NV2 sync issues and solutions

RouterOS Wireless Networking
1

Just recently found out the new NV2 developments in sync and up/download ratio distribution. So decided to do some tests in the field since this is what we have been waiting for!

Well, don’t work well.
Setup:

One tower, two SXT SA5 (SXT G-5HPnD r2) as AP some meter separated on same mast. Both looking in their own direction so their spread is sort of side by side.
Both by short ethernet cable connected to an Omnitik that serves as powersupply/controller (and in case of need a spectral scanner since ‘ac’ units still can’t do that…)
Same Omnitik also serves one QRT-ac for backhaul.

ORT, Omnitik and both SXT’s all in the same IP network. All fully bridged.
Clients of both AP’s mainly SXT’s lites ‘n’ protocol with a single ‘ac’ unit and 2 or 3 911’s-5Hnd in a box)
All clients connect with at least -65dBm or better.
All clients have an pppoe-client on the wlan1 interface for client authentication.
All clients have an vlan on the wlan1 with dhcp-client for local P2MP network for easy telnet and bandwidt test etc.
DHCP server sits on same vlan interface of the QRT so network speedtests (tcp, 1 stream) can be made to the QRT to test the download traffic between this QRT via de Omnitik (has weak cpu) and the SXT-SA. So we can test the ‘real’ network download speed.

Both SXT-SA’s are in 20/40MHz eC, nv2 protocol and all further paratmeters the same except the SSID off course.
ALL units are upgraded to ROSv6.40.1 before tests.
We used the Omnitik to make a spectral scan to pick the frequencies with lowest interference from other Wifi. (All 5Ghz band!)
Both SXT-SA’s have their own working channel. AP-A has 5465 and AP-B has 5575 and according Omnitik both have -70 - -75 as background noise.
Frequency spacing between both is therefore 70Mhz

First we do the test as stand alone AP’s.
On both AP’s we pick a client for the test and run the tcp bandwidth test to the QRT with 1 chain.
On both AP’s we reach speads of about 40 to 50Mbps download. (Not at the same time, first client of AP-A, then client of AP-B)

Then we setup AP-B as sync master with sync secret as per wiki (https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Nv2#Nv2_AP_Synchronization)
We then also setup AP-A as sync slave according same manual and make sure the channel width and freq. parameters are now the same as with AP-B
Still, all other parameters of the wireless are the same on both AP’s apart from the SSID.
We’d pick the AP-B as master since according the spectral scan of the omnitik is has a slightly less noisy environment and it also has more clients (16) associated.
We disable and enable the AP-B, but this time in the NV2 sync setting.
We monitor the log wireless debug file (according same Wiki) to see if the slave tries to sync. And yes the attempt is shown.
We monitor with the interface monitor (/int wi monitor wlan1) on AP-A to see if the sync takes place. Yes, it showing it is in sync with the mac address of the wlan1 of the master.
When we change some parameter in the AP-B-master (download ratio or tdma period size) we see the slave immediately takes same setting.
Conclusion 1)
The sync works and takes place. Good!
But CCQ’s of several CPE’s show lower values or are more fluctuating as before like the connection rates are not as stable as in ‘stand-alone’. Eyebrow is raised.. :confused:

So lets do a bandwidth test from the same clients as before to the same QRT with the same parameters.
BIG disappointment! Maximum we can squeeze out of the tests is 5-8Mbps in download! These units did do almost 50Mbps before!
Spectrum is the same but now all on the AP-B’s frequency.
There is hardly any other traffic from clients around. Less then 4Mbp. aggregated (excluded the speedtest traffic for this test)

Conclusion 2)
The sync is not working in respect of sharing frequency on the same tower. Network speed collapses.
In fact, if both AP’s are working in standalone mode, but on the same frequency I get better speeds than in full sync mode! How is that possible!?!

