Given the pain we have all dealt with as we have moved into n, I doubt we'll see any perceptible traction with Mikrotik support any time soon.

Last time I read up on 802.11ac it sounded less like an outline of a plan and more like a bunch of excited kids deciding what their first car is going to be like.

"I want it to be fast"
"I want it to be better against interference"
"I want it to use larger channels"
"I want it to use rainbows and unicorns"

The local cable company changed over to 256QAM recently and it was very difficult, took a year or more before they got the cable plant where it needed to be, and they are shielded from most interference.

I think 802.11ac will cut about half of the proposed features out and blow 802.11n out of the water, but I don't think it will progress until they stop trying to do the impossible.

"I want it to be better against interference"

"I want it to be better against interference"

Commercial crap
interference is interference u cant be better against interference it is there in the air
and the question is how to avoid interference

"I want it to be better against interference"

Commercial crap
interference is interference u cant be better against interference it is there in the air
and the question is how to avoid interference

That was my entire point.

802.11ac isn't going to end up being the savior of WISPs. If anything it sounds like it has more liabilities.

cool. how about 802.3ad chips too in RB then ? they complimentary for ac[just 60GHz derrivative], if im read specs/standard well/correct.
its not something bogus/narrrow-demanded, like 802.22 =)
or widely used but irrelevant yet[like ZigBee]to networking -)

cool. how about 802.3ad chips too in RB then ? they complimentary for ac[just 60GHz derrivative], if im read specs/standard well/correct.
its not something bogus/narrrow-demanded, like 802.22 =)
or widely used but irrelevant yet[like ZigBee]to networking -)

802.3ad doesn't requre radio support and can be run across two wireless links now. No special 802.11ac+.3ad work is required.

Ah, that makes MUCH more sense

60Ghz isn't so bad for short hops. Current EIRP is 40dBm and 500mW radio. There is a proposal in the FCC to take this to 82dBm EIRP when the antennas is >=51dBi.

The curious thing to me about 'ad' is that it is simultaneous tri-band of 2.4,5,60Ghz. For WISP service, this is a short range backhaul with integrated 2.4 and 5Ghz backups. 60Ghz has a tiny fresnel which is nice to work with.

The 'catch' with 60Ghz is that it is attenuated more by O2. This isn't so bad though because O2 levels remain pretty consistent through weather and seasons. Unlike frequencies that attenuate significantly in H2O (2.4, 24), 60Ghz links should be more consistent. I recall reading an anecdote somewhere that 60-90Ghz perform better in fog or snow because the moisture displaces O2, but I can't find that on google atm.

0ldman, I'm not really arguing, but what specifically are you thinking will be liabilities? Are you speaking of other device interference, or other wisps that are irresponsible with spectrum?

交流的8×8米姆能力就像beamform的3/4ing. It doesn't steer the beam by timing tx on multiple elements, but does tx on multiple elements in slightly different directions/polarities which can improve SNR on the client side. Also, with 8 receiving elements and algorithms to identify desired transmitions it can avoid noise and even filter it. a -3dB improvement on the client and on the AP side is a very nice gain.

Now, 80Mhz channels in ISM band is probably going to cause some grief...

rado3105, this brings up a good point about 'ac. It's not beamforming, but it accomplishes some similar things.

它更“beamselection”。接收元素基于“增大化现实”技术e all individually capable of tx and rx. The radio may determine that client x is most visible (better signal, SNR, or lack of echos or noise) on elements 2, 4, 7 and can then chose to ignore or lessen the impact of signals that look like client x on the other elements. This, in a multi-user MIMO setup, would allow for client y to be communicated with on some other combination of elements, 1,2,5. If these two clients are either near each other, or in such a position that some refraction or echo makes them look like they are near each other on some elements, the radio can scrap the signal received on the less than optimal elements.

just to illustrate why 'ac isn't beamforming, 'ac will transmit on all elements it chooses to at the same time. AP > client x would tx on 2, 4, 7 (or whatever was learned to be best for the client) at the same time. beamforming would delay the tx on certain elements to cause a wavefront peak at the client like two waves in a pond colliding and aggregating their power. The delay determining the aggregation points. 'ac and beamforming will handle rx almost identically because the beamforming transmitter handled calculating the delays, the receiver should get symbols from the elements synchronously.

So, a beamforming AP doesn't really need a beamforming client for async communications, though the client would need to be aware of the AP in the sense that it should reply back with the timing difference of the beacons used for beamforming. That's really a firmware thing though. A beamforming client would be an improvement though as it would be able to tx with beamforming as well as return better data to the AP about beacon strength as well as timing. Basically faster, more accurate timing and element selection.

