PtP link connection questions

RouterOS Wireless Networking
1

Hello everyone,
I have a few questions concerning my PtP connection if you could please help me on this.
The link is installed in a highly populated city environment and even though it is only 4km gets often unstable and with decreased performance, my CCQ fluctuates from 20% to 75%.
My link is set up with 2 RB411 configured in bridge mode (AP bridge - station bridge).
Would it matter, in terms of throughput routing etc, if the internet connection is provided on the “station bridge” side as it is now ?
I currently use Nstream, should I switch to nv2 to improve link stability, immunity, throughput etc? it is a Point to Point link.
Should I switch to routing mode?

Thank you in advance.

2

With CCQ that bad you have some other problems. Can you give some details of your hardware setup?

3

Thanks for responding cbrown.
This is my configuration (not sure if enough info for you )

AP side
s4.JPG
client side
M4.JPG
signal at the AP side
s8.JPG

4

Here is some more
AP
s2.JPG
client
M2.JPG
status client
M8.JPG

5

Is it the best channel you found?
What antenna exacly are installed on this link?
You have to strong signals. Lower tx power on both sidesw for 3-4 steps. Increase Hw-retries to 10. What cards are you using? I think this cards are 2 chains cars, so can support 802.11N standard. Set link for N-only - it also should helps. Leave hw-fragment-treshold disabled.

6

It’s one of the channels that I never loose connection plus the best throughput I can get.
My antennas are two Pacific Wireless 24db parabolic grid directionals.
I believe N52H (300) cards, I’ve got, don’t support 800.11N.
I’ll try reducing the power and see what happens…
I’ve tried nv2 and throughput reduced to almost a quarter of the nstresm
Thanks

7

You’re using a channel that’s outside the standard 802.11b/g range. Are the grid antennas designed to be used with 2239 MHz ?

8

Haha. It’s funny no one else noticed this. What is the range of your antennas?

9

I discovered that my antennas -that I bought and installed a long time ago- are California Amplifier 24 dBi QLPP Parabolic Antennas!! similar to this but 24db
california_amp-2.jpg
http://www.calamp.com/products/mmds-transceivers/parabolic-antenna-assemblys/parabolic-antennas

their range is 2150 - 2700 so there shouldn’t be a problem with channel freq.

10

Just for the history, I used to have an Aironet BR500 hooked up on one side and Aironet UC4800 11mbps on the other. Their performance was excellent on those antennas. I had to abandon them to increase throughput and number of PCs networked (UC4800 supported only one PC) .
I’ve been straggling ever since to get the Mikrotiks work properly…

11

Your not actually using an amplifier are you? That’s just the brand name correct?

When you do RF scans, is this channel free?

12

No, it is just the name
http://www.calamp.com/products/mmds-transceivers/parabolic-antenna-assemblys/parabolic-antennas

The only thing is that the antennas are “QLP” (Quasi Log Periodic) which I’m not sure of what this stands for.
The fact is that they have an outstanding performance with my old Aironets.

The channel is totally free.

Would it matter if I installed an amplifier? the microcards are already 300mW… I have experimented with reduced power and things get only worst (CCQ 10%).
At the moment I’m testing different channels in case this will make a difference…