Other weird event:
On AP-A we have two clients that will not connect to their designated AP when it runs in AP-sync-slave mode.
They will associate when AP-A is in stand-alone mode but same frequency as AP-B (so a loooot of interference) but they will NOT associate the moment the AP goes into slave sync mode!
These two clients are just the same SXT’s lites ‘n’ type as all the others with exactly the same config as all the others (apart from some client depending variable like PPPoE authentication and name.

So why would these two clients not associate to the AP in sync mode where in normal mode they have no issue. Both have signals in the -64 region but I have two others that are actually showing -65 to -66 and they connect fine in both modes…
Conclusion 3)
The sync is not working for all clients units.

Overall conclusion:
Back to the drawboard. I tried several variables that can be changed in the wireless settings. We checked the ‘connect to’ lists and ‘access lists’ over and over again to no avail.
My initial enthusiasms for the nv2 sync has turned 180 degrees in a disappointment..

I was about to cancel my 200 Mimosa client order but I am happy now I didn’t.
I hope Mikrotik finds a solution before we are forced to upgrade more of our P2MP networks. Or does is show again that cheap can’t do the same as expensive?
Is hoping that my present 800 mikrotik clients network could be upgraded to a fully syncd and download ratio configured network for free indeed a free ride on a pink cloud that drops you the moment you wake up?

2

Other question I have in regard of the sync. but more the download ratio settings:

  1. Does it indeed work on the AP only? No need to have the CPE’s upgraded? It looks like not but I’d always like the confirmation from some higher ranked MT technician!

  2. Is there a minimal signal strenght or s/n ratio on the CPE requered to get it to work? If one station is on a very low conn. rate it might disrupt the up/down ratio to such extend it becomes a mess?

  3. In the following scenario: Link1-node-link2-node-AP and ratio is going to be used on all PtP and PtMP networks; should they all be the same? Should the both links have the same ratio in the same direction? I’d presume 25/75 u/d on link1 in direction of AP should pair with 25/75 u/d on the link2 in the same direction. If link 2 would be 75/25 we are asking for issues?
    The AP should then also be configured to be 25/75 u/d in the direction of the clients? A different setting like 40/60 or 50/50 or variable or 75/25 would not be recommendable imho?

  4. If in the same setup, but with 2 AP’s at the end, both the AP’s would be in sync with eachoter (and thus the same ratio) this ratio has to be the same again in the same flow direction as on the links..

  5. If we now the backhaul 1 and 2 would like to sync with the 2 AP’s we have to set them into the same frequency as the both AP’s. But which backhaul units now have to be actually be sync slave?
    I would argument the remote units. Since the flow toward clients have to be in sync in the same direction. But that would mean that the remote ‘slave’ units have to arrange the sync over the wireless?
    (There is no more cable connection between remote backhaul unit and tower.)

6.Using dl-ul unequall ratio in two or more consecutive backhauls is not recommended? Since both link will not be synchronised their send/receive ratio will be off phased and in fact decrease the total backbone capacity.

  1. Since the same as 6 also counts for a backhaul link connected to a tower that has one of more AP’s that have un-equal UL/DL ratio set and this backhaul cannot be syncd by to the tower AP’s it is not recommended to use the UL/DL ratio on the backhaul.

Conclusion:
Since sync on backhauls is not possible, and UL/DL ratio is also not recommended for backhaul if in use in combination with AP or other backhaul the use of this new NV2 feature is only for PtMP network.

3

Was that Mimosa AP’s or Clients and how do they compare performance wise?

4

WirelessRudy it rely sucks when u have new non working future :slight_smile:
NV2 sync just doesn’t work for me too, I would love to know how MT technicians perform their test in what scenario NV2 sync should work.
Also since implementing “download ratio settings” NV2 become ‘weird’ in some way I wrote same posts about that but it seems no one care.

