Still no Disc AX - what do you WISPs use for CPE antennas?

[Bomber67]

This is not the first time I address this topic.
It is now 2 years since Mikrotik EOLed the Disc Lite ac, without any notice and without any information of a possible successor.
As a small WISP mainly relying on Mikrotik for more than 15 years, for me the Disc Lite ac was the “goto” CPE for customer installs. 21 dBi, nice form factor, easy to install, affordable and good performance for an ac CPE.
So what should we do then, would MT come up with an AX successor?

To keep up and survive in the ISP business, there was and is a need to move from ac to ax to increase speed/capacity, and since then I have resorted to various “homebrew” solutions based on the L11UG, either the board or the outdoor version Netbox ax.
I have used the Jirous JC-320 MCX, the RFE starterdishes and also a brand called ITElite.
None of them are ideal, too bulky, too much assembly, too many loose parts, cumbersome to adjust direction, not too good wireless performance and easily twice the cost compared to the Disc Lite ac.
With the Disc Lite ac I could just prepare a QMP, take the antenna out of the box and mount - no hassle, no loose parts.

So what are you guys using for ax CPE?

For performance reasons, for PtP I have quite a few links from a competitor running, and of course I am considering ditching MT for other brands unless they come up with the products we need.

This is about trust - I have been faithful to MT - they get my money and I have trusted that they will deliver the gear I need to get my business running.
But what about just removing an - at least for me - “core” product and then going/remaining completely silent about their plans for more than 2 years?
Don’t they owe their customers at least some information about what they intend to do?

I know that ax has been a long process but it’s already a long time since they launced several ax home routers and stuff, in addition to the mentioned L11UG, and the SXTsq ax which is fine up to 1-2km but wastes to much RF on longer hauls.
Don’t they know that they will be sidelined if they cannot provide what we need when we need it?
Or are they planning to just “touch and go” on ax and move straight to WIFI7 / be?
hAP be is already announced…

So much for my frustration, I highly appreicate your views!

[mixelyn]

Hi, have you considered trying the LHG system? It's easy to install and has more gain than the model you mentioned. There's a 24.5dBi version and an XL model for longer distances. Cheers!

[Bomber67]

Yes I have considered the LHG, still I haven’t trusted it due to risk for ice and snow buildup but with a radome cover it might be ok at some locations.
Things I hold against it is that it appears a little “flimsy” and might vibrate in strong winds, does not fit straight onto the QMP and that it is larger than the Disc Lite ac so at certain angles on a wall it requires a longer wall mount arm.
But that the LHG ax and the SXTsq ax exists means they have the chips, they also have the antenna elements from the Disc Lite ac so why not make a Disc ax?
It is obvious that they risk losing market share to competitors by leaving such a hole in their portfolio for so long

[safelogj]

Perhaps they simply abandoned the 21 dBi format as excessive on short links and insufficient on long ones; the golden mean may not have been in demand.

[pe1chl]

Maybe they have limited developer resources and are already working on the “be” types so decided no longer continue completing the “ax” line?

[Bomber67]

In case, that would be a strange move.
For mid-range distance customers, the Disc Lite ac was a perfect combination of size, formfactor, gain/opening angle and performance.
For instance, the SXT is too wide with it’s 23 degrees, and if you go 24 dBi or more, they become bulky.

@safelogj

Perhaps they simply abandoned the 21 dBi format as excessive on short links and insufficient on long ones; the golden mean may not have been in demand.

[Bomber67]

Maybe.
Of course WIFI7 products with multilink, unlocking the 6GHz band would be real stocking stuffer.
But now Santa has returned to the North Pole for this time..

@pe1chl

Maybe they have limited developer resources and are already working on the “be” types so decided no longer continue completing the “ax” line?

[pe1chl]

Does any of you have experience with long distance links and AX APs?

I have replace an old A/N type AP with an AX AP and now a link of 53km refuses to work, and I cannot find why.

[Bomber67]

Might has to to with Regulatory settings and allowed EIRP.
Which country have you selected, which frequency and what is current TX power?
You have set the distance in Configuration?

@pe1chl

Does any of you have experience with long distance links and AX APs?

I have replace an old A/N type AP with an AX AP and now a link of 53km refuses to work, and I cannot find why.

[pe1chl]

No, that is not the problem. When I do a scan, I see the AP at the correct signal strength, and the distance is also set larger than required, but when connecting from 53km the client immediately logs “lost connection, received deauth: authentication not valid (2)” no matter how the authentication is configured (even with no security configured at all).

