Just wonder know,
when the mirkotik wil support 802.11n wireless card (SR71-5).

I think it may can performance better than the Nstreme Dual...
When ah???

we are still working on that

At least they are working on it!
better than not working on it!

expect some announcements at the MUM in 2 weeks

Hope it can come out very very soon...

Since it's apparent that MikroTik has been working on this for some time and it was demonstrated previously, I'd like to as a few technical questions instead of a "when" question.

First and foremost, does MikroTik have plans to release their own miniPCI card for 802.11n around the same time as the RouterOS support becomes available? Secondly, I've seen mixed reviews as to the benefits for outdoor use, some people say it won't perform any better at long ranges and others argue that it will. In the development of the support for the hardware, what has MikroTik experienced as far as long range performance with 802.11n?

Thanks

I do hope Mikrotik 11n can performance better than other whoever already offered the 11n outdoor bridge.

with only the live test then we can share what's the weakness of it.

Beside this, with only Fast Ethernet that also not sufficient for the LAN connection.
Is possible mikrotik will bundle it with the multi mode fiber interface?

What about Ubiquiti's new SR71-15? I guess they scrapped the SR71-5 because of non-OSS practices of Mikrotik? Will there be support for the 15 anytime soon? I would look for an alternative, but Mikrotik's routerboards and routerOS are just too awesome!

it doesn't matter what cards you name, RouterOS doesn't support _ANY_ 802.11n (MIMO) cards yet.

I really hope to hear the good news ASAP and the routerboard can support by the fiber optic interface.

Wish you all the best...

fiber optic??? we are talking about 802.11n here

What i concern is...
When the wireless card running on 11n...
Then the Ethernet LAN interface should not able to carry more than 100M traffic, then the option is the RB must have Gigabit LAN interface, if it have option to upgrade the Gigabit LAN to be optic interface, then it will more better and can have the LAN surge isolation.

http://www.routerboard.com/comparison.html
Please review specifications for RB 600A

Although I have no idea how this can run int 15.3w allocated for Gigabit POE over datalines.

I don't think that 100 Mbit Ethernet will be the limiting factor with 802.11n radios. At least not this generation of the technology. 100 Mbit Ethernet is full duplex where 802.11 technologies are not full duplex. With a 300 Mbit theoretical limit on air rate for 802.11n cards, the maximum that should be expected would be ~140 Mbit of actual data throughput, but this is 140 Mbit in one direction. Bidirectional data throughput will be ~ 60 Mbit, no where near the 100 Mbit bidirectional rate of 100 Mbit Ethernet.

Furthermore, a fiber interface would be useless for the vast majority of Mikrotik deployments as most people use PoE. I don't think there are any power over fiber injectors on the market at the moment As already mentioned, the RB600A does include gigabit ethernet ports so this would be an option if you think you will have multiple 802.11n radios running full capacity simultaneously. I would love to see Mikrotik go to all gigabit interfaces in the future as it would allow stop frames and other things that are usually Gig-E only features. I'll cross my fingers for the 2009 routerboard releases but I doubt it will happen.

I would like to know as much information as possible about the long distance performance of 802.11n cards as we are looking to deploy several new backbone links later this year and are unsure if there will be any benefits with 802.11n.

You're probably quite right about the POE-part - most installations are base on use of POE these days.

However, the gear we just tested, "Strix Nitro", already maxes-out its Ethernet speed running UDP. With 20 MHz channels we see 100 Mbps half duplex UDP, and with 40 MHz channels we see 100 Mbps full duplex. I assume we would see higher throughput with Gigabit NICs here - but copper then for heavens sake

Tbird,

I will not argue that there are a ton of other providers offering gear that will exceed the 100 Mbps that ethernet can deliver. Strix utilizes primarily 4.9 GHz equipment if I'm thinking of the correct gear and thus it's a non issue for this discussion. I am unaware of any single miniPCI radio that can be installed and utilized in Mikrotik equipment that will exceed the throughput of the ethernet port. The main question here is will 802.11n equipment exceed the ethernet port throughput and from the information I have I would say no. I would love to see some Mikrotik 802.11n data since they have displayed the technology previously and say they are working on having it ready shortly but apparently it's classified information that if they tell you they'll have to kill you or something.

Gigabit copper NICS will require 802.3af which would be welcomed anyway. Sure the PoE costs a bit more but come on Mikrotik, it's 2009 already. We've had gigabit NICs for 5+ years now and you still only have one product that supports gigabit? It would be great to see gigabit interfaces standard on all Mikrotik gear, or at least on the AH series equipment, from this point forward.

