Community discussions

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 19
 
fly
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:56 pm
Location: Italy

Re: 802.11n

Fri May 29, 2009 3:08 pm

Nstreme enabled!!!
Big!

Are you running a UBNT card... SR71-A?
Link distance?
Number of antennas: x2 or x3?
Yes, UBNT SR71-A, I'm waiting for R52N...
2 antennas, 100m.
 
triztrz
just joined
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: 802.11n

Fri May 29, 2009 3:21 pm

something weird...

the 2 card i purchase yesterday.. still dont show at wireless interface..
and today i go to purchase another one with.. same series TL-WN851N .. and it's detected....
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Topic Author
Posts: 24048
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: 802.11n

Fri May 29, 2009 3:24 pm

if not detected, email support the supout.rif file
No answer to your question? How to write posts
 
und3ath
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:01 pm

Re: 802.11n

Fri May 29, 2009 4:09 pm

But I can see big differences with and without.
More bandwidth, more stability... just like a 802.11a link.
RB411AH has 100mbit fdx ethernet..... how possible >180 mbit/s in UDP ????


because he is testing wireless to wireless :)
 
ste
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:21 pm

Re: 802.11n

Fri May 29, 2009 4:10 pm

But I can see big differences with and without.
More bandwidth, more stability... just like a 802.11a link.
RB411AH has 100mbit fdx ethernet..... how possible >180 mbit/s in UDP ????
He does not test Ethernet.

Stefan
 
tyronzn
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 4:55 pm
Location: Durban,South Africa
Contact:

Re: 802.11n

Fri May 29, 2009 4:37 pm

Nstreme enabled!!!
Big!

Are you running a UBNT card... SR71-A?
Link distance?
Number of antennas: x2 or x3?
+- 700 meters using the UBNT SR71A cards.I used two antennas either side,to be more technical i was using a dual polarized panel antenna meaning it had two connectors on it which in turn had to pig tails plugged into either card.I've also
tested the Compex WLM200NX in RouterOS which works.
 
uldis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Posts: 3424
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 2:55 pm

Re: 802.11n

Fri May 29, 2009 5:52 pm

The current nstreme implementation isn't so stable that's why we are not recomending to use it. As soon as we will fix it we will announce it.
 
Gerard
Trainer
Trainer
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:21 am
Location: Kentucky, USA
Contact:

Re: 802.11n

Fri May 29, 2009 6:09 pm

yay!

We just got our shipment R52N's and R2N's.. I'm about to try 2 mile link with dual pol arc panels. I'll post back my results..

Gerard
Certified Mikrotik Trainer
 
frontiersteve
newbie
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:17 am

Re: 802.11n

Fri May 29, 2009 7:15 pm

This may not be the place to make a board suggestion, but it would be nice to have a gigE port option on 400 series routers for the 802.11n that is now supported. :D
 
mp3turbo
just joined
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: 802.11n

Fri May 29, 2009 9:27 pm

Gerard, together with your 802.11n result please post maximum speeds and distances you were able to reach with standard 802.11a. This will give us little bit overview about your wireless skills, not to sound offending. I mean this seriously, in a good way.

Because there are many people here on this board who are unable to pass 20Mbit+ wireless throughput. And I don't consider any new-technology results from them to be of any importance. You know what I mean... Once again, I don't want to sound rude or rough...


edit : you are certified Mikrotik guy and I expect nothing just excellent results. My hopes are really really high, we need fast and I mean really fast wireless technology like a salt. Technical advancements of 802.11n, specifically speaking more subcarriers, forward error correction 5/6 instead of 3/4, lower MAC overhead and shorter guard interval should bring approx. 50% more real performance compared to 802.11a. I'm eagerly waiting for any real-world results and I'm not talking about "in my home, I achieved...", that's not interesting for me. Your 2 mile shot will be the first posted here I guess...
 