5

CPE’s.
We are in the process of replacing Mikrotik SXT for Mimosa.
In the meantime I ‘played’ again with two Mikrotik SXT-ac units to see if the sync would work. Another tower this time. These two are completely working in oppostite direction and have no only 1 meter back to back separation but are also 2 meters separated in the vertical. But yeah, running a scan on both shows it ‘sees’ the other with some -50 of signal still…
Both their clients are at distance but still on both ends clients will ‘see’ opposite AP that faces away with anywhere between -70 to -90’s.
The SXT’s just radiate signal in all directions… and when used in sync mode, the capacity for the clients goes down…
All we might try now is to replace both SXT’s for Netmetals combined with RF-Element domes or carrier class sector… but not today…

In regard of the change from Mikrotik SXT to Mimosa, it is a hell of a puzzle to find a working frequency that is stable for the Mimosa. They finally have the 5Ghz granulation working so we can move the working band to our liking but the spectrum is so full we still have problems finding free 40Mhz channeal let alone 80Mhz.

And the compulsory DFS channels are a pain… I don’t know what they’d exactly pick up but the Mimosa AP swaps channels at times due the Radar detection (from where? There is no Radar to be found here!). Now this would not be such a problem if the CPE’s would follow quickly. But the new channel of use will be ‘radar’ tested too and only after that the CPE’s are allowed to ‘talk’ to the AP. That can take up to 15 mins. During all that the clients have no internet!

Since the DFS only works on one of the Mimosa AP’s (I have 3 working and running now) I developed a theory that it are air-planes that give the problems. Since the Radar only is detected sometimes, sometimes a whole day nothing… it cannot be a typical Weather radar beam (Rain detection radar) since that works 24/24.
But we are in the flight path of descending planes going to a nearby busy airfield.
On google I found that some plane can have installed approach/weather/ground detection radar devices that are sending a strong powerful beam straight forward and down from a plane that can work in the 5Ghz range.
This could explain the random occurrence. It would be a relative narrow beam, but with high density and energy, that only at occasions just happens to run straight over my AP…

The flight path is only used in certain wind directions at the airfield and since planes still fly from wherever they came towards the approach radio beacon and they are still at some 3000 feet above us but descending it could be that only some planes with a specific radar frequency in a specific flight path will have its radar bundle hitting our Mimosa… lucky me.. :confused:
Otherwise I can’t explain the random, and at times non existing, DFS mode kick-in from the Mimosa.

I already asked them to make something like an ‘override’ (= illegal, but what the hack, I need to make money here..) button. But they consider themselves very law abiding and are not even willing to consider to have such an option afraid as they are they might loose CEE certifications… :frowning:

But just tonight I have swift the working frequency some 150Mhz lower after re-arranging some frequencies of my other towers and see it that will improve things.

Capacity wise, when it all runs, the Mimosa is outperforming the Netmetals in both amount of connected devices as well as top speeds by at least 200%. So in that respect I am happy…
(I can connect up to 70 clients to a Mimosa and have several units run at 30Mbps downloads and a total throughput over the Mimosa AP with some 150-180Mbps. Try that with a Netmetal!
And we are still in CSMA mode though! We still have 40% SXT-ac’s to swap.)
When we have replaced all CPE’s for the C5’s I am going to test the Mimosa tdma with 60 clients.
And when that is done we are going to do a full CPE swap from a second Mimosa AP and make it run in full sync with the first sharing the same frequency and in a 80Mhz channel.
If that is all going to work I am a happy man!

6

You maybe right about aircraft triggering the DFS scan, why aircraft would even consider using frequencies in (or in close proximity) to a unlicensed band defies logic?

It that performance Mimosa AP to Mimosa CPE or Mimosa AP to Mikrotik and is that AC or N ?

