NV2 sync issues and solutions

Cetalfio · Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:31 am

We also have about 3000 MT cpe (SXT, Disc and Sextant) and still expect improvements on the wireless, in the laboratory we have already tested Cambium with really good results.
ROS is a very powerful OS with great potential but we also believe that Mikrotik does not intend to develop this wireless part so all WISPs like us will go to other solutions / brands. Cambium has already announced the time of publication of the Elevate for Mikrotik in 2018, for us it would be really a special thing if MT found new wireless solutions to continue working with their products

http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5 ... 999/page/4

cetalfio

savage · Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:46 am

Further to stop using CCRs in it's entirety (PSU issues, BGP issues), we too, are seriously considering alternatives (Cambium / Mimosa) to Mikrotik on the wireless side.

Mikrotik's loosing traction fast. Unless v7 is a magic bullet that gets released, very, very soon... I see tough times ahead for MT, even Ubiquity has far better stuff on the market today. We, simply cannot depend on MT any longer, except for the bare basic non-essential stuff.

n21roadie · Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:55 am

What a pity that Mikrotik has not responded to its long term short coming in wireless, as a WISP we are also forced to look elsewhere and most annoying to read that other vendors using the similar chipsets have vastly superior wireless performance but don't have the long list of configuration options of ROS, for us wireless performance is more important than a long list of configuration options ?

letabawireless · Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:14 pm

I recently attended the Mum in South Africa. I had to travel 2000 kms to get there, with one of my most important questions being about NV2. When I asked the staff present about it, they simply referred me to email support ...

WirelessRudy · Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:32 pm

I think we have to wait until some bigger company that lacks routing knowledge and a neat OS. Wouldn't be surprised Cisco one day buys them. Just to get them away fishing from the router pond...
Ubiquity could buy them too. They probably have the cash by now and the only fields where they are not as good as MT can be bought. It would make many of us happy.
Mimosa could buy them, would be a valuable add-on for routing. But am afraid they are too small yet.

So I don't know. But I already wrote in this forum over a year ago that I'd think Wifi in Mikrotik is on a dead end. We saw some small up springs but overall they are running way behind the market developments.
I mean, why bring an 802.11a/n LHG on the market where the competition is already having a/c products flooding the industry? We all need high gain 'ac' solutions now for reasonable price. Mikrotik still doesn't have this.
The LHG is a neat antenna but I am buying them marginal since I'd hope an 'ac' model comes out soon. (Some provider already has is in their catalogue, but for backorders only.)
The bigger higher gain units should also have been introduced way earlier.

To me it looks a bit like they'd want to squeeze as much out of their existing product lines before they come up with upgrades. So WISP have to buy their stuff again and again in keeping up with the market. That looks like a good money puller from your clients but what happens if your clients decide they can't wait no longer for the needed upgrades and start shopping elsewhere? They probably won't come back no more. And since many network changes mean numbers Mikrotik is gambling hard with their policy of hardware evolution delays. This will break their neck one day.

On the medium and high end they are having an ever bigger backlog in technology and on the medium to low end market they will soon be overtaken by all kinds of other manufacturers. It's only a matter of time before they loose their wifi. And if the company can survive on routers only? I doubt it. When they are becoming to much of a pain to many times bigger Cisco they just buy Mikrotik out of the market....

Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:17 pm

Further to stop using CCRs in it's entirety (PSU issues, BGP issues), we too, are seriously considering alternatives (Cambium / Mimosa) to Mikrotik on the wireless side.

Mikrotik's loosing traction fast. Unless v7 is a magic bullet that gets released, very, very soon... I see tough times ahead for MT, even Ubiquity has far better stuff on the market today. We, simply cannot depend on MT any longer, except for the bare basic non-essential stuff.

We are quite happy with CCR (in good ambient environment). We like the RB1100AHx4 very much. Fast and very flexible regarding power input. We like Powerbox Pro.
CRS317-1G-16S+RM is a very good product and (while still beta) the new Bridging configuration makes it more usable than the older MT-Switches. And when it does MPLS in Hardware at 10G wirespeed ...
So yes MT wireless falls back. I guess it is used mostly in countries where every $ counts. I guess this is the reason they bring new/old cheap 11n devices. It works reliable but does not scale.
But they still have a lot of products which help WISPs.

