Community discussions

 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Topic Author
Posts: 24268
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Wireless + Canopy Issue

Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:16 pm

In next Beta you will be able to turn on/off the wireless carrier detection (CSMA), which will apparently solve the subj. problem that was much discussed earlier. This will be ONLY for NSTREME and of course, test at your own risk.
 
Wavelan
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:23 am

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:34 pm

In next Beta you will be able to turn on/off the wireless carrier detection (CSMA), which will apparently solve the subj. problem that was much discussed earlier. This will be ONLY for NSTREME and of course, test at your own risk.
Good Jobs, and My thanks :-)

By the way, which side that csma/ca could be turn off, ?

AP-Side or Client Side or both ?

Plz respond.......

Thank's in Advance...

High Regards,
Andrei
Last edited by Wavelan on Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
GWISA
Member
Member
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:37 pm
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:34 pm

Sounds good - I have my first suspected canopy-type invasion on a large mesh network which suddenly died...

I tried changing channels, and all was ok for about 15min until the offender changed channels too!

Not detected on 'scan' but regular 15-30kbps traffic on 2 freqs detected with 'snoop', with at least one on immediate neighbour channel.

Result: stone dead section of the network, with the occasional ping getting through...

Please work on it!
 
User avatar
BrianHiggins
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:07 am
Location: Norwalk, CT
Contact:

Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:53 am

Thank You!

*edit* Did you use my sugestion and name it NStreamX? :)
 
maxfava
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:30 am

Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:13 pm

if CSMA/CA is disable, what kind of modulation it use to solve the issue of idden node?
is this feature possible to insert for non Nstreme protocol?

Thanks a lot
 
ofca
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:18 pm

Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:21 pm

There is no hidden node problem in polling-based protocols. Only one station is allowed to talk at one given time, by being polled for pending data. CSMA-CA is totally redundant in such case and should've been disabled in the first place already, as only rogue stations will talk unasked, and lending them a hand is only asking for local abusers to take advantage of this. Too bad it will be available in MT3, but better late than never! :)
 
JR
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:27 am

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Thu Sep 27, 2007 11:42 pm

So where are we in 2007 with RC5?
 
User avatar
Equis
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 888
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:48 am

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Fri Sep 28, 2007 1:55 am

Its on the ntreame page.
 
believewireless
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 6:30 pm

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:13 am

Can we get this as an option without NStreme?
 
User avatar
BrianHiggins
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:07 am
Location: Norwalk, CT
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:17 pm

Can we get this as an option without NStreme?
no, without nstream polling, csma is absolutly required in order for the wireless link to function... the reason for removing csma was because polling removed the necessity for that protocol to exist. When running 2 different contention meathods (polling and csma both qualify independantly as contention protocols) you end up wasteing airtime not transmitting, even if you would otherwise usually get a good signal across.

disableing csma increases the number of errors over the wireless link because it transmits even if there is an interferring signal present, but due to the significantly higher number of transmissions (that csma would have otherwise held back from) your throughput increases and latency decreases (in theory, in practice latency improvments are not noticable), despite raising the error rates. I have done testing showing increases of 200-300k across a 2.4 link in a very noisy enviroment simply by disableing csma, also the connection is more stable with less bursting of speed.
 
User avatar
ghmorris
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Minden, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:07 am

OK, we did some testing this afternoon in a very hostile RF environment.

There is a huge difference between 2.9.46 and 3.0RC6 when it comes to driving a Ubiquiti SR9.

5MHz channels, 270' on the tower, Trango (ours) on the tower, lots of Trango (ours) and Canopy (theirs) close by.

Used a pair of grids facing each other with a 133 as the AP and a 133c at the client. Links fluctuating a bit around -78 through a fair bunch of trees. Only a 3km shot, but a lousy path, lots of trees, very little ground clearance as there is a hill partially obstructing the fresnel. Definitely NOT line of sight!

2.9.46 was pretty much a train wreck as you would normally expect with the crappy signal level. 200k-2Mbit with wild fluctuations and lots of pauses in the connection. Just about what we have come to know and love with this combination in this environment. You could sell it if you had a really understanding customer with no other choices, but only if they guaranteed you they would never try to use voip over the connection.

