It will need perfect line of site. And won't deal with NLOS like most 2/5 ghz gear can. It's 24ghz. They claim 15Km. Maybe in the desert. In any climate with rain, Like our's here in Florida even 2 miles is going to be a stretch as 24ghz will rain fade easy. A great application for this would be like between two buildings requiring highspeed backhaul. (Were talking roof-top to roof-top of maybe a few thousand feet or more between them. Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106 ---------------------------------------- From: "Drew Weaver" <drew.weaver@thenap.com> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM To: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net>, "Eugen Leitl" <eugen@leitl.org> Subject: RE: airFiber I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes tricky. Thanks, -Drew -----Original Message----- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:jared@puck.nether.net] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:45 PM To: Eugen Leitl Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: airFiber On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:34:21PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
Yeah, I got this note the other day. I am very interested in hearing about folks experience with this hardware once it ships. I almost posted it in the last-mile thread. Even compared to other hardware in the space the price-performance of it for the bitrate is amazing. I also recommend watching the video they posted: http://www.ubnt.com/themes/ubiquiti/air-fiber-video.html You are leaving out that it's an unlicensed band, so you can use this to have a decent backhaul to your house just by rigging it yourself on each end. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
H. Hy Sent from my iPhone On Mar 29, 2012, at 2:01 PM, "Nick Olsen" <nick@flhsi.com> wrote:
It will need perfect line of site. And won't deal with NLOS like most 2/5 ghz gear can. It's 24ghz.
They claim 15Km. Maybe in the desert.
In any climate with rain, Like our's here in Florida even 2 miles is going to be a stretch as 24ghz will rain fade easy. A great application for this would be like between two buildings requiring highspeed backhaul. (Were talking roof-top to roof-top of maybe a few thousand feet or more between them.
Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
---------------------------------------- From: "Drew Weaver" <drew.weaver@thenap.com> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM To: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net>, "Eugen Leitl" <eugen@leitl.org> Subject: RE: airFiber
I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes tricky.
Thanks, -Drew
-----Original Message----- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:jared@puck.nether.net] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:45 PM To: Eugen Leitl Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: airFiber
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:34:21PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
Yeah, I got this note the other day. I am very interested in hearing about folks experience with this hardware once it ships.
I almost posted it in the last-mile thread. Even compared to other hardware in the space the price-performance of it for the bitrate is amazing.
I also recommend watching the video they posted:
http://www.ubnt.com/themes/ubiquiti/air-fiber-video.html
You are leaving out that it's an unlicensed band, so you can use this to have a decent backhaul to your house just by rigging it yourself on each end.
- Jared
-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Nick Olsen <nick@flhsi.com> wrote:
It will need perfect line of site. And won't deal with NLOS like most 2/5 ghz gear can. It's 24ghz.
At least on the East Coast, it would be best to install it during the summer. Put it up in winter, and any leaves that sprout in the path will likely cause a failure come spring. (And, if you're brought in to trouble-shoot a broken link, and the local techs swear that all the gear checks out fine, demand to go up on the roof and look down the line of sight first. It is satisfying to fix things without having to actually touch the equipment.) Regards Marshall
They claim 15Km. Maybe in the desert.
In any climate with rain, Like our's here in Florida even 2 miles is going to be a stretch as 24ghz will rain fade easy. A great application for this would be like between two buildings requiring highspeed backhaul. (Were talking roof-top to roof-top of maybe a few thousand feet or more between them.
Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
---------------------------------------- From: "Drew Weaver" <drew.weaver@thenap.com> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM To: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net>, "Eugen Leitl" <eugen@leitl.org> Subject: RE: airFiber
I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes tricky.
Thanks, -Drew
-----Original Message----- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:jared@puck.nether.net] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:45 PM To: Eugen Leitl Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: airFiber
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:34:21PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
Yeah, I got this note the other day. I am very interested in hearing about folks experience with this hardware once it ships.
I almost posted it in the last-mile thread. Even compared to other hardware in the space the price-performance of it for the bitrate is amazing.