Anyone with any information as to the performance of 802.11n technology over long link distances (>30km) please post any information you have. The real question is does it offer any benefits over current 802.11a Turbo offerings or should anyone looking for more throughput look into licensed gear (Trango, Harris Stratex, Dragonwave, etc).

Wrong gear - the one I'm referring to is the Witelcom Strix - and it's Atheros 5GHz. I'm for sure seeing 100 Mbps full duplex, and I'm wondering how much more I would get if the board had gigabit - and it's not MT.

Impressive results, what kind of range are you seeing 100 Mbps throughput? I only hope that Mikrotik can deliver similar results. From the reading I have done on the Ubnt SR71's there aren't very many people seeing the throughput they expected. I'm really surprised you're getting that spectacular of a result with dual polarized antennas since it provides so little diversity, I'd be interested to know how it performs long range since that's where most 802.11n gear falls apart.

Yeah, me too - really curious about the range we will see on these, and hope to test this week. I'll let you know...

Tbird,

please let us know if there is some more info about Strix Nitros.

Regards

Tbird,

please let us know if there is some more info about Strix Nitros.

Regards

Me too. We are also very interested in deploying some of these links but would like to hear a success story first.

Tbird,

please let us know if there is some more info about Strix Nitros.

Regards

Me too. We are also very interested in deploying some of these links but would like to hear a success story first.

Looks like you no longer believe in 802.11n from MT. As we are bound to
ETSI regulations we cant use Nstreme dual (does not work with dfs) and
we have a max of 1W in 5,4GHz Band. 5,8 is not usable (ATPc/DFS2) and
MIMO is not coming.
Its a shame. We max out with 65MBit/s aggregated per link on a 40MHz Channel
with a limited range.
So we're looking for other gear for backhaul too. Looking into Moto PTP600.
Very expensive but promises 300MBit/s aggregated on a 30MHz channel
within regulations (36db in 5,8,Mimo,ATPC,DFS2). So we would save 40MHz
in 5,4 at the towers for 2 additional segments.

MT: Hurry up. We need **speeed** now.

Stefan

I already have docs and files on something you will definitely like, but it's not time yet

I already have docs and files on something you will definitely like, but it's not time yet

We're ordering test-equipment *now* and have a time frame of 2-3 months to install.
We've to order equipment, we've to rent climbers, announce to customers ...
I would like to use MT for this. But what are the arguments to wait for a MT solution.
Mimo is announced for a long time (it's like a running gag), 5,8GHz ETSI is ignored until
now. So what makes me believe that something useful is coming in time?
And when it's coming it still needs a beta/test period.
So if there's something testable please leave me a pm. I sign a NDA and send only to
this thread.

Stefan

I know that everyone needs everything like yesterday, but that's not how it works. 802.11n had multiple Draft standards that are not compatible with each other, and we would like to support also the older draft clients, in addition to also the new draft clients, so this makes things complicated. Did you know that there are already 9 draft standards of this unfinished thing, and not all of them work together?

I know that everyone needs everything like yesterday, but that's not how it works. 802.11n had multiple Draft standards that are not compatible with each other, and we would like to support also the older draft clients, in addition to also the new draft clients, so this makes things complicated. Did you know that there are already 9 draft standards of this unfinished thing, and not all of them work together?

Hi Normis,

I understand this problem. My customers want everything like yesterday too.

But compatibility is not needed in this case. The Moto and other gears for backhaul
arent compatible to anything. They are even not compatible between different
lines of their product.
I want to build fast backhaul links and I buy both sides of the link.
So if you've some incompatible systems running it's ok. Bring it to market
(or at least to me ) and make it compatible some time in the future.

But at this state of information nobody can make a business decicion
other than buy some other gear for this purpose. If you want to keep
people waiting you've to present a testable product or a milestone plan.

Stefan

It's a tough one for MT. Guided by their fundamental dogma of carrier class perfection and encapsulation of all available standards means in this case serious delays of the 802.11n release.
It reminds me of the failure of Wimax to take over the mobile IP world due to lack of standards agreement and too many stakeholders involved with their own ideas and agendas.
Instead settling for fixed, licensed links where of course money will be made but never what was expected and it was those massive, expected revenues that originally set the astronomical cost of the licensed band in many countries.
The trouble is though that access to greater backhaul is becoming easier and cheaper and the demands of the client for more bandwidth more frequent.
You have to roll your eyes when someone who lives miles from the nearest town tries to compare the WISP offering with what their friend has who lives in the city!
9.99$ for 20Mbps - that's what I want here!
WISPs worried about fibre and copper nets creeping further and further into their zones should have reinvested in the same a long time ago.
But nevertheless, maybe MT should choose a draft, select some hardware and roll out some MIMO functionality even if it does go against the grain.
Fowards and backwards compatiblity can surely come at a later date?
I suspect many people want the extra "through the air" capacity but are unable to afford the Alvarion and Motorola price tags or don't really want to introduce other brands into 100% MT networks.
We need 100Mbps full duplex now and so what we are doing is choosing a provider that can offer this.
A few months down the road when MT are doing the same we know that we can always return and try out their solution.

