Community discussions

MUM Europe 2020
 
Montana
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:24 am
Location: Moscow Idaho

Mikrotik VS Trango battle.

Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:52 am

Ok Im so pissed. I have about 300 customers located in a small town. It appears that my competitor got some grant money and now are putting up Trango 5.8 equipment beside my tower site. To date there is about 6 trango AP's and 2 Trango backhauls beside me and it is driving my MT's offline. Is there a way that I can get my 5.8 backhauls to run in this enviroment with out shutting down ? Better yet is there a way to knock his crap off line? I have talked to the idiot and he just laughs and said to bad. All of my equipment is 5.8 for backhauls and 2.4/5.3 for distribution.
 
User avatar
warwick09
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:34 pm
Location: The Bahamas / Florida

Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:58 am

Hmm, quite a common case. Im not certain if there is any action you can take against him with use of the FCC'S fair use policy. (about 60% sure you can do something legally about it) ... if not well you would probably have to change the polarity of your system or ask him to do the same, as it would produce a <30db loss between polarisations resulting in "no interference" so you would once again have "free" spectrum to operate in. If that is not viable then i would suggest channel spacing. Perhaps 10mhz? ... Although not good news by any means, Its just a few suggestions.

Another thing you can do is perhaps emply higher gain antennas which would ergo mean a tighter beamwidth. Example a 32.5dbi with >4(degress both hori and vert)

Ignore the notion that more power is better! (It would only make things worse) - Ya gotta fight smart not dirty :wink:


Btw, im being brevit; im sure many others would aid you 8)

To make a long story short, simply get the higher gain antennas and change the polorization and ignore the idiot.

Ah, when will it stop; umm you can also employ a channel filter to clean things up a bit.

Regards.
 
Montana
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:24 am
Location: Moscow Idaho

Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:35 am

I am currently using 32db antennas. What seems strange is that I must not be causing him interference issues but it sure shuts down a mikrotik system in short order. I could not even find him on a scan session until I used a spectrum analyzer. Why didnt it show up on a MT scan? Is there a way to get one of my cm9's or sr5's to transmitt constantly? Maybe that way I could transmitt out on 5.8 and use a different 5.8 for receiving only. Then maybe I could cut thru his crap.
 
jober
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Louisiana,USA

Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:40 am

If he's going to be a hard ass then go get a trango or motorola bh set and shot it through his tower with a full load for about 3 days. Maybe then he will start playing nice. JJ

I had a lot of problems in New Orleans till I started running the SR5 on 24dbi panel using 10mhz bandwidth. I had 90* sectors before with cm9 cards running at 20mhz bandwidth.
All the Canopy and Trango shit was eating my MT's up. The links never dropped but the speeds would become unusable.
It costs more but I think outdoor wireless systems should be built with more APs and higher gain small beam antennas and run the smaller 5 and 10mhz bandwidth.
 
User avatar
GWISA-Kroonstad
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:34 pm

Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:03 am

Having Same problem in South Africa.

Our Competitor set up Motorolla Canopies in town. It is useless now to use any channel below 11 on 2.4 Ghz. Even with SR2 and 9db HP omni. the problem is not the tower side I believe, but the client side as well. Had to upgrade a few clients to higher gain antennas in order to connect. Quite Disappointing! When is MT gonna support other technologies? Wimax, CDMA etc??? When??????????

By the way, just came back from Lebanon and everyone I spoke to over there is leaving MT only for Backhaul connections and changing to other technologies for DPs. Extremely sad.

To Normunds: If this upsets MT, please remove my post. Don't mean any harm but to encourage MT to concentrate on other than Wifi. Or at least try to present firmware upgrades for the pcmcia or mini-pci radios available worldwide to shift from the wifi bands so that we may move away from interference even to licensed bands.
 
User avatar
dbostrom
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:45 pm

Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:17 pm

It costs more but I think outdoor wireless systems should be built with more APs and higher gain small beam antennas and run the smaller 5 and 10mhz bandwidth.
Similar experience to Jober's, same conclusions. ISM in the U.S. is the "wild west". Louder won't help, but smarts will. We've had very positive results mitigating interference by moving to narrow channels, higher gain, flipped polarity. Narrow is especially helpful; Carrier sense in 802.11 is synthetic so a link with a decent budget won't get fooled into back-off just because it hears a faint "carrier" from another site. Device working a narrow channel can't detect channels using other bandwidths, thus ignores those channels in its own CSMA determinations.