I also recommend watching the video they posted:
http://www.ubnt.com/themes/ubiquiti/air-fiber-video.html
You are leaving out that it's an unlicensed band, so you can use this to have a decent backhaul to your house just by rigging it yourself on each end.
- Jared
-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Is this any different than what GigaBeam tried before they went bankrupt. http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=177145 Their website only shows a control panel login now so I think they've gone completely out of business. The only reason I know about them is because one of my customers used two of their radios for a p2p 1G link and it was a disaster. The Gigabeam radios tried to transparently act as L1 devices. They were just converting optical energy to radio energy. They didn't act as bridges. So if you plugged a switch into either end each switch would think it had an L1 connection to the other switch. It would work with certain optics and certain firmware versions of certain switches. But if you changed anything you might get link and you might not. I hope these Ubiquity devices actually maintain link even if the radio connection goes down. On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Nick Olsen <nick@flhsi.com> wrote:
It will need perfect line of site. And won't deal with NLOS like most 2/5 ghz gear can. It's 24ghz.
At least on the East Coast, it would be best to install it during the summer. Put it up in winter, and any leaves that sprout in the path will likely cause a failure come spring. (And, if you're brought in to trouble-shoot a broken link, and the local techs swear that all the gear checks out fine, demand to go up on the roof and look down the line of sight first. It is satisfying to fix things without having to actually touch the equipment.)
Regards Marshall
They claim 15Km. Maybe in the desert.
In any climate with rain, Like our's here in Florida even 2 miles is going to be a stretch as 24ghz will rain fade easy. A great application for this would be like between two buildings requiring highspeed backhaul. (Were talking roof-top to roof-top of maybe a few thousand feet or more between them.
Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106
---------------------------------------- From: "Drew Weaver" <drew.weaver@thenap.com> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27 PM To: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net>, "Eugen Leitl" <eugen@leitl.org> Subject: RE: airFiber
I've read that it requires perfect line of sight, which makes it sometimes tricky.
Thanks, -Drew
-----Original Message----- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:jared@puck.nether.net] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:45 PM To: Eugen Leitl Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: airFiber
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:34:21PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Claim: 1.4 GBit/s over up to 13 km, 24 GHZ, @3 kUSD/link price point.
Yeah, I got this note the other day. I am very interested in hearing about folks experience with this hardware once it ships.
I almost posted it in the last-mile thread. Even compared to other hardware in the space the price-performance of it for the bitrate is amazing.
I also recommend watching the video they posted:
http://www.ubnt.com/themes/ubiquiti/air-fiber-video.html
You are leaving out that it's an unlicensed band, so you can use this to have a decent backhaul to your house just by rigging it yourself on each end.
- Jared
-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
On 3/31/2012 6:12 AM, Andrew McConachie wrote:
Is this any different than what GigaBeam tried before they went bankrupt. http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=177145
Their website only shows a control panel login now so I think they've gone completely out of business. The only reason I know about them is because one of my customers used two of their radios for a p2p 1G link and it was a disaster. The Gigabeam radios tried to transparently act as L1 devices. They were just converting optical energy to radio energy. They didn't act as bridges. So if you plugged a switch into either end each switch would think it had an L1 connection to the other switch.
It would work with certain optics and certain firmware versions of certain switches. But if you changed anything you might get link and you might not.
I hope these Ubiquity devices actually maintain link even if the radio connection goes down.
Often such a feature is an option within the radio configuration. Where wired side link follows wireless link. To me that never seemed like a good idea because I need to get into the radio during a wireless link-down situation. Maybe if there was an OOB ethernet port it could work but I haven't seen them on any radio I've touched.
On 3/31/2012 6:14 AM, ML wrote:
Often such a feature is an option within the radio configuration. Where wired side link follows wireless link. To me that never seemed like a good idea because I need to get into the radio during a wireless link-down situation. Maybe if there was an OOB ethernet port it could work but I haven't seen them on any radio I've touched.
The Exalt radios, both licensed and unlicensed, have an OOB port. Quite handy for exactly this reason. I've had one of their EX-5r-c GigE pairs running at full rate on a 14 mile path for years now with no problems except when the garbage truck parks in front of the path briefly once a week. Matthew Kaufman
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 7:14 AM, ML <ml@kenweb.org> wrote:
Often such a feature is an option within the radio configuration. Where wired side link follows wireless link. To me that never seemed like a good idea because I need to get into the radio during a wireless link-down situation. Maybe if there was an OOB ethernet port it could work but I haven't seen them on any radio I've touched.
These have an 100MB OOB management port, a 1GigE port, and a RJ45 for a speaker/tone device for aiding alignment. -- "Genius might be described as a supreme capacity for getting its possessors into trouble of all kinds." -- Samuel Butler
Often such a feature is an option within the radio configuration. Where wired side link follows wireless link. To me that never seemed like a good idea because I need to get into the radio during a wireless link-down situation. Maybe if there was an OOB ethernet port it could work but I haven't seen them on any radio I've touched.
I have Trango, DragonWave, Motorola & SAF Tehnika PTP gear in my network. All of them have OOB Ethernet. This feature is common, if not standard, for modern microwave backhaul. -- Blake Covarrubias
We actually have a lot of the old gigabeam radios in service, they are faster than the published specs of the airfiber links (1G full duplex vs 750 mbit/sec fd) and lower latency due to their very simplistic design. To be honest, from a network engineering standpoint, the gigabeams were conveninet as path issues would show up as ethernet errors that can be used to trigger reroutes or other events. That being said, we did not have a large variety of switches as the microwave side of our house is made up entirely of just a couple of cisco models. The gigabeams also have a pure OOB management setup. John
What published specs have you seen on the airFiber latency? I asked one of the UBNT guys and they said it's microsecond. On any network I've managed, anything sub 1ms is acceptable. Dylan -----Original Message----- From: John van Oppen [mailto:jvanoppen@spectrumnet.us] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:22 PM To: 'Andrew McConachie'; Marshall Eubanks Cc: NANOG list Subject: RE: airFiber We actually have a lot of the old gigabeam radios in service, they are faster than the published specs of the airfiber links (1G full duplex vs 750 mbit/sec fd) and lower latency due to their very simplistic design. To be honest, from a network engineering standpoint, the gigabeams were conveninet as path issues would show up as ethernet errors that can be used to trigger reroutes or other events. That being said, we did not have a large variety of switches as the microwave side of our house is made up entirely of just a couple of cisco models. The gigabeams also have a pure OOB management setup. John
I was told to expect 0.1ms by UBNT. Haven't seen this published, though. Josh On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Dylan Bouterse <dylan@corp.power1.com> wrote:
What published specs have you seen on the airFiber latency? I asked one of the UBNT guys and they said it's microsecond. On any network I've managed, anything sub 1ms is acceptable.
Dylan
-----Original Message----- From: John van Oppen [mailto:jvanoppen@spectrumnet.us] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:22 PM To: 'Andrew McConachie'; Marshall Eubanks Cc: NANOG list Subject: RE: airFiber
We actually have a lot of the old gigabeam radios in service, they are faster than the published specs of the airfiber links (1G full duplex vs 750 mbit/sec fd) and lower latency due to their very simplistic design. To be honest, from a network engineering standpoint, the gigabeams were conveninet as path issues would show up as ethernet errors that can be used to trigger reroutes or other events. That being said, we did not have a large variety of switches as the microwave side of our house is made up entirely of just a couple of cisco models. The gigabeams also have a pure OOB management setup.
John
participants (11)
-
Andrew McConachie -
Blake Covarrubias -
Dylan Bouterse -
John van Oppen -
Josh Baird -
Marshall Eubanks -
Matthew Kaufman -
Michael Loftis -
ML -
Nick Olsen -
Rodrick Brown