7

First what we did is setup one Mimosa A5 and just transferred a mix of SXT-Lite ‘n’ and some 711 board radios to it. In the end we’d had 60 clients to that tower and one by one they all worked fine.
I’ve done some speed tests in 20/40Mhz setups and could get up to 30Mbps to several clients. Even when tried 3 or 4 at the same time. (And the rest was still just ‘consuming’ internet at times…)

Then we started to change all the Mikrotiks into SXT-ac units. These have faster CPU’s, the possibility of working in 80Mhz and some other advantages of the ‘ac’ protocol including the higher mcs rates.
By now we could even hook up to almost 70 clients and the average speeds in tests was higher again, up to 35-40Mbps for a couple of clients at the same time or 60-70Mbps indiviual tests (still the rest of the network was ‘using’ internet)

Now we are replacing all Mikrotik units for the Mimosa C5’s since afteral, we are still working in csma mode only. (tdma is not interchangeable between the two brands).
Also the SXT’s are still plastic housed radio’s with only 16dBi gain where the C5 is 20dBi.
The C5 comes with several (theoretical) advantages towards the SXT and some disadvantages:
+1 Higher gain means smaller beam. Thus better isolation from other wifi sources. And radio’s on both end can set to work with less power since the antenna physics compensate this.
+2 The C5’s are metal coated internally. So better isolation again from unwanted wifi signals.
+3 The C5’s have embedded spectral scan option that works while you don’t loose the connection towards that unit. (Something we’d really miss on Mikrotik SXT devices)
+4 The C5’s have auto power output reducing. Meaning that if the antenna is very close to an AP it knows and the output power will be automatically reduced not to bombard the AP with its high signal.
+5 They can have their exact location (lat/long) set and both the AP and CPE can now calculate the best ack. time (csma requirement) between them.

-1 Access to the C5’s is webbased which I hate. No IP connectivity means no access. If the browser has issues you have issues in reaching the CPE. etc.
-2 No special management program like winbox. I am going to miss that! (For instance without winbox at the client’s installation we cannot do a remotely initiated speedtest to test the link anymore…
-3 Price. I think some 80€ of a CPE is pretty expensive. Especial if you’d consider you need a special 48V adapter for the power supply. We choose to give all new Mimosa users also a new G2 (Mimosa’s Wifi router which so far outperforms ANY other router I have tried before. VERY GOOD!). But the combined C5 + G2 make the hardware cost some 135€. You can do 2, 2,5 Mikrotik clients with TP link wifi for that…
-4 DFS mode compulsary. No way to escape that. And that can give big problems… like I wrote.
-5 The managment software of the Mimosa still has several small issues that should be improved. In that respect ROS is a much more mature system (with a whole lot more options!) then the Mimosa OS.

The biggest advantage we are trying to get with Mimosa in stead of using Mikrotik is that we have now have 6 AP’s in a dense housing estate serving some 200 clients.
And from this place we also have 6 back-hauls leaving to several remote locations and we have some 4 small AP’s from competitors in the same estate and 3 or 4 distant AP’s aimed at us. Plus some back-hauls from the competition shooting towards our estate. In other words, the frequency band is heavily used!
Our contracts we’d issue are 20Mb max but several clients won’t even get that due limitations of the Mikrotik AP’s capacity or just plain inteferences.

With Mimosa the aim is now to serve the same amount of clients with 4 or 5 AP’s that each can have at least 20% more clients as a Netmetal and still deliver more speeds to the clients and having higher throughput over the AP’s (A Netmetal with 40 associated client won’t give me more then 50-60Mbps aggregated. Same clients (still SXT-‘n’) on the Mimosa A5 tried and I could already push up to 180Mb aggregated! (20Mhz channel width).)

By rearranging some frequencies I relatively ‘freed’ a 80Mhz channel and one 40Mhz channel where now two of my Mimosa AP’s are working. As soon as all clients are replace to Mimosa C5 we are going to try their tdma system and see how much we can achieve with that. The next step thereafter will be to have the two AP’s sync’d and work in the same frequency. If that works we actually ‘freed’ 40Mhz and by shifting some of our other radio’s working ranges we will start putting the last two to be replaced AP’s also in that radio band in full sync with each-other.

