>>
>>
>> I would guess waveguide and attenuators, but I don't have any personal
>> experience with a B11.
>>
>> ~Seth
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Daniel White]

Not with a B11.

If the equipment is at the minimum TX power and that high of a SNR is going to 
cause problems... then it’s the wrong gear for that path.

Siklu or SIAE 80GHz would be my first bet for a 2.2km link.

Daniel White
Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales
ConVergence Technologies
Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
dwh...@converge-tech.com

> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:36 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
> On 1/25/17 09:30, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
> > Thanks for pointing that out !
> >
> > So any thoughts on how to 'attenuate' the signal ?
>
>
> I would guess waveguide and attenuators, but I don't have any personal
> experience with a B11.
>
> ~Seth


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Seth Mattinen]

On 1/25/17 09:30, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

Thanks for pointing that out !

So any thoughts on how to 'attenuate' the signal ?



I would guess waveguide and attenuators, but I don't have any personal 
experience with a B11.


~Seth

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Thanks for pointing that out !

So any thoughts on how to 'attenuate' the signal ?

Other than standing in front of the dish !   LOL !

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Seth Mattinen" <se...@rollernet.us>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:16:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> On 1/25/17 08:42, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>> Wow... that is a short link for 11ghz..
>> what size dishes are you using ? 2ft or 1ft ?   please tell me 1ft...
> 
> 
> 1' is not allowed at 11GHz. FCC aategory A in 11GHz normally requires a
> 3' or larger, although someone probably makes an expensive ETSI class 4
> 2'-ish antenna.
> 
> ~Seth

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Thanks for pointing that out.. I did not know.. never had the need to pay 
attention to it... for some reason always thought of using 11Ghz for LD 
links... 

:) 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Hardy, Tim" <tha...@comsearch.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:11:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> 2’ is the minimum allowable antenna size at 11 GHz.

> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:42 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> Wow... that is a short link for 11ghz..

> what size dishes are you using ? 2ft or 1ft ? please tell me 1ft...

> Are your B11's reporting to the Cloud ? there are more stats which get exposed
> on the Mimosa Cloud App.

> I was seeing some strange performance issues.. sort of similar to yours.. (you
> can see details from my post in the Mimosa Community Forms).

> Someone pointed out that B11's like to have SNR between 32-35, when it is 
> lower
> or higher they have modulations issues..

> My performance improved after we turned the power down.. my link was a bit
> longer.. 3.9 miles (6.3km) with 2ft dishes, ...

> and yes, they do not go below 10dBm on tx power...

> maybe some sort of a material on the radome to reduce energy ?

> Regards.

> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>> From: "Chris Wright" < ch...@velociter.net >
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:21:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>> Power is already at the minimum (10dBm) on both sides. 2.2km link.

>> Chris Wright

>> Network Administrator

>> From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:56 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>> > SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

>> Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range...

>> it will improve thruput and allow for the higher modulation.

>> Regards.

>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>>> From: "Chris Wright" < ch...@velociter.net >
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>> Firmware 1.4.4

>>> SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

>>> Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.

>>> Sent via mobile phone.

>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net > 
>>> wrote:

>>>> What version for firmware is on the radio ?

>>>> and What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).

>>>> I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...

>>>> But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings 
>>>> including
>>>> flow control ..

>>>> our B11's plug into netonix Switches

>>>> Regards.

>>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>>>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>>>> Miami, FL 33155
>>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>>>>> From: "Chris Wright" < ch...@velociter.net >
>>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
>>>>> Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>>>> According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re 
>>>>> using the
>>>>> most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re 
>>>>> doing it
>>>>> wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers 
>>>>> – and
>>>>> yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”

>>>>> When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives 
>>>>> me as
>>>>> much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can
>>>>> download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my speedtest.net at the 
>>>>&g

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Hardy, Tim]

2’ is the minimum allowable antenna size at 11 GHz.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:42 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Wow... that is a short link for 11ghz..
what size dishes are you using ? 2ft or 1ft ?   please tell me 1ft...

Are your B11's reporting to the Cloud ? there are more stats which get exposed 
on the Mimosa Cloud App.

I was seeing some strange performance issues.. sort of similar to yours.. (you 
can see details from my post in the Mimosa Community Forms).

Someone pointed out that B11's like to have SNR between 32-35, when it is lower 
or higher they have modulations issues..
My performance improved after we turned the power down.. my link was a bit 
longer.. 3.9 miles (6.3km) with 2ft dishes, ...

and yes, they do not go below 10dBm on tx power...

maybe some sort of a material on the radome to reduce energy ?

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:21:12 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Power is already at the minimum (10dBm) on both sides. 2.2km link.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range...
it will improve thruput and allow for the higher modulation.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Firmware 1.4.4
SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.
Sent via mobile phone.

On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
<fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote:
What version for firmware is on the radio ?

and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).

I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings including 
flow control ..
our B11's plug into netonix Switches

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re using the 
most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re doing it 
wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers – and 
yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”

When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me as 
much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can 
download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my 
speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> at the edge, nor anyone else’s beyond my 
edge).

When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as it’s 
100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per client is 
greatly increased (150+mbps).

So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted 
speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> results they love seeing as they run them 
every thirty seconds ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. 
Or I give myself some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 
100mbps clients can see is 20mbps.

What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload 
150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit up 
Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their idea that 
I should test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings. I’ve been a 
Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Mathew Howard]

I'm confused as to why you would get less capacity with TDMA set to auto...

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:31 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller <
par...@cyberbroadband.net> wrote:

>
> actually i saw the tik stats on pause frames right in winbox...
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 25, 2017 8:50 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
> FYI
>
> Netonix provides extended stats on the interface, makes it easy to see
> what is going on..
>
> on the mikrotik extended stats are available via CLI/interface
> ethernet print stats
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 <(305)%20663-5518> x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"CBB - Jay Fuller" <par...@cyberbroadband.net>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Wednesday, January 25, 2017 2:21:15 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
>
> the flow control story came from the netonix forums and i agree, it does
> not negotiate flow control property in the netonix switch.
> that being said, when connected to a mikrotik, there ARE pause frames
> being generated, and mimosa insists flow control is
> enabled / working on their devices.
>
> speaking of which, i just put in like 3 new mimosa links ; i haven't
> tinkered with flow control on them yet.
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:57 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
> also..
>
> in regards to flow control.. turn it on (auto) on the MT side
> and also turn it on on the B11 radio.
>
> Additionally look at the B11 logs and see if your ethernet port is
> flapping ...
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
> Firmware 1.4.4
> SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
> Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.
>
> Sent via mobile phone.
>
> On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net>
> wrote:
>
> What version for firmware is on the radio ?
>
> and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).
>
> I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
> But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings
> including flow control ..
> our B11's plug into netonix Switches
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
> According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re
> using the most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds,
> they’re doing it wrong (I concede that while this may be technically
> correct, my customers – and yours too – don’t do technically correct very
> well.”
>
>
>
> When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me
> as much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can
> download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my speedtest.net at the
> edge, nor anyone else’s beyond my edge).
>
>
>
> When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as
> it’s 100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per
> client is greatly increased (150+mbps).
>
>
>
> So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted
> speedtest.net results they love seeing as they run them every thirty
> seconds ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. Or I
> give myself some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my
> 100mbps clients can see is 20mbps.
>
>
>
> What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload
> 150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit
> up Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their
> idea that I should test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings.
> I’ve been a Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right
> now.
>
>
>
> Chris Wright
>
> Network Administrator
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Wow... that is a short link for 11ghz.. 
what size dishes are you using ? 2ft or 1ft ? please tell me 1ft... 

Are your B11's reporting to the Cloud ? there are more stats which get exposed 
on the Mimosa Cloud App. 

I was seeing some strange performance issues.. sort of similar to yours.. (you 
can see details from my post in the Mimosa Community Forms). 

Someone pointed out that B11's like to have SNR between 32-35, when it is lower 
or higher they have modulations issues.. 
My performance improved after we turned the power down.. my link was a bit 
longer.. 3.9 miles (6.3km) with 2ft dishes, ... 

and yes, they do not go below 10dBm on tx power... 

maybe some sort of a material on the radome to reduce energy ? 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:21:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> Power is already at the minimum (10dBm) on both sides. 2.2km link.

> Chris Wright

> Network Administrator

> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:56 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> > SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

> Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range...

> it will improve thruput and allow for the higher modulation.

> Regards.

> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>> From: "Chris Wright" < ch...@velociter.net >
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>> Firmware 1.4.4

>> SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

>> Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.

>> Sent via mobile phone.

>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net > 
>> wrote:

>>> What version for firmware is on the radio ?

>>> and What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).

>>> I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...

>>> But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings 
>>> including
>>> flow control ..

>>> our B11's plug into netonix Switches

>>> Regards.

>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>>> Miami, FL 33155
>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>>>> From: "Chris Wright" < ch...@velociter.net >
>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
>>>> Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>>> According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re 
>>>> using the
>>>> most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re 
>>>> doing it
>>>> wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers 
>>>> – and
>>>> yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”

>>>> When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me 
>>>> as
>>>> much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can
>>>> download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my speedtest.net at the 
>>>> edge,
>>>> nor anyone else’s beyond my edge).

>>>> When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as 
>>>> it’s
>>>> 100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per 
>>>> client is
>>>> greatly increased (150+mbps).

>>>> So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted
>>>> speedtest.net results they love seeing as they run them every thirty 
>>>> seconds
>>>> ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. Or I give myself
>>>> some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 100mbps clients 
>>>> can
>>>> see is 20mbps.

>>>> What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload
>>>> 150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit 
>>>> up
>>>> Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their idea 
>>>> that
>>>> I should test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings. I’ve been a
>>>> Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.

>>>> Chris Wright

>>>> Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

actually i saw the tik stats on pause frames right in winbox...

  - Original Message - 
  From: Faisal Imtiaz 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 8:50 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP


  FYI 


  Netonix provides extended stats on the interface, makes it easy to see what 
is going on..


  on the mikrotik extended stats are available via CLI/interface ethernet 
print stats


  Regards.


  Faisal Imtiaz
  Snappy Internet & Telecom
  7266 SW 48 Street
  Miami, FL 33155
  Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

  Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net



--

From: "CBB - Jay Fuller" <par...@cyberbroadband.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 2:21:15 AM
    Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP


the flow control story came from the netonix forums and i agree, it does 
not negotiate flow control property in the netonix switch.
that being said, when connected to a mikrotik, there ARE pause frames being 
generated, and mimosa insists flow control is
enabled / working on their devices.

speaking of which, i just put in like 3 new mimosa links ; i haven't 
tinkered with flow control on them yet.


  - Original Message -
  From: Faisal Imtiaz
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:57 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP


  also..


  in regards to flow control.. turn it on (auto) on the MT side 
  and also turn it on on the B11 radio.


  Additionally look at the B11 logs and see if your ethernet port is 
flapping ...


  Regards.


  Faisal Imtiaz
  Snappy Internet & Telecom
  7266 SW 48 Street
  Miami, FL 33155
  Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

  Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net


--

From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Firmware 1.4.4
SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.


Sent via mobile phone.

On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net> 
wrote:


  What version for firmware is on the radio ? 


  and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 
readings).


  I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing 
below...
  But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings 
including flow control ..
  our B11's plug into netonix Switches 


  Regards.


  Faisal Imtiaz
  Snappy Internet & Telecom
  7266 SW 48 Street
  Miami, FL 33155
  Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

  Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net


--

From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
To: af@afmug.com
    Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if 
they’re using the most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, 
they’re doing it wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, 
my customers – and yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”



When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This 
gives me as much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP 
can download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my speedtest.net at the 
edge, nor anyone else’s beyond my edge).



When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is 
undesirable as it’s 100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP 
throughput per client is greatly increased (150+mbps).



So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those 
coveted speedtest.net results they love seeing as they run them every thirty 
seconds ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. Or I give 
myself some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 100mbps clients 
can see is 20mbps.



What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can 
upload 150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I 
hit up Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their 
idea that I should test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings. I’ve 
been a Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.



Chris Wright

Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Chris Wright]

Power is already at the minimum (10dBm) on both sides. 2.2km link.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:56 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>SNR 41, 42, 41, 41

Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range...
it will improve thruput and allow for the higher modulation.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
Firmware 1.4.4
SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.
Sent via mobile phone.

On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
<fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote:
What version for firmware is on the radio ?

and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).

I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings including 
flow control ..
our B11's plug into netonix Switches

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re using the 
most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re doing it 
wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers – and 
yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”

When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me as 
much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can 
download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my 
speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> at the edge, nor anyone else’s beyond my 
edge).

When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as it’s 
100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per client is 
greatly increased (150+mbps).

So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted 
speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> results they love seeing as they run them 
every thirty seconds ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. 
Or I give myself some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 
100mbps clients can see is 20mbps.

What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload 
150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit up 
Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their idea that 
I should test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings. I’ve been a 
Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Jay Weekley]

Actually they were installed on Tequila Tuesday.

Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

  you are not supposed to be sipping mimosa's when your are installing 
mimosa's...
   ahh well who cares if it is 3 or 4.. it's all good !

:)

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -

From: "CBB - Jay Fuller" <par...@cyberbroadband.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:52:48 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
I think you actually put in four Mimosa links.

CBB - Jay Fuller wrote:

the flow control story came from the netonix forums and i agree, it
does not negotiate flow control property in the netonix switch.
that being said, when connected to a mikrotik, there ARE pause frames
being generated, and mimosa insists flow control is
enabled / working on their devices.
speaking of which, i just put in like 3 new mimosa links ; i haven't
tinkered with flow control on them yet.

 - Original Message -
 *From:* Faisal Imtiaz <mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>
 *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
 *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:57 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

 also..

 in regards to flow control.. turn it on (auto) on the MT side
 and also turn it on on the B11 radio.

 Additionally look at the B11 logs and see if your ethernet port is
 flapping ...

 Regards.

 Faisal Imtiaz
 Snappy Internet & Telecom
 7266 SW 48 Street
 Miami, FL 33155
 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

 

 *From: *"Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
 *To: *af@afmug.com
 *Sent: *Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

 Firmware 1.4.4
 SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
 Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.

 Sent via mobile phone.

 On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz
 <fai...@snappytelecom.net <mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>>
 wrote:

 What version for firmware is on the radio ?

 and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions,
 i.e. 4 readings).

 I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are
 describing below...
 But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on
 settings including flow control ..
 our B11's plug into netonix Switches

 Regards.

 Faisal Imtiaz
 Snappy Internet & Telecom
 7266 SW 48 Street
 Miami, FL 33155
 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email:
 supp...@snappytelecom.net <mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>

 


 *From: *"Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net
 <mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
 *To: *af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
 *Sent: *Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
 *Subject: *[AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

 According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers
 that if they’re using the most popular metric in the
 world for testing internet speeds, they’re doing it
 wrong (I concede that while this may be technically
 correct, my customers – and yours too – don’t do
 technically correct very well.”

 When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is
 980/290. This gives me as much Tx bandwidth as I
 require for peak times, but no one client IP can
 download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my
 speedtest.net <http://speedtest.net> at the edge, nor
 anyone else’s beyond my edge).

 When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx,
 which is undesirable as it’s 100mbps shy of what I
 need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per client
 is greatly increased (150+mbps).

 So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can
 get those coveted speedtest.net <http://speedtest.net>
 results they love seeing as they run them every thirty
 seconds ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity
 of the link. Or I give myself some headroom in link
 capacity but the fastest speeds my 100mbps clients can

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Faisal Imtiaz]

 you are not supposed to be sipping mimosa's when your are installing 
mimosa's...
  ahh well who cares if it is 3 or 4.. it's all good !

