Community discussions

MikroTik App
anpena
刚刚加入了
Topic Author
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 5:46 am

NV2 Sysnchronization plans on 5.x

Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:29 pm

Hello Mikrotik Wireless Gurus

I'm been watching and testing NV2 on new beta version 5.0rc3 seeing that this was needed for long time to have a very robust backhaul system using Mikrotik, we currently use hundreds of Mikrotik on our 5.8 Ghz back haul, but limited in bandwidth, high latency and many other issues that NV2 are targeting to solve with this new wireless protocol.

So my question is about frame synchronization, because this uses TDMA and many radios can be involved I guess only way to do an efficient synchronization will be using GPS at each tower to sync time accurately for all radios, or there is any other plans for synchronization?

Thank you in advance for any help, we are planning the GPS integration for all towers so wonder if this time source can be used
Top
xxiii
Member Candidate
Member Candidate
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 12:55 am

Re: NV2 Sysnchronization plans on 5.x

Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:44 pm

I've read somewhere that the atheros chips don't give enough control to enable synchronization (one must be able to tell itexactlywhen it is allowed to transmit), but I don't know if this is actually true. Given that no one seems to have come up with a synchronization solution involving them it would seem that it is; or else most implementors don't see the need/value in it.
Top
ejansson
Member
Member
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:09 pm
Location:Manitoba, Canada

Re: NV2 Sysnchronization plans on 5.x

Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:36 am

Can't find it off hand but I did read on the forum or one of my emails that hinted that GPS Sync was a path mt was planning on. I hope this is true and is not to far down the line. We are in real need of this. So far our NV2 testing is looking good and we are moving to some larger AP with 40-70 clients to see how it does. So far it seem to rock, with the little testing we have done so far. Better connect times, consistent and lower latency, and more through put. Like to see the latency drop a bit more but I know there are technical trade off that can only be push so far.
Top

Who is online

Users browsing this forum:gastarita,mukkelekand 8 guests