Some guys in the US are already working with up to 7 or 8 AP’s in one 80Mhz channel with several hundreds of clients in full sync and are delivering 150 up to 250Mbps contracts to their clients…
The system is aimed to beat fibre and that is exactly what they do with it!

I am merely going to avoid fibre coming to us.. to expensive for us as a small business and if I can outdo the present fibre competition with wireless why not!
Ok, it still has to proof itself… but I have the feeling we are on the good track…
We are just deciding do we offer 50Mbps or straight away 100Mbps to our clients! :smiley:

8

While speed is very important I think a more deciding factor longterm for retaining residential customers (which makes up 90+% of our customers) will be cost effective media content delivery, that is who can give streamed sports and movie channels, etc plus broadband in a inclusive price?

Already we have seen this happening as sports channels offer their TV channels with broadband plus streamed content available in a bundle price and this where the real challenge lies for WISP’s.

9

Well, our market is still 60% foreigners. 85% of these are British. That national content cannot be legally served by us. Our Spanish clients have little demand for streaming TV and we even get little requests for phone calls. Triple play that is big in ‘cable world’ is not that big in rural Spain. Most people have their mobile and can pick their standard TV by free digital terrestrial. Any provider offering triple play has a price tag at least twice as high as ours.
We do offer the other stuff but our strategy is more in supplying high speed stable internet for the same prices as the competition does for low to medium speed.

Two nights ago I changed the first full Mimosa AP with 38 clients to its proprietary protocol and wow, that rocks… I was already impressed by its csma protocol but now with tdma signal levels increased, quality of the links increased and I hardly see any more interference.
The less interference issues is probably also to do with the somewhat higher gained CPE’s and the shield they have. All levels of CPE’s to the AP and vice versa are better then -50dBm so I could set the noise filter to -54dBm which means any other signal not stronger then that gets filtered out as well.
We still have to swap some 25 clients on another tower and then hope to swap that P2MP to tdma as well and then try to sync it with that first AP. It that works I can move some of my other radios away towards the ‘freed’ frequency of No.2 Mimosa AP to create an even lower noise around the now combined 80Mhz (yes, it works on 80Mhz wide band now!) range of use!

Clients of the Mimosa now still get only 25 or 30Mbps but we are waiting for an upgrade of our backbone and then we are going to offer 50 for standard and 100mb for high profile contracts…

10

Thanks for excellent post Rudy. Sounds almost too good to be true. What is the main reason you think the mimosa can give so much more aggregate throughout. Software or hardware. How do the netmetal hardware specs compare with the mimosa ap you are using


Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

11

I have tried the sync feature and it failed just like you said. I tried the downlink ratio at 60% and soon discovered that client upload was more than halved at busy times. I believe this feature set is definitely a work in progress. Surprised it is bundled in the current release at this stage of its development. Maybe Mikrotik needed a few real world testers.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

12

The difference between MT’s Netmetal and the Mimosa is many:

The CPU of a netmetal is 720Mhz where the cpu’s (yes, they have two.) running on Gigahertz speeds and from a different architecture too.
The OS is different too.
The chipset from MT is also different then what Mimosa uses. I have to look up what they actualy were but I have been reading before (independent resources and test panels) that the chipset of Mimosa is outdoing the Atheros in use but Mikrotik, Ubiquity etc. a lot. Mimosa chipset is just much better.
Mimosa had built their radio’s (chipset, OS etc.) completely new from zero with only one thing in mind; Make use of the full capabilities embedded in the new ac protocol with one goal only; beat fibre in roll outs.
So it has to be a system capable of delivering very high througput combined with relative low costs.
Off course everybody will always say fibre is better, but when its stripped from the grants given by authorities its costly.
One of the disadvantages of fibre is in the cost/deployment ratio. You need a lot of customers in a relative short range to justify and earn back the investments.
With a wireless system that is much more easy to achieve and if the speeds to the customer can be 100Mb or higher why roll out any fiber?