:)

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "CBB - Jay Fuller" <par...@cyberbroadband.net>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 9:52:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> I think you actually put in four Mimosa links.
> 
> CBB - Jay Fuller wrote:
>> the flow control story came from the netonix forums and i agree, it
>> does not negotiate flow control property in the netonix switch.
>> that being said, when connected to a mikrotik, there ARE pause frames
>> being generated, and mimosa insists flow control is
>> enabled / working on their devices.
>> speaking of which, i just put in like 3 new mimosa links ; i haven't
>> tinkered with flow control on them yet.
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Faisal Imtiaz <mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:57 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>
>> also..
>>
>> in regards to flow control.. turn it on (auto) on the MT side
>> and also turn it on on the B11 radio.
>>
>> Additionally look at the B11 logs and see if your ethernet port is
>> flapping ...
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>>
>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>
>>     ----
>>
>> *From: *"Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>
>> Firmware 1.4.4
>> SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
>> Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.
>>
>> Sent via mobile phone.
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz
>> <fai...@snappytelecom.net <mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> What version for firmware is on the radio ?
>>
>> and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions,
>> i.e. 4 readings).
>>
>> I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are
>> describing below...
>> But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on
>> settings including flow control ..
>> our B11's plug into netonix Switches
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>>
>>     Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email:
>> supp...@snappytelecom.net <mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>
>>
>> 
>> 
>>
>> *From: *"Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net
>> <mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
>> *To: *af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>>
>> According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers
>> that if they’re using the most popular metric in the
>> world for testing internet speeds, they’re doing it
>> wrong (I concede that while this may be technically
>> correct, my customers – and yours too – don’t do
>> technically correct very well.”
>>
>> When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is
>> 980/290. This gives me as much Tx bandwidth as I
>> require for peak times, but no one client IP can
>> download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my
>> speedtest.net <http://speedtest.net> at the edge, nor
>> anyone else’s beyond my e

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Jay Weekley]

I think you actually put in four Mimosa links.

CBB - Jay Fuller wrote:
the flow control story came from the netonix forums and i agree, it 
does not negotiate flow control property in the netonix switch.
that being said, when connected to a mikrotik, there ARE pause frames 
being generated, and mimosa insists flow control is

enabled / working on their devices.
speaking of which, i just put in like 3 new mimosa links ; i haven't 
tinkered with flow control on them yet.


- Original Message -
*From:* Faisal Imtiaz <mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:57 PM
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

also..

in regards to flow control.. turn it on (auto) on the MT side
and also turn it on on the B11 radio.

Additionally look at the B11 logs and see if your ethernet port is
flapping ...

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net



*From: *"Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
    *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Firmware 1.4.4
SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.

Sent via mobile phone.

On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz
<fai...@snappytelecom.net <mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>>
wrote:

What version for firmware is on the radio ?

and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions,
i.e. 4 readings).

I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are
describing below...
But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on
settings including flow control ..
our B11's plug into netonix Switches

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email:
supp...@snappytelecom.net <mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>




*From: *"Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net
<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
*To: *af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
        *Sent: *Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers
that if they’re using the most popular metric in the
world for testing internet speeds, they’re doing it
wrong (I concede that while this may be technically
correct, my customers – and yours too – don’t do
technically correct very well.”

When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is
980/290. This gives me as much Tx bandwidth as I
require for peak times, but no one client IP can
download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my
speedtest.net <http://speedtest.net> at the edge, nor
anyone else’s beyond my edge).

When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx,
which is undesirable as it’s 100mbps shy of what I
need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per client
is greatly increased (150+mbps).

So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can
get those coveted speedtest.net <http://speedtest.net>
results they love seeing as they run them every thirty
seconds ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity
of the link. Or I give myself some headroom in link
capacity but the fastest speeds my 100mbps clients can
see is 20mbps.

What’s even stranger is that client upload seems
unaffected. I can upload 150+mbps from my test on the
link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit up
Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were
unyielding in their idea that I should test in a way
that caters to the B11’s shortcomings. I’ve been a
Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling
burned right now.

Chris Wright

Network Administrator



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com &l

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Faisal Imtiaz]

FYI 

Netonix provides extended stats on the interface, makes it easy to see what is 
going on.. 

on the mikrotik extended stats are available via CLI /interface ethernet print 
stats 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "CBB - Jay Fuller" <par...@cyberbroadband.net>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 2:21:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> the flow control story came from the netonix forums and i agree, it does not
> negotiate flow control property in the netonix switch.
> that being said, when connected to a mikrotik, there ARE pause frames being
> generated, and mimosa insists flow control is
> enabled / working on their devices.
> speaking of which, i just put in like 3 new mimosa links ; i haven't tinkered
> with flow control on them yet.

>> - Original Message -
>> From: Faisal Imtiaz
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:57 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>> also..

>> in regards to flow control.. turn it on (auto) on the MT side
>> and also turn it on on the B11 radio.

>> Additionally look at the B11 logs and see if your ethernet port is flapping 
>> ...

>> Regards.

>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>>> From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>>> Firmware 1.4.4
>>> SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
>>> Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.

>>> Sent via mobile phone.

>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net > 
>>> wrote:

>>>> What version for firmware is on the radio ?

>>>> and What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).

>>>> I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
>>>> But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings 
>>>> including
>>>> flow control ..
>>>> our B11's plug into netonix Switches

>>>> Regards.

>>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>>>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>>>> Miami, FL 33155
>>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>>>>> From: "Chris Wright" < ch...@velociter.net >
>>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
>>>>> Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>>>>> According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re 
>>>>> using the
>>>>> most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re 
>>>>> doing it
>>>>> wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers 
>>>>> – and
>>>>> yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”

>>>>> When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives 
>>>>> me as
>>>>> much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can
>>>>> download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my speedtest.net at the 
>>>>> edge,
>>>>> nor anyone else’s beyond my edge).

>>>>> When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable 
>>>>> as it’s
>>>>> 100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per 
>>>>> client is
>>>>> greatly increased (150+mbps).

>>>>> So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted
>>>>> speedtest.net results they love seeing as they run them every thirty 
>>>>> seconds
>>>>> ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. Or I give 
>>>>> myself
>>>>> some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 100mbps clients 
>>>>> can
>>>>> see is 20mbps.

>>>>> What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload
>>>>> 150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I 
>>>>> hit up
>>>>> Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their 
>>>>> idea that
>>>>> I should test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings. I’ve been a
>>>>> Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.

>>>>> Chris Wright

>>>>> Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

the flow control story came from the netonix forums and i agree, it does not 
negotiate flow control property in the netonix switch.
that being said, when connected to a mikrotik, there ARE pause frames being 
generated, and mimosa insists flow control is
enabled / working on their devices.

speaking of which, i just put in like 3 new mimosa links ; i haven't tinkered 
with flow control on them yet.


  - Original Message - 
  From: Faisal Imtiaz 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:57 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP


  also..


  in regards to flow control.. turn it on (auto) on the MT side 
  and also turn it on on the B11 radio.


  Additionally look at the B11 logs and see if your ethernet port is flapping 
...


  Regards.


  Faisal Imtiaz
  Snappy Internet & Telecom
  7266 SW 48 Street
  Miami, FL 33155
  Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

  Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net



--

From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
    Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

Firmware 1.4.4
SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.


Sent via mobile phone.

On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net> wrote:


  What version for firmware is on the radio ? 


  and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).


  I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
  But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings 
including flow control ..
  our B11's plug into netonix Switches 


  Regards.


  Faisal Imtiaz
  Snappy Internet & Telecom
  7266 SW 48 Street
  Miami, FL 33155
  Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

  Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net



--

From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re 
using the most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re 
doing it wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my 
customers – and yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”



When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives 
me as much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can 
download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my speedtest.net at the edge, 
nor anyone else’s beyond my edge).



When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable 
as it’s 100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per 
client is greatly increased (150+mbps).



So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those 
coveted speedtest.net results they love seeing as they run them every thirty 
seconds ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. Or I give 
myself some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 100mbps clients 
can see is 20mbps.



What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can 
upload 150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I 
hit up Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their 
idea that I should test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings. I’ve 
been a Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.



Chris Wright

Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Faisal Imtiaz]

also.. 

in regards to flow control.. turn it on (auto) on the MT side 
and also turn it on on the B11 radio. 

Additionally look at the B11 logs and see if your ethernet port is flapping ... 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> Firmware 1.4.4
> SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
> Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.

> Sent via mobile phone.

> On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net > wrote:

>> What version for firmware is on the radio ?

>> and What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).

>> I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
>> But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings including
>> flow control ..
>> our B11's plug into netonix Switches

>> Regards.

>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>>> From: "Chris Wright" < ch...@velociter.net >
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>>> According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re using 
>>> the
>>> most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re doing 
>>> it
>>> wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers – 
>>> and
>>> yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”

>>> When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me 
>>> as
>>> much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can
>>> download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my speedtest.net at the edge,
>>> nor anyone else’s beyond my edge).

>>> When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as 
>>> it’s
>>> 100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per 
>>> client is
>>> greatly increased (150+mbps).

>>> So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted
>>> speedtest.net results they love seeing as they run them every thirty seconds
>>> ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. Or I give myself
>>> some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 100mbps clients can
>>> see is 20mbps.

>>> What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload
>>> 150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit 
>>> up
>>> Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their idea 
>>> that
>>> I should test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings. I’ve been a
>>> Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.

>>> Chris Wright

>>> Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Stefan Englhardt]

If I remember correct flow control is not working with B5. May be B11 does the 
same. MT does not show if it is negotiated. Try netonix. 

 Ursprüngliche Nachricht 
Von: Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net> 
Datum: 25.01.17  06:41  (GMT+01:00) 
An: af@afmug.com 
Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP 

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Faisal Imtiaz]

> SNR 41, 42, 41, 41 

Turn down your power, and bring the SNR in the 30-35 range... 
it will improve thruput and allow for the higher modulation. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 12:41:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> Firmware 1.4.4
> SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
> Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.

> Sent via mobile phone.

> On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net > wrote:

>> What version for firmware is on the radio ?

>> and What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).

>> I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
>> But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings including
>> flow control ..
>> our B11's plug into netonix Switches

>> Regards.

>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>>> From: "Chris Wright" < ch...@velociter.net >
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

>>> According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re using 
>>> the
>>> most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re doing 
>>> it
>>> wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers – 
>>> and
>>> yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”

>>> When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me 
>>> as
>>> much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can
>>> download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my speedtest.net at the edge,
>>> nor anyone else’s beyond my edge).

>>> When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as 
>>> it’s
>>> 100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per 
>>> client is
>>> greatly increased (150+mbps).

>>> So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted
>>> speedtest.net results they love seeing as they run them every thirty seconds
>>> ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. Or I give myself
>>> some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 100mbps clients can
>>> see is 20mbps.

>>> What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload
>>> 150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit 
>>> up
>>> Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their idea 
>>> that
>>> I should test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings. I’ve been a
>>> Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.

>>> Chris Wright

>>> Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[George Skorup]

What do you get if you run a MT TCP Btest across the link between the 
CCRs in both 75/25 and auto?


And are you doing any traffic shaping or policing on the customers?

On 1/24/2017 11:41 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
CCR1036 - B11 link - CCR1036 - Test laptop on bridged eth port. No 
routing at this link, pure L2. Will continue investigating with 
wireshark as suggested. Shaking my head that Mimosa is content to wash 
their hands of the problem until I do their dev team's job for them.


Sent via mobile phone.

On Jan 24, 2017, at 5:35 PM, Josh Reynolds > wrote:


Wireshark it and look for tcp retransmissions. Save pcaps from both 
modes. Send them to Mimosa.


On Jan 24, 2017 7:02 PM, "Chris Wright" > wrote:


According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if
they�re using the most popular metric in the world for testing
internet speeds, they�re doing it wrong (I concede that while
this may be technically correct, my customers � and yours too �
don�t do technically correct very well.�

When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This
gives me as much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no
one client IP can download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from
my speedtest.net  at the edge, nor anyone
else�s beyond my edge).

When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is
undesirable as it�s 100mbps shy of what I need during peak
hours), but TCP throughput per client is greatly increased
(150+mbps).

So I�m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those
coveted speedtest.net  results they love
seeing as they run them every thirty seconds ad-nauseum at the
cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. Or I give myself some
headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 100mbps
clients can see is 20mbps.

What�s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I
can upload 150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA
is configured. I hit up Mimosa�s chat support was as chipper as
they were unyielding in their idea that I should test in a way
that caters to the B11�s shortcomings. I�ve been a Mimosa fanboy
for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.

Chris Wright

Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Chris Wright]

Firmware 1.4.4
SNR 41, 42, 41, 41
Flow Control had no effect so it remains disabled for now.

Sent via mobile phone.

On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
<fai...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net>> wrote:

What version for firmware is on the radio ?

and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).

I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings including 
flow control ..
our B11's plug into netonix Switches

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net>


From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net<mailto:ch...@velociter.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they're using the 
most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they're doing it 
wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers - and 
yours too - don't do technically correct very well."

When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me as 
much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can 
download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my 
speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> at the edge, nor anyone else's beyond my 
edge).

When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as it's 
100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per client is 
greatly increased (150+mbps).

So I'm in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted 
speedtest.net<http://speedtest.net> results they love seeing as they run them 
every thirty seconds ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. 
Or I give myself some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 
100mbps clients can see is 20mbps.

What's even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload 
150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit up 
Mimosa's chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their idea that 
I should test in a way that caters to the B11's shortcomings. I've been a 
Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Chris Wright]

CCR1036 - B11 link - CCR1036 - Test laptop on bridged eth port. No routing at 
this link, pure L2. Will continue investigating with wireshark as suggested. 
Shaking my head that Mimosa is content to wash their hands of the problem until 
I do their dev team's job for them.

Sent via mobile phone.

On Jan 24, 2017, at 5:35 PM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:

Wireshark it and look for tcp retransmissions. Save pcaps from both modes. Send 
them to Mimosa.

On Jan 24, 2017 7:02 PM, "Chris Wright" 
> wrote:
According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they're using the 
most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they're doing it 
wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers - and 
yours too - don't do technically correct very well."

When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me as 
much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can 
download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my 
speedtest.net at the edge, nor anyone else's beyond my 
edge).

When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as it's 
100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per client is 
greatly increased (150+mbps).

So I'm in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted 
speedtest.net results they love seeing as they run them 
every thirty seconds ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. 
Or I give myself some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 
100mbps clients can see is 20mbps.

What's even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload 
150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit up 
Mimosa's chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their idea that 
I should test in a way that caters to the B11's shortcomings. I've been a 
Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Jordan Gregory]

+1 on flow control tuning, seems all Mimosa products require some tweaking
of the flow control (I have adtran, microtik, and netonix switches)

On Jan 24, 2017 11:05 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappytelecom.net> wrote:

> What version for firmware is on the radio ?
>
> and   What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings).
>
> I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below...
> But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings
> including flow control ..
> our B11's plug into netonix Switches
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP
>
> According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re
> using the most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds,
> they’re doing it wrong (I concede that while this may be technically
> correct, my customers – and yours too – don’t do technically correct very
> well.”
>
>
>
> When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me
> as much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can
> download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my speedtest.net at the
> edge, nor anyone else’s beyond my edge).
>
>
>
> When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as
> it’s 100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per
> client is greatly increased (150+mbps).
>
>
>
> So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted
> speedtest.net results they love seeing as they run them every thirty
> seconds ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. Or I
> give myself some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my
> 100mbps clients can see is 20mbps.
>
>
>
> What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload
> 150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit
> up Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their
> idea that I should test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings.
> I’ve been a Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right
> now.
>
>
>
> Chris Wright
>
> Network Administrator
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Faisal Imtiaz]

What version for firmware is on the radio ? 

and What your SNR on the two chains (both directions, i.e. 4 readings). 

