Hello Mikrotik Team! I want to link six PtP long distance links in different directions from one top hill remote base station site and looking to buy a Mikrotik RB800 router board for this purpose to link different sites at different locations. But when contact with some disturbers they said that this is an obsolete router board model from Mikrotik and now a days no longer in use in the field for wireless networking. Is it true that its useless after buying this routerboard? Please assist and guide me on this. Any valuable help from Mikrotik expert team will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
RB800 was obsoleted long ago.
The “nearest” modern RB to RB800 is the RB850Gx2.
Depending on bandwidth and duties, more commonly used RBs for this task would be RB3011, RB1100AHx2, or CCR1009.
What are the RB intended tasks?
Hello pukkita! thank you very much for your prompt assistance to me. I really heartily appreciate. Actually, why i was looking for RB800 board because it was using four radio cards and extra radio cards on daughter board which seems good option to use single RB with many PtP/PtMP radio links to different site locations. As per my project requirement i need 6-8 PtP long range 15km plus links at differently located remote sites from one base station site. And there is no such RB which can provide Maximum of 8 radio (wlan) links such as was available with single RB800. I am afraid and sorry to say that your mentioned RBs don’t come with mini PCI radio card slots for wireless link connectivity. I hope you understand my concern and assist me further as per my intended RB tasks. Thanks.
I know that RB800 has huge card capacity but maybe you can consider using current WiFi devices: https://mikrotik.com/products/group/wireless-systems with integrated routers configured just as dumb passthrough devices and connect them to one of ethernet routers: https://mikrotik.com/products/group/ethernet-routers to concentrate and manage traffic as “external” router. IMHO it does not matter if you have dumb antenna connected to RB800 or 8 smarter devices connected to “external” router … I know, I know … powering is the difference but you can use PoE injector to power “smart” antennas and “external” router. Number of devices seems to be almost equal but flexibilty is much better and much higher traffic could be handled.
Hello BartoszP! Thanks for keep supporting. i really appreciate. Yes! i understand your points very well. But my another main issues are power supply at remote top hill base station site and budget to buy all new network gears. Right now i am using solar power at remote top hill base station site and would like to keep the power consumption as much as low using single RB with maximum link connectivity efficiency. Secondly! as per the budget with new wireless systems’ integrated routers i need to have buy six wireless integrated routers with AP level license associate with each integrated routers to connect six PtP station sites and also included with extra “external” router board, which can be very expensive as compare to using single RB800. Hope you understand my concern. Thanks.
Seems that there is no way to help you as you have conflicting needs:
A. Cheap
B. Low power
C. Outdoor
D. Configurable
E. The model you want to use is out-of-stock
F. The model you want to use out-of-production
The only way is to find it as secondhand item.
Taking a routerboard and sticking multiple radio cards on it is a thing of the past, (and never 8 cards!!) and the least desirable option, several radios cramped on a single board interfere with each other; your approach, single RB + multiple cards is the worst option possible from a optimal standpoint, not only from a RF perspective, but for the high chances of problems; a single radio card gone bad can take down the whole RB800.
You don’t need 6 routers + 6 antennas to create PTPs. Neither using antennas with L4 license, L3 is fine for PTP (AP with just one station).
Moreso, cards + pigtails + external antennas will not only cost you the same as whole standalone integrate routerboard antenna; you’ll have 2 additional typical potential points of failure per card: internal + external pigtails.
What would be the bandwidth available?
In your scenario, a possible device selection could be:
- Router: RB3011 (10 ports)
- AP for PtMP: mANTBox15S or 19S
- Antennas for PTPs or CPE side of PtMP: LHG5, LHG5 HP…
mANTBox cover 120 degrees; you’ll be aiming it so that it “covers” the maximum of remote clients, then use individual LHGs to build PTPs for the rest.
In any case, It’s perfectly possible to build a much optimal and resilient solution costing the same using standalone units (probably less) than RB800+cards+internal pigtails+external pigtails+external antenna.