So test and select Products for purpose and dont expect one vendor to do it all. Noone does LTE, Licensed wireless, 60GHz, unlicensed wireless, routing, switching, CRM, ...
And dont trust markteting and fanboys. We see Mimosa and Cambium ePMP fall to it's nose with interference where nv2 still work. They dont have a magic bullet. And we soon have 2018 and ePMP is still 11n. We dont buy 11n for a year now ...

n21roadie · Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:59 pm

We are quite happy with CCR (in good ambient environment). We like the RB1100AHx4 very much. Fast and very flexible regarding power input. We like Powerbox Pro.
CRS317-1G-16S+RM is a very good product and (while still beta) the new Bridging configuration makes it more usable than the older MT-Switches. And when it does MPLS in Hardware at 10G wirespeed ...
So yes MT wireless falls back. I guess it is used mostly in countries where every $ counts. I guess this is the reason they bring new/old cheap 11n devices. It works reliable but does not scale.
But they still have a lot of products which help WISPs.

So test and select Products for purpose and dont expect one vendor to do it all. Noone does LTE, Licensed wireless, 60GHz, unlicensed wireless, routing, switching, CRM, ...
And dont trust markteting and fanboys. We see Mimosa and Cambium ePMP fall to it's nose with interference where nv2 still work. They dont have a magic bullet. And we soon have 2018 and ePMP is still 11n. We dont buy 11n for a year now ...

I agree with CCR and RB1100 being good products!

Can you say what type of interference (co-location or channel interference...) causes "...we see Mimosa and Cambium ePMP fall to it's nose with interference where nv2 still work..."

WirelessRudy · Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:40 pm

Noone does LTE, Licensed wireless, 60GHz, unlicensed wireless, routing, switching, CRM, ...
And dont trust markteting and fanboys. We see Mimosa and Cambium ePMP fall to it's nose with interference where nv2 still work. They dont have a magic bullet. And we soon have 2018 and ePMP is still 11n. We dont buy 11n for a year now ...

I agree, MT is versatile in a lot. We have their routers in our core and they probably will never be replaced. But where we years ago (when tdma became in play) had to make a decision in what hardware line we wher going to follow we'd choose MT in these days since the first UBNT lines where crap to say the least.
The ROS-versatility-range of products-pricing etc. factors made MT a winner and after the initial issues NV2 started to work fine too where others (mainly Ubiquity in my region) where still having issues.
But then MT's wifi evolution sort of stopped where other moved on and new ones entered the market.
How many years have we seen the 'sync' discussions on this forum. Now it finally sort of cautiously arrived it doesn't seem to work. (We can't get it to work at least....)
The many software updates not always brought 'good', sometimes complete disaster even on 'stable' versions.
Wireless management absolutely is not that ergonomic anymore as in the 'old' days where you could fine tune links without loosing the link after each 'enter' or 'accept' of yet again a small edit.
(I mean; If I just edit the comment field in an AP and hit 'enter' all clients disassociate? That was never like that in the old day. In old version you could even swap the order of the 'connect-to' listing without loosing the link of a CPE. Now you only have to touch anything and the link drops......)

We have one eCambium 2000 AP with beam forming and have 5 high demanding clients on it. 50/50Mbps packages for some of them and it always works and I see it regularly been used.
This in a heavy congested spectrum on a 20Mhz channel width. And the links are stable. Try to do the same with a Netmetal and apart from the link been less stable its almost impossible to surpass the 60-70Mbps aggregated throughput with a handful of clients attached. I have done several tests and best I could ever get in 80Mhz wide channel was 90Mbps (no, not a cable limit).

Some back haul links that really needed to have more then 100Mbps aggregated plus lots of spare have been replaced with Airfibres that run with 300 or 400Mbps aggregated stable connections.
With Netmetals on the same links with the same Jirious antennas, same frequency we tried and tried (nv2, nstream, csma 40Mhz, 80Mhz) but never more then 150-160Mbps aggregated. So we tried the Airfibres and are happy with these. Have 3 links running with them.

Then we replaced two other links for Mimosa B5c's and although not as good as the Airfibre's the still outperform the Netmetal and with the channel spit for ul/dl we'd manage to stay away from most sever interference where with a single Netmetal setup this is just impossible.