With the same client device (LHG XL HP5) at a shorter distance it works OK. It also worked with an old A/N type AP (with the “wireless” driver).

I’m guessing something crosses in the communication due to the distance. I have tried setting distance to several values between 53 and 100km and there is no difference. With the old AP it acted sort of similar when the distance was set to automatic.

[Bomber67]

So are you using an n client?
AP should be backward compatible but then this would be an oldschool 802.11n connection and you would suffer from hidden node problems etc I guess?
I assume you were doing NV2 with the old setup.
Replace the client with LHG AX and it should work.

@pe1chl

No, that is not the problem. When I do a scan, I see the AP at the correct signal strength, and the distance is also set larger than required, but when connecting from 53km the client immediately logs “lost connection, received deauth: authentication not valid (2)” no matter how the authentication is configured (even with no security configured at all).

With the same client device (LHG XL HP5) at a shorter distance it works OK. It also worked with an old A/N type AP (with the “wireless” driver).

I’m guessing something crosses in the communication due to the distance. I have tried setting distance to several values between 53 and 100km and there is no difference. With the old AP it acted sort of similar when the distance was set to automatic.

[pe1chl]

Well I have bought an LHG AX and will test with it over a shorter distance, but by now it is clear to me that this new stuff really isn’t up to the task of providing long-distance links.

There is much less to tweak, much less to monitor. At the moment with the AX client it isn’t even possible to see the signal strength while the connection is established, only while scanning. Let alone seeing the separate strength for the two channels.

The AP at 53km distance will not be replaced soon, certainly not when it is clear that the new device will be able to connect. But more likely the existing device will be re-pointed at another AP in the future.

[Ca6ko]

Write a ticket to technical support, they may be able to help.

[pe1chl]

Yeah, ticket was made before Christmas…

[Ca6ko]

@Bomber67

and if you go 24 dBi or more, they become bulky.

Why switch to the new Wi-Fi standard? In 90% of cases, users want to increase bandwidth. There are two ways to increase bandwidth on radio: 1. switch to higher modulation, 2. increase the bandwidth.
The first method requires an increase in the signal-to-noise ratio of at least 3 dB for each transition to higher modulations.
The second method requires a 3 dB increase in signal for each doubling of bandwidth.
Conclusion: without increasing the signal level, switching to new standards will not increase bandwidth. In some cases, it may even reduce bandwidth.

[Bomber67]

I cannot agree to your conclusion.
In 5GHz AX provides gross bitrates that are 40% higher than AC, i.e. 573 vs 400 Mbps with 40 MHz, and even down in the -60s.
With AC you need better than -60 to get full rate.
So provided things work how they are intended to work, AX should give a considerable increase in speed.

@Ca6ko

@Bomber67

and if you go 24 dBi or more, they become bulky.

Why switch to the new Wi-Fi standard? In 90% of cases, users want to increase bandwidth. There are two ways to increase bandwidth on radio: 1. switch to higher modulation, 2. increase the bandwidth.
The first method requires an increase in the signal-to-noise ratio of at least 3 dB for each transition to higher modulations.
The second method requires a 3 dB increase in signal for each doubling of bandwidth.
Conclusion: without increasing the signal level, switching to new standards will not increase bandwidth. In some cases, it may even reduce bandwidth.

[Ca6ko]

It seems you didn't understand what I was talking about.
To consistently transmit 400 Mbit (200x2) in the AC standard, you need to have a signal-to-noise ratio of 34 dB and a signal level of -54 dB in a 40 MHz band with two spectral streams. This would be MCS9 (GI400ns) modulation. To consistently transmit 573 Mbps (286.8x2) in the AX standard, you need a signal-to-noise ratio of 35 dB and a signal level of -49 dB at reception in a 40 MHz band with two spectral streams. This would be MCS11 (0.8µs GI) modulation.

[Bomber67]

@Ca6ko

It seems you didn't understand what I was talking about.
To consistently transmit 400 Mbit (200x2) in the AC standard, you need to have a signal-to-noise ratio of 34 dB and a signal level of -54 dB in a 40 MHz band with two spectral streams. This would be MCS9 (GI400ns) modulation. To consistently transmit 573 Mbps (286.8x2) in the AX standard, you need a signal-to-noise ratio of 35 dB and a signal level of -49 dB at reception in a 40 MHz band with two spectral streams. This would be MCS11 (0.8µs GI) modulation.

I’m sure you know wireless theory better than me.
But I’m talking about what I’ve seen.
And what I’ve seen is 573 Mbps even down in the 60s.
And does it make sense that new standards and higher modulation rates shouldn’t give higher throughput?