A lot of these problems could be mitigated if manufacturers and operators of 802.11 gear had better understanding about RTS/CTS, physical vs. virtual carrier senses, NAV etc. Unfortunately at this point the layers of mythology surrounding these are apparently too deep to penetrate even with the extensive theoretical and empirical rationale for including these in the highly evolved 802.11 specifications. Hence they're largely missing from the picture, even with some of our favorite vendors.
 
hebeda
newbie
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:12 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:26 pm

its a about timing of the timeslot signals , certain companies have adjusted this signalling to their own needs.

to explain it simple all Accesspoints in the area usually see the traffic of other AP and they handle out time slots between each other to send and receive datapackets ....

certain vendors now change the timing and trivially speaking , their APs send nonstop announcements of datatransmission, leaving all other APs of other vendors in the queue behind ...

its all about OFDM SIFS Time and OFDM Preamble Time - in theory you can kick any AP with the right timing ...

well talk about competition ;)

btw we found out that the timing of mikrotik APs is has also a adjusted timing ;) which leave under certain circumstances other vendor APs behind ...
 
jdmarti1
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:22 pm

Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:59 pm

I would find out what type of grant my competor got. Most of those grants are only for areas that do not have existing broadband. If you can prove you were already in existence when he applied - he would be repaying all of that cash - plus possibly facing criminal charges for fraud. That would shut down his Trango in a heartbeat. I have also heard that Trango does not do well with interference. Maybe an SR5 doing a PtP through his tower back to your "new" locatation will send him packing.
I think my head is gonna explode!!!
 
JR
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:27 am

Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:19 pm

Some vendors also use non-standard center frequencies.

Is it possible to set center freqency with MT? maybe with custom freq license?
 
WildWISP_N2
just joined
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:50 pm

Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:23 pm

Montana,

You won't be able to see the Trango radios at all with MT radios since the Trangos are not using the 802.11A MAC. However, they are occupying the same spectrum and they will give you troubles, as you noted.

This is sheer ISM piracy. It is difficult to deal with people who don't want to play nice. We had a similar experience: a new competitor would put up gear aimed right at our BH links (no reason to do this other than give us troubles) and beam us off the air. Our only quick solution was to change channels or polarities to give us space and then our competitor would occupy that channel. The Trangos have software controlled polarity so it is hard to compete with them if you have to physically rotate and repoint antennas.

Sorry to say, but in the end, the guy with customers on always gets chased out. The new guy has less to lose since he hasn't got down customers.

In our case we found a new way to backhaul to our target area and we left the problem tower.

It is a shame but it seems that all the grant/govt money always seems to go to people like this....
 
babyface
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:22 pm

Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:50 am

We started service in 2004 without supporting of local authorities. Now, with more than 200 customers, the municipal goverment (only for electoral intentions) has supported a big company to make a wireless network in our city.

The company use 2.4 Canopy stuff, so we have a lot of troubles now. The company hasn't contacted with our, simply put their mast in the same frequencies.

We are changing to horizontal polarized infraestructure, because canopy only works in vertical. When I will finish the new network and all our old network will work on 5.8, I'll put two 17 sectors pointing to their masts :evil: . It's incredible the lack of respect of this kind of companies
 
jober
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Louisiana,USA

Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:05 am

Microwave ovens with a wave guide make any network melt down. JJ
:lol:
I was faced with the same problem so I started moving all my customers to 5.8 and added a 2.4 AP to them so I could run a hotspot from all the customers locations. I use rb532's for all customers.
The towers 2.4 antennas are going to 5mhz on 3 channels and the other two 20mhz channels are for the hotspots.

I got to it before the mayor could spend the towers money on something the town already has. I also told her I would go to the new paper and give them a nice story on more city funds going to waist on something thats already being done by a local home town company. And that she wants to give our towns money to an out of town company when the home town company can finish it with or without the towns money.

The free service will be sponsored by local business and then theres the faster paid service and to boot if you are a fixed base wireless or DSL customer of ours, you get a free high speed service use/pass for the hotspot. Next I want to start handing out WiFi VoIP phones to some good customers to play with.

I know this rant really doesn't help you now that your way past that point. But maybe some other wisp's will get on it before they end up like you.

And again, I'm sorry to hear you have this problem.
 
Montana
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Topic Author
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:24 am
Location: Moscow Idaho

Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:34 am

Well things are heating up. I need to know exactly how to take out trango radio. I cant have 300+ customers out of service because of this. If so how! I have looked at "jober's" microwave guide but am not sure that would have any effect on trango 5.8 equipment but it should fry my 2.4 ap's. Can a cm9 ore sr5 be set to continous transmitt? I will be glad to discuss this off post to learn more. Contact me at iguy@hush.ai thanks all for the input.
 
User avatar
jwcn
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1501
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:49 am
Location: Maryland, USA
Contact:

Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:37 am

You're screwed.

Had a similar issue with Trango 900.

The Trango 900 gear would completely knock out my MT/SR9 and Tranzeo 900 gear as soon as it was powered up. Didn't matter what channels what spacing or what polorization. The SR9 and Tranzeo (Zcomax card) lived together without any issue. Trango flat out does not play nice.