Hello pukkita! Thank you very much for keeping your valuable support to me and i really appreciate. I know and got your point very well. Actually, this wireless network connectivity is not providing internet service to the people of downtown city. This remote wireless network connectivity belongs to government based wildlife remote monitoring project where 32 HD CCTV cameras live feeds from remote forest monitoring sites would be monitored at wildlife range office in the city. I have been tried one more solution. I am providing the real time video feed from remote forest sites apporx. distance 18km to range office using RB433 and dual chain R52HN radio card. I have done a PtP wireless links with router board RB433 with two wlan cards R52HN (dual chain). I have done ap-bridge wireless configuration mode on RB433 board and station bridge mode on the another sites. All the other remote station sites are at very different directions. So i decided to utilize the dual chain R52HN radio cards with single chain 24dBi grid antennas for differently located remote station site that is four different directions with chain0 connectors to two directions and chain1 connectors to another two station directions. For chain0 link connectivity at station end i have used Mikrotik groove52Hpn having single chain0 only with this and link connected fair with Rx/Tx signal strength -70/-72dBm. For chain1 connectivity i am using Mikrotik dual chain DISC Lite 5 with activating both chain0 and chain1 on this station end, as there is no radio comes with single chain1. But chain1 is not making good and very poor link from AP base site to this dual chain DISC Lite 5 station -82/-87dBm. It must work at least with chain1 on this dual chain DISC Lite 5 station same as chain0. I know again this is still bad idea to use radio card’s dual chain connectors with different antennas, but i have read on this forum that someone has tried this before and had the good signal response in different directions. So i tried this with the same way (see the attachment pic.), but chain1 response not so good. Could you please explain why chain1 is not linking the same way like chain0. Thanks for keep assisting.
This remote wireless network connectivity belongs to government based wildlife remote monitoring project where 32 HD CCTV cameras live feeds from remote forest monitoring sites would be monitored at wildlife range office in the city.
Nice project 
I’m curious, where is it?
Have you disabled one of the chains on the DISC? I.e. try enabling just one of the DISC chains at a time until you get link, you probably tried the chain with the wrong polarization.
Using single chain provides lesser throughput, if is still enough and budget is constrained, a possible solution would be using two basebox5/netbox/netmetal with two single chain 90 degree sector antennas each to cover 360 degrees, then use LDF+Satellite dish, DISC or LHG5/HP/XL at remote sites depending on distance; you should aim for -65 signal minimum.
Cost would be around 2x$66 = $132 for 2 baseboxes plus 4x$47=$188 for the antennas + around $25 for 4 RSMA-N pigtails, make a total of $345 for 360 coverage.
Compare that to using 3 mANTBox19S to cover same 360, cost would be around $440; there’s less than $100 difference, but lots of pros: 19dBi vs 17dBi, all dual polarity antennas (higher throughput), no pigtails, more powerful RB (CPU and RAM), better radio (more Tx power and Rx sensitivity) and not only N but AC.
You can reuse the 433 as CPEs, or to build PTPs.
Now it’s up to you to evaluate, but for $95 difference for me it’s a no brainer.
Nice project >
Have you disabled one of the chains on the DISC? I.e. try enabling just one of the DISC chains at a time until you get link, you probably tried the chain with the wrong polarization.
Using single chain provides lesser throughput, if is still enough and budget is constrained, a possible solution would be using two basebox5/netbox/netmetal with two single chain 90 degree sector antennas each to cover 360 degrees, then use LDF+Satellite dish, DISC or LHG5/HP/XL at remote sites depending on distance; you should aim for -65 signal minimum.
Cost would be around 2x$66 = $132 for 2 baseboxes plus 4x$47=$188 for the > antennas > + around $25 for 4 RSMA-N pigtails, make a total of $345 for 360 coverage.
Compare that to using 3 mANTBox19S to cover same 360, cost would be around $440; there’s less than $100 difference, but lots of pros: 19dBi vs 17dBi, all dual polarity antennas (higher throughput), no pigtails, more powerful RB (CPU and RAM), better radio (more Tx power and Rx sensitivity) and not only N but AC.
You can reuse the 433 as CPEs, or to build PTPs.
Now it’s up to you to evaluate, but for $95 difference for me it’s a no brainer.
Hello Pukkita! Thanks for keep supporting. This wildlife remote monitoring startup project is based in India to monitor wildlife spices and preventing illegal hunting and forest logging.
No! i have activated both the chains on DISC. I am getting the link on both the chains with the signal levels as shown in the attachment. You said the chain with wrong polarization. Could you please explain how to fix this to correct polarization for chain0 and chain1 at DISC and/or for antennas at AP base site?
I think single chain is enough for these PtP links, the theoretical max. throughput of 150mbps is considered for single chain and i am expecting for this the real world outdoor throughput in the field at a distance of 15km plus link is to be 40-45mbps, as there are many factors count in the real world wireless network setup. Which would be enough to stream 16 CCTV HD live cameras as it requires minimum of 2mbps bandwidth to stream a smooth video for single camera. Please assist if there is something needs to be correct on this.
Secondly, i have only six PtP long distance links in different directions at different locations, so i think its not feasible and investing extra budget using extra network gears for many links to 360 degree coverage with no such customer base in near future. This is government based organizational project and will be implemented in different states as per their forest wildlife remote motioning requirements.