User avatar
omega-00
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:54 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: 802.11n

Sat May 30, 2009 7:22 pm

But I can see big differences with and without.
More bandwidth, more stability... just like a 802.11a link.
RB411AH has 100mbit fdx ethernet..... how possible >180 mbit/s in UDP ????
He's doing the test between the units themselves, not between computers on each end.
 
angboontiong
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1115
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:59 am

Re: 802.11n

Sun May 31, 2009 10:40 am

possible to post the test result with only tcp traffic as well the ping time during the testing period.
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Topic Author
Posts: 24048
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: 802.11n

Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:54 am

This may not be the place to make a board suggestion, but it would be nice to have a gigE port option on 400 series routers for the 802.11n that is now supported. :D
that's why we make the RB600
No answer to your question? How to write posts
 
xezen
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 10:23 am
Location: South Africa

Re: 802.11n

Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:16 am

but the rb600 is a waste if you have 3 pc on it
thats why the request is for the rb400

to much power for what it is used for?
If i dont No Ask someone That Does!
 
User avatar
normis
MikroTik Support
MikroTik Support
Topic Author
Posts: 24048
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 11:04 am
Location: Riga, Latvia

Re: 802.11n

Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:17 am

so the only problem with RB600 is that it has 4 miniPCI slots insteads of 3 ? :)

we can't make a specific device for each customer needs, it's very hard to make everyone happy.
No answer to your question? How to write posts
 
xezen
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 10:23 am
Location: South Africa

Re: 802.11n

Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:21 am

thats true!
If i dont No Ask someone That Does!
 
xezen
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 10:23 am
Location: South Africa

Re: 802.11n

Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:22 am

does anyone have information on the antennas that were used on the tests?


so we can look at the hardwer side of things?
If i dont No Ask someone That Does!
 
und3ath
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:01 pm

Re: 802.11n

Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:30 pm

so the only problem with RB600 is that it has 4 miniPCI slots insteads of 3 ? :)

we can't make a specific device for each customer needs, it's very hard to make everyone happy.

I think he thought, that it is a waste of RB600 power because of 3 LAN connected PCs :)
 
danletkeman
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:42 pm

Re: 802.11n

Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:35 am

An RB411AH "G" would be nice because we would not need to replace all of our existing enclosures. We are using them mostly for backhaul's and only need one card anyway.
 
Qusay
newbie
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 2:49 pm

Re: 802.11n

Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:06 am

RB433AH-Gigae thernet

I agree .....
 
complete2006
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:18 pm

Re: 802.11n

Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:05 pm

Yes. Same board size but with GBit. RB600 is to big to fit in the Mars antennas.
 
karyal
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:09 pm

Re: 802.11n

Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm

This may not be the place to make a board suggestion, but it would be nice to have a gigE port option on 400 series routers for the 802.11n that is now supported. :D
that's why we make the RB600
Normis, isn't the RB433AH supposed to have a faster cpu then the RB600? generally speaking my experience is we can achieve much better throughput using 433AH than RB600 (i got no more than 52/56 mpbs TCP on RB600, but up to 72 with RV433AH), on exactly the same configuration, and i guess this is related to a faster cpu.. I'm afraid that with more traffic handled by the radio the RB cpu will be the bottleneck.
And of course the board size of a 433AH is quite an advantage over RB600, not to mention it's quite cheaper.
I would love an RB443AH with gigabit ethernet too, and i agree with the collegue who asked MT to think about it.
A quick possible solution for us with 433AH may be "simply" LAG bonding the two (or three) FE interfaces on the board.
 
mp3turbo
just joined
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: 802.11n

Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:12 pm

gentlemen, could we please DEVOTE this topic to 802.11n achievements? General talk about gigabit interfaces and sizes of board does not belong here.


I will kindly ask anybody with real-world 802.11n results to post their performance. I'm eagerly waiting delivery of my cards which has been postponed AGAIN :(
 
karyal
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:09 pm

Re: 802.11n

Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:34 pm

gentlemen, could we please DEVOTE this topic to 802.11n achievements? General talk about gigabit interfaces and sizes of board does not belong here.
I agree with you on the "size", but not on the interfaces part.
I think that having 802.11n being able to run at 200/300Mbps on the air is great, but actually being able to use that 200/300mbps is part of the "achievement" we are all asking to 802.11n, as btw having 802.11n being able to run stable with nstreme (if 802.11n behaves the same as 802.11a) is quite vital on long distance links :D you can hardly run a 20km link at full speed with nstreme turned off (while it quite surely would work at 100mt)

Strictly speaking though, my question is: is the RB600 cpu fast enough to take full advantage of 802.11n or do we need something faster like an RB433AH?