The trouble is though that access to greater backhaul is becoming easier and cheaper

We're getting our Traffic from a housing center. At the moment 2x100MBit FDX. No problem getting 1GBit (just
have to pay an offset. RB1000s autodetection does the rest .
But its a great hassle getting this speed out of the door.

and the demands of the client for more bandwidth more frequent.

Every day. Faster, cheaper, ...
Advertising promises this. You cant buy a magazine without a DSL Advertisement falling out.

You have to roll your eyes when someone who lives miles from the nearest town tries to compare the WISP offering with what their friend has who lives in the city!
9.99$ for 20Mbps - that's what I want here!
WISPs worried about fibre and copper nets creeping further and further into their zones should have reinvested in the same a long time ago.
But nevertheless, maybe MT should choose a draft, select some hardware and roll out some MIMO functionality even if it does go against the grain.
Fowards and backwards compatiblity can surely come at a later date?
I suspect many people want the extra "through the air" capacity but are unable to afford the Alvarion and Motorola price tags or don't really want to introduce other brands into 100% MT networks.

We would want to stick with MT. We've nearly dropped this old Cisco Aironets. We've a mountain of
Tsunami 11a's corroding. We cant get this Buffalos replaced as fast as we like. We love winbox,dude.
So we dont want additional Equipment populizing our net. But we have to offer speed. If you tell a
customer that a tower runs on 30Mbit he looks very irritated. (In the city you can buy 50MBit VDSL
for 50 Euro). So today a pair of new Equipment arrived for testing.

We need 100Mbps full duplex now and so what we are doing is choosing a provider that can offer this.
A few months down the road when MT are doing the same we know that we can always return and try out their solution.

Yes. We need 100MBit FDX now to get the traffic out of the door. Next year we need 200MBit at the
center and shift the 100MBit Equipment one step towards the customer.

Stefan

My question still remain the same...
When the Mikrotik support 11n mimo???

If can, just let the mikrotik have different batch of 11n product, it's ok to me, i think also to others...
At least, there is something new to us...

Try Ubiquity complete solution, it has some bugs but it works. When MT would produce their own mimo minipci card then you should use it; in my opinion MT tries to release a very stable version for mimo; You can use MT for your BS and for backhaule other line of products.

Still waiting...

From what I've read, I don't think the throughput of the ubiquiti wireless n card was all that great. I don't know if it would do much better, if any, than Turbo A.

Try it before argue;

Don't get me wrong, I would like to hear otherwise.

I don't want to make advertise on this forum so if you really want N, don't wait for MT.

I don't want to make advertise on this forum so if you really want N, don't wait for MT.

Would you mind to share with me, how good exactly of the thing you implement now?

Normis: I know that everyone wants something now, yet SR71-15 just isn't ready for use with Routerboards and Mikrotik. But perhaps we are asking the wrong questions. Are there any routing tricks (like Hierarchical Token Bucket or even better, HFSC), or perhaps a way to better utilise existing offerings from Mikrotik, such as a dual Nstream backhaul?

Here's what I use until something better comes along...

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e279/ ... chment.jpg

This is a RB600A with two Ubiquiti XR5 inside an ADI enclosure using a dual polarized 28dbi dish. The config uses a dual Nstream configuration and its purely a WDS bridge. The link pulls about 55Mbit full duplex over a distance of 3 miles - and for the cost, its unbeatable. If you can do better, let me know. I will be testing a Ubiquiti RouterStation Pro with the SR71-15 as soon as its available with the same setup as the Mikrotik backhaul.

I too am waiting for Mikrotik to release not only the 'n' drivers but also the finalized new Nstreme version.

For the most part I am getting by with the dual-nstreme and turbo for now, its not as efficient as I would like but it is flexible.
On a side note I just finished testing a pair LiteStation-SR71 with SR71-A radios from Ubiquiti (I have one link that I absolutely need to upgrade). From RB433AH/Litestation to Litestation/RB433AH I achieved ~140 Mbps aggregate TCP (RouterOS Bandwidth test) in their 5 GHz 300 Mbps mode, 300ft 19 dBi Dual-Pol Ant, radio power was turned all the way down.