I can tell you that we do not see the behavior you are describing below... 
But I can also tell you that we had to do some 'tuning' on settings including 
flow control .. 
our B11's plug into netonix Switches 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Chris Wright" <ch...@velociter.net>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:02:58 PM
> Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

> According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re using 
> the
> most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re doing it
> wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers – 
> and
> yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”

> When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me as
> much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can
> download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my speedtest.net at the edge,
> nor anyone else’s beyond my edge).

> When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as 
> it’s
> 100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per client 
> is
> greatly increased (150+mbps).

> So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted
> speedtest.net results they love seeing as they run them every thirty seconds
> ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. Or I give myself
> some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 100mbps clients can
> see is 20mbps.

> What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload
> 150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit up
> Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their idea 
> that
> I should test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings. I’ve been a
> Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.

> Chris Wright

> Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Josh Reynolds]

Wireshark it and look for tcp retransmissions. Save pcaps from both modes.
Send them to Mimosa.

On Jan 24, 2017 7:02 PM, "Chris Wright"  wrote:

> According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re
> using the most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds,
> they’re doing it wrong (I concede that while this may be technically
> correct, my customers – and yours too – don’t do technically correct very
> well.”
>
>
>
> When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me
> as much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can
> download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my speedtest.net at the
> edge, nor anyone else’s beyond my edge).
>
>
>
> When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as
> it’s 100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per
> client is greatly increased (150+mbps).
>
>
>
> So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted
> speedtest.net results they love seeing as they run them every thirty
> seconds ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. Or I
> give myself some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my
> 100mbps clients can see is 20mbps.
>
>
>
> What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload
> 150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit
> up Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their
> idea that I should test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings.
> I’ve been a Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right
> now.
>
>
>
> Chris Wright
>
> Network Administrator
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Jim Bouse [Brazos WiFi]]

What switches are you using downstream of the B11?

Jim



Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7 active, an AT 4G LTE smartphone


 Original message 
From: Chris Wright <ch...@velociter.net>
Date: 1/24/17 7:03 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re using the 
most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they’re doing it 
wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers – and 
yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”

When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me as 
much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can 
download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my speedtest.net at the edge, 
nor anyone else’s beyond my edge).

When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as it’s 
100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per client is 
greatly increased (150+mbps).

So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted 
speedtest.net results they love seeing as they run them every thirty seconds 
ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. Or I give myself 
some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 100mbps clients can 
see is 20mbps.

What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload 
150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit up 
Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their idea that 
I should test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings. I’ve been a 
Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Gino Villarini]

What's their explanation on this?


On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:03 PM Chris Wright  wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they’re
> using the most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds,
> they’re doing it wrong (I concede that while this may be technically
> correct, my customers – and
>
> yours too – don’t do technically correct very well.”
>
>
>
>
>
> When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me
> as much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can
> download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my speedtest.net at the
> edge, nor anyone
>
> else’s beyond my edge).
>
>
>
>
>
> When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as
> it’s 100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per
> client is greatly increased (150+mbps).
>
>
>
>
>
> So I’m in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted
> speedtest.net results they love seeing as they run them every thirty
> seconds ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. Or I
> give myself some headroom
>
> in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 100mbps clients can see is
> 20mbps.
>
>
>
>
>
> What’s even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload
> 150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit
> up Mimosa’s chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their
> idea that I should
>
> test in a way that caters to the B11’s shortcomings. I’ve been a Mimosa
> fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.
>
>
>
>
>
> Chris Wright
>
>
> Network Administrator
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[AFMUG] B11, TDMA, and TCP

[Chris Wright]

According to Mimosa, I should be telling my customers that if they're using the 
most popular metric in the world for testing internet speeds, they're doing it 
wrong (I concede that while this may be technically correct, my customers - and 
yours too - don't do technically correct very well."

When TDMA is set to 75/25, 8ms window, MAC Tx/Rx is 980/290. This gives me as 
much Tx bandwidth as I require for peak times, but no one client IP can 
download more than 20mbps of TCP traffic (from my speedtest.net at the edge, 
nor anyone else's beyond my edge).

When TDMA is Auto, MAC Tx/Rx is 780/780 (lower Tx, which is undesirable as it's 
100mbps shy of what I need during peak hours), but TCP throughput per client is 
greatly increased (150+mbps).

So I'm in a pickle. Either my scrupulous customers can get those coveted 
speedtest.net results they love seeing as they run them every thirty seconds 
ad-nauseum at the cost of overall Tx capacity of the link. Or I give myself 
some headroom in link capacity but the fastest speeds my 100mbps clients can 
see is 20mbps.

What's even stranger is that client upload seems unaffected. I can upload 
150+mbps from my test on the link no matter what TDMA is configured. I hit up 
Mimosa's chat support was as chipper as they were unyielding in their idea that 
I should test in a way that caters to the B11's shortcomings. I've been a 
Mimosa fanboy for a while now but boy am I feeling burned right now.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Chuck McCown]

My oldest son has a favorite t shirt with this:
http://mediacdn.snorgcontent.com/media/catalog/product/i/d/idrinknavy_fullpic_artwork.jpg

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 2:40 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

“I drink your milkshake.”

>From the movie There Will Be Bandwidth.

From: John Blake 
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 3:24 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

But that B in Shannon's Theorem keeps getting big.  That 10Gbps radio uses 2Ghz 
channels.  That results in a lot of C

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:

  There are bumper stickers “Obey Gravity ... It’s the Law”.
  Maybe you need to sell Shannon’s Law bumper stickers.
  Ooops, it’s Shannon’s THEOREM.
  So you can be a Shannon denier.


  From: Chuck McCown 
  Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 9:36 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

  When they figure a way around this let me know:

  C=B Log2 ((1+S/N)

  (Shannon/Hartley)

  From: Kurt Fankhauser 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 8:24 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

  wow 10Gbps over wireless? Give it a couple years and there will be an 80ghz 
Airfiber doing these speeds I can't wait.

  On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM, John Blake <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:

All in for a Huawei RTN-380 including brackets, antennas, software, 
licensing, cables, accessories, etc. comes out between about $22k-30k per link 
depending on which options you pick.   

Also, if 4Gbps isn't good enough, there is the RTN-380H that does 10G 
wireless.  The specs on this are insane.
  a.. 10Gbps throughput 
  b.. 2000 Mhz channel spacing, 128QAM modulation

  c.. SFP+ interfaces

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:

  I'm talking 706 FT, give or take 6 inches 

  On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

Depends on your distance, if you're going 1 km vs. 2.5 to 4 km 


It is definitely a VERY narrow beam width. Particularly with 60cm 
antennas. I wouldn't do it on anything that sways.




On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:

  How stable of a structure do you need for 70/80Ghz? Self standing 
rohn 45 @ 55 ft too much? It's bracketed at 25ft. 

  On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Kurt Fankhauser 
<lists.wavel...@gmail.com> wrote:

What price range is a Huawei link in?

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Eric Kuhnke 
<eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:

  You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different 
market. I can't do beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz 
(even with +18 Tx power radios).

  I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM.


  On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" <jbl...@n1networks.com> 
wrote:

It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true 
symmetrical and a ton of throughput, you could look at the Huawei RTN-380 
radios.  These will do 4Gbps (2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or there 
are 1, 2, 3Gbps licensing options.  They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz and so are 
super easy and cheap to get (lightly) licensed. These are very popular with 
carriers outside the US, but not so much in the US because of all the 
Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but that has largely been resolved and they have 
been getting traction here.  Let me know if you want more info, we are Huawei 
VAR. 

John


On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:

  Gino,

  That seems to be the only configuration that meets the 
requirement.  The way I see it, in a traditional FDD system you would license 
an XPIC pair of frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 11565 H/V at point B. 
 Assuming an 820 running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per polarity per 
direction, for a two-way aggregate of 2gpbs.  You would have licensed 160MHz at 
each end of the system, for a system efficiency of 2gbps/320MHz = 6 b/s/hz.

  If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you 
have to use their FD mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps.  It 
would seem that this can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, because the 
radios still take turns transmitting as in a true TDMA system.  So, the system 
efficiency here is 736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the requirement of 3 
b/s/hz.

  If you switch the B11 to the normal TDMA mode you will need 
to transmit on the same frequency from each end of the link.  So, in addition 
to licensing 11075 H and V transmitting from point A, you also need to license 
11075 H and V transmitting from point B, which adds another 160MHz at each end. 
The PCNs show this configuration giving 1.47

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Eric Kuhnke]

The first generation 80 GHz, 1 Gbps FDD bridge products ten years ago used
OOK/BPSK and a high/low set of 5 GHz wide channels, like a Gigabeam or the
earliest Bridgewave radios.

Worked great and still didn't result in any colocation interference, with
60cm dishes, thanks to narrow dish beam width and the rarity of two
competing ISPs shooting from the same roof to the same roof. In which case
you could solve the problem by operating in the other polarity and
accomplishing 25-30' of horizontal separation between radios.



On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:24 PM, John Blake <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:

> But that B in Shannon's Theorem keeps getting big.  That 10Gbps radio uses
> 2Ghz channels.  That results in a lot of C
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:
>
>> There are bumper stickers “Obey Gravity ... It’s the Law”.
>> Maybe you need to sell Shannon’s Law bumper stickers.
>> Ooops, it’s Shannon’s THEOREM.
>> So you can be a Shannon denier.
>>
>>
>> *From:* Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2016 9:36 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11
>>
>> When they figure a way around this let me know:
>>
>> C=B Log2 ((1+S/N)
>>
>> (Shannon/Hartley)
>>
>> *From:* Kurt Fankhauser <lists.wavel...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2016 8:24 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11
>>
>> wow 10Gbps over wireless? Give it a couple years and there will be an
>> 80ghz Airfiber doing these speeds I can't wait.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM, John Blake <jbl...@n1networks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> All in for a Huawei RTN-380 including brackets, antennas, software,
>>> licensing, cables, accessories, etc. comes out between about $22k-30k per
>>> link depending on which options you pick.
>>>
>>> Also, if 4Gbps isn't good enough, there is the RTN-380H that does 10G
>>> wireless.  The specs on this are insane.
>>>
>>>- 10Gbps throughput
>>>- 2000 Mhz channel spacing, 128QAM modulation
>>>- SFP+ interfaces
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm talking 706 FT, give or take 6 inches
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Depends on your distance, if you're going 1 km vs. 2.5 to 4 km
>>>>>
>>>>> It is definitely a VERY narrow beam width. Particularly with 60cm
>>>>> antennas. I wouldn't do it on anything that sways.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How stable of a structure do you need for 70/80Ghz? Self standing
>>>>>> rohn 45 @ 55 ft too much? It's bracketed at 25ft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Kurt Fankhauser <
>>>>>> lists.wavel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What price range is a Huawei link in?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different market.
>>>>>>>> I can't do beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz 
>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>> with +18 Tx power radios).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true
>>>>>>>>> symmetrical and a ton of throughput, you could look at the Huawei 
>>>>>>>>> RTN-380
>>>>>>>>> radios.  These will do 4Gbps (2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or
>>>>>>>>> there are 1, 2, 3Gbps licensing options.  They use 71-76 GHz and 
>>>>>>>>> 81-86 GHz
>>>>>>>>> and so are super easy and cheap to get (lightly) licensed. These are 
>>>>>>

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Ken Hohhof]

“I drink your milkshake.”

>From the movie There Will Be Bandwidth.

From: John Blake 
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 3:24 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

But that B in Shannon's Theorem keeps getting big.  That 10Gbps radio uses 2Ghz 
channels.  That results in a lot of C

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:

  There are bumper stickers “Obey Gravity ... It’s the Law”.
  Maybe you need to sell Shannon’s Law bumper stickers.
  Ooops, it’s Shannon’s THEOREM.
  So you can be a Shannon denier.


  From: Chuck McCown 
  Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 9:36 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

  When they figure a way around this let me know:

  C=B Log2 ((1+S/N)

  (Shannon/Hartley)

  From: Kurt Fankhauser 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 8:24 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

  wow 10Gbps over wireless? Give it a couple years and there will be an 80ghz 
Airfiber doing these speeds I can't wait.

  On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM, John Blake <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:

All in for a Huawei RTN-380 including brackets, antennas, software, 
licensing, cables, accessories, etc. comes out between about $22k-30k per link 
depending on which options you pick.   

Also, if 4Gbps isn't good enough, there is the RTN-380H that does 10G 
wireless.  The specs on this are insane.
  a.. 10Gbps throughput 
  b.. 2000 Mhz channel spacing, 128QAM modulation

  c.. SFP+ interfaces

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:

  I'm talking 706 FT, give or take 6 inches 

  On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

Depends on your distance, if you're going 1 km vs. 2.5 to 4 km 


It is definitely a VERY narrow beam width. Particularly with 60cm 
antennas. I wouldn't do it on anything that sways.




On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:

  How stable of a structure do you need for 70/80Ghz? Self standing 
rohn 45 @ 55 ft too much? It's bracketed at 25ft. 

  On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Kurt Fankhauser 
<lists.wavel...@gmail.com> wrote:

What price range is a Huawei link in?

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Eric Kuhnke 
<eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:

  You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different 
market. I can't do beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz 
(even with +18 Tx power radios).

  I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM.


  On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" <jbl...@n1networks.com> 
wrote:

It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true 
symmetrical and a ton of throughput, you could look at the Huawei RTN-380 
radios.  These will do 4Gbps (2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or there 
are 1, 2, 3Gbps licensing options.  They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz and so are 
super easy and cheap to get (lightly) licensed. These are very popular with 
carriers outside the US, but not so much in the US because of all the 
Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but that has largely been resolved and they have 
been getting traction here.  Let me know if you want more info, we are Huawei 
VAR. 

John


On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:

  Gino,

  That seems to be the only configuration that meets the 
requirement.  The way I see it, in a traditional FDD system you would license 
an XPIC pair of frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 11565 H/V at point B. 
 Assuming an 820 running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per polarity per 
direction, for a two-way aggregate of 2gpbs.  You would have licensed 160MHz at 
each end of the system, for a system efficiency of 2gbps/320MHz = 6 b/s/hz.

  If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you 
have to use their FD mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps.  It 
would seem that this can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, because the 
radios still take turns transmitting as in a true TDMA system.  So, the system 
efficiency here is 736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the requirement of 3 
b/s/hz.