On the other hand, 3.0RC6 was a steady 3.3-3.7Mbits in both directions. Fastest I have ever seen a 5MHz channel run at 900, and just about rock steady. Ping times were very stable even running on top of a bandwidth test. And those numbers were testing directly between the AP/Client MTs, not through them as best practices dictate.

We did quite a bit of evaluation, swapping back and forth between firmware versions and trying different combinations of firmware and combinations of settings.

The really big improvement was having 3.0RC6 as the access point. Probably 80-90% of the total improvement was seen just by doing that.

Adding in 3.0RC6 as the client added a few percentage points, as did turning on CSMA-disable and Adaptive Noise Immunity. But the big difference was changing the AP firmware.

WOW!!!

Obviously this is early days and these are very preliminary results, but I have renewed hope in the eternal struggle against the evil demons of Canopy. :shock:

George
 
User avatar
omega-00
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:54 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:55 pm

Can you give us a look at the config for either endpoint you applied? I have a couple of similar 5ghz links that I'm working on which would benifit from this.

Regards,
Omega
 
CarulloS
Member
Member
Posts: 406
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 5:52 am

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:27 pm

George,

Is it safe to assume you are using nstream? If not, from what I have read earlier in this same post, using the csma disable would not really be active because it is only usable with nstream... Is this the case or does the csma disable actually work without nstream?

Thanks for the clarification...

Scott
 
User avatar
ghmorris
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Minden, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:45 pm

Using Nstreme Scott.

I am not generally an Nstreme fan because of eneven latency, but it seems a lot better now. These are preliminary results though so its too soon to tell for sure.

Looks like we do have a memory leak though.

George
 
User avatar
ghmorris
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Minden, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:08 am

Can you give us a look at the config for either endpoint you applied? I have a couple of similar 5ghz links that I'm working on which would benifit from this.

Regards,
Omega
/interface wireless 
set 0 ack-timeout=dynamic adaptive-noise-immunity=yes allow-sharedkey=no \
    antenna-gain=0 antenna-mode=ant-a area="" arp=enabled band=2ghz-5mhz \
    basic-rates-a/g=6Mbps basic-rates-b=1Mbps burst-time=disabled comment="" \
    compression=no country=no_country_set default-ap-tx-limit=0 \
    default-authentication=yes default-client-tx-limit=0 \
    default-forwarding=yes dfs-mode=none disable-running-check=no disabled=no \
    disconnect-timeout=3s frame-lifetime=0 frequency=907 \
    frequency-mode=regulatory-domain hide-ssid=no hw-retries=15 \
    mac-address=00:15:6D:93:25:39 max-station-count=2007 mode=ap-bridge \
    mtu=1500 name="wlan900" noise-floor-threshold=default \
    on-fail-retry-time=100ms periodic-calibration=default \
    periodic-calibration-interval=60 preamble-mode=both \
    proprietary-extensions=post-2.9.25 radio-name="xxxxxxxxxxx\
    Lake Test" rate-set=configured scan-list=default security-profile=default \
    ssid="LLBL" station-bridge-clone-mac=00:00:00:00:00:00 \
    supported-rates-a/g=6Mbps,9Mbps,12Mbps,18Mbps,24Mbps \
    supported-rates-b=1Mbps,2Mbps,5.5Mbps,11Mbps tx-power-mode=default \
    update-stats-interval=disabled wds-cost-range=50-150 \
    wds-default-bridge=none wds-default-cost=100 wds-ignore-ssid=no \
    wds-mode=disabled wmm-support=disabled 
/interface wireless 
set 0 ack-timeout=dynamic adaptive-noise-immunity=yes allow-sharedkey=no \
    antenna-gain=0 antenna-mode=ant-a area="" arp=enabled band=2ghz-5mhz \
    basic-rates-a/g=6Mbps basic-rates-b=1Mbps burst-time=disabled comment="" \
    compression=no country=no_country_set default-ap-tx-limit=0 \
    default-authentication=yes default-client-tx-limit=0 \
    default-forwarding=yes dfs-mode=none disable-running-check=no disabled=no \
    disconnect-timeout=3s frame-lifetime=0 frequency=917 \
    frequency-mode=manual-txpower hide-ssid=no hw-retries=15 \
    mac-address=00:15:6D:93:25:4C max-station-count=2007 mode=station mtu=1500 \
    name="wlan900" noise-floor-threshold=default on-fail-retry-time=100ms \
    periodic-calibration=default periodic-calibration-interval=60 \
    preamble-mode=both proprietary-extensions=post-2.9.25 radio-name="xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" rate-set=configured scan-list=default \
    security-profile=default ssid="LLBL" \
    station-bridge-clone-mac=00:00:00:00:00:00 \
    supported-rates-a/g=6Mbps,9Mbps,12Mbps,18Mbps,24Mbps \
    supported-rates-b=1Mbps,2Mbps,5.5Mbps,11Mbps tx-power-mode=default \
    update-stats-interval=disabled wds-cost-range=50-150 \
    wds-default-bridge=none wds-default-cost=100 wds-ignore-ssid=no \
    wds-mode=disabled wmm-support=disabled 
George
 