I will wait on Mikrotik for most of my major backhauls, but in the meantime I was impressed with the speeds I attained form the cheap Litestations.

Cheers

I don't want to be a MT's lawyer, but it's useless to blame them for 802.11n delaying.
There is still no 802.11n finalized and approved, and as far as I know it's expected to happen in Q1/2010.
I think it's preferable to roll-out a product which is based on a standard and not on drafts.
WiMax is a good example for this, as maxster said.

To be honest, I'm a little bit suspicious of real performance of 802.11n equipment which is currently on the market.
The big question here is what does it mean 100/200/300 Mbps throughput?
At 802.11n we have up to 25% MAC overhead, so 100 Mbps on layer 2 is not like 100 Mbps on higher layers.
The other thing I'm worried about is the CPU performance of the devices.
802.11n requires a serious computing power for calculating multi-paths, wave phases, error checking, transmit power adjustment, etc.
I mean, it is quite different if we measure throughput by the bandwidth-test tool, by file transfer, or we have 100 Mbps torrent traffic from 20 different clients.

Finally, let people who already have experience with 802.11n equipment, share what they get as results in 'real live'.
Since we still have no MT's device, we have to patch the things up with other suppliers' products.

What I want to know, and this may be a silly question, is since SR71-A and 12 support a/b/g/n, can we use these cards in B or G until we get an n update...?

Above question - YES

Without getting too specific, all N based equipment is backward compatible with wiffie equipment as long as the spectrum is supported. For example "N" based 5GHz will only support A stuff, and "N" based 2.4GHz will only support B/G stuff, but "N" based full will support A/B/G/N

Firetide just released an N mesh node. They make no mention of range, noise immunity, or anything other than they achieve "400Mbps".

Of course they had to use a pre N guess at final protocol.

In looking for benchmark testing on N there is just nothing. The only test that seemed even remotely applicable was one from Tom's Guide http://www.tomsguide.com/us/draft-11n-r ... w-724.html . Given that nothing has really changed since this article was written.

N certainly has some value in outdoor wireless, particularly if you can leverage MIMO and beamforming in point to multipoint with lots of changing multipath. But channel bonding is pretty much useless, and as pointed out, the marginal improvement in throughput over standard OFDM operation for outdoor applications is hardly worth the effort.

Read the article...

Firetide just released an N mesh node. They make no mention of range, noise immunity, or anything other than they achieve "400Mbps".

Of course they had to use a pre N guess at final protocol.

In looking for benchmark testing on N there is just nothing. The only test that seemed even remotely applicable was one from Tom's Guide http://www.tomsguide.com/us/draft-11n-r ... w-724.html . Given that nothing has really changed since this article was written.

N certainly has some value in outdoor wireless, particularly if you can leverage MIMO and beamforming in point to multipoint with lots of changing multipath. But channel bonding is pretty much useless, and as pointed out, the marginal improvement in throughput over standard OFDM operation for outdoor applications is hardly worth the effort.

Read the article...

There are software defined expensive radios out there which definitifly get more
bandwith out of less frequency space using mimo. Not sure these cheap mpci
cards from Broadcom/Atheros/... will do the trick but I expect some improvements.

Stefan

I loged to forum yesterday night and I found this:
"mini-pci 802.11n mikrotik " by GERRYNET

and i said: Oh my loard...............................

Yes, yes yes.. It is true !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

check it out.................

for all of those that were wondering,i've tested Ubiquiti's SR71A card with Mikrotik and they worked.I upgraded to the latest version 4 beta 3.0 and updated license key as well as upgraded the boards BIOS.Mikrotik detected the cards and pronto,there was a wirelessN link between the two boards.

I've also been testing with some cheap $40 AUD TP-Link 802.11n cards I picked up a while ago.

I've posted details here - http://www.air-stream.org.au/blog/omega ... -and-cards

Could someone give here a performance test of the SR71-5 on 2x MT x86?
Thanks!

I'm gonna get a couple of these sr71-15 and test them with my dual polarized 28db dish link @ 2.6 miles

If this doesn't work, then i guess its back to ebay bargain hunting for old 100mbit Terabeam FSO equipment

i have Mikrotik ROS 3.20 on RB600A. I plug the SR71-15 in and... nothing.

Upgraded to ROS 3.27... nothing

i have Mikrotik ROS 3.20 on RB600A. I plug the SR71-15 in and... nothing.

Upgraded to ROS 3.27... nothing

Dude...did you not read any of these posts...You need to upgrade to ROS 4b3 to support mimo.