  If you switch the B11 to the normal TDMA mode you will need 
to transmit on the same frequency from each end of the link.  So, in addition 
to licensing 11075 H and V transmitting from point A, you also need to license 
11075 H and V transmitting from point B, which adds another 160MHz at each end. 
The PCNs show this configuration giving 1.47gbps (again assumed to be an 
aggregate figure due to the TDMA mode).  This is an efficiency of 
1.47gbps/640MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz again.  However, because you have licensed two 
frequency pairs, each site can also transmit and receive on the unused 

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[John Blake]

But that B in Shannon's Theorem keeps getting big.  That 10Gbps radio uses
2Ghz channels.  That results in a lot of C

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:

> There are bumper stickers “Obey Gravity ... It’s the Law”.
> Maybe you need to sell Shannon’s Law bumper stickers.
> Ooops, it’s Shannon’s THEOREM.
> So you can be a Shannon denier.
>
>
> *From:* Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 11, 2016 9:36 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11
>
> When they figure a way around this let me know:
>
> C=B Log2 ((1+S/N)
>
> (Shannon/Hartley)
>
> *From:* Kurt Fankhauser <lists.wavel...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2016 8:24 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11
>
> wow 10Gbps over wireless? Give it a couple years and there will be an
> 80ghz Airfiber doing these speeds I can't wait.
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM, John Blake <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:
>
>> All in for a Huawei RTN-380 including brackets, antennas, software,
>> licensing, cables, accessories, etc. comes out between about $22k-30k per
>> link depending on which options you pick.
>>
>> Also, if 4Gbps isn't good enough, there is the RTN-380H that does 10G
>> wireless.  The specs on this are insane.
>>
>>- 10Gbps throughput
>>- 2000 Mhz channel spacing, 128QAM modulation
>>- SFP+ interfaces
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm talking 706 FT, give or take 6 inches
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Depends on your distance, if you're going 1 km vs. 2.5 to 4 km
>>>>
>>>> It is definitely a VERY narrow beam width. Particularly with 60cm
>>>> antennas. I wouldn't do it on anything that sways.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How stable of a structure do you need for 70/80Ghz? Self standing rohn
>>>>> 45 @ 55 ft too much? It's bracketed at 25ft.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Kurt Fankhauser <
>>>>> lists.wavel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What price range is a Huawei link in?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different market.
>>>>>>> I can't do beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz 
>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>> with +18 Tx power radios).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true
>>>>>>>> symmetrical and a ton of throughput, you could look at the Huawei 
>>>>>>>> RTN-380
>>>>>>>> radios.  These will do 4Gbps (2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or
>>>>>>>> there are 1, 2, 3Gbps licensing options.  They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86 
>>>>>>>> GHz
>>>>>>>> and so are super easy and cheap to get (lightly) licensed. These are 
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> popular with carriers outside the US, but not so much in the US 
>>>>>>>> because of
>>>>>>>> all the Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but that has largely been resolved 
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> they have been getting traction here.  Let me know if you want more 
>>>>>>>> info,
>>>>>>>> we are Huawei VAR.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gino,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That seems to be the only configuration that meets the
>>>>>>>&g

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Ken Hohhof]

There are bumper stickers “Obey Gravity ... It’s the Law”.
Maybe you need to sell Shannon’s Law bumper stickers.
Ooops, it’s Shannon’s THEOREM.
So you can be a Shannon denier.


From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 9:36 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

When they figure a way around this let me know:

C=B Log2 ((1+S/N)

(Shannon/Hartley)

From: Kurt Fankhauser 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 8:24 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

wow 10Gbps over wireless? Give it a couple years and there will be an 80ghz 
Airfiber doing these speeds I can't wait.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM, John Blake <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:

  All in for a Huawei RTN-380 including brackets, antennas, software, 
licensing, cables, accessories, etc. comes out between about $22k-30k per link 
depending on which options you pick.   

  Also, if 4Gbps isn't good enough, there is the RTN-380H that does 10G 
wireless.  The specs on this are insane.
a.. 10Gbps throughput 
b.. 2000 Mhz channel spacing, 128QAM modulation

c.. SFP+ interfaces

  On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:

I'm talking 706 FT, give or take 6 inches 

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Depends on your distance, if you're going 1 km vs. 2.5 to 4 km 


  It is definitely a VERY narrow beam width. Particularly with 60cm 
antennas. I wouldn't do it on anything that sways.




  On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:

How stable of a structure do you need for 70/80Ghz? Self standing rohn 
45 @ 55 ft too much? It's bracketed at 25ft. 

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Kurt Fankhauser 
<lists.wavel...@gmail.com> wrote:

  What price range is a Huawei link in?

  On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different market. 
I can't do beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz (even 
with +18 Tx power radios).

I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM.


On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:

  It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true 
symmetrical and a ton of throughput, you could look at the Huawei RTN-380 
radios.  These will do 4Gbps (2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or there 
are 1, 2, 3Gbps licensing options.  They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz and so are 
super easy and cheap to get (lightly) licensed. These are very popular with 
carriers outside the US, but not so much in the US because of all the 
Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but that has largely been resolved and they have 
been getting traction here.  Let me know if you want more info, we are Huawei 
VAR. 

  John


  On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:

Gino,

That seems to be the only configuration that meets the 
requirement.  The way I see it, in a traditional FDD system you would license 
an XPIC pair of frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 11565 H/V at point B. 
 Assuming an 820 running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per polarity per 
direction, for a two-way aggregate of 2gpbs.  You would have licensed 160MHz at 
each end of the system, for a system efficiency of 2gbps/320MHz = 6 b/s/hz.

If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you have 
to use their FD mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps.  It would 
seem that this can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, because the radios 
still take turns transmitting as in a true TDMA system.  So, the system 
efficiency here is 736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the requirement of 3 
b/s/hz.

If you switch the B11 to the normal TDMA mode you will need to 
transmit on the same frequency from each end of the link.  So, in addition to 
licensing 11075 H and V transmitting from point A, you also need to license 
11075 H and V transmitting from point B, which adds another 160MHz at each end. 
The PCNs show this configuration giving 1.47gbps (again assumed to be an 
aggregate figure due to the TDMA mode).  This is an efficiency of 
1.47gbps/640MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz again.  However, because you have licensed two 
frequency pairs, each site can also transmit and receive on the unused 11565 H 
and V frequencies.  If you do this then you get 2*1.47gbps/640MHz = 4.6 b/s/hz. 
 This seems to be the only valid configuration, but does this take two radios 
at each end, or just one?
Mike Black

Black & Associates

727-773-9016


 Original Message 
--------
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11
From: "Gino V

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Chuck McCown]

When they figure a way around this let me know:

C=B Log2 ((1+S/N)

(Shannon/Hartley)

From: Kurt Fankhauser 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 8:24 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

wow 10Gbps over wireless? Give it a couple years and there will be an 80ghz 
Airfiber doing these speeds I can't wait.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM, John Blake <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:

  All in for a Huawei RTN-380 including brackets, antennas, software, 
licensing, cables, accessories, etc. comes out between about $22k-30k per link 
depending on which options you pick.   

  Also, if 4Gbps isn't good enough, there is the RTN-380H that does 10G 
wireless.  The specs on this are insane.
a.. 10Gbps throughput 
b.. 2000 Mhz channel spacing, 128QAM modulation

c.. SFP+ interfaces

  On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:

I'm talking 706 FT, give or take 6 inches 

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Depends on your distance, if you're going 1 km vs. 2.5 to 4 km 


  It is definitely a VERY narrow beam width. Particularly with 60cm 
antennas. I wouldn't do it on anything that sways.




  On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:

How stable of a structure do you need for 70/80Ghz? Self standing rohn 
45 @ 55 ft too much? It's bracketed at 25ft. 

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Kurt Fankhauser 
<lists.wavel...@gmail.com> wrote:

  What price range is a Huawei link in?

  On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different market. 
I can't do beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz (even 
with +18 Tx power radios).

I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM.


On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:

  It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true 
symmetrical and a ton of throughput, you could look at the Huawei RTN-380 
radios.  These will do 4Gbps (2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or there 
are 1, 2, 3Gbps licensing options.  They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz and so are 
super easy and cheap to get (lightly) licensed. These are very popular with 
carriers outside the US, but not so much in the US because of all the 
Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but that has largely been resolved and they have 
been getting traction here.  Let me know if you want more info, we are Huawei 
VAR. 

  John


  On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:

Gino,

That seems to be the only configuration that meets the 
requirement.  The way I see it, in a traditional FDD system you would license 
an XPIC pair of frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 11565 H/V at point B. 
 Assuming an 820 running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per polarity per 
direction, for a two-way aggregate of 2gpbs.  You would have licensed 160MHz at 
each end of the system, for a system efficiency of 2gbps/320MHz = 6 b/s/hz.

If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you have 
to use their FD mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps.  It would 
seem that this can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, because the radios 
still take turns transmitting as in a true TDMA system.  So, the system 
efficiency here is 736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the requirement of 3 
b/s/hz.

If you switch the B11 to the normal TDMA mode you will need to 
transmit on the same frequency from each end of the link.  So, in addition to 
licensing 11075 H and V transmitting from point A, you also need to license 
11075 H and V transmitting from point B, which adds another 160MHz at each end. 
The PCNs show this configuration giving 1.47gbps (again assumed to be an 
aggregate figure due to the TDMA mode).  This is an efficiency of 
1.47gbps/640MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz again.  However, because you have licensed two 
frequency pairs, each site can also transmit and receive on the unused 11565 H 
and V frequencies.  If you do this then you get 2*1.47gbps/640MHz = 4.6 b/s/hz. 
 This seems to be the only valid configuration, but does this take two radios 
at each end, or just one?
Mike Black

Black & Associates

727-773-9016


 Original Message 
--------
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11
From: "Gino Villarini" <ginovi...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, August 3, 2016 3:38 pm
To: "Animal Farm" <af@afmug.com>

---

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Paul McCall]

LOL,  what part of this is “super cheap” (from an earlier post) ?

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of John Blake
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 3:11 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

All in for a Huawei RTN-380 including brackets, antennas, software, licensing, 
cables, accessories, etc. comes out between about $22k-30k per link depending 
on which options you pick.

Also, if 4Gbps isn't good enough, there is the RTN-380H that does 10G wireless. 
 The specs on this are insane.

  *   10Gbps throughput
  *   2000 Mhz channel spacing, 128QAM modulation
  *   SFP+ interfaces

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Joe Novak 
<jno...@lrcomm.com<mailto:jno...@lrcomm.com>> wrote:
I'm talking 706 FT, give or take 6 inches

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Eric Kuhnke 
<eric.kuh...@gmail.com<mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Depends on your distance, if you're going 1 km vs. 2.5 to 4 km
It is definitely a VERY narrow beam width. Particularly with 60cm antennas. I 
wouldn't do it on anything that sways.


On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Joe Novak 
<jno...@lrcomm.com<mailto:jno...@lrcomm.com>> wrote:
How stable of a structure do you need for 70/80Ghz? Self standing rohn 45 @ 55 
ft too much? It's bracketed at 25ft.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Kurt Fankhauser 
<lists.wavel...@gmail.com<mailto:lists.wavel...@gmail.com>> wrote:
What price range is a Huawei link in?

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Eric Kuhnke 
<eric.kuh...@gmail.com<mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> wrote:

You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different market. I can't do 
beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz (even with +18 Tx 
power radios).

I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM.

On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" 
<jbl...@n1networks.com<mailto:jbl...@n1networks.com>> wrote:
It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true symmetrical and a ton 
of throughput, you could look at the Huawei RTN-380 radios.  These will do 
4Gbps (2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or there are 1, 2, 3Gbps licensing 
options.  They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz and so are super easy and cheap to 
get (lightly) licensed. These are very popular with carriers outside the US, 
but not so much in the US because of all the Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but 
that has largely been resolved and they have been getting traction here.  Let 
me know if you want more info, we are Huawei VAR.

John


On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, 
<mbl...@bamicrowave.com<mailto:mbl...@bamicrowave.com>> wrote:

Gino,

That seems to be the only configuration that meets the requirement.  The way I 
see it, in a traditional FDD system you would license an XPIC pair of 
frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 11565 H/V at point B.  Assuming an 
820 running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per polarity per direction, for a 
two-way aggregate of 2gpbs.  You would have licensed 160MHz at each end of the 
system, for a system efficiency of 2gbps/320MHz = 6 b/s/hz.
If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you have to use their FD 
mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps.  It would seem that this 
can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, because the radios still take turns 
transmitting as in a true TDMA system.  So, the system efficiency here is 
736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the requirement of 3 b/s/hz.

If you switch the B11 to the normal TDMA mode you will need to transmit on the 
same frequency from each end of the link.  So, in addition to licensing 11075 H 
and V transmitting from point A, you also need to license 11075 H and V 
transmitting from point B, which adds another 160MHz at each end. The PCNs show 
this configuration giving 1.47gbps (again assumed to be an aggregate figure due 
to the TDMA mode).  This is an efficiency of 1.47gbps/640MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz 
again.  However, because you have licensed two frequency pairs, each site can 
also transmit and receive on the unused 11565 H and V frequencies.  If you do 
this then you get 2*1.47gbps/640MHz = 4.6 b/s/hz.  This seems to be the only 
valid configuration, but does this take two radios at each end, or just one?

Mike Black

Black & Associates

727-773-9016

---- Original Message 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11
From: "Gino Villarini" <ginovi...@gmail.com<mailto:ginovi...@gmail.com>>
Date: Wed, August 3, 2016 3:38 pm
To: "Animal Farm" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
--


> but the radio tx in both channels in the both polarites in both ends ...
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
> <eric.kuh...@gmail.com<mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> No, it is just as spectrally efficient as any 256QAM radio.

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Mike Hammett]

What does the 10G one cost? :-p 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "John Blake" <jbl...@n1networks.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:10:39 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 


All in for a Huawei RTN-380 including brackets, antennas, software, licensing, 
cables, accessories, etc. comes out between about $22k-30k per link depending 
on which options you pick. 


Also, if 4Gbps isn't good enough, there is the RTN-380H that does 10G wireless. 
The specs on this are insane. 


* 10Gbps throughput 
* 2000 Mhz channel spacing, 128QAM modulation 
* SFP+ interfaces 



On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Joe Novak < jno...@lrcomm.com > wrote: 



I'm talking 706 FT, give or take 6 inches 




On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Eric Kuhnke < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > wrote: 





Depends on your distance, if you're going 1 km vs. 2.5 to 4 km 

It is definitely a VERY narrow beam width. Particularly with 60cm antennas. I 
wouldn't do it on anything that sways. 





On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Joe Novak < jno...@lrcomm.com > wrote: 



How stable of a structure do you need for 70/80Ghz? Self standing rohn 45 @ 55 
ft too much? It's bracketed at 25ft. 


On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Kurt Fankhauser < lists.wavel...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 





What price range is a Huawei link in? 


On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Eric Kuhnke < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > wrote: 



You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different market. I can't do 
beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz (even with +18 Tx 
power radios). 
I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM. 




On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" < jbl...@n1networks.com > wrote: 





It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true symmetrical and a ton 
of throughput, you could look at the Huawei RTN-380 radios. These will do 4Gbps 
(2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or there are 1, 2, 3Gbps licensing 
options. They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz and so are super easy and cheap to 
get (lightly) licensed. These are very popular with carriers outside the US, 
but not so much in the US because of all the Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but 
that has largely been resolved and they have been getting traction here. Let me 
know if you want more info, we are Huawei VAR. 


John 





On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, < mbl...@bamicrowave.com > wrote: 





Gino, 
That seems to be the only configuration that meets the requirement. The way I 
see it, in a traditional FDD system you would license an XPIC pair of 
frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 11565 H/V at point B. Assuming an 820 
running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per polarity per direction, for a two-way 
aggregate of 2gpbs. You would have licensed 160MHz at each end of the system, 
for a system efficiency of 2gbps/320MHz = 6 b/s/hz. 
If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you have to use their FD 
mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps. It would seem that this 
can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, because the radios still take turns 
transmitting as in a true TDMA system. So, the system efficiency here is 
736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the requirement of 3 b/s/hz. 