Last, but not least. In an heavy used by 5Ghz wifi dense urbanisation we had 6 Netmetals/Omnitiks serving some 150 clients but lots of complaints about poor speeds and broken streams. After a year of struggling we decided to try Mimosa. They came finally (first in Spain!) a year after their first promise and we started to use one. Even in 'interop' (=csma wit RTS/CTS) it worked much better then the previous Mikrotiks. We've had the work previously done by two Omnitiks to server 2 x 25-30 clients (=55 clients) by one A5 that served those 55 plus 10 more (=65 clients!) and speeds were back to were we'd wanted them. Lower latency.
I'v done tests and could easy push the aggregated throughput over the 200Mbps levels. Even when in csma mode with some 'n' SXT's still present in a full working AP network (some 30-40Mb aggregated traffic from clients) I could push my test SXT-ac in 40Mhz channel to 60-70-Mbps. When AO was set to 80Mhz (the legacy units still connected in 40Mhz!) my SXT-ac could go to 180Mbps ! And this where adjacent frequecies are 'loud' and the working channel even 'sees' some remote AP's using the same.

Since some weeks we have now two A5's at only 125 meters separation working in full sync with their tdma mode and 40 on the one (44 is still their limit for tdma) and 6 on the other but they all work flawless. 60-80 and 150Mbps including not a problem for their C5's.

Now the Mimosa system has off course better specs then the Mikrotik equivalents, cost quit a bit more too. But MT just haven't an answer to this. And as an operator I have to keep the fiber boys out of my backyard so had to move on.....

I am also using several 60Ghz links from Metrlinq and although not as good as the specs they do a great job. 500Mbps over 400 meters is not an issue.
I say the Mikrotik 60Ghz platform in Milan a year ago and that is only recently fully available. But up to 100 meters only. Not a lot of use for that. Their bigger units promised by then are since fallen quiet...
And now Metrolinq has an triple (60,5 and 2,4Ghz 12dBi Omni with beamforming in each band that can 'pump 10Gb of aggregated traffic! I need that one to serve my 6 60Ghz links leaving one tower with two 5Ghz AP's and a 2,4Ghz hotspot system.
If this was all Mikrotik it means I can throw away 12 Mikrotik units to be replaced by one Ignitenet unit only!

No, Mikrotik has to come up with beter news or I am afraid in a years time you won't see me a lot on this forum more neither....

Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:59 pm

Noone does LTE, Licensed wireless, 60GHz, unlicensed wireless, routing, switching, CRM, ...
And dont trust markteting and fanboys. We see Mimosa and Cambium ePMP fall to it's nose with interference where nv2 still work. They dont have a magic bullet. And we soon have 2018 and ePMP is still 11n. We dont buy 11n for a year now ...
I agree, MT is versatile in a lot. We have their routers in our core and they probably will never be replaced. But where we years ago (when tdma became in play) had to make a decision in what hardware line we wher going to follow we'd choose MT in these days since the first UBNT lines where crap to say the least.
The ROS-versatility-range of products-pricing etc. factors made MT a winner and after the initial issues NV2 started to work fine too where others (mainly Ubiquity in my region) where still having issues.
But then MT's wifi evolution sort of stopped where other moved on and new ones entered the market.
How many years have we seen the 'sync' discussions on this forum. Now it finally sort of cautiously arrived it doesn't seem to work. (We can't get it to work at least....)
The many software updates not always brought 'good', sometimes complete disaster even on 'stable' versions.
Wireless management absolutely is not that ergonomic anymore as in the 'old' days where you could fine tune links without loosing the link after each 'enter' or 'accept' of yet again a small edit.
(I mean; If I just edit the comment field in an AP and hit 'enter' all clients disassociate? That was never like that in the old day. In old version you could even swap the order of the 'connect-to' listing without loosing the link of a CPE. Now you only have to touch anything and the link drops......)

We have one eCambium 2000 AP with beam forming and have 5 high demanding clients on it. 50/50Mbps packages for some of them and it always works and I see it regularly been used.
This in a heavy congested spectrum on a 20Mhz channel width. And the links are stable. Try to do the same with a Netmetal and apart from the link been less stable its almost impossible to surpass the 60-70Mbps aggregated throughput with a handful of clients attached. I have done several tests and best I could ever get in 80Mhz wide channel was 90Mbps (no, not a cable limit).