Sorry i was dehydrated in 115 degree weather - im in the desert

Upgraded to ROS 4.0 beta 3... nothing

I mean, unless i'm missing something, the SUPPORTED Mikrotik r52n uses AR9220 - same as the UNSUPPORTED UbiQuiti SR71-15? Can someone say vendor lock-in?

... and then ... click the "update key button in winbox"

Reseated card... nothing
Setup other RB600A with ROS 4.0 beta 3 and reseated card... nothing

So, I have a few choices.

* Get a couple of R52n and matching pigtails, hotglue the u.fl. connector to the card, and have them die on me.
* Switch my backhaul equipment to UbiQuiti or ADI Single Board Computers and use the SR71-15 cards.
* Backhaul my DS3 using Free Space Optics.

Once i bought a few hundred cards and they came in this nifty box with an individual slot for each card.
Half the cards were DOA and the other half died out.
The cards were r52 b/g cards at $100 per card. Maybe it was the StarOS / Geode PC SBC?

Mikrotik has fantastic RouterBoard and ROS. Little help here?

did you, or did you not update the key to the new format?

Reseated card... nothing
Setup other RB600A with ROS 4.0 beta 3 and reseated card... nothing

So, I have a few choices.

I suggest this one:

* Read and follow the instructions

bottom here : http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/All_about ... bol_SoftID

Any ideas? What would you guys recommend?

HA! i can route, but i can't see the bottom of the page that says "go to page two of the post"

Sorry!

So...

I upgraded to ROS 4.0 beta 4...

Normis you are a genius - and i think i will replace my avatar with a mule's ass

Thanks for being so patient with me!

OK, so i know that ROS 4 b4 (Thanks again, Normis! ) is in beta, but i do need some help.

* I can't use the align feature with SR71-15 ???
* My Tx/Rx CCQ is holding steady at 113/113 % ???

Now I did notice that i'm spending more time at higher bitrates than before.

* P Throughput is at 23893 kbps which is 2X better than 5GHz A
* Signal to noise is 40-41 dB which is 2X better than 5GHz A

I'm pretty sure that i don't have line of sight, but i'll try to remedy this with slightly taller dish mounts.
The link is 2.7 miles according to daftlogic's google maps distance calculator.

I'm really hoping that i can get 100 Mbps across this link, because the alternative will be to pay AT&T $40K to run two DS3 lines to my current location.

FYI i did get 100 Mbps at 0.5 mile link with line-of-sight and best guess aiming.
These RB600A are definitely professional grade.

** NOTE **
In order to use N mode, the "Data Rates" tab must be set to "configured" with NONE of the boxes checked. I beat myself up for an hour trying to figure that out. The "HT MCS" is the new data rates tab.

OK i figured it out.

In my settings on the alignment test, i had the "Filter MAC Address" set to the old XR5 MAC, changed to new SR71-15 MAC and everything works.

Also, the HT Chain 0 or Chain 1 refers to the two antennas on the card. It may be desirable (duh) to use separate antennas for Tx and Rx using a dual polarized dish. So the Rx Chain (Polarization) of "Site A" should match the Tx Chain (Polarization) of "Site B." For example:

If VPol (Chain 0) is set to Tx at Site A, then VPol (Chain 0) needs to be set to Rx at Site B
If HPol (Chain 1) is set to Rx at Site A, then HPol (Chain 1) needs to be set to Tx at Site B

There is a "Turbo" mode as well. The HT Extension Channel will use an additional 20 MHz above or below whatever the set Frequency is used. In my opinion, "Turbo N" sucks just like "Turbo A" at longer distances unless there is a clean LOS between the two points.

"Turbo N" sucks just like "Turbo A" at longer distances unless there is a clean LOS between the two points.

I don't agree with that. I find that even in weak signal situations, turbo is sometimes better than regular. You won't know until you try in each situation.

I don't agree with that. I find that even in weak signal situations, turbo is sometimes better than regular. You won't know until you try in each situation.

I'm open to any info about how you get turbo to work better than regular, maybe i'm missing something? Maybe i should raise my noise floor levels? I would really appreciate any useful information. Thanks!

Well i guess this is the end of the thread, everything is verified operational for the SR71-15, which is the repalcement for the abandoned SR71-5. A short link of 1/2 mile @ 100MBit TCP was established and verified by me, the CPU load never reached 100% on a pair of RB600A using ROS 4 b4 with SR71-15 cards using 28db dual polarized dish, LMR400 cable, and ADI AE-1 enclosures, using old PrimeStar roof mounts.

Ground your Antennas!