In my country many areas will never see fiber or when its there comes with prices we can easily undercut and thus still have a market to make money…

13

The Chipset used by Mimosa is a standard chipset from Quantenna. Just a chipmaker like Atheros. Not special designed for Mimosa and found in some other wlan APs. With the B5 we’ve seen it is not great with interference rejection. So using wide channels you need good separation from your own gear and from other APs (and you trash the band). Not bad but not that great as their marketing.
Their Omni Solution (which are 4 singlepol sectors in fact) is nice designed.
Using Atheros a lot can be done. You see this with epmp and the ubiquities. What I find most promising at the moment is the combination of shielding, antenna design, RF filtering and gps sync you see with the prism station. And a second wireless card just for scanning in background (Great tool). For ptp in 5GHz yo cant beat the Airfibers at the moment and they make an announcement soon … And guess what is synccompatible … To bad MT never decided to put more money/people in their wireless hardware department. But this is a business decision I cant appraise.
We stay with MT for routing/MPLS. Wireless is always a mix of vendors as no one is good with every aspect/frequency.

14

I agree with AF for ptp unbeatable. PTMP is not so good. I have too much invested in MT to think about changing. We are a lot better now than we were a few years ago but still need much improvement to compete with fiber on speed alone. Mikrotik have not being releasing much on NV2 for a while. I can only hope that means things are in the pipeline. On average my NV2 APs have 40 clients. The aggregate max throughout of the AP is around 30 to 40 megs. the clients are allowed 12 megs each. All works ok and not many complaints, however, this will not be any good for much longer as more and more bandwidth is required for steaming TV services. Come on MT it’s a race against time now but I have faith in you.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

15

Our biggest concern is that over head fibre on both existing telephone + electricity poles is being rolled out and is being done by the national electricity and telephone companies, they in turn can and do sell direct to private households and commercial businesses but also have to make available their network to 3rd party internet suppliers who can then sell to the same markets, for the fibre rollout suppliers its a long term win win scenario for their investment.

16

As always because not every network is the same, wireless equipment from a manaufacturer that uses A,B,C labelling might work great at one site but not so good at another, but what I really don’t like is when you read on sales brochure “…supporting Multi-User MIMO…” but in tech specs “Multi-User MIMO **” = enabled in future software releases…same for Collocation…this in my opinion is nothing short of false advertising.

17

I totally agree and also don’t want to switch from Mikrotik but I am somewhat convinced when I read that the same chipset using what appears to be a barebones software can give much higher wireless throughput than Mikrotik wireless can, I also am totally surprised that NV2 always uses 6Mbps for management protocol, I think Mikrotik should also offer customised software for PTP=B, PTMP =A, CPE=C ( it appears to be working for another company) and ROS software that maybe summarised as “one size fits all” is not really the best fit for everyone.

18

I never stated Mimosa had the Quantenna chipset designed for them. But they were some of the first implementing it in their product line.
But Mimosa also takes a long learning curve in improving their products. When I came across them already 5 years ago the brochure and white papers of their products made me decide they had the way to go forward, especial since in Mikrotik I didn’t see any wireless evolution, not even in the pipeline…

Only now, after these 5 years the Mimosa P2MP product seems to reach a fully mature state although I still have some small issues in their csma protocol using. And the management console is not half that developed as that of Ubiquity or Mikrotik just to name the two I am familiar with. But that can be an advantage as well as a disadvantage.

But while waiting for their P2MP product release in Europe I followed every news bulletin and test and forum mentions etc. I could find which made me believe not only their software but also the hardware platforms is just a step forward compared to what we had up to now.