If you switch the B11 to the normal TDMA mode you will need to transmit on the 
same frequency from each end of the link. So, in addition to licensing 11075 H 
and V transmitting from point A, you also need to license 11075 H and V 
transmitting from point B, which adds another 160MHz at each end. The PCNs show 
this configuration giving 1.47gbps (again assumed to be an aggregate figure due 
to the TDMA mode). This is an efficiency of 1.47gbps/640MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz again. 
However, because you have licensed two frequency pairs, each site can also 
transmit and receive on the unused 11565 H and V frequencies. If you do this 
then you get 2*1.47gbps/640MHz = 4.6 b/s/hz. This seems to be the only valid 
configuration, but does this take two radios at each end, or just one? 
Mike Black 
Black & Associates 
727-773-9016 

-------- Original Message  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 
From: "Gino Villarini" < ginovi...@gmail.com > 
Date: Wed, August 3, 2016 3:38 pm 
To: "Animal Farm" < af@afmug.com > 
-- 



> but the radio tx in both channels in the both polarites in both ends ... 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > wrote: 
> 
>> No, it is just as spectrally efficient as any 256QAM radio... One 80 MHz 
>> "low" channel in both polarities and one 80 MHz "high" channel in both 
>> polarities, as a typical FDD band pla

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Mike Hammett]

Only if someone else builds it first, forcing their hand. Well, someone else 
they're concerned about. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <lists.wavel...@gmail.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 9:24:15 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 


wow 10Gbps over wireless? Give it a couple years and there will be an 80ghz 
Airfiber doing these speeds I can't wait. 


On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM, John Blake < jbl...@n1networks.com > wrote: 



All in for a Huawei RTN-380 including brackets, antennas, software, licensing, 
cables, accessories, etc. comes out between about $22k-30k per link depending 
on which options you pick. 


Also, if 4Gbps isn't good enough, there is the RTN-380H that does 10G wireless. 
The specs on this are insane. 


* 10Gbps throughput 
* 2000 Mhz channel spacing, 128QAM modulation 
* SFP+ interfaces 



On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Joe Novak < jno...@lrcomm.com > wrote: 



I'm talking 706 FT, give or take 6 inches 




On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Eric Kuhnke < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > wrote: 





Depends on your distance, if you're going 1 km vs. 2.5 to 4 km 

It is definitely a VERY narrow beam width. Particularly with 60cm antennas. I 
wouldn't do it on anything that sways. 





On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Joe Novak < jno...@lrcomm.com > wrote: 



How stable of a structure do you need for 70/80Ghz? Self standing rohn 45 @ 55 
ft too much? It's bracketed at 25ft. 


On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Kurt Fankhauser < lists.wavel...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 





What price range is a Huawei link in? 


On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Eric Kuhnke < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > wrote: 





You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different market. I can't do 
beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz (even with +18 Tx 
power radios). 
I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM. 




On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" < jbl...@n1networks.com > wrote: 





It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true symmetrical and a ton 
of throughput, you could look at the Huawei RTN-380 radios. These will do 4Gbps 
(2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or there are 1, 2, 3Gbps licensing 
options. They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz and so are super easy and cheap to 
get (lightly) licensed. These are very popular with carriers outside the US, 
but not so much in the US because of all the Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but 
that has largely been resolved and they have been getting traction here. Let me 
know if you want more info, we are Huawei VAR. 


John 





On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, < mbl...@bamicrowave.com > wrote: 





Gino, 
That seems to be the only configuration that meets the requirement. The way I 
see it, in a traditional FDD system you would license an XPIC pair of 
frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 11565 H/V at point B. Assuming an 820 
running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per polarity per direction, for a two-way 
aggregate of 2gpbs. You would have licensed 160MHz at each end of the system, 
for a system efficiency of 2gbps/320MHz = 6 b/s/hz. 
If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you have to use their FD 
mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps. It would seem that this 
can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, because the radios still take turns 
transmitting as in a true TDMA system. So, the system efficiency here is 
736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the requirement of 3 b/s/hz. 

If you switch the B11 to the normal TDMA mode you will need to transmit on the 
same frequency from each end of the link. So, in addition to licensing 11075 H 
and V transmitting from point A, you also need to license 11075 H and V 
transmitting from point B, which adds another 160MHz at each end. The PCNs show 
this configuration giving 1.47gbps (again assumed to be an aggregate figure due 
to the TDMA mode). This is an efficiency of 1.47gbps/640MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz again. 
However, because you have licensed two frequency pairs, each site can also 
transmit and receive on the unused 11565 H and V frequencies. If you do this 
then you get 2*1.47gbps/640MHz = 4.6 b/s/hz. This seems to be the only valid 
configuration, but does this take two radios at each end, or just one? 
Mike Black 
Black & Associates 
727-773-9016 

-------- Original Message  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 
From: "Gino Villarini" < ginovi...@gmail.com > 
Date: Wed, August 3, 2016 3:38 pm 
To: "Animal Farm" < af@afmug.com > 
-- 



> but the radio tx in both channels in the both polarites in both ends ... 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Kurt Fankhauser]

wow 10Gbps over wireless? Give it a couple years and there will be an 80ghz
Airfiber doing these speeds I can't wait.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM, John Blake <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:

> All in for a Huawei RTN-380 including brackets, antennas, software,
> licensing, cables, accessories, etc. comes out between about $22k-30k per
> link depending on which options you pick.
>
> Also, if 4Gbps isn't good enough, there is the RTN-380H that does 10G
> wireless.  The specs on this are insane.
>
>- 10Gbps throughput
>- 2000 Mhz channel spacing, 128QAM modulation
>- SFP+ interfaces
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm talking 706 FT, give or take 6 inches
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Depends on your distance, if you're going 1 km vs. 2.5 to 4 km
>>>
>>> It is definitely a VERY narrow beam width. Particularly with 60cm
>>> antennas. I wouldn't do it on anything that sways.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How stable of a structure do you need for 70/80Ghz? Self standing rohn
>>>> 45 @ 55 ft too much? It's bracketed at 25ft.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Kurt Fankhauser <
>>>> lists.wavel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What price range is a Huawei link in?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different market. I
>>>>>> can't do beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz (even
>>>>>> with +18 Tx power radios).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true
>>>>>>> symmetrical and a ton of throughput, you could look at the Huawei 
>>>>>>> RTN-380
>>>>>>> radios.  These will do 4Gbps (2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or
>>>>>>> there are 1, 2, 3Gbps licensing options.  They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86
>>>>>>> GHz and so are super easy and cheap to get (lightly) licensed. These are
>>>>>>> very popular with carriers outside the US, but not so much in the US
>>>>>>> because of all the Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but that has largely been
>>>>>>> resolved and they have been getting traction here.  Let me know if you 
>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>> more info, we are Huawei VAR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gino,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That seems to be the only configuration that meets the
>>>>>>>> requirement.  The way I see it, in a traditional FDD system you would
>>>>>>>> license an XPIC pair of frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 
>>>>>>>> 11565 H/V
>>>>>>>> at point B.  Assuming an 820 running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per
>>>>>>>> polarity per direction, for a two-way aggregate of 2gpbs.  You would 
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> licensed 160MHz at each end of the system, for a system efficiency of
>>>>>>>> 2gbps/320MHz = 6 b/s/hz.
>>>>>>>> If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you have to
>>>>>>>> use their FD mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps.  It
>>>>>>>> would seem that this can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, 
>>>>>>>> because the
>>>>>>>> radios still take turns transmitting as in a true TDMA system.  So, the
>>>>>>>> system efficiency here is 736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the
>>>>>>>> requirement of 3 b/s/hz.
&

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[John Blake]

All in for a Huawei RTN-380 including brackets, antennas, software,
licensing, cables, accessories, etc. comes out between about $22k-30k per
link depending on which options you pick.

Also, if 4Gbps isn't good enough, there is the RTN-380H that does 10G
wireless.  The specs on this are insane.

   - 10Gbps throughput
   - 2000 Mhz channel spacing, 128QAM modulation
   - SFP+ interfaces


On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:

> I'm talking 706 FT, give or take 6 inches
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Depends on your distance, if you're going 1 km vs. 2.5 to 4 km
>>
>> It is definitely a VERY narrow beam width. Particularly with 60cm
>> antennas. I wouldn't do it on anything that sways.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How stable of a structure do you need for 70/80Ghz? Self standing rohn
>>> 45 @ 55 ft too much? It's bracketed at 25ft.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Kurt Fankhauser <
>>> lists.wavel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What price range is a Huawei link in?
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different market. I
>>>>> can't do beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz (even
>>>>> with +18 Tx power radios).
>>>>>
>>>>> I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true symmetrical
>>>>>> and a ton of throughput, you could look at the Huawei RTN-380 radios.
>>>>>> These will do 4Gbps (2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or there are 
>>>>>> 1,
>>>>>> 2, 3Gbps licensing options.  They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz and so are
>>>>>> super easy and cheap to get (lightly) licensed. These are very popular 
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> carriers outside the US, but not so much in the US because of all the
>>>>>> Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but that has largely been resolved and they
>>>>>> have been getting traction here.  Let me know if you want more info, we 
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> Huawei VAR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gino,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That seems to be the only configuration that meets the requirement.
>>>>>>> The way I see it, in a traditional FDD system you would license an XPIC
>>>>>>> pair of frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 11565 H/V at point B.
>>>>>>> Assuming an 820 running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per polarity per
>>>>>>> direction, for a two-way aggregate of 2gpbs.  You would have licensed
>>>>>>> 160MHz at each end of the system, for a system efficiency of 
>>>>>>> 2gbps/320MHz =
>>>>>>> 6 b/s/hz.
>>>>>>> If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you have to
>>>>>>> use their FD mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps.  It
>>>>>>> would seem that this can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, because 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> radios still take turns transmitting as in a true TDMA system.  So, the
>>>>>>> system efficiency here is 736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the
>>>>>>> requirement of 3 b/s/hz.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you switch the B11 to the normal TDMA mode you will need to
>>>>>>> transmit on the same frequency from each end of the link.  So, in 
>>>>>>> addition
>>>>>>> to licensing 11075 H and V transmitting from point A, you also need to
>>>>>>> license 11075 H and V transmitting from point B, which adds another 
>>>>>>> 160MHz
>>>>>>> at each end. The PCNs show this configuration giving 1.47gbps (again
>>>>>>> assumed to b

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Joe Novak]

I'm talking 706 FT, give or take 6 inches

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Depends on your distance, if you're going 1 km vs. 2.5 to 4 km
>
> It is definitely a VERY narrow beam width. Particularly with 60cm
> antennas. I wouldn't do it on anything that sways.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:
>
>> How stable of a structure do you need for 70/80Ghz? Self standing rohn 45
>> @ 55 ft too much? It's bracketed at 25ft.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Kurt Fankhauser <
>> lists.wavel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What price range is a Huawei link in?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different market. I
>>>> can't do beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz (even
>>>> with +18 Tx power radios).
>>>>
>>>> I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM.
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true symmetrical
>>>>> and a ton of throughput, you could look at the Huawei RTN-380 radios.
>>>>> These will do 4Gbps (2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or there are 1,
>>>>> 2, 3Gbps licensing options.  They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz and so are
>>>>> super easy and cheap to get (lightly) licensed. These are very popular 
>>>>> with
>>>>> carriers outside the US, but not so much in the US because of all the
>>>>> Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but that has largely been resolved and they
>>>>> have been getting traction here.  Let me know if you want more info, we 
>>>>> are
>>>>> Huawei VAR.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gino,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That seems to be the only configuration that meets the requirement.
>>>>>> The way I see it, in a traditional FDD system you would license an XPIC
>>>>>> pair of frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 11565 H/V at point B.
>>>>>> Assuming an 820 running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per polarity per
>>>>>> direction, for a two-way aggregate of 2gpbs.  You would have licensed
>>>>>> 160MHz at each end of the system, for a system efficiency of 
>>>>>> 2gbps/320MHz =
>>>>>> 6 b/s/hz.
>>>>>> If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you have to use
>>>>>> their FD mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps.  It would
>>>>>> seem that this can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, because the
>>>>>> radios still take turns transmitting as in a true TDMA system.  So, the
>>>>>> system efficiency here is 736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the
>>>>>> requirement of 3 b/s/hz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you switch the B11 to the normal TDMA mode you will need to
>>>>>> transmit on the same frequency from each end of the link.  So, in 
>>>>>> addition
>>>>>> to licensing 11075 H and V transmitting from point A, you also need to
>>>>>> license 11075 H and V transmitting from point B, which adds another 
>>>>>> 160MHz
>>>>>> at each end. The PCNs show this configuration giving 1.47gbps (again
>>>>>> assumed to be an aggregate figure due to the TDMA mode).  This is an
>>>>>> efficiency of 1.47gbps/640MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz again.  However, because you
>>>>>> have licensed two frequency pairs, each site can also transmit and 
>>>>>> receive
>>>>>> on the unused 11565 H and V frequencies.  If you do this then you get
>>>>>> 2*1.47gbps/640MHz = 4.6 b/s/hz.  This seems to be the only valid
>>>>>> configuration, but does this take two radios at each end, or just one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Black
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Black & Associates
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 727-773-9016
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Eric Kuhnke]

Depends on your distance, if you're going 1 km vs. 2.5 to 4 km

It is definitely a VERY narrow beam width. Particularly with 60cm antennas.
I wouldn't do it on anything that sways.



On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Joe Novak <jno...@lrcomm.com> wrote:

> How stable of a structure do you need for 70/80Ghz? Self standing rohn 45
> @ 55 ft too much? It's bracketed at 25ft.
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Kurt Fankhauser <lists.wavel...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> What price range is a Huawei link in?
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different market. I
>>> can't do beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz (even
>>> with +18 Tx power radios).
>>>
>>> I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM.
>>>
>>> On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true symmetrical
>>>> and a ton of throughput, you could look at the Huawei RTN-380 radios.
>>>> These will do 4Gbps (2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or there are 1,
>>>> 2, 3Gbps licensing options.  They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz and so are
>>>> super easy and cheap to get (lightly) licensed. These are very popular with
>>>> carriers outside the US, but not so much in the US because of all the
>>>> Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but that has largely been resolved and they
>>>> have been getting traction here.  Let me know if you want more info, we are
>>>> Huawei VAR.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gino,
>>>>>
>>>>> That seems to be the only configuration that meets the requirement.
>>>>> The way I see it, in a traditional FDD system you would license an XPIC
>>>>> pair of frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 11565 H/V at point B.
>>>>> Assuming an 820 running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per polarity per
>>>>> direction, for a two-way aggregate of 2gpbs.  You would have licensed
>>>>> 160MHz at each end of the system, for a system efficiency of 2gbps/320MHz 
>>>>> =
>>>>> 6 b/s/hz.
>>>>> If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you have to use
>>>>> their FD mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps.  It would
>>>>> seem that this can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, because the
>>>>> radios still take turns transmitting as in a true TDMA system.  So, the
>>>>> system efficiency here is 736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the
>>>>> requirement of 3 b/s/hz.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you switch the B11 to the normal TDMA mode you will need to
>>>>> transmit on the same frequency from each end of the link.  So, in addition
>>>>> to licensing 11075 H and V transmitting from point A, you also need to
>>>>> license 11075 H and V transmitting from point B, which adds another 160MHz
>>>>> at each end. The PCNs show this configuration giving 1.47gbps (again
>>>>> assumed to be an aggregate figure due to the TDMA mode).  This is an
>>>>> efficiency of 1.47gbps/640MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz again.  However, because you
>>>>> have licensed two frequency pairs, each site can also transmit and receive
>>>>> on the unused 11565 H and V frequencies.  If you do this then you get
>>>>> 2*1.47gbps/640MHz = 4.6 b/s/hz.  This seems to be the only valid
>>>>> configuration, but does this take two radios at each end, or just one?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike Black
>>>>>
>>>>> Black & Associates
>>>>>
>>>>> 727-773-9016
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Original Message
>>>>> 
>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11
>>>>> From: "Gino Villarini" <ginovi...@gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: Wed, August 3, 2016 3:38 pm
>>>>> To: "Animal Farm" <af@afmug.com>
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > but the radio tx in b

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Joe Novak]