Some back haul links that really needed to have more then 100Mbps aggregated plus lots of spare have been replaced with Airfibres that run with 300 or 400Mbps aggregated stable connections.
With Netmetals on the same links with the same Jirious antennas, same frequency we tried and tried (nv2, nstream, csma 40Mhz, 80Mhz) but never more then 150-160Mbps aggregated. So we tried the Airfibres and are happy with these. Have 3 links running with them.

Then we replaced two other links for Mimosa B5c's and although not as good as the Airfibre's the still outperform the Netmetal and with the channel spit for ul/dl we'd manage to stay away from most sever interference where with a single Netmetal setup this is just impossible.

Last, but not least. In an heavy used by 5Ghz wifi dense urbanisation we had 6 Netmetals/Omnitiks serving some 150 clients but lots of complaints about poor speeds and broken streams. After a year of struggling we decided to try Mimosa. They came finally (first in Spain!) a year after their first promise and we started to use one. Even in 'interop' (=csma wit RTS/CTS) it worked much better then the previous Mikrotiks. We've had the work previously done by two Omnitiks to server 2 x 25-30 clients (=55 clients) by one A5 that served those 55 plus 10 more (=65 clients!) and speeds were back to were we'd wanted them. Lower latency.
I'v done tests and could easy push the aggregated throughput over the 200Mbps levels. Even when in csma mode with some 'n' SXT's still present in a full working AP network (some 30-40Mb aggregated traffic from clients) I could push my test SXT-ac in 40Mhz channel to 60-70-Mbps. When AO was set to 80Mhz (the legacy units still connected in 40Mhz!) my SXT-ac could go to 180Mbps ! And this where adjacent frequecies are 'loud' and the working channel even 'sees' some remote AP's using the same.

Since some weeks we have now two A5's at only 125 meters separation working in full sync with their tdma mode and 40 on the one (44 is still their limit for tdma) and 6 on the other but they all work flawless. 60-80 and 150Mbps including not a problem for their C5's.

Now the Mimosa system has off course better specs then the Mikrotik equivalents, cost quit a bit more too. But MT just haven't an answer to this. And as an operator I have to keep the fiber boys out of my backyard so had to move on.....

I am also using several 60Ghz links from Metrlinq and although not as good as the specs they do a great job. 500Mbps over 400 meters is not an issue.
I say the Mikrotik 60Ghz platform in Milan a year ago and that is only recently fully available. But up to 100 meters only. Not a lot of use for that. Their bigger units promised by then are since fallen quiet...
And now Metrolinq has an triple (60,5 and 2,4Ghz 12dBi Omni with beamforming in each band that can 'pump 10Gb of aggregated traffic! I need that one to serve my 6 60Ghz links leaving one tower with two 5Ghz AP's and a 2,4Ghz hotspot system.
If this was all Mikrotik it means I can throw away 12 Mikrotik units to be replaced by one Ignitenet unit only!

No, Mikrotik has to come up with beter news or I am afraid in a years time you won't see me a lot on this forum more neither....

All true but dont neglect e.g. problems with other gear. We have 3 Metrolinq links running. 60 GHz is good but this equipment has it's own problems. The first batches had to be replaced due to faulty HW. The SW shows some showstoppers now and then and needs to be rebooted. The last update of a V2,5 link makes the remote end reset to factory default. No problem as this is a backup link. But in no way I trust this equipment at current stage. We wait some months before we consider using more of this gear.

There is no Wireless decision for life. Next year you may need 3,5GHz and there you need another vendor. And might be you find your Mimosa quite sluggisch compared to LTU gear which might be much better. And there will be 802.11ax sometimes and may be Atheros makes a chipdesign which makes MT good again.

n21roadie · Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:55 pm

What LTU gear ?

Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:10 pm

What LTU gear ?

This is a MT forum. So I do not want to educate

. It is not LTE.

n21roadie · Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:15 pm

What LTU gear ?
This is a MT forum. So I do not want to educate . It is not LTE.

OK - I suppose U it's a 8 letter word ending in "i"

WirelessRudy · Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:09 am

What LTU gear ?
This is a MT forum. So I do not want to educate . It is not LTE.

Well, several other platforms passed the discussions here including their technology and performances....

bajodel · Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:00 pm

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/ ... rying.aspx
.."will be rolling out a brand-new technology called LTU this year"..

n21roadie · Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:44 pm

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/ ... rying.aspx
.."will be rolling out a brand-new technology called LTU this year"..

