Hello, I would like to ask if Mikrotik NV2 does not plan any synchronization, even with GPS. I think it would be much faster transmission of the 1 TCP connection when you have several jumps in a row.
If you have for example 5 Return to NV2 and latency can be up to 15ms at the end and that’s when the TCP already know.
thanks
GPS sync in transmiting area, actually is a “myth” I could say.
You’re gonna NEVER get “fully synced” on long distance links.
I would say you would have much better performance from wireless protocols when antennas have receive bandwidth (RX) to match the transmit bandwidth (TX), for example in transmit they may have 20 MHz channel width but in receive I believe they could have hundreds of MHz, something I never got a answer to when I asked this question and I ask why there is not band pass filters on the radio cards?
In receive mode, the bandwidth DEPENDS on the filter/digital filter they use.
In Wi-Fi’s case, they based ONLY on the internal digital filter’s bandwidth. 
I have been trying to obtain this information from radio card manufacturers but none to date have given this data which would be an important technical consideration when selecting a radio card,
The digital filter roll-off dB of attenuation in both RX/TX which surely if the figures were good the sales dept. would have this information in the technical data?
Also why does NV2 suffer “control frame timeouts..” from other items on a mast using frequencies which are in excess of 100Mhz or more from the NV2 frequency but yet as I and many others have learned the importance of using RF screening to attenuate any other frequencies which the NV2 radio card picks up?
Unless I am proved incorrect is that the filter may not be in use during receive mode and possibly due to improve receive –dbm figure?
No, filters MUST be in use or else receiving won’t work as it should.
Though there is always the case that internal (active) digital filters may not perform as they should, PLUS the inputs stages of a radio are ALWAYS in “fullband” reception (BAD thing) and they are more “delicate” to rf levels.
BEST whould be - though who does it? (none) - for the receivers to have AT LEAST a front end BPF input filter which whould be electronicaly trimmed to the receiving frequency to cut even a bit on neighbour channels.
If someone wants to be “proffessional”, he should implement to his link BPF filters (and forget the DFS) BUT with ONLY 0.1 to 0.5dB losses and 40MHz bandwidth (550 Euros each 
).
…the inputs stages of a radio are ALWAYS in “fullband” reception …
This would confirm my suspicion that in TX bandwidth=20Mhz
Where in RX the bandwidth = frequency bandwidth of the attached antenna,
for example you could have (900Mhz) 5.1 to 6GHZ on receive – correct?
Where can we purchase these professional BPF’s
Yes you could have reception in every frequency (almost)
…and if we take as fact that Atheros are dualband, so full reception whould be from ~1500MHz to 6500MHz MINIMUM and other frequencies by some dBs lower.
Excepct if companies puts input/output Band Pass Filters of the “working bandwidth”.
Example:
Supposunally working from 4900MHz to 6100MHz, a BPF filter should be instaled at the in/out of this bandwidth - which means that EVERYTHING in that bandwidth is amplified ~EQUAL before it passes through the internal BPFs and Digital filters.
So ALL front-end stages of an Atheros chipset will “get” whatever is “out there”.
…and YES, 900MHz too…
Opppsssss…missed this part.
It ain’t worth installing them, unless it’s a high proffessional implementation - 500 Euros EACH and for a MiMo you need FOUR of them… 
http://www.klmicrowave.com/product_attach/_plk69_1_CavityCSeries.pdf
Though there are other companies out there.
Are they factory pre-tuned or are tunable?
As you wish.
You could ask them to send it to you for a specific frequency and get it pre-tuned.
Othewise, you have to have a network analyser and precise cables (for it) to tune it as you wish.
EDIT:
The below ones, were for us.
I think it is a bit of missing the topic. We are not talking about HW problems with WIFI NV2 but software problems. I have had the impression that the new version of the RoS more problems with transmission over WIFI with NV2. Maybe the problem that I do not understand. If the link is little data flows and communication latency is around 20ms! It is an awful lot. What then, when the number of connections behind. The problem with nstreamu not. When combined with NV2 loaded transmission and latency goes to some 3 to 4 ms, which is not glory but also against nstream. However, unfortunately, but really nstream mode does not work with 802.11n MIMO 2x2. Very please Mikrotik developers to begin work again in this mode nstream. NV2 is good at the transmitter, but where there are connections has always been great Nstreme.
Why don’t you try to play with TDMA-period-size AND QoS as for the Nv2 and check again?
I recently experienced a situation where NV2 throughput and CCQ was much higher than 801.11
http://forum.mikrotik.com/t/higher-ccq-with-nv2-than-802-11a-n-under-max-load/66409/1
As regards getting faster NV2, in my opinion you could have much faster NV2 if the receive RX had the same bandwidth as transmit TX,
In the discussion above what I was trying point out is, let’s use AP frequency of 5550, the radio transmits at this frequency and is 20Mhz wide but then in listen mode (receive rx) it has to spend time analysing IP packets from other frequencies the antenna picks up let say 5200, 5360, 5700, 5845, etc…., this alone will take time for the router to discard these IP packets, so if you have equal bandwidth being used you would have much faster wireless protocol and not only NV2, software alone is not going to make the biggest impact but a combination of both better radio card RX design and then software to exploit this?
No, no, no.
Things as for the RX aren’t going so.
When you pick a channel to play with, the RX is LOCKED on this channel’s data DESPITE if the front-end LNA of the receiver picks up a lot of channels in its input.
Another thing is the one and another thing is the other - don’t confuse them.
The ONLY problem the receiver may encode as is, is only “noisy RF” in its input.
If the front end of LNA is “Wideband” and picks up a lot of channels, then would it not follow that if these other channels where being received had high signal strength it could overload of the radio card,
Also i read with interest … Low noise amp, RF, IF mixers, baseband programmable gain amplifier (PGA)…The I and Q signals are low-passed filtered and amplified by a programmable gain filtered controlled digital logic… no mention there of bandpass filter just low pass for I and Q and no mention of the specification of the gain filtered logic?
All of this would indicate to me that current radio cards are not designed for use by WISP’s but for domestic usage and when manufacturers design a radio card especially for WISP’s which has say TX=20Mhz and RX=20Mhz or TX=40Mhz and RX=40Mhz, etc. then maximum speed could be achieved by wireless protocol’s which NV2 is just one?