hey guys…
today i saw a striking similarity between two products.
-
AIRMUX
-
RADWIN
i wonder where they get the OEM branding done from and what radios are inside their boxes.
any idea?
-sid
They share the same products as they belong to the same group.
They use Atheros Chipsets. They are much more expensive but
worth every $.
Think of a carrier class version of MT products.
Yes, one is made by RAD Data and the other is Radwin. ste is right, they are carrier class radios. We use Airmux-200 and Airmux-400 radios extensively in customer point-to-point applications for IP & TDM backhaul. Like any product they have an occasional bug, but not as many as other products I’ve used. They just work, and clients never complain.
Feel free to contact me directly if you have any more questions.
but when you say Carrier Class i think Mikrotik + XR5 + Router OS (5.5) can deliver similar results.
i mean UBNT also gives Carrier Class then why is it people run after the brands of Airmux and Radwin (RAD)?
-sid
ubnt and mikrotik r no close to the way radwin handles interference.
3 links on same path same freq. n they run w/o trouble
mikrotik n ubnt cant handle noise from same/similar equip.
I DOT KNOW WHY??
No way! It starts with material. Metal vs Plastic. This is no luxury. This helps
with interference. When it comes to lightning I see rb411 dying… I need a certificate
which guarantees that some ETSI standards are fulfililled in 5,8.
And looking at the results I see a mount and forget solution. Mt with 11n, dual
chain gives me self interference problems even when used in good Antennas.
I do not see this with multiple 2000c on the same tower.
No way! It starts with material. Metal vs Plastic. This is no luxury. This helps
with interference.
any routerboard can be fitted in a professional metal case from our MFM partners
When it comes to lightning I see rb411 dying… I need a certificate
which guarantees that some ETSI standards are fulfililled in 5,8.
we do have that also
Mt with 11n, dual
chain gives me self interference problems even when used in good Antennas.
Would have to look at such problems individually, to see what causes the problem (maybe the card?) and how to fix it (ferrite tape, different box)
Hi Normis,
do not take this as offence. Your products are great for the money
and we use a lot of them.
Of course. We do this. But I can’t get a package which is engineered and tested
as a whole. The results I get are good for the money but they fall short when
it comes to carrier quality. We fighted dying ethernetports, dying power plugs, water
in cable adapters and problematic firmware releases in the past.
You’ve still no atpc (which urges us to power down to an unusable level) and
I’ve not seen a document guaranteeing the detection of radar patterns needed
for 5,8 in ETSI (some extra patterns there).
We cant tune a single backhaul link to the latest details. Anyone fires up an AP and I have to tune it again
to make my link work stable again. This might be ok when it is my single link. But in reality I need
a pair of Bridges I fire up and they tune themself. If conditions change they have to adapt. I cant play
with different cards, firmwares, shields,paintings, … I’ve to order a lifting platform, drive out, …
I’m sure if somebody has the time to play which each combination of antenna, card, firmware, frequency
he might get stable conditions (I have such links running). But I want to give money to my vendor to
do this job in his lab and I want a minimum of guesswork in the field.
I would like to use ROS everywhere but it does not fit everywhere. This is ok. I cant buy a
small car and run smooth like a big car. If you want to sell big cars you’ve to build them 
.
Regards,
Stefan
One of the greatest features of RouterOS is the flexibility - you can adjust so many things, and tune it just the way you like it. Of course, to successfully do this, some knowledge is required. For out-of-the-box users, we keep trying to find optimal default settings which we include in our “integrated solutions” products, and are also planning a simplified webfig interface skin to those who do not want to fiddle.
I would no doubt say that “integrated solution” has come out real good in the form of Groove.
Although I am yet to test it under rain.
It is decent power good signal …haven’t tested under much interference though. a spectrum analyser would definitely do good in routerboard.
when the whole world is using 802.xx how come RAD has its own proprietory software for radio? how can they handle interference in such a mature manner? " what hardware lies inside the RAD boxes "
and how different can it be from what MT or UBNT is using?
this is getting more confusing now…
The same reason MikroTik implements its proprietary Nv2 protocol, and Ubiquiti has Airmax.
The IEEE 802 actually encompasses a large number of “…standards dealing with local area networks and metropolitan area networks.” Lets assume you meant the 802.11 standards. If that’s the case, 802.11 uses CSMA in its MAC protocol. CSMA has proven to be very inefficient on long distance links, on very busy access points,etc; it has serious scaling issues. This is why vendors have created their own proprietary extensions / protocols to deal with the shortcomings of 802.11. There is a large amount of information on the internet about this. Just search around.
how can they handle interference in such a mature manner? " what hardware lies inside the RAD boxes
That’s their secret sauce. I have a shelf full of Airmux-200’s. I could probably open one up and tell you which components are in it, but I doubt that would really matter. The hardware alone is nothing without the software. And that’s another proprietary secret of theirs.
and how different can it be from what MT or UBNT is using?
For all of the aforementioned reasons. Think of if this way…not every house, car, boat, plane, etc is constructed the same. Each manufacturer does something they believe is better, or more efficient than the other. The same is true in the IT world. Just because someone builds a router and/or wireless AP, it does not make that a carrier class device.
Just so you don’t think I’m bashing MT…we’re migrating our core network to a Cisco 6500 series for switching and routing. I ran into a problem last night with several RAD RICi-T3 (T3 to Ethernet converter) devices wherein they will not properly auto-negotiate with my new layer 3 switch. If I hardcode the speeds to 100 full-duplex then they’ll work for a few hours, and then stop responding. The ‘fix’ is to put them back on the old switch (Cisco Catalyst 3750G). I have to contact RAD to troubleshoot this issue, and hopefully they can provide a fix.
No piece of equipment is perfect, but I believe the key to running a successful network is finding what works for your particular situation an utilizing that equipment to achieve your business goals. Not everything has to be MikroTik. I have equipment from Cisco, MikroTik, RAD, Trango, SAF, DMC / Stratex, and Engage (just to name a few) in my network. Each has its strength and weaknesses, and thus a particular place in our network.
Accept that there certain products operate best within a particular niche, and find something else to suit your other needs.
blake… your information is too good…
if you open any Airmux please remember to tell me what is inside 
Hi all,
I have a question.
How does MT equipment works near AIRMUX or RADWIN on same tower?
Thx
Anyone?
We use them in a different band. So there is no problem.
If you are afraid of interference: Radwin is syncable so
put it on one end of your band and use MT on the
remaining spectrum.