New wireless protocol: Nv2 in v5.0beta5

RouterOS General
21

First tests look promising.

Testsetup 2xRB411ah/R52n/V+H Antenna on desk.
AP/Bridge → Station, 5GHz only N, datarates=default

UDP Test receive gives 192MBit. Ping while test runs is at 8-14ms.
Stopping bandwith test ping goes up and stays up and shows
varying results. Pings differ from AP->Client/Client->AP.
Starting Bandwith test again ping go down to 8-14ms-

Looks like bandwith test influences nv2 parameters which do not
adapt back.

Doing same test with nstreme gives 120MBit and dropping connections.
So nv2 is more stable in this config. Got not a single disconnect while
testing. But there are some tweaks needed to give stable pings.

Using nv2 Tx-Signal Strength is not shown.

22

Can you do TCP tests? UDP is almost always insanely higher than real world TCP data

23

can post the right configuration here instead of just announce that’s a new protocol for this ?

24

Protocol limit is 511 client.
Yes you can connect a lot of clients to the AP, but note that the throughput and the latency could get worse.

25

Wireless-protocol setting info.
When the card is in the AP mode:
nv2-nstreme-802.11 - AP will use Nv2 as it uses the first what is in the row
any - it will use 802.11 or nstreme depending if you have specified the old setting enable-nstreme=yes

When the card is in the Station mode:
nv2-nstreme-802.11 - first will look for the Nv2 AP, then nstreme AP and then regular 802.11 AP
any - it will choose the AP without any special sequence; the sequence can be altered by the use of connect-list

26

You are right. Even 802.16d had a horrible death.

Mix and match has to be the priority of the vendors.

27

I agree, I like mikrotik as well. Cooperation would be splendid.
On different note, I changed over my 802.11n wds ptp link to nv2, and lost remote connectivity. I switch it back and everything goes back to normal. I think this might be due to it not supporting wds in this mode. Does anyone know a quick way around this? I would like to implement tdma and not lose remote connectivity due to wds being down on my link.

28

you need compatibility only if you will use different brands of products with some specific technology that’s not a standard (if you use 802.11b everywhere, no problem with compatibility). why do you use different brands? because other-brand cpe’s are cheaper? mikrotik is working on that

29

unfortunately Nv2 doesn’t have support for WDS yet. For now you could make MPLS/VPLS tunnel across the link and then you could easy switch between the wireless protocols.

30

Most people so far seem to be looking at this from a throughput point of view; I’m more interested in the reliability point of view:

Here is a too brief ping test I performed just now:

NV2:

Ping statistics for 10.23.22.1:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 99, Lost = 1 (1% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 300ms, Average = 48ms

802.11:

Ping statistics for 10.23.22.1:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 96, Lost = 4 (4% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 13ms, Maximum = 1531ms, Average = 174ms

nstream (via protocol drop-down)

Ping statistics for 10.23.22.1:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 10ms, Maximum = 272ms, Average = 43ms

This link is being unusually well behaved right now. In the late evenings it is frequently bad enough to be unusable. I will leave it in nv2 mode for a few days and see how it does.

Personally, I prefer stable links with occasional high latency to ones that drop packets or the entire link all the time; thus hiding packet loss (typically by retransmitting behind the scenes until the packet gets through, and thereby converting packet loss to the appearance of a lower throughput link), than links that pretend they are fast, while having 60% packet loss. I’m hoping this is what nv2, being TDMA, will give me. 802.11 pretends to work this way, but usually just drops the link instead (after a limited number of failed retrys). (Basically, I’m describing Canopy vs nearly everyone else).

31

No. Because they are cheaper and smarter. You’ve to update your RIC-line of Products.
Dreams of a Wisp:

  • get the cpe from MT, don’t touch it give it direct to the Customer. cpe gets all it needs from AP
  • Customer can install cpe by looking at LEDs while mounting it
    He can see that there is power and/or connection without calling/connected pc
  • no crimping, simple slider to tighten Ethernetcable
  • no try and error to find wireless parameters, working defaults
  • 2 different cpes, small for short range, bigger for long range
  • cpe needs to look smart and not cheap
  • RF-Engineered (Metal housing, good antennas)


    Your products are cheaper when we have less work to install/manage them.
32

I just wish to know if I can use XR5 cards

33

Yes, is also working on those cards and regular R52 cards.

34

511 is the protocol max ?

what is the other bit for ?

Broadcast ?

35

In my experience UBNT CPE have a higher TCO when you’re doing advanced functions. You may get around the install issue by having the client install it themself but in my experience 30-40% of the time you’ll need a tech to go back onsite and realign it. If you want simple CPE then you need to run a simple network either pure UBNT or pure 802.11. Inter operation is complex, You’d need UBNT and MT to work together on a standard or combining their TDMA spec and then you as the operator would have to undertake a huge compatibility testing rig to check everything works and even then when you have a fault you still have to question a compatibility issue.

And if your dealing with a legacy network then tough, Work around it. Theres no reason why a pure MT network can be installed around/over the top of a legacy wireless network where new services for existing clients would require a CPE upgrade/change. Its not MT’s job to build your network for you. Harsh I know but its painful reading everyone wanting MT to be compatible with their Toaster or that their CPE doesnt have this or that, UBNT are cheaper for CPE because the feature-set is extremely limited when you compare it to MT. Once again MT isn’t here to build your network for you, Its upto you to shop around for the CPE option that suits you the best and every option has it’s pro’s and con’s so you have to look at them and figure outs whats best for you

36

Yes. The RIC-series needs a strong update. The integrators do not deliver a pleasant device.

37

ok, please read the forum rules. this forum is for discussing MikroTik products. It would be much more helpful if you all would stick to the topic, and tell us what’s to improve (except compatibility, because that will never happen)

38

Will be created a nv2-dual like nstreme-dual?

39

no problem staying to the rules !!
but if you would like to sell more of your products you should also here to your customers !!!
we have many hundreds of your devices in use !
and we need an affordable client
we have this wish since years now - and where is your answer ??
rb 411 ? - which enclosour - which antenna - powersupply …
we have no time to build our cpes - we want to by them - but with some quality and a resonable price …
why dont you build a device like the nanostation -
the ric was ok - but quality is not good - the first ones fall off allready - they dont stand the UV and the weather
and the white cover starts to brake …

PTP devices ar not the problem - here we use only mt products in antennas with included housing from huber&suhner
not cheap but verry good !

40

The AP itself?