I was told to expect 0.1ms by UBNT. Haven't seen this published, though.
Josh
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Dylan Bouterse wrote:
> What published specs have you seen on the airFiber latency? I asked one of
> the UBNT guys and they said it's microsecond. On any netw
What published specs have you seen on the airFiber latency? I asked one of the
UBNT guys and they said it's microsecond. On any network I've managed, anything
sub 1ms is acceptable.
Dylan
-Original Message-
From: John van Oppen [mailto:jvanop...@spectrumnet.us]
Sent: Satur
We actually have a lot of the old gigabeam radios in service, they are faster
than the published specs of the airfiber links (1G full duplex vs 750 mbit/sec
fd) and lower latency due to their very simplistic design. To be honest,
from a network engineering standpoint, the gigabeams were
> Often such a feature is an option within the radio configuration. Where wired
> side
> link follows wireless link. To me that never seemed like a good idea because
> I need
> to get into the radio during a wireless link-down situation. Maybe if there
> was
> an OOB ethernet port it could wor
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 7:14 AM, ML wrote:
> Often such a feature is an option within the radio configuration. Where
> wired side
> link follows wireless link. To me that never seemed like a good idea
> because I need
> to get into the radio during a wireless link-down situation. Maybe if there
On 3/31/2012 6:14 AM, ML wrote:
Often such a feature is an option within the radio configuration.
Where wired side
link follows wireless link. To me that never seemed like a good idea
because I need
to get into the radio during a wireless link-down situation. Maybe if
there was
an OOB ether
On 3/31/2012 6:12 AM, Andrew McConachie wrote:
Is this any different than what GigaBeam tried before they went bankrupt.
http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=177145
Their website only shows a control panel login now so I think they've
gone completely out of business. The only reaso
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
>
> http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber
Claims are actually "Up to 1.4 Gbps" and "Up to 13 km"; those two
conditions probably cannot be satisfied
>> Nick Olsen
>> Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
>>
>> ----
>> From: "Drew Weaver"
>> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM
>> To: "Jared Mauch" , "Eugen Leitl"
>> Subject: RE: air
ursday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM
> To: "Jared Mauch" , "Eugen Leitl"
> Subject: RE: airFiber
>
> I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes
> tricky.
>
> Thanks,
> -Drew
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jare
n
> them.
>
> Nick Olsen
> Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
>
>
> From: "Drew Weaver"
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM
> To: "Jared Mauch" , "Eugen Leitl"
> Subject: RE: airFiber
ubject: Re: airFiber (text of the 8 minute video)
On Mar 30, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Dylan Bouterse wrote:
> A couple of thoughts. First, it's not fair to compare 24GHz to 2.4 or even
> 5Gig range due to the wave length. You will get 2.4GHz bleed through walls,
> windows, etc. VERY clo
less of an issue, but in the more urban areas it is a
concern. You start getting interference to your backhaul and you've got serious
issues. You possibly have downgraded service or no service at many towers
involving lots of customers.
>
> Another point, the GPS on the airFiber will al
jects as it's millimeter
wavelength. That coupled with the fact it is a directional PTP product, you
will be able to get a good amount of density of 24GHz PTP links using the same
frequency in a small area (downtown for instance).
Another point, the GPS on the airFiber will also allow for
the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They are seeing 24 Ghz
> as only for backhaul - no connections to end users. I guess
> point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
> Ghz. AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional. It needs to
> be though, as each lin
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> Cost will continue to drop, fact of the matter is the beam width is
> rather narrow and they attenuate rather well so you can have a fair
> number of them deployed without co-channel interference. if you pack a
> tower full of them you're goin
you pack a
tower full of them you're going to have issues.
>> I guess
>> point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
>> Ghz.
>
> The whole point of these unlicensed bands is that their usage is not
> tightly controlled. I imagine hardware for
ansceiver.
> I guess
> point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
> Ghz.
The whole point of these unlicensed bands is that their usage is not
tightly controlled. I imagine hardware for use still should comply
with FCC's part 15 rules though.
> AirFiber appe
ce. I don't disagree with what you're
> saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
> never be used to the extent that 2.4 / 5.8 is. They are seeing 24 Ghz
> as only for backhaul - no connections to end users. I guess
> point-to-multipoint connec
guess
point-to-multipoint connections aren't permitted by the FCC for 24
Ghz. AirFiber appears to be fairly highly directional. It needs to
be though, as each link uses 100 Mhz, and there's only 250 Mhz
available @ 24 Ghz.
It also sounded like there was a decent possibility of supporting
licensed 21 / 25 Ghz spectrum with AirFiber in the future.
Oliver
nd 100 times a much. Logically it's possible that the
competitor's product which matches AirFiber is only penny more, which it's not,
but that's all one could logically conclude from UBNT's statement - for the
same price you get a lot more bandwidth _not_ how much more yo
On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Josh Baird wrote:
> Anyhow, check the
> video out on ubnt.com for an introduction and technical overview -
> it's worth watching.
The claim is a huge decline in the cost of backhaul bandwidth for wisps between
10 and 100 times. I have just finished the preparation
sday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM
To: "Jared Mauch" , "Eugen Leitl"
Subject: RE: airFiber
I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes
tricky.
Thanks,
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Th
They are taking pre-orders now for a (hopefully) June delivery. I'm
at a conference now and got the rundown yesterday from Ubiquiti. This
product was designed completely from the ground up by the former
Motorola Canopy 100 team. It -should- deliver ~700mbit in both
directions @ full duplex. Not
Drew Weaver (drew.weaver) writes:
> I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes
> tricky.
>
> Thanks,
> -Drew
Define perfect line of sight ? How is this different from any other
wireless
link and the associated Fresnel zone ?
http://en.wik
I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes
tricky.
Thanks,
-Drew
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:45 PM
To: Eugen Leitl
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: airFiber
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:34:21PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
>
> http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber
Yeah, I got this note the other day. I am very interested in
hearing about folks experience with this hard
Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber
28 matches
Mail list logo
