Wow a perfect copy of mikrotik LHG 60 with integrated 5 Ghz backup there are no more info about specs

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1439/1 ... 1566495874

From their webpage source - also twice as expensive, 299$ for a single unit.

Why does that look like some sort of render and not an actual photo?

雷竞技网站Mikrotik能够to sell this units with 5 ghz Backup for the same price, but they don't listen to the market
5 Ghz Backup why?

The MIkrotik PCB is actually 5GHz ready, just chips are not soldered in. They must have though about it being important enough to implement it, but then it never made it into final version (why? regulation? compliance tests?). Now Ubiquity have a product with a feature MIkrotik doesn't have... it's time to wake up and release 60+5GHz hardware.

The MIkrotik PCB is actually 5GHz ready, just chips are not soldered in. They must have though about it being important enough to implement it, but then it never made it into final version (why? regulation? compliance tests?). Now Ubiquity have a product with a feature MIkrotik doesn't have... it's time to wake up and release 60+5GHz hardware.

LOL, it will take 5 years.....

It has 1 Ghz channel so this double the number of the usable channels and maybe the narrow channel allows longer or more stable links

having 1GHz channel width reduces the available bandwidth greatly. and it is also not compliant to the original WiGiG standard. so it is a vendor lock for sure. there's a reason why 60GHz gear is so low-power: with this amount of wireless spectrum available in a single channel you don't need no complex modulation to have high throughput. if you just have 1GHz instead of 2GHz, the same MCS will lose at least half of the available bandwidth - and speaking of more narrow channels you'll also sacrifice some valuable spectrum for channel isolation.

the nature of signal propagation in the v-band does a very good job of mitigating interference from neighbouring radios, so even a single-frequency-network is possible - so a mesh network with just a single channel used on all (100+) radios. if you use multiple channels, even in the EU you're free to use 4 of them. so i don't really see how an 1GHz channel BW would do any good. but i am not a wireless guy.

btw, the UBNT stuff has GPS and therefore it does TDD/TDMA, which can deliver a better media access control, compared to the regular CSMA/CA in 802.11ad. but this comes at a price.
i don't really understand however, why they have this on a P2P unit. you can easily have TDD media access on a P2P just by using wireless synchronisation. the GPS based stuff only excels in multipoint scenarios...

...
i don't really understand however, why they have this on a P2P unit. you can easily have TDD media access on a P2P just by using wireless synchronisation. the GPS based stuff only excels in multipoint scenarios...

GPS sells. It is one of the "magic bullets". And maybe they are planning a P2MP scenario with these devices as clients.

i don't really understand however, why they have this on a P2P unit.

When you have links in many directions from a single tower, it is an advantage when you can synchronize them for transmit/receive so the link in another direction does not transmit over the remote station you are trying to receive.
(isolation between antennas on a single tower is not perfect)

having 1GHz channel width reduces the available bandwidth greatly. and it is also not compliant to the original WiGiG standard. so it is a vendor lock for sure. ..

No we need narower channels because of cheap antena desing. On one pole u cant use same channels...antennas can see each other..the direction of the antenna doesnt matter. If u are so close signal can pass througt grid. With proper antenna yes, 4x 2GHz channel is not problem (same on e band radios) With cheap anntena it is problem. I like to have option for 500MHz, 1GHz and 2GHz channel....at 2,16GHz channel LHG60 is connected at 2.3Gbps, so on 1GHz channel we have about 1,064 Gbps and for 500MHz channel 532Mbit. For a lot of purposes is it still more than enough, like connecting some ptp customer or camera system - 500MHz is the sweetspot for this. 1GHz for multiple ptp links on one pole. 2,16GHz wide channel is just waste of 60Ghz band.
66GHz channel on mikrotik radio is also not compliant to the original WiGiG standard so what...66,96GHz is a valid channel in WiGig standard.

On one pole u cant use same channels...antennas can see each other..the direction of the antenna doesnt matter.

sorry, but i see otherwise and i have quite some proof for it. we run a 60GHz single frequency mesh network in Márkó, Hungary (using just a single 2GHz channel, channel #2). we have 4 radios on every single pole. the units are GPS synchronised and the media access is TDD with 50/50 ratio. we have ~350 radios - that also include the 100 subscriber units - in this network, covering roughly 1 km2 area - the average link length is about 90m. the client side units don't rely on GPS for synchronisation, they are locked on to phase using the wireless link to the distribution nodes.

if you run a synchronised network in 60GHz, you have very low chances for interference, even from radios sitting on the same pole. unlike with sub 6GHz frequencies, 60GHz behaves quite different. it is very much attenuated by oxygen and water wapor, so just to be able to reach out from the 10-20m range, you need to do very precise beam forming, and you will have very narrow, very directional beams - you basically focus all emitted power into this pencil-beam. unless you place the units in a way no sane man would do, you will mostly have no crucial issues. even in a 'contaminated' area you'll do just fine unless someone literally aims a radeon dead-on onto yours and sets up a static beam to hit you.

on the other hand, the 60GHz band with the 6 available channels is still a bit challenging when it comes down to neighbouring channels: transmit power control is a must.

the current Qualcomm QCA63xx based units - wAP60G, LHG60G - don't support the above described operation - but later 802.11ay compliant silicons will be able to operate in a singe frequency network.

you can read more about our trial network here:https://terragraph.com/story/2019/02/18 ... a-hungary/

Now that there will be multiple vendors selling 60G radios, probably huge numbers for quite cheap, important question is: Will you be able to scan and see them on the air?
Or will past repeat again and just like years ago with AirMax, when these networks were completely invisible to normal WIFI gear?
If Ubiquity uses different modulation speed (half symbol rate), it will not be receivable by Mikrotik gear. So invisible...
Will there be spectrum scan on 60G radios? Or what about measurement of noise floor across all antenna sectors (nice 2D graph would be lovely! same for plotting registered clients as dots on 2D azimuth/elevation graph...)?
或者Mikroti雷竞技网站k can in the end implement this lower modulation rate (again this looks a lot like wifi years ago, when we started seeing 10MHz and 5MHz channels, done by just changing clock registers to get 1/2 or 1/4 modulation rate...)?
There will be interference problems sooner or later, especially if these radios will continue to be used for P2MP covering wide sectors. Phased antenna can do wonders, but it does have some limitations at suppressing interference... and GPS sync doesn't help if it's not your radios that are causing the interference.

There will be interference problems sooner or later, especially if these radios will continue to be used for P2MP covering wide sectors. Phased antenna can do wonders, but it does have some limitations at suppressing interference... and GPS sync doesn't help if it's not your radios that are causing the interference.

Autocorrelation using complementary Golay sequences are a good way to mitigate weak interference - they are used all over the 11ad standard. (about golay sequences:https://scdn.rohde-schwarz.com/ur/pws/d ... 1ad_WP.pdf- chapter 5.1.)

this ppt tells about the research folks at FBC came up with specifically in interference scenarios:https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/18/1 ... works.pptx
while in case of a foreign interfering link you only control yours, but still cat switch to use different than the current golay setting.