Typical of a sales promo - but its the festive season and "this year" has only 19 days left, so we won't have long to wait for this new technology

Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:26 pm

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/ ... rying.aspx
.."will be rolling out a brand-new technology called LTU this year"..
Typical of a sales promo - but its the festive season and "this year" has only 19 days left, so we won't have long to wait for this new technology

Purchasable via BetaStore in USA as PTP-Product for 2 months now. Late and beta but no paperware.

letabawireless · Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:31 am

Ok,

So I have had an actual email discussion with an actual Mikrotik agent. Here is his answer:

Hello,

You can look up in Internet how all the frequency re-use plan works.
The CPE should see only the one of the Synced AP - it can't see the other AP otherwise the connection will not work correctly as there will be collisions.
The best plan to have 4 sectors.
The AP to sync with the other AP that are located back to back on the tower so the CPEs would not see the other AP as it is on the other side of the tower.
Then you can put another AP 90 degrees on different frequency from the other AP and make it back to back to the other AP on the tower.
You can try to repeat that setup putting more such 4 sector combinations on the tower with more frequency spacing so they do not overlap.

So according to this, you can't have sync working on AP's facing the same direction. Which makes the whole idea of sync redundant for me. I mean, in what perfect world are your connections all balanced accross 360 degrees ???!

WirelessRudy · Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:17 pm

Ok,

So I have had an actual email discussion with an actual Mikrotik agent. Here is his answer:

Hello,

You can look up in Internet how all the frequency re-use plan works.
The CPE should see only the one of the Synced AP - it can't see the other AP otherwise the connection will not work correctly as there will be collisions.
The best plan to have 4 sectors.
The AP to sync with the other AP that are located back to back on the tower so the CPEs would not see the other AP as it is on the other side of the tower.
Then you can put another AP 90 degrees on different frequency from the other AP and make it back to back to the other AP on the tower.
You can try to repeat that setup putting more such 4 sector combinations on the tower with more frequency spacing so they do not overlap.

So according to this, you can't have sync working on AP's facing the same direction. Which makes the whole idea of sync redundant for me. I mean, in what perfect world are your connections all balanced accross 360 degrees ???!

1. We tried to do it exactly as prescribed by MT. Tower on a hill. Both sides covered with an sector (and thus in opposite direction). Both sectors are separated by at least 2 meters horizontal and also the steel construction is in between. Ono of the sectors is an SXT-ac with shield. The other a Netmetal on a 'Gold' 60 degrees sector.
Clients on one side of the hill have no way of being able to 'see' clients on the other side. The hill is in-between.
The original setup had separated frequencies on both sectors. We made speed test from both sides and noted the speeds.

After that we picked the best frequency of the two and set both sectors to that one and in full sync according Wiki.
Again we took some clients and did speedtests and noted these.
We already saw the CCQ's dropped on most antenas but worse, the speed to each clients for the test was no more then half. Sometimes even less.

Both sectors both have their own router/radio but in transparant bridge mode. Both are part of the same /28 network and both connect to the same Netonix switch that trunks all AP ports towards one port that has a tower router connected for OSPF, routing etc. Si in Neighbour both sectors and even their clients are visible (by mac only. Clients all have PPP tunnels for authentication towards remote PPPoE server.)

In my opinion this would be the best scenario situation for having two back to back connected sectors working in Mikrotik sync. But it doesn't.....

2. We have another vendor system where we have two Omni directional AP's at only 120 meters apart from eachother and working in full synch (GPS)
We only have to make sure CPE's don't see both in their same working beam. It works fine! Very high MCS rates with high PHY rates.
These have other technology but the sync works....

I think MT has to work harder to get it working. At present it doesn't.

Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:47 pm

Ok,

So I have had an actual email discussion with an actual Mikrotik agent. Here is his answer:

Hello,

You can look up in Internet how all the frequency re-use plan works.
The CPE should see only the one of the Synced AP - it can't see the other AP otherwise the connection will not work correctly as there will be collisions.
The best plan to have 4 sectors.
The AP to sync with the other AP that are located back to back on the tower so the CPEs would not see the other AP as it is on the other side of the tower.
Then you can put another AP 90 degrees on different frequency from the other AP and make it back to back to the other AP on the tower.
You can try to repeat that setup putting more such 4 sector combinations on the tower with more frequency spacing so they do not overlap.

