Is this hardware controlled or software? As an ISP I will never need to utilize as much upload as I do download. I'm wondering why this can't be adjusted to favor download? Are 802.11 cards hardcoded with this built into them?

What are you talking about ?

You want speeds like ADSL? Not syncron over wlan Interface?

Is this hardware controlled or software? As an ISP I will never need to utilize as much upload as I do download. I'm wondering why this can't be adjusted to favor download? Are 802.11 cards hardcoded with this built into them?

don't understand what you mean by 50/50? If you mean bandwidth there are no such limitations on a wireless card. Bandwidth limitations are set by a bandwidth controller device like a routerboard for example.

If you mean Half / Full Duplex then yes it is Half duplex, it's a hardware (Physics Really) limitation and there is no way around this with a single radio. it can either transmit or recieve not both at the same time. One possible solution for a full duplex wireless link involves two radios and technology like Mikrotiks Nstream Dual.

Let me clarify. With some other wireless brands the transmit receive ratio can be offset. In other words I can set the transmit to say 75% which means the radio transmits longer than it receives. So if you have a radio that is normally capable of 100mbps aggregate or 50mbps/50mbps, you can change the ratio which would give you 75mbps one way and 25mbps the other way. Giving you more download available to your customers than upload. As an ISP we are peaking at 300mbps currently on the download side, our upload peaks at 30mbps. We have to upgrade backhauls once they peak out on the download side, but yet if they could spend more transmitting these radios could last us quite a bit longer before they become obsolete.

My question is, could mikrotik implement this with software? Or is this hardcoded into the radio itself?

These fixed rates with TDD radios are only necessary with synced systems. As MT does no sync rates are dynamic always. Sync reduce interference with limited spectrum.

These fixed rates with TDD radios are only necessary with synced systems. As MT does no sync rates are dynamic always. Sync reduce interference with limited spectrum.

I would like to see the actual throughput results of a synced system using licence exempt frequencies only at a site that has a lot of AP’s and PTP’s running.

Synced systems are pretty amazing. We have 75 towers using a synced access point system and there is 0 loss in a high rf environment. In fact, you can run 2 access points back to back (like east and west) on the same channel without interference or loss in bandwidth. I once had 2 separate radios attached to the same dish, one horizontal and one vertical, running each on the same frequency with the same results. We use the hell out of mikrotik, but for access points and subscribers I cannot imagine attempting it without sync.

Synced systems are pretty amazing. We have 75 towers using a synced access point system and there is 0 loss in a high rf environment. In fact, you can run 2 access points back to back (like east and west) on the same channel without interference or loss in bandwidth. I once had 2 separate radios attached to the same dish, one horizontal and one vertical, running each on the same frequency with the same results. We use the hell out of mikrotik, but for access points and subscribers I cannot imagine attempting it without sync.

Strange – I have asked this question a few times and so far nobody has answered the question about throughput Vs Sync,

We all know about interference and on a busy mast - co-location interference, there is dishes that have 50db polarity rejection, for my sites the number 1 objective is maximize throughput so I can have more clients per sector,
I have addressed co-location interference at my sites by careful planning, placement of antenna’s, frequency selection, RF screening, reduced wireless scan when the radio is in listen mode……..

Bandpass filers with very low insertion losses will eliminate co-location interference.

I like many other WISPs don’t have equal number of clients on each sector, so if one sector has 20 clients and another has 50 clients, using sync the 20 must wait until the AP has polled the sector with 50, this simple fact must impact on throughput , sync can only be optimized when equal number of clients on each sector, and if using the same frequency band for PTP and AP's, then the PTP links must be synced – and this will further reduce throughput.

We keep our backhauls on different frequency bands from access points, eliminating the need for sync on backhauls. I suppose you may be right that syncing modules could reduce some bandwidth because one access point may have more control slots designated than it needs, but I can assure you any loss that we are experiencing is not measurable. Every radio transmits some, and then receives some, since they are not full duplex. Timing simply assures that this happens at the same time.

We keep our backhauls on different frequency bands from access points, eliminating the need for sync on backhauls. I suppose you may be right that syncing modules could reduce some bandwidth because one access point may have more control slots designated than it needs, but I can assure you any loss that we are experiencing is not measurable. Every radio transmits some, and then receives some, since they are not full duplex. Timing simply assures that this happens at the same time.

Until you compare with and without sync on sectors, the question remains unanswered?
And I still have the opinion that methods used on AP’s to reduce co-location interference will give higher throughput on AP’s rather than using sync on sectors that do not have matching clients numbers, ( say three sectors having 30 – 50 – 20 total 100 clients)
But when clients on the sectors are equal then sync can be optimized to give max throughput (on again three sectors this time 40 – 40 – 40 total 120 clients), be in the real world client numbers on sectors vary a lot.

We keep our backhauls on different frequency bands from access points, eliminating the need for sync on backhauls. I suppose you may be right that syncing modules could reduce some bandwidth because one access point may have more control slots designated than it needs, but I can assure you any loss that we are experiencing is not measurable. Every radio transmits some, and then receives some, since they are not full duplex. Timing simply assures that this happens at the same time.

Until you compare with and without sync on sectors, the question remains unanswered?
And I still have the opinion that methods used on AP’s to reduce co-location interference will give higher throughput on AP’s rather than using sync on sectors that do not have matching clients numbers, ( say three sectors having 30 – 50 – 20 total 100 clients)
But when clients on the sectors are equal then sync can be optimized to give max throughput (on again three sectors this time 40 – 40 – 40 total 120 clients), be in the real world client numbers on sectors vary a lot.

Sync would even help with different numbers of Clients per sector. With TDMA protocols every AP sends Beacon/Allocation MAP on a regular basis. Syncing this help to avoid self interference between APs and between CPEs to APs which they are not connected to. You can reduce colocation interference with shielding, but as they are close together in most situations you cant reduce it to an amount they do not interfere at all.

You cant reduce interference between CPE and neighboring sector without sync.

All measures together make a good Network: shielding, frequency separation, good rx-filters and sync.

Of course with low density network where there is enough spectrum to separete Sector frequencies sync reduces speed as you need to set a fixed up/down rate.

.............................

All measures together make a good Network: shielding, frequency separation, good rx-filters and sync.

Of course with low density network where there is enough spectrum to separete Sector frequencies sync reduces speed as you need to set a fixed up/down rate.

Yes I agree and would add;
(1) Position of antennas on mast
(2) Ensure there is good shielding used in the antenna(s)
(3) Use good frequency separation
(4) High quality bandpass Filter
(5) Sync

If attention is not paid to all above items then you may not have a "good Network"