I was primarly writing about PtP....you mainly about PtM

0ldman, I'm not really arguing, but what specifically are you thinking will be liabilities? Are you speaking of other device interference, or other wisps that are irresponsible with spectrum?

交流的8×8米姆能力就像beamform的3/4ing. It doesn't steer the beam by timing tx on multiple elements, but does tx on multiple elements in slightly different directions/polarities which can improve SNR on the client side. Also, with 8 receiving elements and algorithms to identify desired transmitions it can avoid noise and even filter it. a -3dB improvement on the client and on the AP side is a very nice gain.

Now, 80Mhz channels in ISM band is probably going to cause some grief...

256QAM has potential but likely to have problems with interference. I see it having to be unchecked to have a stable link in most PTMP situations. I hope I'm wrong. I could use the bandwidth.
80MHz wide channel is going to be harder to keep clean. Hopefully the FCC will give us some more bandwidth, but I'm not holding my breath. UNII 3 is what, 100MHz wide?

I haven't confirmed this yet, but rumor has it that Ubiquiti has cleaned up their signal quite a bit with software only. Going from 5.3.5 to 5.5.4 made the off channel drop off steeper, co-location easier and channel overlap cleaner, less of an issue.

Still interested in 802.11ac, google search is what brought me back to this thread. I'm upgrading my main backhaul soon, some MT 802.11ac hardware would be awesome.

I haven't confirmed this yet, but rumor has it that Ubiquiti has cleaned up their signal quite a bit with software only. Going from 5.3.5 to 5.5.4 made the off channel drop off steeper, co-location easier and channel overlap cleaner, less of an issue.

This most of all due to good antenna, with -45 to -50 dB isolation, and integrated with aluminum enclosure for good collocation noise suppression. On one location there are more than 20 other APs "visible" - still good performance, but this is naturally hard to quantify.

Another surprise on AC was the "multi MCS" support - you may have CPEs connected at a mix different channel sizes - simultaneously! You may set AP in 20/40/80 MHz mode, and you can connect CPEs at any mix of these.

This most of all due to good antenna, with -45 to -50 dB isolation, and integrated with aluminum enclosure for good collocation noise suppression. On one location there are more than 20 other APs "visible" - still good performance, but this is naturally hard to quantify.

Another surprise on AC was the "multi MCS" support - you may have CPEs connected at a mix different channel sizes - simultaneously! You may set AP in 20/40/80 MHz mode, and you can connect CPEs at any mix of these.

Isn't it the same as in 11n? You have a main 20MHz Channel and an Extension channel (above or below). Only CPEs with good signal use the extension channel.

so we come to ac standard do you all understated what is ac - standard that provide up to 1.5 Gbit/s
no home desktop have cpu that can process such 1.5 Gbit per second information
no mikrotik board can provide that kind of speed

Sumsung S4 have Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac - c'mon ac on phone why? There is no known internet connection that can provide 1.5gbit/s

admitted u all need ac for fast p2p links.. like airfiber

ac
wider RF bandwidth (up to 160 MHz) - this is bad this will bring much much more interference in air
for home usage its ok
Support for up to eight spatial streams - this is good this is how should look future of wireless more and more steams + it can have up to 16 antennas one for rx one for tx

ubiquiti have AC devices since september I suppose, check their site.
for AP price is ca 250$

ubiquiti have AC devices since september I suppose, check their site.
for AP price is ca 250$

It's not really an AP, it's their unify system.

We have been running AC for 7 months now, with superb stability and performance. Don't know about UBNT performance for AC, but we see even better performance than what you indicate: 150 Mbps at 20MHz, 300 Mbps at 40MHz and 620 Mbps at 80MHz. Tested with both RFC2544 tester and Mtik BW-test.

I know Flashnet is rolling out AC for both PTP and Base Stations, with excellent results, and they claimed 180 Mbps full duplex TCP. But, none of this is Mikrotik - so time is of essense to beat or match UBNT to the market for AC.

/TB

We have been running AC for 7 months now, with superb stability and performance. Don't know about UBNT performance for AC, but we see even better performance than what you indicate: 150 Mbps at 20MHz, 300 Mbps at 40MHz and 620 Mbps at 80MHz. Tested with both RFC2544 tester and Mtik BW-test.

I know Flashnet is rolling out AC for both PTP and Base Stations, with excellent results, and they claimed 180 Mbps full duplex TCP. But, none of this is Mikrotik - so time is of essense to beat or match UBNT to the market for AC.

/TB

AC-antenna???

promoting brand names is allowed. pls give us more info.