So according to this, you can't have sync working on AP's facing the same direction. Which makes the whole idea of sync redundant for me. I mean, in what perfect world are your connections all balanced accross 360 degrees ???!
1. We tried to do it exactly as prescribed by MT. Tower on a hill. Both sides covered with an sector (and thus in opposite direction). Both sectors are separated by at least 2 meters horizontal and also the steel construction is in between. Ono of the sectors is an SXT-ac with shield. The other a Netmetal on a 'Gold' 60 degrees sector.
Clients on one side of the hill have no way of being able to 'see' clients on the other side. The hill is in-between.
The original setup had separated frequencies on both sectors. We made speed test from both sides and noted the speeds.

After that we picked the best frequency of the two and set both sectors to that one and in full sync according Wiki.
Again we took some clients and did speedtests and noted these.
We already saw the CCQ's dropped on most antenas but worse, the speed to each clients for the test was no more then half. Sometimes even less.

Both sectors both have their own router/radio but in transparant bridge mode. Both are part of the same /28 network and both connect to the same Netonix switch that trunks all AP ports towards one port that has a tower router connected for OSPF, routing etc. Si in Neighbour both sectors and even their clients are visible (by mac only. Clients all have PPP tunnels for authentication towards remote PPPoE server.)

In my opinion this would be the best scenario situation for having two back to back connected sectors working in Mikrotik sync. But it doesn't.....

2. We have another vendor system where we have two Omni directional AP's at only 120 meters apart from eachother and working in full synch (GPS)
We only have to make sure CPE's don't see both in their same working beam. It works fine! Very high MCS rates with high PHY rates.
These have other technology but the sync works....

I think MT has to work harder to get it working. At present it doesn't.

Without deep knowledge of the chipset features I guess this will never work very good with HW not designed for sync. At least I would expect a hint from MT which exact HW/Chipset they tested/designed this for (I cant believe this works across all Atheros Chips without adaption). Where is the whitepaper describing the test-setup with results? Dont waste your time ...

WirelessRudy · Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:00 pm

Ok,

So I have had an actual email discussion with an actual Mikrotik agent. Here is his answer:

Hello,

You can look up in Internet how all the frequency re-use plan works.
The CPE should see only the one of the Synced AP - it can't see the other AP otherwise the connection will not work correctly as there will be collisions.
The best plan to have 4 sectors.
The AP to sync with the other AP that are located back to back on the tower so the CPEs would not see the other AP as it is on the other side of the tower.
Then you can put another AP 90 degrees on different frequency from the other AP and make it back to back to the other AP on the tower.
You can try to repeat that setup putting more such 4 sector combinations on the tower with more frequency spacing so they do not overlap.

Only by this last line again it seems Mikrotik takes it for granted we users do their tryouts and testing. Old members on this forum that are regularly posting comments and or failures already knew!

letabawireless · Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:06 pm

Oh yes, and by the way, the sync is done wirelessly, not via layer 2 cable....

letabawireless · Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:37 pm

Oh yes, and by the way, the sync is done wirelessly, not via layer 2 cable....

letabawireless · Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:24 pm

Update from Mikrotik:

Hello,

This is how the wireless sync features are working and there is nothing which could be done to improve the situation.
If you have lot of clients pointing in one direction then the only solution is to use different wireless frequency.

I guess us moving into Mimosa was the right decision in the end.

savage · Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:24 pm

I guess us moving into Mimosa was the right decision in the end.

+1

Love it how mikrotik pretty much just don't care.

2jarek · Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:51 pm

Update from Mikrotik:

Hello,

This is how the wireless sync features are working and there is nothing which could be done to improve the situation.
If you have lot of clients pointing in one direction then the only solution is to use different wireless frequency.

I guess us moving into Mimosa was the right decision in the end.

Man UBNT / Mimosa / Cambium same as mikrotik u cant use sync this way use brain or read UBNT manual. I have meny AirFiber 5x p2p links rly hard use sync sometimes just cant.

Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:01 pm

Update from Mikrotik:

Hello,

This is how the wireless sync features are working and there is nothing which could be done to improve the situation.
If you have lot of clients pointing in one direction then the only solution is to use different wireless frequency.

I guess us moving into Mimosa was the right decision in the end.
Man UBNT / Mimosa / Cambium same as mikrotik u cant use sync this way use brain or read UBNT manual. I have meny AirFiber 5x p2p links rly hard use sync sometimes just cant.

Only part of the truth. Even in the same direction sync helps as it does reduce near channel interference. Of course you cant use the same channel but as wifi-radios are bleeding quite much into the neighboring channels (some vendors take measures to reduce this) you have to separate frequencies quite far depending on TX-Power, channelwidth and antennapattern.

letabawireless · Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:42 am

To me, the whole point would be to manage the airtime, so multiple frequencies, but a big boss decided who gets which time slot overall.

MichaelDP · Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:38 pm

Hi.

I'm new here, and probably in the wrong place, but if someone could please point me in the right direction i'd really appreciate that.
This is my problem:

I set up 2 Mikrotik NetBox's they work perfectly fine, i have stable good connection. I need to add routing to them so i can go from 192.168.6.x range to 192.168.0.x range.
and i've spent 3 days on-line looking for an way to do that, and found nothing that seems relevant. They have Version 6.40.5

Thank you.

Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:21 pm

So another one:

Had to change a wireless setting on an OmnitikAC running 6.40.4 with nv2.
Interface goes into radar detect and finds radar on every single frequency in 5GHz. (Guess what. There is no radar).
Upgrade to 6.40.6 does not help. Downgrade to the latest SW without radar detect = not allowed by ROS.

Disable nv2 for plain 802.11 -> no radar detect

So all connected again. But one station disconnects with extensive data loss

WirelessRudy · Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:44 pm

So another one:

Had to change a wireless setting on an OmnitikAC running 6.40.4 with nv2.
Interface goes into radar detect and finds radar on every single frequency in 5GHz. (Guess what. There is no radar).
Upgrade to 6.40.6 does not help. Downgrade to the latest SW without radar detect = not allowed by ROS.

Disable nv2 for plain 802.11 -> no radar detect

So all connected again. But one station disconnects with extensive data loss

I am running 3 or 4 OmniTik 5 ac now, all on 6.40.5 and fw 3.41 and have no issues...

Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:11 pm

So another one:

Had to change a wireless setting on an OmnitikAC running 6.40.4 with nv2.
Interface goes into radar detect and finds radar on every single frequency in 5GHz. (Guess what. There is no radar).
Upgrade to 6.40.6 does not help. Downgrade to the latest SW without radar detect = not allowed by ROS.

Disable nv2 for plain 802.11 -> no radar detect

So all connected again. But one station disconnects with extensive data loss
I am running 3 or 4 OmniTik 5 ac now, all on 6.40.5 and fw 3.41 and have no issues...

This one had no issues, too. Just enabled access-list and boooom. Looks like the radar event happens as soon as the first cpe connects. Spectrum is quite free there.

n21roadie · Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:26 pm

So another one:

Had to change a wireless setting on an OmnitikAC running 6.40.4 with nv2.
Interface goes into radar detect and finds radar on every single frequency in 5GHz. (Guess what. There is no radar).
Upgrade to 6.40.6 does not help. Downgrade to the latest SW without radar detect = not allowed by ROS.

Disable nv2 for plain 802.11 -> no radar detect

So all connected again. But one station disconnects with extensive data loss

Is that occurring with wireless set to frequency-mode=superchannel ??

Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:47 pm

So another one:

Had to change a wireless setting on an OmnitikAC running 6.40.4 with nv2.
Interface goes into radar detect and finds radar on every single frequency in 5GHz. (Guess what. There is no radar).
Upgrade to 6.40.6 does not help. Downgrade to the latest SW without radar detect = not allowed by ROS.

Disable nv2 for plain 802.11 -> no radar detect

So all connected again. But one station disconnects with extensive data loss
Is that occurring with wireless set to frequency-mode=superchannel ??

Did not test this. Tried to get people online asap.

n21roadie · Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:18 pm

So another one:

Had to change a wireless setting on an OmnitikAC running 6.40.4 with nv2.
Interface goes into radar detect and finds radar on every single frequency in 5GHz. (Guess what. There is no radar).
Upgrade to 6.40.6 does not help. Downgrade to the latest SW without radar detect = not allowed by ROS.

Disable nv2 for plain 802.11 -> no radar detect

So all connected again. But one station disconnects with extensive data loss
Is that occurring with wireless set to frequency-mode=superchannel ??
Did not test this. Tried to get people online asap.

That setting is the quickest way to get clients registered??

Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:25 pm

So another one:

Had to change a wireless setting on an OmnitikAC running 6.40.4 with nv2.
Interface goes into radar detect and finds radar on every single frequency in 5GHz. (Guess what. There is no radar).
Upgrade to 6.40.6 does not help. Downgrade to the latest SW without radar detect = not allowed by ROS.

Disable nv2 for plain 802.11 -> no radar detect

So all connected again. But one station disconnects with extensive data loss
Is that occurring with wireless set to frequency-mode=superchannel ??
Did not test this. Tried to get people online asap.
That setting is the quickest way to get clients registered??

Ah. Ok. Tested. I thought this needs a licence I have to obtain.

WirelessRudy · Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:00 pm

So another one:

Had to change a wireless setting on an OmnitikAC running 6.40.4 with nv2.
Interface goes into radar detect and finds radar on every single frequency in 5GHz. (Guess what. There is no radar).
Upgrade to 6.40.6 does not help. Downgrade to the latest SW without radar detect = not allowed by ROS.

Disable nv2 for plain 802.11 -> no radar detect

So all connected again. But one station disconnects with extensive data loss
Is that occurring with wireless set to frequency-mode=superchannel ??
Did not test this. Tried to get people online asap.
That setting is the quickest way to get clients registered??
Ah. Ok. Tested. I thought this needs a licence I have to obtain.

Wel, let's put it this way; If everybody in the world is going to work according regulatory domain 802.11 based WISP industry would be marginal....

steen · Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:33 am

Hello Folks!

Access point Radar detect in real life:
10:14:55 system,info device changed by admin <---- disable wlan1
10:14:57 system,info device changed by admin <---- enable wlan1
10:15:02 wireless,debug wlan1: must select channel
10:15:02 wireless,debug wlan1: selected channel 5320000
10:15:02 wireless,debug wlan1: search for radars on 5320000
10:16:02 wireless,debug wlan1: no radar detetected, start network

It took about one minute to go on-line.
Maybe I was lucky or something, but this one minute per wireless device has repeated itself all the time when we restart basestations.

But It seems like radar detect is made in sequence for the wlan adapters connected to your base stations.
So it took something like little more than one minute each.
I don't know if it is in parallel on all wlan devices to save tim, at least the log file does not tell that story.

xrayd · Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:23 pm

@WirelessRudy
Please check mikrotik Sync again with NV2 improvements version 6.42.rc49!!!
I'm waiting for your report

Thanks!

WirelessRudy · Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:17 pm

@WirelessRudy
Please check mikrotik Sync again with NV2 improvements version 6.42.rc49!!!
I'm waiting for your report

Thanks!

Well, I am not really enthusiastic in putting a rc version on a production network..... The more since I see that NV2 in PtP setup is having serious problems lately with arm devices.

Just last night we had a link replaced from a QRT-'n' to a Netmetal towards a LHG-XL-ac and Netmetal. We managed to improve the signal from a high -50's to low -50's (better alignment, newer hardware) and by having higher cpu and 802.11-ac on both ends we were expecting higher througputs.
I spend several hours in troubleshooting but in NV2 the link was unstable and best we could transport was 30Mbps. I finally tried nstream and went up to 60-80mbps and as last just set the link to plain 802.11 ac and we run almost 200Mbps!
Excatly the same happened with another link some days ago.

My conclusion: If a link has one arm device in it (Netmet to Netmetal or SXT-HG-ac to SXT-HG-ac or two QRT-ad's) don't seem to have issues. But put a LHG unit on one end and you'll have problems... (even 6.41.3 is not good. Only 6.42rc 28+ seem to work on LHG's. Everything lower is not working for NV2)

I can try overnight on two mipsbe AP's if I am confident I can roll back......

xrayd · Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:51 pm

@WirelessRudy
You have news?

WirelessRudy · Fri Mar 30, 2018 2:29 am

@WirelessRudy
You have news?

I made several posts in several wireless related treads this week. Search for them and you'll find a lot of info.

xrayd · Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:35 pm

posts for SYNC?

Who is online