Secondly, i have only six PtP long distance links in different directions at different locations, so i think its not feasible and investing extra budget using extra network gears for many links to 360 degree coverage with no such customer base in near future. This is government based organizational project and will be implemented in different states as per their forest wildlife remote motioning requirements.
Ok… now I get it, I understand that the PTPs are scattered, and there isn’t a single central point.
A drawing (hand-drawn is fine) will help understanding your scenario to be able to provide better advice.
No! i have activated both the chains on DISC. I am getting the link on both the chains with the signal levels as shown in the attachment. You said the chain with wrong polarization. Could you please explain how to fix this to correct polarization for chain0 and chain1 at DISC and/or for antennas at AP base site?
I don’t mean wrong polarization, I refer to the fact that two single chain highly directional antennas are being used on the same dual chain radio, so one of the chains/polarizations is going to have a drastic signal difference when “seen” from the station as it could be pointing to a absolutely different direction.
Looking at your signal tab, I’d say the chain for the antenna pointing elsewhere is Ch1, as Tx/Rx are equally low (-76/-78).
It puzzles me that at the signal tab, chain 0: Tx is -96 while Rx is -68, the best signal of the four. It would be logical to assume this is the chain connected to the antenna pointing to the DISC (higher Rx signal) Are you sure there’s no fresnel issue or interference at Ap location? Do you have the GPS coordinates of AP and DISC location?
My suggestion was to disable Ch1 on Disc and test, then enable it back and disable Ch1 and enable ch0 and test to see if it makes a difference. Are you using nstreme?
You need to enhance that signal levels, as you see CCQ and throughput are too low, it hardly locks on HT20-1 (MCS1).
I think single chain is enough for these PtP links, the theoretical max. throughput of 150mbps is considered for single chain and i am expecting for this the real world outdoor throughput in the field at a distance of 15km plus link is to be 40-45mbps, as there are many factors count in the real world wireless network setup. Which would be enough to stream 16 CCTV HD live cameras as it requires minimum of 2mbps bandwidth to stream a smooth video for single camera. Please assist if there is something needs to be correct on this.
To get 150Mbps radio datarate you need pristine 40MHz contiguous spectrum, and the radios to be able to lock at 64QAM / 5:6 if using single chain. This means you need near a perfect link, i.e. optimal signal levels (-50..-65 maximum) and no interference, 99-100% CCQ. Is going to be really, really hard to achieve that, (I’d say impossible) with the single dual chain radio + two single chain directional antennas pointing to different stations.
Bear in mind your scenario is completely the opposite from a typical WISP, where Sector or AP is the one Tx’ing to stations; in your case, you need the AP to Rx what stations send to it 100% of the time. For me, this rules out PtMP. Or dual chain radio at Receiving end with single chain direction antennas to two Tx stations.
For 16 2Mbps streams (32Mbps) I’d go for a dual chain PTP, and target for a Real-life attainable MCS9-10 at 40MHz (QPSK 1:2/3:4), or MCS11-12 (16QAM) at 20MHz so that even using Long Guard Interval you get radio datarates nearer to double the required Mbps (32Mbps) while using less demanding modulations.
Bear in mind is real time video what you need to transmit, so you must aim not for the highest bandwidth, but stable, low latency first (I’d use nstreme), then attaining proper bandwidth to be able to pass the 16 streams while MCS is stably locked, as datarate flapping will spoil latency.
You also need to account for enough margin, as wheather conditions at distant mountain areas have drastic changes, not being uncommon to experience knife effect issues that will force the radio to change to more resilient, lower modulations.
Ok… now I get it, I understand that the PTPs are scattered, and there isn’t a single central point. A drawing (hand-drawn is fine) will help understanding your scenario to be able to provide better advice.
Hello Pukkita! Thanks for keep supporting. yes you are right the PtP locations are scattered and this project scenario is very different than WISP. I am a bit busy at top hill remote site doing link commissioning again to get good signals. Its very far from my home office at top hill in remote forest and it took whole day to go and come back. Will send you the network design diagram very soon. Have good day!
Hello Pukkita! I am back doing lots of link commissioning hard work at remote top hill site to get a stable links from different scattered sites in remote forest. I have changed my R433 with RB433AH board and radio cards and test the links again. One remote site is down because of power outage.
As per your request i have attached a drawing help understanding my project setup scenario to providing a better advice. Also, attached the RB433AH based backhaul wireless config. and its wireless output statics. Please review the details and let me assist whether its reasonable stable links to process data over this network. Thanks for keep supporting.
MTK_Remote_Monitoring_Setup.PNG
IMG_20170930_125247 (816 x 612).png
Screenshot_wlan1.png
Screenshot_wlan3.png
Screenshot_wlan_interface.png