300 yards with LOS with a signal of -70 dB? That sure seems low. You either have another system real close or you have severe trouble with antenna or cabling. A Superpass 21 dB at that range would give you -40 dB or better signals, assuming proper cabling.
Did you set the distance to a couple of miles? I always figure out the exact number and add 2 or 3 to it. You can safely be over but to be under limits throughput severely. Lonnie On 10/10/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 > yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode. The > radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. > All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off. > > Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 mbps, > and the TX was 9.1 mbps. > > I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to SU) > > This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real throughput > (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. Then through in > longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure), > retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can be > much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog > up channels. > > My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or the > WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing > speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? > > For those interested.... > > My business decission question is: > > 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and... > 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have) > 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so) > 4) Trango has better testing tools > 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that cost > ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, consistent > availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc), > > What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for > small community projects? > > 802.11 Atheros gives you... > > 1) Mesh designs > 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with only a > $50 cost per radio card added. > 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config. > 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532&daughter card. > 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed. > 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly > adaptabilty (pending antenna swap). > > #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to discuss > the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top approval. > > My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / > multi-tenant complex. > I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), > apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 60 > degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, Mikrotik > 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side. On the MTU side, I would > normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH building, > apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports > including RB532). Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building. > But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN > switch would add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with > maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two > devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router). It also reduces costs for remote > reboot devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical > VLAN switch would not. We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support. We use VLAN > support for several reasons. 1) it protects end users from seeing other end > users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly centrally bandwidth > manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed to paying attention to IPs > and MACs which may have the need to change over time, or may not be known in > advance. 3) Prevents customer's misconfigurations from effecting other > users' links or router configs. Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it > can't conflict. The misconfigured client only gets effected. > > I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, figure out > how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling reocurring revenue, I'd > argue I would have saved by just deploying Trango and VLAN switches to the > project. > > Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to use a > Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same time, because > large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN device on the Non-VLAN > custoemrs to untag > > In summary... > > 1) If Trango would add a third external connector option to their 5830AP > line, like the 900APs, it would drastically reduce the justification of home > brew wifi, making it much more affordable to use Trango for these type > projects. It still wouldn't fix the VLAN cost reductions, but then again so > what. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