I ran the A5-14 in plain csma mode with 60 associated, real life traffic clients, and could run on several SXT’s up to 50-80Mbs each and when testing 6 units at the same time (each was getting less mb’s. The worst almost fell idle) could push the A5 up to just a little short of 200Mbps.
I tried to do the same with a Netmetal this A5-14 was replacing (it was still mounted and so I could swap between the MT and Mimosa AP) and with the Netmetal I just could not push any higher then 70-80Mbps aggregated (in csma)
In NV2 I could get even less. Only when I disconnected most of the clients and only left 8 SXT’s on the Netmetal I could get each to 50-70Mbps (NV2 mode!) and just by adding more associating clients the thoughput started to drop…

Then we ‘played’ for about 3 months with a 40-60 clients A5-14 P2MP network (all SXT-ac lites) that performed well wasn’t is we had regular “disassociation storms” and the A5 crashed regularly.
I battered Mimosa helpdesk with complaints and although they never seem to have solved the issue their firmware saw regular updates, most of it where indeed improvements…

Later we found that one of the reasons of our regular issue was most probably radar from approaching planes…

Anyway, we swapped to another frequency and we also replaces all SXT-ac’s by C5’s and since the P2MP is rock solid. Signals improved, quality improved drastic and a stable network.
Clients are on either 20 or 30Mb contracts now but this I will up to 50 and possibly 100 soon. We need to do some speed tests first and are waiting for our backbone upgrade but so far I am very happy with the move..

We also run some B5 links and some Airfibre links. The first are OK, nothing more then that. They do their job but sync on a tower with two of these links is not working. But they are stable and one gives me 400Mb aggregated and the other 100Mb (more interference and also only 20Mhz channel.
The Airfiber X5 links we have do fine too. But if they go down due a power issue they seem to take ages (15-20 minutes!) to get back on line. And their energy output is severe. Even my most distant units from them links ‘see’ them. On the tower where two of the Airfibre links leave we really needed the highest amount of shielding we could get with 34dBi antenna just to cross 7km’s to get a stable link… Now they are stable they do fine…
From the 8 Airfibers out of the box we bought so far one went straight back to the supplier since only one chain worked.
From one of the 4 B5’s we bought one had a GPS failure after some weeks and was RMS’d as well.

We also are using one ePMP2000 AP with some ePMP1000’s and some Ubiquity because in fact we were winners in draw. This concept works well and we have now 5 clients to it. These are business which we’d offer 50mb simmetric. The clients are happy.
But 5 clients only… and the eCambium is expensive.
Mimosa is not cheap neither but with some searching on the web I managed to get almost 20% of the price where eCambium has its market pretty well closed. 3% discount on special offers is the best so far…

19

I think they all do this… you have to look deeper and basically buy the product to find out what it really does…

20

One of the reasons I’d go for Mimosa now is not only the specs in the brochures.
There are some of guys in the US that really offer 200 to 300Mbps contract to clients based on a Mimosa P2MP network and these guys are very enthusiast about it.
Mimosa is in fact build to fight with cable operators in outer suburbs of dense populated regions…

Now the market situation is not the same in the Us (less operators = less spectrum usage = less interference) and higher average contract payings (higher ROI rates) but if they can do 200 to 300Mbps, I am confident I should be able to be doing at least half of that…
So far I never heard of any MT or Ubiquity guy doing that…

But I agree, as time advances, the head start Mimosa had is getting smaller and if they don’t bring their EU prices down soon they will miss the boat…

Last but not least. On the 60Ghz frontier is also movement. Not only MT has now for very short range some solutions. We have some links of that other 60Ghz hardware supplier running a 150 meter, 300 meter and a 450 meter link. 0-1ms ping even under load and up to 1Gb aggregated throughout. Only in the most heavy rain it drops. Usually we have no power then and it lasts 5 mins or so…
They come now with a P2MP solution with up to 300 meter range and 2.5Gb aggregate throughput where clients will get up to one Gb…speeds.
I am thinking of having one of these AP’s server up to 4 short back hauls to serve even so much Mimosas. I don’t see how any fiber solution can beat that in economics…unless with 50+% of grants…

And to put things and needs in perspective. Even now our clients on the Mimosa P2MP solution can have 25Mb of download traffic, I hardly ever see it being used… Top aggregated throughputs on a 40 client A5-14 I see is some 35-45 Mb’s…