User avatar
jwcn
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1501
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:49 am
Location: Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:41 am

I use SR9's and Canopy. I have never seen the interference issues between them you describe. I believe you are having problems with FHSS gear such as Alvarion from what you are describing.
 
User avatar
ghmorris
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Minden, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:13 pm

I believe you are having problems with FHSS gear such as Alvarion from what you are describing.
That's pretty a pretty funny comment. "I believe" too, but this isn't a faith-based technology.

I have the ESN, colour codes etc for all 11 of the Canopy access points that cause us trouble.

There are no Alvarion hoppers within 80 miles.

Have a nice day.

George
 
User avatar
jwcn
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1501
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:49 am
Location: Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:08 pm

George,

No need to flame my post. I was directing it at GWISA not you.

If you have 11 Canopy 900 AP's near by good luck. You'd have been better off switching to Canopy yourself and syncing with your competition than working against them.

In the wireless world Canopy always wins.
 
User avatar
ghmorris
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Minden, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:16 pm

George,

No need to flame my post. I was directing it at GWISA not you.
Quoting an earlier post in the thread removes the opportunity for confusion.
If you have 11 Canopy 900 AP's near by good luck. You'd have been better off switching to Canopy yourself and syncing with your competition than working against them.

In the wireless world Canopy always wins.
I'm not nearly that defeatist. Canopy is far from perfect and isn't fond of noise right on top of an AP either. I also don't believe in rewarding government-subsidized incompetence.

By the looks of it so far, with 3.0 we have an interesting new "opportunity". I want to see how it works with the XR-9s and GZ-901s too!

George
 
User avatar
jwcn
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1501
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:49 am
Location: Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:18 pm

I just upgraded one of my SR9 AP's and the CPE on my home link today. I'm impressed. With 2.9.46 on an Internet speedtest I was seeing around 500k-600k down and 100k up. 2.5 miles nothing of trees.

My most recent test is at 1.8megs down and 400k up and running stable.

That is with 5mhz channel and -82 signal
 
User avatar
ghmorris
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Minden, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:08 am

That's a pretty wild difference!

We need to compare how it does in a hostile RF environment compared to Canopy and Trango.

George
 
User avatar
jwcn
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1501
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:49 am
Location: Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:47 am

I continue to have the SR9's going deaf on a regular basis. I will be ordering some XR9's this week to test with. Will be interesting to see how they perform.

If they truly are putting out 28dBm this is actually 2dBm more power than canopy 900...
 