How stable of a structure do you need for 70/80Ghz? Self standing rohn 45 @
55 ft too much? It's bracketed at 25ft.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Kurt Fankhauser <lists.wavel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> What price range is a Huawei link in?
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different market. I
>> can't do beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz (even
>> with +18 Tx power radios).
>>
>> I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM.
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true symmetrical
>>> and a ton of throughput, you could look at the Huawei RTN-380 radios.
>>> These will do 4Gbps (2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or there are 1,
>>> 2, 3Gbps licensing options.  They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz and so are
>>> super easy and cheap to get (lightly) licensed. These are very popular with
>>> carriers outside the US, but not so much in the US because of all the
>>> Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but that has largely been resolved and they
>>> have been getting traction here.  Let me know if you want more info, we are
>>> Huawei VAR.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gino,
>>>>
>>>> That seems to be the only configuration that meets the requirement.
>>>> The way I see it, in a traditional FDD system you would license an XPIC
>>>> pair of frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 11565 H/V at point B.
>>>> Assuming an 820 running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per polarity per
>>>> direction, for a two-way aggregate of 2gpbs.  You would have licensed
>>>> 160MHz at each end of the system, for a system efficiency of 2gbps/320MHz =
>>>> 6 b/s/hz.
>>>> If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you have to use
>>>> their FD mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps.  It would
>>>> seem that this can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, because the
>>>> radios still take turns transmitting as in a true TDMA system.  So, the
>>>> system efficiency here is 736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the
>>>> requirement of 3 b/s/hz.
>>>>
>>>> If you switch the B11 to the normal TDMA mode you will need to transmit
>>>> on the same frequency from each end of the link.  So, in addition to
>>>> licensing 11075 H and V transmitting from point A, you also need to license
>>>> 11075 H and V transmitting from point B, which adds another 160MHz at each
>>>> end. The PCNs show this configuration giving 1.47gbps (again assumed to be
>>>> an aggregate figure due to the TDMA mode).  This is an efficiency of
>>>> 1.47gbps/640MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz again.  However, because you have licensed two
>>>> frequency pairs, each site can also transmit and receive on the unused
>>>> 11565 H and V frequencies.  If you do this then you get 2*1.47gbps/640MHz =
>>>> 4.6 b/s/hz.  This seems to be the only valid configuration, but does this
>>>> take two radios at each end, or just one?
>>>>
>>>> Mike Black
>>>>
>>>> Black & Associates
>>>>
>>>> 727-773-9016
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Original Message
>>>> 
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11
>>>> From: "Gino Villarini" <ginovi...@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Wed, August 3, 2016 3:38 pm
>>>> To: "Animal Farm" <af@afmug.com>
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > but the radio tx in both channels in the both polarites in both ends
>>>> ...
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> No, it is just as spectrally efficient as any 256QAM radio... One 80
>>>> MHz
>>>> >> "low" channel in both polarities and one 80 MHz "high" channel in
>>>> both
>>>> >> polarities, as a typical FDD band plan such as you would use with a
>>>> >> configur

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Kurt Fankhauser]

What price range is a Huawei link in?

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different market. I
> can't do beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz (even
> with +18 Tx power radios).
>
> I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM.
>
> On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:
>
>> It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true symmetrical and
>> a ton of throughput, you could look at the Huawei RTN-380 radios.  These
>> will do 4Gbps (2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or there are 1, 2,
>> 3Gbps licensing options.  They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz and so are super
>> easy and cheap to get (lightly) licensed. These are very popular with
>> carriers outside the US, but not so much in the US because of all the
>> Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but that has largely been resolved and they
>> have been getting traction here.  Let me know if you want more info, we are
>> Huawei VAR.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Gino,
>>>
>>> That seems to be the only configuration that meets the requirement.  The
>>> way I see it, in a traditional FDD system you would license an XPIC pair of
>>> frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 11565 H/V at point B.  Assuming
>>> an 820 running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per polarity per direction, for
>>> a two-way aggregate of 2gpbs.  You would have licensed 160MHz at each end
>>> of the system, for a system efficiency of 2gbps/320MHz = 6 b/s/hz.
>>> If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you have to use
>>> their FD mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps.  It would
>>> seem that this can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, because the
>>> radios still take turns transmitting as in a true TDMA system.  So, the
>>> system efficiency here is 736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the
>>> requirement of 3 b/s/hz.
>>>
>>> If you switch the B11 to the normal TDMA mode you will need to transmit
>>> on the same frequency from each end of the link.  So, in addition to
>>> licensing 11075 H and V transmitting from point A, you also need to license
>>> 11075 H and V transmitting from point B, which adds another 160MHz at each
>>> end. The PCNs show this configuration giving 1.47gbps (again assumed to be
>>> an aggregate figure due to the TDMA mode).  This is an efficiency of
>>> 1.47gbps/640MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz again.  However, because you have licensed two
>>> frequency pairs, each site can also transmit and receive on the unused
>>> 11565 H and V frequencies.  If you do this then you get 2*1.47gbps/640MHz =
>>> 4.6 b/s/hz.  This seems to be the only valid configuration, but does this
>>> take two radios at each end, or just one?
>>>
>>> Mike Black
>>>
>>> Black & Associates
>>>
>>> 727-773-9016
>>>
>>>
>>>  Original Message
>>> 
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11
>>> From: "Gino Villarini" <ginovi...@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Wed, August 3, 2016 3:38 pm
>>> To: "Animal Farm" <af@afmug.com>
>>> 
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> > but the radio tx in both channels in the both polarites in both ends
>>> ...
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> No, it is just as spectrally efficient as any 256QAM radio... One 80
>>> MHz
>>> >> "low" channel in both polarities and one 80 MHz "high" channel in both
>>> >> polarities, as a typical FDD band plan such as you would use with a
>>> >> configuration with 2 dishes, 2 orthomode transducers and 4 radio heads
>>> >> (each radio operating in a single polarity) in a 2+0 configuration.
>>> >>
>>> >> You're arriving at the figure of 320 MHz by counting everything twice.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:28 AM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> We haven't had the pleasure of coordinating a B11 link yet, but they
>>> >>> certainly seem to be popular based upon th

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Eric Kuhnke]

You cannot directly compare 11 to 80 GHz. Totally different market. I can't
do beyond 2.5 km at real five to six nines uptime with 80 GHz (even with
+18 Tx power radios).

I can do 60 km with 11 if the link will tolerate some ACM.

On Aug 9, 2016 9:31 PM, "John Blake" <jbl...@n1networks.com> wrote:

> It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true symmetrical and
> a ton of throughput, you could look at the Huawei RTN-380 radios.  These
> will do 4Gbps (2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or there are 1, 2,
> 3Gbps licensing options.  They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz and so are super
> easy and cheap to get (lightly) licensed. These are very popular with
> carriers outside the US, but not so much in the US because of all the
> Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but that has largely been resolved and they
> have been getting traction here.  Let me know if you want more info, we are
> Huawei VAR.
>
> John
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:
>
>> Gino,
>>
>> That seems to be the only configuration that meets the requirement.  The
>> way I see it, in a traditional FDD system you would license an XPIC pair of
>> frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 11565 H/V at point B.  Assuming
>> an 820 running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per polarity per direction, for
>> a two-way aggregate of 2gpbs.  You would have licensed 160MHz at each end
>> of the system, for a system efficiency of 2gbps/320MHz = 6 b/s/hz.
>> If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you have to use
>> their FD mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps.  It would
>> seem that this can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, because the
>> radios still take turns transmitting as in a true TDMA system.  So, the
>> system efficiency here is 736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the
>> requirement of 3 b/s/hz.
>>
>> If you switch the B11 to the normal TDMA mode you will need to transmit
>> on the same frequency from each end of the link.  So, in addition to
>> licensing 11075 H and V transmitting from point A, you also need to license
>> 11075 H and V transmitting from point B, which adds another 160MHz at each
>> end. The PCNs show this configuration giving 1.47gbps (again assumed to be
>> an aggregate figure due to the TDMA mode).  This is an efficiency of
>> 1.47gbps/640MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz again.  However, because you have licensed two
>> frequency pairs, each site can also transmit and receive on the unused
>> 11565 H and V frequencies.  If you do this then you get 2*1.47gbps/640MHz =
>> 4.6 b/s/hz.  This seems to be the only valid configuration, but does this
>> take two radios at each end, or just one?
>>
>> Mike Black
>>
>> Black & Associates
>>
>> 727-773-9016
>>
>>
>>  Original Message 
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11
>> From: "Gino Villarini" <ginovi...@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, August 3, 2016 3:38 pm
>> To: "Animal Farm" <af@afmug.com>
>> 
>> --
>>
>>
>> > but the radio tx in both channels in the both polarites in both ends ...
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> No, it is just as spectrally efficient as any 256QAM radio... One 80
>> MHz
>> >> "low" channel in both polarities and one 80 MHz "high" channel in both
>> >> polarities, as a typical FDD band plan such as you would use with a
>> >> configuration with 2 dishes, 2 orthomode transducers and 4 radio heads
>> >> (each radio operating in a single polarity) in a 2+0 configuration.
>> >>
>> >> You're arriving at the figure of 320 MHz by counting everything twice.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:28 AM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> We haven't had the pleasure of coordinating a B11 link yet, but they
>> >>> certainly seem to be popular based upon the number of PCNs we are
>> >>> seeing. So, a dumb question hopefully based upon a simple
>> misunderstanding
>> >>> of the numbers: I don't see how this meets the FCC minimum efficiency
>> >>> standards for wide channels at 11GHz:
>> >>>
>> >>> 80MHz channels x H and V = 160MHz, but with high/low pairing you
>> double
>> >>> this? to 320MHz occupied per end? So, to meet the 3 b/s/hz
>> requireme

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[John Blake]

It's obviously pricier than the B11, but if you want true symmetrical and a
ton of throughput, you could look at the Huawei RTN-380 radios.  These will
do 4Gbps (2Gbps symmetrical) at full licensing, or there are 1, 2, 3Gbps
licensing options.  They use 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz and so are super easy
and cheap to get (lightly) licensed. These are very popular with carriers
outside the US, but not so much in the US because of all the
Huawei/Ciscolobby disputes, but that has largely been resolved and they
have been getting traction here.  Let me know if you want more info, we are
Huawei VAR.

John


On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:54 PM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:

> Gino,
>
> That seems to be the only configuration that meets the requirement.  The
> way I see it, in a traditional FDD system you would license an XPIC pair of
> frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 11565 H/V at point B.  Assuming
> an 820 running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per polarity per direction, for
> a two-way aggregate of 2gpbs.  You would have licensed 160MHz at each end
> of the system, for a system efficiency of 2gbps/320MHz = 6 b/s/hz.
> If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you have to use
> their FD mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps.  It would
> seem that this can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, because the
> radios still take turns transmitting as in a true TDMA system.  So, the
> system efficiency here is 736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the
> requirement of 3 b/s/hz.
>
> If you switch the B11 to the normal TDMA mode you will need to transmit on
> the same frequency from each end of the link.  So, in addition to licensing
> 11075 H and V transmitting from point A, you also need to license 11075 H
> and V transmitting from point B, which adds another 160MHz at each end. The
> PCNs show this configuration giving 1.47gbps (again assumed to be an
> aggregate figure due to the TDMA mode).  This is an efficiency of
> 1.47gbps/640MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz again.  However, because you have licensed two
> frequency pairs, each site can also transmit and receive on the unused
> 11565 H and V frequencies.  If you do this then you get 2*1.47gbps/640MHz =
> 4.6 b/s/hz.  This seems to be the only valid configuration, but does this
> take two radios at each end, or just one?
>
> Mike Black
>
> Black & Associates
>
> 727-773-9016
>
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11
> From: "Gino Villarini" <ginovi...@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, August 3, 2016 3:38 pm
> To: "Animal Farm" <af@afmug.com>
> --
>
>
> > but the radio tx in both channels in the both polarites in both ends ...
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> No, it is just as spectrally efficient as any 256QAM radio... One 80 MHz
> >> "low" channel in both polarities and one 80 MHz "high" channel in both
> >> polarities, as a typical FDD band plan such as you would use with a
> >> configuration with 2 dishes, 2 orthomode transducers and 4 radio heads
> >> (each radio operating in a single polarity) in a 2+0 configuration.
> >>
> >> You're arriving at the figure of 320 MHz by counting everything twice.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:28 AM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> We haven't had the pleasure of coordinating a B11 link yet, but they
> >>> certainly seem to be popular based upon the number of PCNs we are
> >>> seeing. So, a dumb question hopefully based upon a simple
> misunderstanding
> >>> of the numbers: I don't see how this meets the FCC minimum efficiency
> >>> standards for wide channels at 11GHz:
> >>>
> >>> 80MHz channels x H and V = 160MHz, but with high/low pairing you double
> >>> this? to 320MHz occupied per end? So, to meet the 3 b/s/hz requirement
> at
> >>> 11GHz your symmetrical throughput would need to be >= 960mbps. What am
> I
> >>> missing?
> >>>
> >>> Mike Black
> >>>
> >>> Black & Associates
> >>>
> >>> 727-773-9016
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  Original Message
> 
> >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11
> >>>
> From: "Jaime Fink" <ja...@mimosa.co>
> >>> Date: Tue, August 2, 2016 4:49 pm
> >>> To: "SmarterBroadband" <li...@smarterbroadband.com>
>

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[mblack]

Gino,
That seems to be the only configuration that meets the requirement.� The way I 
see it, in a traditional FDD system you would license an XPIC pair of 
frequencies, say 11075 H/V at point A and 11565 H/V at point B.� Assuming an 
820 running 256QAM you might get 500mbps per
polarity per direction, for a two-way aggregate of 2gpbs.� You would have 
licensed 160MHz at each end of the system, for a system efficiency of 
2gbps/320MHz = 6 b/s/hz.
If you operate a B11 on the same pair of frequencies, you have to use 
their FD mode which a typical PCN claims will deliver 736mbps.� It would seem 
that this can be viewed as a two-way aggregate rate, because the radios still 
take turns transmitting as in a true TDMA system.� So, the
system efficiency here is 736mbps/320MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz -- below the requirement 
of 3 b/s/hz.
�

If you switch the B11 to the normal TDMA mode you will need to transmit 
on the same frequency from each end of the link.� So, in addition to licensing 
11075 H and V transmitting from point A, you also need to license 11075 H and V 
transmitting from point B, which adds another 160MHz at each
end. The PCNs show this configuration giving 1.47gbps (again assumed to be an 
aggregate figure due to the TDMA mode).� This is an efficiency of 
1.47gbps/640MHz = 2.3 b/s/hz again.� However, because you have licensed two 
frequency pairs, each site can also transmit and receive on the unused
11565 H and V frequencies.� If you do this then you get 2*1.47gbps/640MHz = 4.6 
b/s/hz.� This seems to be the only valid configuration, but does this take two 
radios at each end, or just one?
Mike Black
Black & Associates
727-773-9016


 Original Message 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

From: "Gino Villarini" <ginovi...@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, August 3, 2016 3:38 pm

To: "Animal Farm" <af@afmug.com>

--



> but the radio tx in both channels in the both polarites in both ends ...

>

> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> No, it is just as spectrally efficient as any 256QAM radio... One 80 MHz

>> "low" channel in both polarities and one 80 MHz "high" channel in both

>> polarities, as a typical FDD band plan such as you would use with a

>> configuration with 2 dishes, 2 orthomode transducers and 4 radio heads

>> (each radio operating in a single polarity) in a 2+0 configuration.

>>

>> You're arriving at the figure of 320 MHz by counting everything twice.