Thanks,
Ricky
 
User avatar
kapulan
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:48 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: 802.11n

Tue Jun 02, 2009 7:24 pm

Supported the SR71-A card the beta3? I test this card demo beta3 and not show the interface list.
 
mp3turbo
just joined
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: 802.11n

Tue Jun 02, 2009 7:49 pm

karyal, my remarks:

- forget about 300Mbps in air, we will consider ourselves unbelievably lucky with ~130Mbps on 40MHz channel

- I fully agree with you that you have to supply enough data for such speeds : you know for sure that you need gigabit interface. Still I believe that whether CPU of routerboard XY is strong enough or not does not belong to this topic, feel free to open your own topic and discuss cpu strength, connection tracking, routing/bridging and other performance topics there.

I don't want to sound rude, but this discussion is getting definitely out of "802.11n" name it has in subject. In a moment, we will be discussing whether ConnTrack should be off and what is the performance hit, number of packets that can go thru routerboard AB and XY and similar chapters that have NOTHING IN COMMON with 802.11n.

Please keep this topic PURELY 802.11n related. You know for sure you need a lot of power, so buy dualcore x86 platform and it will be sufficient to supply data needed for 802.11n. Nobody knows for sure now if those small underpowered soap-boxes can supply it and no one tried it in real world already. You can't use x86? So wait please until somebody performs thorough test or do it yourself and post results in separate thread.

802.11n only here, please. No routerboard discussion. No packets per second, no power supply issues... etc. Let's have at least one topic FOCUSED.
 
magnavox
Member
Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:03 pm

Re: 802.11n

Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:44 pm

Supported the SR71-A card the beta3? I test this card demo beta3 and not show the interface list.
If you use Routerboard, update all: licence key and Routerboard BIOS. ;)
Best Regards...
 
karyal
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:09 pm

Re: 802.11n

Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:53 pm

mp3turbo, i don't want to sound rude either, i agree with you that is a good thing to stay on-topic, but please note this is a RouterOS Wireless Networking Section, on Mikrotik forum, where some started the topic mentioning
"I would be great if the first people to test the new 802.11n support in RouterOS v4 beta 3 would post their experiences here in this thread."

It sounds to me a pretty clear message of "use 802.11n on Routeros, and hardware supporting it, and test how it is".
No strict 802.11n design or theory, this is no IEEE forum, is Mikrotik.. is about how fast is 802.11n running on Mikrotik, is how fast can 802.11n run on Routerboard or MT supported hardware.. i guess that most of the people (here) don't really care too much if 802.11n runs unbelievably fast on any platform that is not MT and ROS related, and if i want to do my part in testing "the new 802.11n support in RouterOS v4 beta 3" and "post my experience here", i would like to do that by knowing, once i get my hands on the new MT radios, which RB is better to use (or not to use), and report back to MT :D
 
mp3turbo
just joined
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: 802.11n

Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:38 pm

ok, I give up. I agree with you: "It sounds to me a pretty clear message of "use 802.11n on Routeros, and hardware supporting it, and test how it is"...

so it should look like:

- I achieved 120Mbps, 2x mikrotik r52n cards, 4 miles distance, 2x 26dB antennas, -70dB rx/tx reported signal, Canada Ontario rural environment, RB433AH on one side, RB600 on second side, 5480MHz, MCS7, testing wireless to wireless Tcp only (no real data, no computers available behind both routers)


or something like that. This topic should not look like how it looks now:

- "please please can we have gigabit interface on RB433xxx"...
- "we need small gigabit rb600xxx"
- "it's not possible to put XXXX into antenna YYYY"

such messages have NOTHING in common with 802.11n.
 
ihernandez
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:18 pm

Re: 802.11n

Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:36 pm

Hello, I would like to know if I can use this cards with external dish antennas for point to point links
Regards,
Ignacio
 
ste
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:21 pm

Re: 802.11n

Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:57 pm

Hello, I would like to know if I can use this cards with external dish antennas for point to point links
Why not? As I've learned max separation should be achieved. So use one H and one V-Pol and
separate them.