So.... I put a Moto Canopy 900 AP next to the Trango and it had the same effect on the Trango - The Canopy AP took out the Trango AP.

Now I use all Moto Canopy for PtMP.

I'm only using MT for backhaul.
 
uldis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 3428
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 2:55 pm

Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:56 am

If you have all mikrotik equipment then you can use the nstreme protocol and use this setting: "disable-csma=yes"
 
User avatar
dbostrom
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:45 pm

Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:48 am

Can a cm9 ore sr5 be set to continous transmitt?
There's always "align" mode. Good for alignment, testing power supplies, heating cans of beans, whatever... :D
 
jober
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Louisiana,USA

Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:32 am

If you have all mikrotik equipment then you can use the nstreme protocol and use this setting: "disable-csma=yes"
Are you sure that will help?

It looks like Motorola built their radios to kill any and all competition. I have to wonder if any of the new WiMax radios will even work in the same area as the Canopy radios.
Someone better do something soon or we will all be using Canopy.
 
babyface
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:22 pm

Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:41 am

Are you sure that will help?
It should do.
 
User avatar
janisk
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 6283
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:46 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:46 pm

have you seen any experiments that will make your statement solid?
 
jober
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Louisiana,USA

Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:20 pm

LOL, I love the word should.

1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.
4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.

Just joking here so please don't get mad.

Anyway, I would try it. It can't hurt anything. Hey if it works then we can all start using it when Canopy comes to town.
 
jober
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 12:16 pm
Location: Louisiana,USA

Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:38 pm

 
User avatar
NathanA
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 801
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 9:01 am

Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:08 pm

Whoa. That second post there scared the crap outta me. I hope that's not indicative of what the average AP would see when using that feature.

-- Nathan
 
babyface
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:22 pm

Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:49 pm

have you seen any experiments that will make your statement solid?
Of course... not :wink:

This is basically the problem with Motorola Canopy, for example. When you use a propietary transmision protocol, your equipment is not 802.11. What happens? You are pure noise at the eyes of usual wireless equipment.

Besides, this companies uses more and more aggresive protocols, destinated to squash the others.

The worst, that WiFi alliance allows this practices and give certifications to this products.
 
boardman
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 260
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:10 pm
Location: Mexico
Contact:

Re:

Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:01 am

We started service in 2004 without supporting of local authorities. Now, with more than 200 customers, the municipal goverment (only for electoral intentions) has supported a big company to make a wireless network in our city.

The company use 2.4 Canopy stuff, so we have a lot of troubles now. The company hasn't contacted with our, simply put their mast in the same frequencies.

We are changing to horizontal polarized infraestructure, because canopy only works in vertical. When I will finish the new network and all our old network will work on 5.8, I'll put two 17 sectors pointing to their masts :evil: . It's incredible the lack of respect of this kind of companies

Get a baseball bat it will "fix" the competitor gear and the competitor itself .... =)
 
User avatar
NetTraptor
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Athens Greece
Contact:

Re: Mikrotik VS Trango battle.

Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:33 pm

I wonder if those devices transmit within legal limits... If they do not, I am sure that you can mention this to your local authorities... I find it hard to believe that a few of those devices can kick you completely out of a mast system. I know of nodes in our community network with a lot more than 6 5GHz IFs, all working with 80cm dishes about 32db, good signals, 1db tx power, at very long distances and with bw throughput at about 35-38Mbit...

Something is not right there and i believe you can do something about it. I also agree that you have to play nice yourself, work smart, with smart techniques and get support from your local regulatory authority. If you find that you can't do the above.... there is a good chance that you have not been good boys your self in the past.

I really sometimes can not understand why those SR5, XR5 are so popular apart from their sensitivity... we only used those on extremely long vital links. Saying this we have very long links (to areas that we do not have access to cables and are very remote) with CM9 and large prime focus dishes.... 2 of those links work great linking 2 remote wireless communities through a site that is 200 meters away from an antenna park :roll:

...scratch.. scratch... y?
 
JR
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:27 am

Re: Mikrotik VS Trango battle.

Thu Sep 27, 2007 11:15 pm

anyone tested the disable-csma as suggested above?
 
kapusta_kiszona
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:48 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Mikrotik VS Trango battle.

Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:00 am

I'm testing on one link in noisy area and it works slightly better.
 
JR
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:27 am

Re: Mikrotik VS Trango battle.

Thu Oct 04, 2007 8:00 pm

I'm testing on one link in noisy area and it works slightly better.
Care to expand on this, many thanks.
 
User avatar
jacoblydon
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Arkansas

Re: Mikrotik VS Trango battle.

Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:19 pm

Has anyone tried new circular polorazation antennea? Works well

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bgpro, gvango and 25 guests