>>

>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:28 AM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:

>>

>>> We haven't had the pleasure of coordinating a B11 link yet, but they

>>> certainly seem to be popular based upon the number of PCNs we are

>>> seeing. So, a dumb question hopefully based upon a simple misunderstanding

>>> of the numbers: I don't see how this meets the FCC minimum efficiency

>>> standards for wide channels at 11GHz:

>>>

>>> 80MHz channels x H and V = 160MHz, but with high/low pairing you double

>>> this? to 320MHz occupied per end? So, to meet the 3 b/s/hz requirement at

>>> 11GHz your symmetrical throughput would need to be >= 960mbps. What am I

>>> missing?

>>>

>>> Mike Black

>>>

>>> Black & Associates

>>>

>>> 727-773-9016

>>>

>>>

>>>  Original Message 

>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

>>>

From: "Jaime Fink" <ja...@mimosa.co>

>>> Date: Tue, August 2, 2016 4:49 pm

>>> To: "SmarterBroadband" <li...@smarterbroadband.com>

>>> "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>

>>> --

>>>

>>> > The PHY is 1733 Mbps aggregate, so depending on the chosen window

>>> sizes, the top real world TCP speeds weve seen are between 1200-1300 
>>> Mbps

>>> aggregate (75/25 or 50/50 mode), or 600-650 Mbps symmetric (50/50).

>>> >

>>> > For 11 GHz this assumes high/low pairing of 80 MHz and both

>>> polarizations coordinated.

>>> >

>>> > Jaime Fink  Mimosa<http://www.mimosa.co>  CPO & Co-Founder

>>> >

>>> >

>>> > On August 2, 2016 at 1:34:31 PM, SmarterBroadband (

>>> li...@smarterbroadband.com<mailto:li...@smarterbroadband.com>) wrote:

>>> > Can the B11 do 1Gbps Symmetrical?

>>> > If not what is best Symmetrical?

>>> > Thanks

>>> >

>>> >

>>> >

>>>

>>

>>

>

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Gino Villarini]

but the radio tx in both channels in the both polarites in both ends ...

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, it is just as spectrally efficient as any 256QAM radio...   One 80 MHz
> "low" channel in both polarities and one 80 MHz "high" channel in both
> polarities, as a typical FDD band plan such as you would use with a
> configuration with 2 dishes, 2 orthomode transducers and 4 radio heads
> (each radio operating in a single polarity) in a 2+0 configuration.
>
> You're arriving at the figure of 320 MHz by counting everything twice.
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:28 AM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:
>
>> We haven't had the pleasure of coordinating a B11 link yet, but they
>> certainly seem to be popular based upon the number of PCNs we are
>> seeing.  So, a dumb question hopefully based upon a simple misunderstanding
>> of the numbers: I don't see how this meets the FCC minimum efficiency
>> standards for wide channels at 11GHz:
>>
>> 80MHz channels x H and V = 160MHz, but with high/low pairing you double
>> this?  to 320MHz occupied per end?  So, to meet the 3 b/s/hz requirement at
>> 11GHz your symmetrical throughput would need to be >= 960mbps.  What am I
>> missing?
>>
>> Mike Black
>>
>> Black & Associates
>>
>> 727-773-9016
>>
>>
>>  Original Message 
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11
>> From: "Jaime Fink" <ja...@mimosa.co>
>> Date: Tue, August 2, 2016 4:49 pm
>> To: "SmarterBroadband" <li...@smarterbroadband.com>
>> "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>> --
>>
>> > The PHY is 1733 Mbps aggregate, so depending on the chosen window
>> sizes, the top real world TCP speeds we’ve seen are between 1200-1300 Mbps
>> aggregate (75/25 or 50/50 mode), or 600-650 Mbps symmetric (50/50).
>> >
>> > For 11 GHz this assumes high/low pairing of 80 MHz and both
>> polarizations coordinated.
>> >
>> > Jaime Fink • Mimosa<http://www.mimosa.co> • CPO & Co-Founder
>> >
>> >
>> > On August 2, 2016 at 1:34:31 PM, SmarterBroadband (
>> li...@smarterbroadband.com<mailto:li...@smarterbroadband.com>) wrote:
>> > Can the B11 do 1Gbps Symmetrical?
>> > If not what is best Symmetrical?
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Eric Kuhnke]

No, it is just as spectrally efficient as any 256QAM radio...   One 80 MHz
"low" channel in both polarities and one 80 MHz "high" channel in both
polarities, as a typical FDD band plan such as you would use with a
configuration with 2 dishes, 2 orthomode transducers and 4 radio heads
(each radio operating in a single polarity) in a 2+0 configuration.

You're arriving at the figure of 320 MHz by counting everything twice.

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:28 AM, <mbl...@bamicrowave.com> wrote:

> We haven't had the pleasure of coordinating a B11 link yet, but they
> certainly seem to be popular based upon the number of PCNs we are
> seeing.  So, a dumb question hopefully based upon a simple misunderstanding
> of the numbers: I don't see how this meets the FCC minimum efficiency
> standards for wide channels at 11GHz:
>
> 80MHz channels x H and V = 160MHz, but with high/low pairing you double
> this?  to 320MHz occupied per end?  So, to meet the 3 b/s/hz requirement at
> 11GHz your symmetrical throughput would need to be >= 960mbps.  What am I
> missing?
>
> Mike Black
>
> Black & Associates
>
> 727-773-9016
>
>
> -------- Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11
> From: "Jaime Fink" <ja...@mimosa.co>
> Date: Tue, August 2, 2016 4:49 pm
> To: "SmarterBroadband" <li...@smarterbroadband.com>
> "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> --
>
> > The PHY is 1733 Mbps aggregate, so depending on the chosen window sizes,
> the top real world TCP speeds we’ve seen are between 1200-1300 Mbps
> aggregate (75/25 or 50/50 mode), or 600-650 Mbps symmetric (50/50).
> >
> > For 11 GHz this assumes high/low pairing of 80 MHz and both
> polarizations coordinated.
> >
> > Jaime Fink • Mimosa<http://www.mimosa.co> • CPO & Co-Founder
> >
> >
> > On August 2, 2016 at 1:34:31 PM, SmarterBroadband (
> li...@smarterbroadband.com<mailto:li...@smarterbroadband.com>) wrote:
> > Can the B11 do 1Gbps Symmetrical?
> > If not what is best Symmetrical?
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[mblack]

We haven't had the pleasure of coordinating a B11 link yet, but they certainly 
seem to be popular based upon the number of PCNs we are seeing.��So, a dumb 
question hopefully based�upon�a simple misunderstanding of the numbers: I don't 
see how this meets the�FCC minimum
efficiency standards for wide channels at 11GHz:
80MHz channels x H and V = 160MHz, but with high/low pairing you double this?� 
to 320MHz occupied per end?� So, to meet the 3 b/s/hz requirement at 11GHz your 
symmetrical throughput would need to be >= 960mbps.� What am I
missing?
Mike Black
Black & Associates
727-773-9016

 Original Message 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

From: "Jaime Fink" <ja...@mimosa.co>

Date: Tue, August 2, 2016 4:49 pm

To: "SmarterBroadband" <li...@smarterbroadband.com>

"af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>

--



> The PHY is 1733 Mbps aggregate, so depending on the chosen window sizes, the 
> top real world TCP speeds weve seen are between 1200-1300 Mbps 
> aggregate (75/25 or 50/50 mode), or 600-650 Mbps symmetric (50/50).

>

> For 11 GHz this assumes high/low pairing of 80 MHz and both polarizations 
> coordinated.

>

> Jaime Fink  Mimosa<http://www.mimosa.co>  CPO & Co-Founder

>

>

> On August 2, 2016 at 1:34:31 PM, SmarterBroadband 
> (li...@smarterbroadband.com<mailto:li...@smarterbroadband.com>) wrote:

> Can the B11 do 1Gbps Symmetrical?

> If not what is best Symmetrical?

> Thanks

>

>

>

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Mike Hammett]

Greater total throughput, FDD, more spectral efficiency. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jon Langeler" <jon-ispli...@michwave.net> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 8:05:41 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 


Any reason to go AlfoPlus over Mimosa 11? 


Jon Langeler 
Michwave Technologies, Inc. 

On Aug 2, 2016, at 7:45 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 





*nods* You have SIAE in the middle of the two as far as cost goes, but similar 
capabilities.as the Ceragon radio. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jesse Dupont" < jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net > 
To: "Animal Farm" < af@afmug.com > 
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 6:44:27 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 


We're in the process of licensing multiple 2x80MHz channels in 11GHz now. 


The Cambium PTP820 supports 1+ Gbps full duplex using 2x80MHz channels on 11GHz 
(in 2+0 config). It definitely costs more. 


On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote: 


On 8/2/16 14:05, Joe Novak wrote: 


For some reason I thought that 80 MHz channels where coordinated as 
2x40MHz channels (continuous). I am sure I read it somewhere... but I'm 
not so sure now. 





There's a table for 80MHz pairs in 47 CFR 101.147. 

~Seth 






-- 


Jesse DuPont 

Owner / Network Architect 
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net 
cell: 605-340-0651 
fax: 305-946-0651 
Celerity Networks LLC 
PO Box 547 
Spearfish, SD 57783 
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc 
 

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Jon Langeler]

Any reason to go AlfoPlus over Mimosa 11?

Jon Langeler
Michwave Technologies, Inc.

> On Aug 2, 2016, at 7:45 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
> 
> *nods* You have SIAE in the middle of the two as far as cost goes, but 
> similar capabilities.as the Ceragon radio.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> 
> The Brothers WISP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Jesse Dupont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
> To: "Animal Farm" <af@afmug.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 6:44:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11
> 
> We're in the process of licensing multiple 2x80MHz channels in 11GHz now. 
> 
> The Cambium PTP820 supports 1+ Gbps full duplex using 2x80MHz channels on 
> 11GHz (in 2+0 config). It definitely costs more.
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us> wrote:
>>> On 8/2/16 14:05, Joe Novak wrote:
>>> For some reason I thought that 80 MHz channels where coordinated as
>>> 2x40MHz channels (continuous). I am sure I read it somewhere... but I'm
>>> not so sure now.
>> 
>> 
>> There's a table for 80MHz pairs in 47 CFR 101.147.
>> 
>> ~Seth
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jesse DuPont
> Owner / Network Architect
> email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
> cell: 605-340-0651
> fax: 305-946-0651
> Celerity Networks LLC
> PO Box 547
> Spearfish, SD  57783
> Like us!  facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Mike Hammett]

*nods* You have SIAE in the middle of the two as far as cost goes, but similar 
capabilities.as the Ceragon radio. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jesse Dupont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net> 
To: "Animal Farm" <af@afmug.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 6:44:27 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 


We're in the process of licensing multiple 2x80MHz channels in 11GHz now. 


The Cambium PTP820 supports 1+ Gbps full duplex using 2x80MHz channels on 11GHz 
(in 2+0 config). It definitely costs more. 


On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote: 


On 8/2/16 14:05, Joe Novak wrote: 


For some reason I thought that 80 MHz channels where coordinated as 
2x40MHz channels (continuous). I am sure I read it somewhere... but I'm 
not so sure now. 





There's a table for 80MHz pairs in 47 CFR 101.147. 

~Seth 






-- 


Jesse DuPont 

Owner / Network Architect 
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net 
cell: 605-340-0651 
fax: 305-946-0651 
Celerity Networks LLC 
PO Box 547 
Spearfish, SD 57783 
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc 
cid:273145916@30122011-11FC

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Jesse Dupont]

We're in the process of licensing multiple 2x80MHz channels in 11GHz now.

The Cambium PTP820 supports 1+ Gbps full duplex using 2x80MHz channels on
11GHz (in 2+0 config). It definitely costs more.

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 8/2/16 14:05, Joe Novak wrote:
>
>> For some reason I thought that 80 MHz channels where coordinated as
>> 2x40MHz channels (continuous). I am sure I read it somewhere... but I'm
>> not so sure now.
>>
>>
>
> There's a table for 80MHz pairs in 47 CFR 101.147.
>
> ~Seth
>



-- 

*Jesse DuPont*

Owner / Network Architect

email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net

cell: 605-340-0651

fax: 305-946-0651

Celerity Networks LLC

PO Box 547

Spearfish, SD  57783

Like us!  facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc

[image: cid:273145916@30122011-11FC]

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Seth Mattinen]

On 8/2/16 14:05, Joe Novak wrote:

For some reason I thought that 80 MHz channels where coordinated as
2x40MHz channels (continuous). I am sure I read it somewhere... but I'm
not so sure now.




There's a table for 80MHz pairs in 47 CFR 101.147.

~Seth

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[SmarterBroadband]

yep

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 1:42 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

 

Can’t get 80 MHz channels in the US at 11 GHz can you?

 

From: Eric Kuhnke <mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>  

Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 2:37 PM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

 

In an 80 MHz wide FDD channel (so actually 2 x 80 MHz, high and low), and both 
polarities, I believe so.

It's a 256QAM 5/6 radio at its best modulation and code rate, same as an Exalt 
ExtremeAir18 which is 1 Gbps full duplex in 80 MHz wide FDD both polarities. 

No getting around the shannon limit.

 

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:34 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@smarterbroadband.com> 
wrote:

Can the B11 do 1Gbps Symmetrical?

If not what is best Symmetrical?

Thanks

 

 

 

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Joe Novak]

For some reason I thought that 80 MHz channels where coordinated as 2x40MHz
channels (continuous). I am sure I read it somewhere... but I'm not so sure
now.

I found this in reference to when they started allowing 80 MHz channels in
the US.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-122A1_Rcd.pdf

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Jaime Fink  wrote:

> The PHY is 1733 Mbps aggregate, so depending on the chosen window sizes,
> the top real world TCP speeds we’ve seen are between 1200-1300 Mbps
> aggregate (75/25 or 50/50 mode), or 600-650 Mbps symmetric (50/50).
>
> For 11 GHz this assumes high/low pairing of 80 MHz and both polarizations
> coordinated.
>
> Jaime Fink • Mimosa  • CPO & Co-Founder
>
> On August 2, 2016 at 1:34:31 PM, SmarterBroadband (
> li...@smarterbroadband.com) wrote:
>
> Can the B11 do 1Gbps Symmetrical?
>
> If not what is best Symmetrical?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Jaime Fink]

The PHY is 1733 Mbps aggregate, so depending on the chosen window sizes, the 
top real world TCP speeds we’ve seen are between 1200-1300 Mbps aggregate 
(75/25 or 50/50 mode), or 600-650 Mbps symmetric (50/50).

For 11 GHz this assumes high/low pairing of 80 MHz and both polarizations 
coordinated.

Jaime Fink • Mimosa • CPO & Co-Founder


On August 2, 2016 at 1:34:31 PM, SmarterBroadband 
(li...@smarterbroadband.com) wrote:
Can the B11 do 1Gbps Symmetrical?
If not what is best Symmetrical?
Thanks

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Chuck McCown]

Can’t get 80 MHz channels in the US at 11 GHz can you?

From: Eric Kuhnke 
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 2:37 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11

In an 80 MHz wide FDD channel (so actually 2 x 80 MHz, high and low), and both 
polarities, I believe so.


It's a 256QAM 5/6 radio at its best modulation and code rate, same as an Exalt 
ExtremeAir18 which is 1 Gbps full duplex in 80 MHz wide FDD both polarities. 


No getting around the shannon limit.


On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:34 PM, SmarterBroadband <li...@smarterbroadband.com> 
wrote:

  Can the B11 do 1Gbps Symmetrical?

  If not what is best Symmetrical?

  Thanks

Re: [AFMUG] B11

[Eric Kuhnke]

In an 80 MHz wide FDD channel (so actually 2 x 80 MHz, high and low), and
both polarities, I believe so.

It's a 256QAM 5/6 radio at its best modulation and code rate, same as an
Exalt ExtremeAir18 which is 1 Gbps full duplex in 80 MHz wide FDD both
polarities.

No getting around the shannon limit.

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:34 PM, SmarterBroadband  wrote:

> Can the B11 do 1Gbps Symmetrical?
>
> If not what is best Symmetrical?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>

[AFMUG] B11

[SmarterBroadband]

Can the B11 do 1Gbps Symmetrical?

If not what is best Symmetrical?

Thanks

 

 

Re: [AFMUG] B11 stock?

[Dennis Burgess]

I bet we should have the radios at least.. hit us up.

Thanks,

[DennisBurgessSignature]
www.linktechs.net<http://www.linktechs.net/> – 314-735-0270 x103 – 
dmburg...@linktechs.net<mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 2:14 PM
To: Animal Farm <af@afmug.com>
Subject: [AFMUG] B11 stock?

who has 4 radios and 4 2' antennas?

[AFMUG] B11 stock?

[Gino Villarini]

who has 4 radios and 4 2' antennas?

Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber

[Adam Moffett]

Be careful what you wish for.  You can't butt together unpolished 
fibers, and you can't polish until you put the fiber into a ferrule.  
You'd have to have a mechanical splice built into the unit.



On 10/24/2015 7:57 PM, George Skorup wrote:
Someone should design an SFP module where you just shove the raw end 
of the fiber strand(s) into it.


On 10/24/2015 6:48 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Well, as an employee of a regulated telco back in that day, I was 
actually asked my opinion on the design of the USOC (universal 
service order code)  Registered Jack  (RJ 11 etc) design.  I had no 
freaking clue as to what I was looking at or how it was going to 
become part of my life. But in theory, I did have a chance to voice a 
concern with the design.  It appeared much better than the old 4 
prong phone jacks.

*From:* Ken Hohhof <mailto:af...@kwisp.com>
*Sent:* Saturday, October 24, 2015 5:37 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber
Sometimes I want to go back in a time machine and kill the person who 
decided the industry standard Ethernet connector would be a modular 
plug.  It’s not the most robust connector.  Especially in an adverse 
environment.

So I’m not thrilled to see it become a standard power connector.
Kind of how micro-USB because the standard charging connector.
Anderson Powerpoles are nice DC power connectors, I don’t think we’ll 
see those on radios any time soon.  The standard seems to be those 
Phoenix connectors or whatever is the correct name for them.  Trango 
and Ceragon use them, I think it might be the same type as on a 
SyncInjector.  They seem to have an option for captive screws to lock 
them in place.

*From:* Mike Hammett <mailto:af...@ics-il.net>
*Sent:* Saturday, October 24, 2015 4:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber
I'm not sure there are any practical implementations of fiber and DC 
that I haven't already gone over with Jaime...  more than once.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>

Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com

<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>

*From: *"Jeremy" <jeremysmi...@gmail.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Saturday, October 24, 2015 12:17:18 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber

I can see your point, but it seems that you are missing part of the 
idea of why we run direct DC and fiber, to avoid ESD issues frying 
the sensitive Ethernet components.  We already have direct -48vdc and 
fiber sitting in our tower box, ready for future expansion.  You 
simply needed one additional small connector and you could have made 
everyone happy.  There are already a number of manufacturers out 
there who not only support POE, but also have direct DC connectors as 
well.  AFAIK, The connector part is less than a buck.  Consider this 
my request for a future hardware revision that adds the small direct 
DC connector as an option.

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jaime Fink <ja...@mimosa.co> wrote:

Yes it is powered via 802.3at PoE. You do not need Ethernet PHY
operational though once you've configured the SFP, it just
accepts power through the circuit at that point.
Unfortunately not everyone has gone to fiber yet so PoE is still
needed for some transitionally.
Jaime

On Oct 24, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com
<mailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I do not see the direct DC connector on any of the marketing
photos.  Do these still need to be powered via POE?
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Jaime Fink <ja...@mimosa.co>
wrote:

Thanks Mike.
Yes the aggregates Mike quoted are roughly correct as
well, but…it’s a bit different when you’re using our
Auto-TDMA mode. Assuming you’re not fully loaded, users
running speedtests get results at a Gigabit in up and
down direction and around 1 ms RT latency, so it feels
higher speed aggregate since we’re adapting to actual
usage on the fly. In other words we fill up the
underutilized directional demand with the direction
that’s in demand (usually downstream of course).
That’s opposed to locking down the MAC/PHY layer at 50/50
like FDD does, or 75/25 TDMA modes, etc.
Jaime
From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mike Hammett
<af...@ics-il.net>
  

Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber

[Mike Hammett]

I want a unicorn in every box I order. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Jaime Fink" <ja...@mimosa.co> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 10:11:47 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber 



Matt - that's what we're working on. 802.3at works different than most are 
aware since all 8 wires are used for 1000BASE-T, so we had to add circuitry to 
make powering over fewer pairs work additionally, and we need a clean way that 
maintains the sealing of the enclosure. So it's not off the shelf, and I'd have 
even more people yelling at me if we didn't have PoE that aren't fiber up the 
tower users yet. 


Hang tight, we'll have something for y'all that takes direct DC into the PoE 
port and maintain the environmental sealing. Wish it were as easy as shoving 
raw fiber and power cables magically into a unicorn connector ;) 


Jaime 


On Oct 24, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 





Is there any reason you couldn't just feed DC directly into the ethernet port? 
I'm thinking just wire the appropriate pairs in a cat5 cable directly to DC and 
skip using a power injector. 



On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jaime Fink < ja...@mimosa.co > wrote: 





We isolate Ethernet from power internally so even if the ESD protection we put 
on Ethernet for any reason failed to protect the Ethernet PHY you should be in 
good shape if you're using fiber. Should continue to take power. 


Nonetheless we're looking at some clean solutions to adapt direct DC easily in 
to avoid full PoE solutions at the top of the tower. 


To Stefans point any converter would work too. 



On Oct 24, 2015, at 10:17 AM, Jeremy < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote: 





I can see your point, but it seems that you are missing part of the idea of why 
we run direct DC and fiber, to avoid ESD issues frying the sensitive Ethernet 
components. We already have direct -48vdc and fiber sitting in our tower box, 
ready for future expansion. You simply needed one additional small connector 
and you could have made everyone happy. There are already a number of 
manufacturers out there who not only support POE, but also have direct DC 
connectors as well. AFAIK, The connector part is less than a buck. Consider 
this my request for a future hardware revision that adds the small direct DC 
connector as an option. 


On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jaime Fink < ja...@mimosa.co > wrote: 





Yes it is powered via 802.3at PoE. You do not need Ethernet PHY operational 
though once you've configured the SFP, it just accepts power through the 
circuit at that point. 


Unfortunately not everyone has gone to fiber yet so PoE is still needed for 
some transitionally. 


Jaime 

On Oct 24, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Jeremy < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote: 





I do not see the direct DC connector on any of the marketing photos. Do these 
still need to be powered via POE? 


On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Jaime Fink < ja...@mimosa.co > wrote: 






Thanks Mike. 


Yes the aggregates Mike quoted are roughly correct as well, but…it’s a bit 
different when you’re using our Auto-TDMA mode. Assuming you’re not fully 
loaded, users running speedtests get results at a Gigabit in up and down 
direction and around 1 ms RT latency, so it feels higher speed aggregate since 
we’re adapting to actual usage on the fly. In other words we fill up the 
underutilized directional demand with the direction that’s in demand (usually 
downstream of course). 


That’s opposed to locking down the MAC/PHY layer at 50/50 like FDD does, or 
75/25 TDMA modes, etc. 


Jaime 


From: Af < af-boun...@afmug.com > on behalf of Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net 
> 
Reply-To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com > 
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 2:33 PM 
To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com > 


Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber 







Yes. 

1200 - 1500 aggregate. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 





From: "TJ Trout" < t...@voltbb.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 2:00:16 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber 


Jamie; 


Is the b11 based on 802.11 silicone? 


Is the b11 capable of 750fd or 1500fd? 


Thank you 




On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Rory Conaway < r...@triadwireless.net > 
wrote: 







And Mike quits sending you nasty emails because you think copper was sent to us 
by an evil entity from another dimension. 

Rory 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett 
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 11:27 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber 

Two reasons: 


1) Peace of mind regarding future EMI problems 
2) It's pretty sexy these days to tell

Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber

[Ken Hohhof]

Remember, only a virgin can tame a unicorn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn#/media/File:DomenichinounicornPalFarnese.jpg


From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 4:28 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber

I want a unicorn in every box I order.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com






From: "Jaime Fink" <ja...@mimosa.co>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 10:11:47 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber


Matt - that's what we're working on. 802.3at works different than most are 
aware since all 8 wires are used for 1000BASE-T, so we had to add circuitry to 
make powering over fewer pairs work additionally, and we need a clean way that 
maintains the sealing of the enclosure.  So it's not off the shelf, and I'd 
have even more people yelling at me if we didn't have PoE that aren't fiber up 
the tower users yet. 

Hang tight, we'll have something for y'all that takes direct DC into the PoE 
port and maintain the environmental sealing. Wish it were as easy as shoving 
raw fiber and power cables magically into a unicorn connector ;)

Jaime

On Oct 24, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:


  Is there any reason you couldn't just feed DC directly into the ethernet 
port? I'm thinking just wire the appropriate pairs in a cat5 cable directly to 
DC and skip using a power injector.


  On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Jaime Fink <ja...@mimosa.co> wrote:

We isolate Ethernet from power internally so even if the ESD protection we 
put on Ethernet for any reason failed to protect the Ethernet PHY you should be 
in good shape if you're using fiber. Should continue to take power.   

Nonetheless we're looking at some clean solutions to adapt direct DC easily 
in to avoid full PoE solutions at the top of the tower.  

To Stefans point any converter would work too. 

On Oct 24, 2015, at 10:17 AM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote:


  I can see your point, but it seems that you are missing part of the idea 
of why we run direct DC and fiber, to avoid ESD issues frying the sensitive 
Ethernet components.  We already have direct -48vdc and fiber sitting in our 
tower box, ready for future expansion.  You simply needed one additional small 
connector and you could have made everyone happy.  There are already a number 
of manufacturers out there who not only support POE, but also have direct DC 
connectors as well.  AFAIK, The connector part is less than a buck.  Consider 
this my request for a future hardware revision that adds the small direct DC 
connector as an option.

  On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jaime Fink <ja...@mimosa.co> wrote:

Yes it is powered via 802.3at PoE. You do not need Ethernet PHY 
operational though once you've configured the SFP, it just accepts power 
through the circuit at that point. 

Unfortunately not everyone has gone to fiber yet so PoE is still needed 
for some transitionally. 

Jaime

On Oct 24, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote:


  I do not see the direct DC connector on any of the marketing photos.  
Do these still need to be powered via POE?

  On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Jaime Fink <ja...@mimosa.co> wrote:

Thanks Mike.

Yes the aggregates Mike quoted are roughly correct as well, 
but…it’s a bit different when you’re using our Auto-TDMA mode. Assuming you’re 
not fully loaded, users running speedtests get results at a Gigabit in up and 
down direction and around 1 ms RT latency, so it feels higher speed aggregate 
since we’re adapting to actual usage on the fly. In other words we fill up the 
underutilized directional demand with the direction that’s in demand (usually 
downstream of course). 

That’s opposed to locking down the MAC/PHY layer at 50/50 like FDD 
does, or 75/25 TDMA modes, etc.

Jaime

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com> on behalf of Mike Hammett 
<af...@ics-il.net>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 2:33 PM
    To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com> 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber


Yes.

1200 - 1500 aggregate.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com





From: "TJ Trout" <t...@voltbb.com>
        To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 2:00:16 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber


Jamie; 

   

Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber

[Paul McCall]

Do you have adapters for someone who already has 48v/56v up the tower ?

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jaime Fink
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 12:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber

Yes it is powered via 802.3at PoE. You do not need Ethernet PHY operational 
though once you've configured the SFP, it just accepts power through the 
circuit at that point.

Unfortunately not everyone has gone to fiber yet so PoE is still needed for 
some transitionally.

Jaime

On Oct 24, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Jeremy 
<jeremysmi...@gmail.com<mailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I do not see the direct DC connector on any of the marketing photos.  Do these 
still need to be powered via POE?

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Jaime Fink 
<ja...@mimosa.co<mailto:ja...@mimosa.co>> wrote:
Thanks Mike.

Yes the aggregates Mike quoted are roughly correct as well, but…it’s a bit 
different when you’re using our Auto-TDMA mode. Assuming you’re not fully 
loaded, users running speedtests get results at a Gigabit in up and down 
direction and around 1 ms RT latency, so it feels higher speed aggregate since 
we’re adapting to actual usage on the fly. In other words we fill up the 
underutilized directional demand with the direction that’s in demand (usually 
downstream of course).

That’s opposed to locking down the MAC/PHY layer at 50/50 like FDD does, or 
75/25 TDMA modes, etc.

Jaime

From: Af <af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>> on behalf of Mike 
Hammett <af...@ics-il.net<mailto:af...@ics-il.net>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
<af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 2:33 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>>

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber

Yes.

1200 - 1500 aggregate.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


From: "TJ Trout" <t...@voltbb.com<mailto:t...@voltbb.com>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 2:00:16 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber
Jamie;

Is the b11 based on 802.11 silicone?

Is the b11 capable of 750fd or 1500fd?

Thank you

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Rory Conaway 
<r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> wrote:
And Mike quits sending you nasty emails because you think copper was sent to us 
by an evil entity from another dimension.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf 
Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 11:27 AM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] B11 copper v fiber

Two reasons:

1) Peace of mind regarding future EMI problems
2) It's pretty sexy these days to tell people you have fiber to the antenna,
On 10/21/2015 1:35 PM, Scott Vander Dussen wrote:

Mimosa recommends these SFP modules:

AFBR-5710APZ<http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Avago-Technologies/AFBR-5710APZ/?qs=%2fha2pyFaduhaC58MVLqFl44%252bx6hS5cz1YhojZqdUVyI7Wp%252bPDPG4Rg%3d%3d>ï¿1Ž2
 1.25 GBd MMF Transceiver for Gigabit Ethernet, SFP, Bail de-latch, Ext Temp 
(-40 to 85C)

AFCT-5715ALZ<http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Avago-Technologies/AFCT-5715ALZ/?qs=%2fha2pyFadujhJvt9bnk9ES81EX7WBD7ZrbBItK6kCZLHNEN0X0r%2fGA%3d%3d>
 1.25 GBd SMF Transceiver with DMI for Gigabit Ethernet, SFP, Std de-latch, Ext 
Temp (-40 to 85C)

FTLF8519P3BTL<http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Finisar/FTLF8519P3BTL/?qs=%2fha2pyFaduh7nd4n5kIrSHIvC1uJRiq8EwAcMil5upKcc76M2JIwDQ%3d%3d>
 Fiber Optic Transmitters, Receivers, Transceivers GigE 1x/2x FC, 2.129 Gb/s 
trnscvr, 550m

FTLF1318P3BTL<http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Finisar/FTLF1318P3BTL/?qs=%2fha2pyFaduikXVilIKTQvJhiq4n%2fsUYWQAU7K0qEJnA1f%252bqIw1quUw%3d%3d>
 Fiber Optic Transmitters, Receivers, Transceivers 1310nmFP GigE 1x FC 1.25Gb/s 
trnscvr10km

ï¿1Ž2

Assuming cable length and EMI are not issues, is there any benefit to using 
fiber over copper?

ï¿1Ž2

`S