CarulloS
Member
Member
Posts: 406
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 5:52 am

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:47 am

I had a test sr9 with 2.9.40-something on the same tower I had a trango 900ap on. What I found was that when they were both powered on neither of them worked. When I did a frequency survey on the trango 900ap it said that the signal from the sr9 was very wide (like across the entire 900 band sending energy into every usable 900 freq). I believe after my testing that the sr9 receive and transmit were not even remotely close to what the trango 900 ap was capable of. Case in point - ubiquity sells cavity filters for their 900 cards. Why? Because it helps them reduce the signal level sharply off their designed freq. because the cards cannot do the same job themselves.

The trango 900 gear has the best performing 900 receive and transmit (as far as being narrow banded I have ever seen). I can have a -40 signal 5-10 Mhz away from my chosen 900 freq and it works fine.

I only had the luxery of testing this once in the same area. It is possible something was screwed up. I have a feeling that is not the case though because all the gear came from other working locations.

I am looking forward to hearing more about the xr9's and the v3 mt tests... The MT Gear flexibility and reliability has been impressive for us.

Scott
 
User avatar
jwcn
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1501
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:49 am
Location: Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:29 pm

I would venture to say that you had things configured wrong if you were picking up the SR9 across the entire band.
 
User avatar
BrianHiggins
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:07 am
Location: Norwalk, CT
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:18 pm

I would venture to say that you had things configured wrong if you were picking up the SR9 across the entire band.
the SR9's (like any 802.11 based radio) uses 20Mhz wide channels unless otherwise specified to use 5 or 10Mhz channels. The 900 Mhz band is 902-928, only 26Mhz wide, if you put a SR9 with the center channel on 912 or 917 (the only options when using 20Mhz wide channels), you are going to be using nearly the entire band... so things weren't necessarly configured wrong, just default...

fyi. the XR9's are the same channel width, they are using a an inverse waveform modulation compared with the SR9's, along with a few other improvments, to help cut through, and deal with, interference... so don't expect to see anything different between the two in terms of spectrum usage.
 
CarulloS
Member
Member
Posts: 406
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 5:52 am

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:50 am

the SR9's (like any 802.11 based radio) uses 20Mhz wide channels unless otherwise specified to use 5 or 10Mhz channels. The 900 Mhz band is 902-928, only 26Mhz wide, if you put a SR9 with the center channel on 912 or 917 (the only options when using 20Mhz wide channels), you are going to be using nearly the entire band... so things weren't necessarly configured wrong, just default..
Yes, you are most likely correct, this at least explains what I saw. I am so used to working with the trango gear having a 20mhz channel may not have registered properly with my brain :)

I'll test it again when I have the opportunity. Thanks for the explanation.

Scott
 
phendry
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 4:42 pm

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:39 pm

Quick question on disabling CSMA. As CSMA is controlled from the AP end does only the AP need to be running V3 or will all clients also need to be running V3?
 
User avatar
BrianHiggins
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:07 am
Location: Norwalk, CT
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:23 pm

Quick question on disabling CSMA. As CSMA is controlled from the AP end does only the AP need to be running V3 or will all clients also need to be running V3?
technically a 2.9 client will connect to a 3.0 ap with nstream enabled and csma disabled, the 3.0 ap will transmit with csma disabled, the 2.9 client will transmit as normal.

that said, keep them the same version, it works better.
 
phendry
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 4:42 pm

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:31 pm

that said, keep them the same version, it works better.
In what way does it work better? It is easy to upgrade a single AP and role back if there are issues (still RC release after all) but if you upgrade an AP and all the clients then find an issue it's a lot of work to role everything back.
 
User avatar
BrianHiggins
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:07 am
Location: Norwalk, CT
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:12 pm

I meant try not to mix 2.9 and 3.0... espicially when dealing with nstream.

as far as v3 goes, try to keep all devices on the same build, I've seen wireless performance/connection issues with different betas/rc's connected to each other, i attribute them to changes / fixes that cause minor incompatabilities with different builds
 
User avatar
jwcn
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1501
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:49 am
Location: Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:30 am

I've not been able to get a version 3 SR9 radio to talk with a 2.9 radio...
 
Vitaliy
just joined
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:24 am

Re: Wireless + Canopy Issue

Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:20 pm

from all of this, are the v3.0 will work with 2.9v then disable-csma/ca?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 110 guests