Stefan
 
User avatar
infowest
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:46 am

Re: 802.11n

Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:23 pm

Has anyone tried this with a dual-polarity dish? Any real benefit/cost doing it that way vs using two separate antennas?

Randy
 
jmpiorno
just joined
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:00 pm

Re: 802.11n

Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:05 pm

Hello friends
Someone has tried 802.11n for multi-point links? without line of sight? that results obtained?
 
phendry
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 4:42 pm

Re: 802.11n

Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:52 pm

Has anyone tried this with a dual-polarity dish? Any real benefit/cost doing it that way vs using two separate antennas?

Randy
Hoping to on a 10km link next week with Dual-pol MTi but still waiting for the R52N's too arrive.
 
jsuter
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:36 am
Location: Grapeland, TX

Re: 802.11n

Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:53 pm

such messages have NOTHING in common with 802.11n.
You've had absolutely nothing to add to this thread concerning your own performance results. Where are YOUR benchmarks?

If you want to control how the content is delivered to you I suggest hiring a consulting firm to type you up a report on how Mikrotik's 11n works for them. It'll actually give you the right to dictate how the information is handed to you.

Otherwise - feel free quit whining about the FREE information you're receiving from this forum. If the post doesn't have info you want, simply skip over it. When there's actually *real* information worth posting it'll get posted in the WIKI.
 
xezen
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 10:23 am
Location: South Africa

Re: 802.11n

Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:51 am

such messages have NOTHING in common with 802.11n.
You've had absolutely nothing to add to this thread concerning your own performance results. Where are YOUR benchmarks?

If you want to control how the content is delivered to you I suggest hiring a consulting firm to type you up a report on how Mikrotik's 11n works for them. It'll actually give you the right to dictate how the information is handed to you.

Otherwise - feel free quit whining about the FREE information you're receiving from this forum. If the post doesn't have info you want, simply skip over it. When there's actually *real* information worth posting it'll get posted in the WIKI.
thats true but many people cant just get the stuff in two min
example tplink n card has been out for some time and im still waiting

n has just come out from mikrotik and i must still wait 4 week to get one so someone like me
cant put down information on this thats why becouse i have nothing to play with

thats why outher topics come up
becouse we cant talk about the real topic but we can give ideas to improve the topic with the information we have read on the form and the wiki
becouse thats the point to the form right
help others improve on it (MK Team)
and others fix problems
If i dont No Ask someone That Does!
 
karyal
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:09 pm

Re: 802.11n

Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:43 pm

Just spent some hours testing the new radios (r52n)

Single radio setup, dual antennas, cross polarized, rb433AH, 5ghz, nstream enabled

Tried to show as many details as possible.

Udp tx test from board to board
testn2.JPG
UDP rx test, board to board
test-n3b.jpg
UDP full duplex test
test-n4b.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
karyal
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:09 pm

Re: 802.11n

Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:56 pm

full duplex UDP traffic generated from external boards
test-n5-100mbit-offboard.JPG
A couple of notes... tried to load balance the traffic, on external boards, by bonding two ethernet and avoiding the single ethernet 100mbps limit of FE.
Traffic gets balanced equally, but still tops at 100mbps total.. don't know if it's a bug or simply me not being able to configure bonding right on MT/MT setup. I usually configured LAG by port aggregation on the switch + device, this time i had no switch, so u isued bonding rr.

Nstream seems to be stable, but TCP traffic performance is not exciting as UDP ones.
Topped at 78/80 Mbps HDX no matter of the boards, way we measured and setup..
Seems no real gain compared to traditional 802.11a turbo
Will test at longer distance (15Km) next week.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
 
User avatar
infowest
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:46 am

Re: 802.11n

Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:21 pm

Thanks for the tests. What were your HT settings?
 
karyal
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:09 pm

Re: 802.11n

Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:25 pm

Thanks for the tests. What were your HT settings?
AMPDU: All selected
HT Extension Channel: Above Control
HT TX/RX Chains: 0 1
 
meshnet
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:57 pm

Re: 802.11n

Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:01 pm

Were these at any kind of distance?
Tested indoors, outdoors?

Thanks,
Richard
 
karyal
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:09 pm

Re: 802.11n

Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:09 pm

Were these at any kind of distance?
Tested indoors, outdoors?

