Community discussions

MikroTik App
 
marcoscdoni
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:36 pm

Point to Point with upload greater than download

Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:21 pm

I have a point-to-point bridge with an antenna disc lite 5 ac and on the other side lhg ac.

However, I don't understand why to get around 230mb of upload, but download around 140mb.
status.png
upload.png
download.png

What would be the reason?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
Zacharias
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 3459
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:58 am
Location: Greece

Re: Point to Point with upload greater than download

Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:33 pm

CCQ is low on Rx...
I would suggest you try different frequency and or test with different wireless protocol...
 
marcoscdoni
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: Point to Point with upload greater than download

Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:53 pm

CCQ is low on Rx...
I would suggest you try different frequency and or test with different wireless protocol...
Is the Rx / TX force ok? Could it be alignment problem?
 
Zacharias
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 3459
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:58 am
Location: Greece

Re: Point to Point with upload greater than download

Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:55 pm

Yes, your signal strength is great...
It could be anything to interference or aligment problem...
 
User avatar
bpwl
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 2984
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:16 am

Re: Point to Point with upload greater than download

Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:11 pm

It's not easy to solve a problem with just this data. (Physical placement, neighbor transmitters, TX power set (regulatory domain), etc is missing) But even with that it would be difficult.

Just what I see ... from the status screenshot.

- The bandwidth tests are 100% in line with the status information (+-50% of the interface rate, the higher the rate the lesser the %, or the higher the overhead)
- Disc Lite 5 ac has 21dBi antenna gain, the LHG 5 ac has 24.5 dBi antenna gain. The reception at the LHG will be 3.5dB better than at the Disc Lite, when the same regulatory domain EIRP limit is used.
- TX/RX signal strength is -54dBm/-57dBm. Very good signal strength (and very good SNR)
- The TX/RX CCQ however is 79%/48% . This difference is not expected for just a 3.5 dBm signal difference. Interference or reflection at the RX side of the signal is possible, this is at the side where the status page is taken from. Interference by trees, buildings, ground, in the fresnel zone is also a probable cause of the overall low CCQ.
- The low CCQ in TX and certainly in RX brings down the selected interface rate. from MCS9 (highest encoding) to respectively MCS5 (64QAM) and the very low MCS3 (16QAM) encoding
- The frequency selection is a puzzle for me. With Ceee you set the extension on freq plus side, what is perfectly OK. However 5310 is a spot inbetween the normal 20 MHz channels, and the range selected is 5300-5380, what falls outside ( 5330-5490) the wifi frequencies. One would expect 5180, 5260, 5500, 5580 Ceee as normal choices. Also frequencies below 5500MHz are limited to indoor use only in Europe, and have a weaker TX power allowed than the 5500+ freq channels. (For ETSI region, 20dBm versus 27 dBm) (For FCC region 27dBm and all allowed outdoor). But there is no allocated channel between channel 64 (5320) and channel 100 (5500).

So my hint:
- check that the fresnel zone is free. (Fresnel zone diameter is depending on the distance and the frequency used. The antenna direction characteristic does not help.)
- use a proper frequency for your regulatory domain
- If no improvement test with 40 MHz bandwidth. It will concentrate the energy in a smaller band, and could deliver 400 Mbps interface RX rate. (You cannot get 520 Mbps TX rate).
- no electronic setting can eliminate fresnel zone obstructions. "nv2" will masquerade and compensate a bit the problem.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GoogleOther [Bot] and 39 guests