Thanks,
Richard
We tested at short distance, tried with both panels and mini-omni. same results.
I was quite interested to see the max speed that could be reached in an ideal environment to move later on a bigger distance and see the impact, and was interested in checking how stable was nstream + n.
It seems to be stable indeed, we had the boards running for all the afternoon without a single problem or link drop.
I feel that much of the advantage on speed is because of signal rebuild that is done.
I don't know how much it can be seen by the screenshots, but CPU power on the receiving side is still quite high, much higher than plain 5ghz... guess it may be because of the cpu working on signals.
 
User avatar
kapulan
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:48 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: 802.11n

Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:39 pm

full duplex UDP traffic generated from external boards
test-n5-100mbit-offboard.JPG
A couple of notes... tried to load balance the traffic, on external boards, by bonding two ethernet and avoiding the single ethernet 100mbps limit of FE.
Traffic gets balanced equally, but still tops at 100mbps total.. don't know if it's a bug or simply me not being able to configure bonding right on MT/MT setup. I usually configured LAG by port aggregation on the switch + device, this time i had no switch, so u isued bonding rr.

Nstream seems to be stable, but TCP traffic performance is not exciting as UDP ones.
Topped at 78/80 Mbps HDX no matter of the boards, way we measured and setup..
Seems no real gain compared to traditional 802.11a turbo
Will test at longer distance (15Km) next week.

Nice speed with udp.You can running the test with tcp packet?Please paste the resoult.
Mt support: The "n" mode support x86 system with minipci to pci card,or only routerboard platform?
 
karyal
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:09 pm

Re: 802.11n

Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:52 pm

Nice speed with udp.You can running the test with tcp packet?Please paste the resoult.
I already posted the results with TCP :D
Nstream seems to be stable, but TCP traffic performance is not exciting as UDP ones.
Topped at 78/80 Mbps HDX no matter of the boards, way we measured and setup..
 
flavio
just joined
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:56 pm

Re: 802.11n

Sat Jun 06, 2009 6:15 pm

Hi,
If I have only one 5 Ghz channel available e one antenna each side, can I make a 802.11n link (8 km)? Expected performance of this link? Thanks.
 
User avatar
roc-noc.com
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 869
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:27 am
Location: Rockford, IL USA
Contact:

Re: 802.11n

Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:31 am

My Mikrotik "n" cards are arriving on Monday so I have not actually tested this yet. But I believe you will not see any improvement over 802.11a with this link. You need at least two antennas at each end for mimo (n).

Tom
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.roc-noc.com
Tom, CCNA, ISP, USA Mikrotik Distributor
888-762-5662
-----------------------------------------------
 
Casket
just joined
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:14 am

Re: 802.11n

Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:20 am

Advantages and disadvantages of dual polarized vs. two separate antennas each end? in ptp.
 
jsuter
Frequent Visitor
Frequent Visitor
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:36 am
Location: Grapeland, TX

Re: 802.11n

Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:39 am

My Mikrotik "n" cards are arriving on Monday so I have not actually tested this yet. But I believe you will not see any improvement over 802.11a with this link. You need at least two antennas at each end for mimo (n).

Tom
MIMO exists to lower effective EVM and other distortions. Technically MIMO is (now, at least in the newer drafts) part of the pre-standard but its not actually required for an 11n link (at least at HT20 rates). It sounds like (BUT I HAVE NO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE YET) it requires 2 antennas to run HT40 rates, but that's a limitation of Atheros's chipset, not the protocol itself.

I'll be ordering some 11n cards from you in the next few days. I want to test the 11G MIMO modes for some APs. I've also read the AR71xx platform (the RB400-series CPU) was designed for Atheros's 11N cards, and actually requires kernel hacks to work around bus errors to support the AR5xxx series radio chipsets. If this is true, I suspect switching my busy+crashy RB433H sites over ASAP.
 
xezen
Long time Member
Long time Member
Posts: 628
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 10:23 am
Location: South Africa

karyal

Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:56 pm

can you please send more information on the anttenna that you used were thay boght or home made?
If i dont No Ask someone That Does!
 
karyal
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:09 pm

Re: karyal

Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:26 am

can you please send more information on the anttenna that you used were thay boght or home made?
Bought (Elboxrf)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 19

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests