[LibreQoS] Ack-filtering

[LibreQoS] Ack-filtering

[Herbert Wolverson]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1287 bytes --]

Highly un-scientific (we need to let it run for a bit and do a proper
before-after comparison that includes a decent timeframe), but I like the
quick'n'dirty results of testing "ack-filter":
[image: image.png]
We've been having a Bad Network Day (TM), with sudden flooding making us
use some pretty constrained - so our latencies were *really* suffering in
one region. That region just happens to be the worst part of our network
(we haven't finished digesting an acquisition; there's even Bullet M2 omnis
up there!). Lots of relatively low-speed plans, all with big variance
(10/3, 25/5, I found a 5/1 that someone forgot to upgrade!). They seem to
have benefitted greatly. The parts of the network that were doing great -
are still doing great, with very little change.

Just a quick'n'dirty test. I'll try and put something more useful together
tomorrow, when it's had a chance to see how peak time hits it.

(Also, this digging revealed an issue with pping-cpumap in production. It
wasn't tracking enough flows, so the reporting is heavily biased towards
the top-consumers - who are likely to be monitored before the buffer fills
up and it stops counting until stats are read. So I added a "maximums.h"
file to make it easy to set user limits, and made flow-count derive from
that.)

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1512 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: image.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 375873 bytes --]

Re: [LibreQoS] Ack-filtering

[Dave Taht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1067 bytes --]

I just busted a guy laughing at your annotations. Tahhnk you.

There's been a long "misery metrics" thread elsewhere, about how measuring
customer satisfaction was more important than packet loss or bandwidth or
the other statistics we so often try to interpret.

Over here, for example, was this bug:
https://github.com/rchac/LibreQoS/issues/126#issuecomment-1286061009

where the OP applied a change that "saved cpu", but in-observably hurt the
customer experience, until a few days went by,
and they "felt" the change for themselves, and complaints had gone up.

Proactively engaging with users to ask how their subjective experience has
got better or worse, after making a change, is one way to get feedback.
Others include eating your own dogfood, and active measurements like the
flent tests, crusader,
etc.

The ack-filter, should, in general, speed up slow start, which is a good
thing in a fully FQ'd and codeled environement.
It also accelerates additive increase, same benefits.

Downsides include that the TCPs on the other side have to interpolate more.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1452 bytes --]

Re: [LibreQoS] Ack-filtering

[Dave Taht]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 2:19 PM Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS
<libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> Highly un-scientific (we need to let it run for a bit and do a proper before-after comparison that includes a decent timeframe), but I like the quick'n'dirty results of testing "ack-filter":
>
> We've been having a Bad Network Day (TM), with sudden flooding making us use some pretty constrained

I've been looking at various ddos mitigation schemes of late. Are you using any?

>- so our latencies were really suffering in one region. That region just happens to be the worst part of our network (we haven't finished digesting an acquisition; there's even Bullet M2 omnis up there!). Lots of relatively low-speed plans, all with big variance (10/3, 25/5, I found a 5/1 that someone forgot to upgrade!). They seem to have benefitted greatly. The parts of the network that were doing great - are still doing great, with very little change.

I made my previous comments in looking at the swing downwards being so
large, possibly not being a positive direction (my ever suspicious gut
was reacting, but I wasn't qualifying the numbers - been a long day
here too)

I also forgot to mention that ack-filtering uses up less txops on
older versions of wifi. Very useful. I'd meant
to put it into my mt76 stuff ages ago but got overwhelmed by bugs.

> Just a quick'n'dirty test. I'll try and put something more useful together tomorrow, when it's had a chance to see how peak time hits it.

:crossed fingers:

>
> (Also, this digging revealed an issue with pping-cpumap in production. It wasn't tracking enough flows, so the reporting is heavily biased towards the top-consumers - who are likely to be monitored before the buffer fills up and it stops counting until stats are read. So I added a "maximums.h" file to make it easy to set user limits, and made flow-count derive from that.)

I think polling it more frequently would be closer to the typical
durations of flows. Most flows last for under 3 seconds.

What would be the harm in vastly expanding the number of flows it tracks?

/me hides

> _______________________________________________
> LibreQoS mailing list
> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos



-- 
This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Re: [LibreQoS] Ack-filtering

[Herbert Wolverson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3391 bytes --]

Hit the wrong reply button, that happens a lot when I try to type on my
phone.

I'm going to test tracking many more flows early in the morning. It should
slightly increase ram usage, and have no ill effects. "Should" doesn't
always work out, hence testing!

I meant "flooding" in the "oh crap, site underwater" sense. We'd need a
boat to get to one tower right now! It doesn't currently have power, which
I suspect is related.

Turned ack filter off, after some customers reported issues (others were
really happy). The unhappy campers were all on Cambium devices, with good
signal and modulations. Maybe Cambium is doing some "magic"? We'll try a
unidirectional test tomorrow.

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022, 4:57 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 2:19 PM Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS
> <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >
> > Highly un-scientific (we need to let it run for a bit and do a proper
> before-after comparison that includes a decent timeframe), but I like the
> quick'n'dirty results of testing "ack-filter":
> >
> > We've been having a Bad Network Day (TM), with sudden flooding making us
> use some pretty constrained
>
> I've been looking at various ddos mitigation schemes of late. Are you
> using any?
>
> >- so our latencies were really suffering in one region. That region just
> happens to be the worst part of our network (we haven't finished digesting
> an acquisition; there's even Bullet M2 omnis up there!). Lots of relatively
> low-speed plans, all with big variance (10/3, 25/5, I found a 5/1 that
> someone forgot to upgrade!). They seem to have benefitted greatly. The
> parts of the network that were doing great - are still doing great, with
> very little change.
>
> I made my previous comments in looking at the swing downwards being so
> large, possibly not being a positive direction (my ever suspicious gut
> was reacting, but I wasn't qualifying the numbers - been a long day
> here too)
>
> I also forgot to mention that ack-filtering uses up less txops on
> older versions of wifi. Very useful. I'd meant
> to put it into my mt76 stuff ages ago but got overwhelmed by bugs.
>
> > Just a quick'n'dirty test. I'll try and put something more useful
> together tomorrow, when it's had a chance to see how peak time hits it.
>
> :crossed fingers:
>
> >
> > (Also, this digging revealed an issue with pping-cpumap in production.
> It wasn't tracking enough flows, so the reporting is heavily biased towards
> the top-consumers - who are likely to be monitored before the buffer fills
> up and it stops counting until stats are read. So I added a "maximums.h"
> file to make it easy to set user limits, and made flow-count derive from
> that.)
>
> I think polling it more frequently would be closer to the typical
> durations of flows. Most flows last for under 3 seconds.
>
> What would be the harm in vastly expanding the number of flows it tracks?
>
> /me hides
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > LibreQoS mailing list
> > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>
>
>
> --
> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4420 bytes --]

[LibreQoS] Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[Dave Taht]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 3:58 PM Herbert Wolverson <herberticus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hit the wrong reply button, that happens a lot when I try to type on my phone.
>
> I'm going to test tracking many more flows early in the morning. It should slightly increase ram usage, and have no ill effects. "Should" doesn't always work out, hence testing!
>
> I meant "flooding" in the "oh crap, site underwater" sense. We'd need a boat to get to one tower right now! It doesn't currently have power, which I suspect is related.

re: flooding, yea, forgot about that kind. :) I hate to harp on it
more than once a week, but we designed fq_codel first and foremost to
cope with rain fade on the backhaul. Now that people just use it to
enforce plans :( gathering statistics as to radio behaviors when it
rains, and/or clearly identifying weather, when looking at historical
data seems apt.

How bad are y'all's gear doing with rain fade on various techs and
bands? in 08, in nica, I'd go from a working 70 db 10 mile shot to
nothin at 5ghz when it rained, and I just laughed at the people trying
to deploy 60ghz - but times change. I see a vendor trying to ship 60
with *really good antennas* into the office market...

big question to ask when so busy, please ignore me.

>
> Turned ack filter off, after some customers reported issues (others were really happy). The unhappy campers were all on Cambium devices, with good signal and modulations. Maybe Cambium is doing some "magic"? We'll try a unidirectional test tomorrow.

Maybe an exceptions db for stuff that is too smart or weird. TCP
"accellerator"s are everywhere.

>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022, 4:57 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 2:19 PM Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS
>> <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Highly un-scientific (we need to let it run for a bit and do a proper before-after comparison that includes a decent timeframe), but I like the quick'n'dirty results of testing "ack-filter":
>> >
>> > We've been having a Bad Network Day (TM), with sudden flooding making us use some pretty constrained
>>
>> I've been looking at various ddos mitigation schemes of late. Are you using any?
>>
>> >- so our latencies were really suffering in one region. That region just happens to be the worst part of our network (we haven't finished digesting an acquisition; there's even Bullet M2 omnis up there!). Lots of relatively low-speed plans, all with big variance (10/3, 25/5, I found a 5/1 that someone forgot to upgrade!). They seem to have benefitted greatly. The parts of the network that were doing great - are still doing great, with very little change.
>>
>> I made my previous comments in looking at the swing downwards being so
>> large, possibly not being a positive direction (my ever suspicious gut
>> was reacting, but I wasn't qualifying the numbers - been a long day
>> here too)
>>
>> I also forgot to mention that ack-filtering uses up less txops on
>> older versions of wifi. Very useful. I'd meant
>> to put it into my mt76 stuff ages ago but got overwhelmed by bugs.
>>
>> > Just a quick'n'dirty test. I'll try and put something more useful together tomorrow, when it's had a chance to see how peak time hits it.
>>
>> :crossed fingers:
>>
>> >
>> > (Also, this digging revealed an issue with pping-cpumap in production. It wasn't tracking enough flows, so the reporting is heavily biased towards the top-consumers - who are likely to be monitored before the buffer fills up and it stops counting until stats are read. So I added a "maximums.h" file to make it easy to set user limits, and made flow-count derive from that.)
>>
>> I think polling it more frequently would be closer to the typical
>> durations of flows. Most flows last for under 3 seconds.
>>
>> What would be the harm in vastly expanding the number of flows it tracks?
>>
>> /me hides
>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > LibreQoS mailing list
>> > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
>> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
>> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC



-- 
This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Re: [LibreQoS] Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[dan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3396 bytes --]

>
>
> How bad are y'all's gear doing with rain fade on various techs and
> bands? in 08, in nica, I'd go from a working 70 db 10 mile shot to
> nothin at 5ghz when it rained, and I just laughed at the people trying
> to deploy 60ghz - but times change. I see a vendor trying to ship 60
> with *really good antennas* into the office market...
>
> big question to ask when so busy, please ignore me.
>
>
I have extensive testing with almost every gear out there.

5Ghz, no appreciable fade in snow or rain.  Longest shot on network right
now is 26 miles on AF5xHD 5Ghz on 2' dishes and we push a solid 300Mbps
across this with zero fade.  Actually gets a tiny bit better in the rain,
ie it is technically fading a bit but so is all the noise so it's a minor
improvement.

I have 2x 7 miles force 425 links that are pushing 550Mbps.  And a 10 miles
force 400c on 2' ubiquiti dishes that pushes 940 unidirectional in 80Mhz.
No rain fade.  Lots of af5xhd and force4x links in different distances.  We
even mix in some LTU PtMP as PTP for price, ie LTU AP <> LTU-LR or LTU-Pro
for PTP.  Works well enough though this product is susceptible to noise
more than any other we use.

Cambium 60Mhz cnwave is fantastic, legit 120 meters per link node to node
or small CPE, 500M to big CPE, about 300 to the not-quite-released mid
CPE.  Pushing 1.7Gbps FDX on against my preseem box and my m2 macbook with
nperf UDP.

Ubiquiti gigabeam line, <1km ok, <800m even better.  AF 'LR' and 'XR' rock
solid at 2km, up to about 5km until they're down too much to be usable.
Always backed up by a 5Ghz radio.

Ubiquiti Wave, legit AP<>CPE out 2km and never fails over.  4km w/ wifi6
failover.  Fantastic product... probably the one to beat.

Mikrotik 60Ghz 'ay about 200m on AP to small CPE, 500m AP to nRay.  Can get
a little more but it's really close and rain fade gets you.  These have 'ac
wireless backup in them so we can EASILY push 300m on the small and 800m on
the nRay knowing we have about 4 hours a year in 5Ghz failover.

Basically, and MIMO 5Ghz, 6Ghz, or 2.4Ghz product isn't going to
noticably fade.  MOST fade in these bands is actually thermal ducting
'turning' the beam off aim.

60Ghz should be considered 2 separate bands.  channels 1-4 are short range,
<1km in PTP, <300m in PtMP if you want to have links stay up.  channels 5,6
are 2-3x longer.  Unfortunately, only ubiquiti really playing in this space
right now, mikrotik's channel 5 support is at a lower output power so it's
'ok'.  Tachyon coming into this space as well, but unproven and AFAIK zero
beta deployments.

5Ghz <=200M service plans today with a well built network and good
AP/Antenna choices, <=500Mbps with WiFi6 tech.  technically a bit more, but
with reasonable ratios this is about right
6Ghz <=900Mbps plans on live beta users.  OFDMA+MUMIMO is really delivering
here.
60Ghz 'low' band cambium, 1.7Gbps legit across the mesh, twice that with
upcoming channel bonding.  base CPE 1Gbps port, mid 2.5gbps port, long
10Gbps port(s).  Build out model here is for 'In the rain' so no effective
fade if built right.  if built wrong, fade to death.
60Ghz 'high' band ubiquiti wave.  <=800Mbps.  Technically a bit more but I
haven't convinced a Wave AP to a Wave LR to do it.  I can however get 2
customers/radios up to 1.5Gbps across the AP.  Plan with built in fade and
intentional fail to 5Ghz beyond 2km.   Acceptable in Montana.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3948 bytes --]

Re: [LibreQoS] Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[Herbert Wolverson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5365 bytes --]

Rain fade (short version, at home now). 5.x and 2.4 barely change. 3.6, we
see a tiny fade. If there is any foliage in the way, it gets a lot worse.

We gave up on 24ghz, it faded if I looked too hard at it.

Ubiquiti's AF60-LR seems to do better than it should, for a 60ghz - partly
by running up in the 70ghz channel. We have a 2 mile link that kept
carrying a gig while the flooding started. (I kinda suspect it's playing
fast and loose with the rules, honestly). Other 60ghz units fade horribly.

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022, 6:05 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 3:58 PM Herbert Wolverson <herberticus@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hit the wrong reply button, that happens a lot when I try to type on my
> phone.
> >
> > I'm going to test tracking many more flows early in the morning. It
> should slightly increase ram usage, and have no ill effects. "Should"
> doesn't always work out, hence testing!
> >
> > I meant "flooding" in the "oh crap, site underwater" sense. We'd need a
> boat to get to one tower right now! It doesn't currently have power, which
> I suspect is related.
>
> re: flooding, yea, forgot about that kind. :) I hate to harp on it
> more than once a week, but we designed fq_codel first and foremost to
> cope with rain fade on the backhaul. Now that people just use it to
> enforce plans :( gathering statistics as to radio behaviors when it
> rains, and/or clearly identifying weather, when looking at historical
> data seems apt.
>
> How bad are y'all's gear doing with rain fade on various techs and
> bands? in 08, in nica, I'd go from a working 70 db 10 mile shot to
> nothin at 5ghz when it rained, and I just laughed at the people trying
> to deploy 60ghz - but times change. I see a vendor trying to ship 60
> with *really good antennas* into the office market...
>
> big question to ask when so busy, please ignore me.
>
> >
> > Turned ack filter off, after some customers reported issues (others were
> really happy). The unhappy campers were all on Cambium devices, with good
> signal and modulations. Maybe Cambium is doing some "magic"? We'll try a
> unidirectional test tomorrow.
>
> Maybe an exceptions db for stuff that is too smart or weird. TCP
> "accellerator"s are everywhere.
>
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022, 4:57 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 2:19 PM Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS
> >> <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Highly un-scientific (we need to let it run for a bit and do a proper
> before-after comparison that includes a decent timeframe), but I like the
> quick'n'dirty results of testing "ack-filter":
> >> >
> >> > We've been having a Bad Network Day (TM), with sudden flooding making
> us use some pretty constrained
> >>
> >> I've been looking at various ddos mitigation schemes of late. Are you
> using any?
> >>
> >> >- so our latencies were really suffering in one region. That region
> just happens to be the worst part of our network (we haven't finished
> digesting an acquisition; there's even Bullet M2 omnis up there!). Lots of
> relatively low-speed plans, all with big variance (10/3, 25/5, I found a
> 5/1 that someone forgot to upgrade!). They seem to have benefitted greatly.
> The parts of the network that were doing great - are still doing great,
> with very little change.
> >>
> >> I made my previous comments in looking at the swing downwards being so
> >> large, possibly not being a positive direction (my ever suspicious gut
> >> was reacting, but I wasn't qualifying the numbers - been a long day
> >> here too)
> >>
> >> I also forgot to mention that ack-filtering uses up less txops on
> >> older versions of wifi. Very useful. I'd meant
> >> to put it into my mt76 stuff ages ago but got overwhelmed by bugs.
> >>
> >> > Just a quick'n'dirty test. I'll try and put something more useful
> together tomorrow, when it's had a chance to see how peak time hits it.
> >>
> >> :crossed fingers:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > (Also, this digging revealed an issue with pping-cpumap in
> production. It wasn't tracking enough flows, so the reporting is heavily
> biased towards the top-consumers - who are likely to be monitored before
> the buffer fills up and it stops counting until stats are read. So I added
> a "maximums.h" file to make it easy to set user limits, and made flow-count
> derive from that.)
> >>
> >> I think polling it more frequently would be closer to the typical
> >> durations of flows. Most flows last for under 3 seconds.
> >>
> >> What would be the harm in vastly expanding the number of flows it
> tracks?
> >>
> >> /me hides
> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > LibreQoS mailing list
> >> > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
> >>
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
> >> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>
>
>
> --
> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7041 bytes --]

Re: [LibreQoS] Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[Mark Steckel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5054 bytes --]

Dan,



Really appreciate the detailed breakdown of the various vendor gear. Very helpful.



We started Airmax AC, dabbled with LTU but don't trust it enough to really deploy. Waiting for things to shake out a bit before we build out broadcast on a new major site. (There is 200 units in the building and people are switching from Comcast to us in droves, so can wait on the broadcast equipment.)



Have deployed some of the gen 1 Wave APs using AF50-LR as CPEs. Not as big a fan as you yet. Finally received a couple of the new gen2 Wave APs. planing to deploy them in the next couple of weeks along with Wave CPEs. Cautiously optimisitc.



My biggest concern about the Wave APs is the current limit of 16 clients. Hopefully Ubnt will increase this to 32, other wise will have to think about a lot more micro-pops.



Any insight into Ubnt's new Airmax AX line?


We have 3.3 km AF11 link that has been rock solid for 3 years. Signal hovers around -35 dBm. This past May, an insane storm* just massively dumped rain for 8 minutes. Never seen anything like it. The rain caused 34 dBm of fade. even so, the link stayed up and the signal recovered quickly. A typical heavy storm usually causes only about 5 dBm of fade. 



Mark





* Mid-Atlantic coast






---- On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 19:25:10 -0400 dan via LibreQoS <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote ---









How bad are y'all's gear doing with rain fade on various techs and
 bands? in 08, in nica, I'd go from a working 70 db 10 mile shot to
 nothin at 5ghz when it rained, and I just laughed at the people trying
 to deploy 60ghz - but times change. I see a vendor trying to ship 60
 with *really good antennas* into the office market...
 
 big question to ask when so busy, please ignore me.




I have extensive testing with almost every gear out there.

5Ghz, no appreciable fade in snow or rain.  Longest shot on network right now is 26 miles on AF5xHD 5Ghz on 2' dishes and we push a solid 300Mbps across this with zero fade.  Actually gets a tiny bit better in the rain, ie it is technically fading a bit but so is all the noise so it's a minor improvement.  

I have 2x 7 miles force 425 links that are pushing 550Mbps.  And a 10 miles force 400c on 2' ubiquiti dishes that pushes 940 unidirectional in 80Mhz.  No rain fade.  Lots of af5xhd and force4x links in different distances.  We even mix in some LTU PtMP as PTP for price, ie LTU AP <> LTU-LR or LTU-Pro for PTP.  Works well enough though this product is susceptible to noise more than any other we use.

Cambium 60Mhz cnwave is fantastic, legit 120 meters per link node to node or small CPE, 500M to big CPE, about 300 to the not-quite-released mid CPE.  Pushing 1.7Gbps FDX on against my preseem box and my m2 macbook with nperf UDP.

Ubiquiti gigabeam line, <1km ok, <800m even better.  AF 'LR' and 'XR' rock solid at 2km, up to about 5km until they're down too much to be usable.  Always backed up by a 5Ghz radio.

Ubiquiti Wave, legit AP<>CPE out 2km and never fails over.  4km w/ wifi6 failover.  Fantastic product... probably the one to beat.

Mikrotik 60Ghz 'ay about 200m on AP to small CPE, 500m AP to nRay.  Can get a little more but it's really close and rain fade gets you.  These have 'ac wireless backup in them so we can EASILY push 300m on the small and 800m on the nRay knowing we have about 4 hours a year in 5Ghz failover.

Basically, and MIMO 5Ghz, 6Ghz, or 2.4Ghz product isn't going to noticably fade.  MOST fade in these bands is actually thermal ducting 'turning' the beam off aim.

60Ghz should be considered 2 separate bands.  channels 1-4 are short range, <1km in PTP, <300m in PtMP if you want to have links stay up.  channels 5,6 are 2-3x longer.  Unfortunately, only ubiquiti really playing in this space right now, mikrotik's channel 5 support is at a lower output power so it's 'ok'.  Tachyon coming into this space as well, but unproven and AFAIK zero beta deployments.

5Ghz <=200M service plans today with a well built network and good AP/Antenna choices, <=500Mbps with WiFi6 tech.  technically a bit more, but with reasonable ratios this is about right
6Ghz <=900Mbps plans on live beta users.  OFDMA+MUMIMO is really delivering here.
60Ghz 'low' band cambium, 1.7Gbps legit across the mesh, twice that with upcoming channel bonding.  base CPE 1Gbps port, mid 2.5gbps port, long 10Gbps port(s).  Build out model here is for 'In the rain' so no effective fade if built right.  if built wrong, fade to death.
60Ghz 'high' band ubiquiti wave.  <=800Mbps.  Technically a bit more but I haven't convinced a Wave AP to a Wave LR to do it.  I can however get 2 customers/radios up to 1.5Gbps across the AP.  Plan with built in fade and intentional fail to 5Ghz beyond 2km.   Acceptable in Montana.




 



_______________________________________________
LibreQoS mailing list
mailto:LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6564 bytes --]

Re: [LibreQoS] Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[dan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8079 bytes --]

LTU.. huge potential but majorly flawed product line.  We've stopped all
LTU deployments because every site we built we'd watch the modulations
slide down over time.  Every new netgear router in a neighborhood
(practically...) takes modulations down a step.  Too many mornings hunting
for a new usable channel because of a new source of noise and
LTU's inability to cope with it at all.  We have mixed sites with airmax
and LTU and the airmax outperforms the LTU because of these issues.  We
even see more rain fade on LTU than airmax because it's so bad with
multipathing.  Any fresnel infraction and LTU degrades at 2-3x the rate
that airmax does.

Wave's 16 client limitation is a challenge, looking forward to the mesh
units (omni).  We don't have any saturated APs yet but I'm sure that's
coming.  Doing a 6 AP 180 degree deployment next week and hoping to get
near 100 subs directly off of that in ~2 months.

I'm holding some of that AX gear in hand... no AP to compare against though
:/  High hopes considering what we get out of force 4xx which is 'plain'
AX.  I don't know how soon we'll see something, zero FCC leaks on a new AP
so kinda waiting on that.

I sht on ubiquiti a lot, mostly because the company likes to pull the rug
on customers and leave them with obsolete hardware and perpetual bugs, and
doesn't seem to ask any operators what we need, and the list goes on.  That
said, it's far faster and easier to deploy ubiquiti gear than anything
else. Installers love it.  The price is great.  If UI drops a 4x4-8x8 90
degree AX AP we will almost certainly go that route over cambium.

I've run or am running most brands out there with few exceptions.  Frankly,
we're getting just as good or better performance out of ubiquiti gear that
cambium and have a lower failure rate.

We also run Baicells LTE in CBRS, and 450i/450m in CBRS and we're getting
more data through the LTE product than the cambium in nLoS.  In LoS 450i
delivers about 50% more and latency is half.  HATE the 450i/450m
interface.  1995.  finicky products as well, mumimo only working with many
subs and evenly spread over a 90 degree arc which rarely fits our
deployments.  450 gear is a huge letdown for us.  450m can deliver really
well if conditions are right, but if they're not then it's a huge expense
for little gain.

Have held out hope that Mikrotik would show up to the AX race but nothing
really there.  I have a decent sized single radio mesh network on Mikrotik
Omnitiks that is working really well.  Using some wireless wire shots to
shorten mesh paths up a bit.  Sell 25Mbps plans off those in a low income
area.  It's a wave1 AC wireless driver so some pitfalls there, but their
newer drivers don't support 802.11s or WDS yet so can't upgrade.  Would
really love to find a dual radio openwrt AX box to run batman-adv on for a
dual radio mesh but haven't found such a thing yet.

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 6:43 PM Mark Steckel <mjs@phillywisper.net> wrote:

> Dan,
>
> Really appreciate the detailed breakdown of the various vendor gear. Very
> helpful.
>
> We started Airmax AC, dabbled with LTU but don't trust it enough to really
> deploy. Waiting for things to shake out a bit before we build out broadcast
> on a new major site. (There is 200 units in the building and people are
> switching from Comcast to us in droves, so can wait on the broadcast
> equipment.)
>
> Have deployed some of the gen 1 Wave APs using AF50-LR as CPEs. Not as big
> a fan as you yet. Finally received a couple of the new gen2 Wave APs.
> planing to deploy them in the next couple of weeks along with Wave CPEs.
> Cautiously optimisitc.
>
> My biggest concern about the Wave APs is the current limit of 16 clients.
> Hopefully Ubnt will increase this to 32, other wise will have to think
> about a lot more micro-pops.
>
> Any insight into Ubnt's new Airmax AX line?
>
> We have 3.3 km AF11 link that has been rock solid for 3 years. Signal
> hovers around -35 dBm. This past May, an insane storm* just massively
> dumped rain for 8 minutes. Never seen anything like it. The rain caused 34
> dBm of fade. even so, the link stayed up and the signal recovered quickly.
> A typical heavy storm usually causes only about 5 dBm of fade.
>
> Mark
>
>
> * Mid-Atlantic coast
>
>
>
> ---- On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 19:25:10 -0400 *dan via LibreQoS
> <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>>* wrote
> ---
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How bad are y'all's gear doing with rain fade on various techs and
> bands? in 08, in nica, I'd go from a working 70 db 10 mile shot to
> nothin at 5ghz when it rained, and I just laughed at the people trying
> to deploy 60ghz - but times change. I see a vendor trying to ship 60
> with *really good antennas* into the office market...
>
> big question to ask when so busy, please ignore me.
>
>
> I have extensive testing with almost every gear out there.
>
> 5Ghz, no appreciable fade in snow or rain.  Longest shot on network right
> now is 26 miles on AF5xHD 5Ghz on 2' dishes and we push a solid 300Mbps
> across this with zero fade.  Actually gets a tiny bit better in the rain,
> ie it is technically fading a bit but so is all the noise so it's a minor
> improvement.
>
> I have 2x 7 miles force 425 links that are pushing 550Mbps.  And a 10
> miles force 400c on 2' ubiquiti dishes that pushes 940 unidirectional in
> 80Mhz.  No rain fade.  Lots of af5xhd and force4x links in different
> distances.  We even mix in some LTU PtMP as PTP for price, ie LTU AP <>
> LTU-LR or LTU-Pro for PTP.  Works well enough though this product is
> susceptible to noise more than any other we use.
>
> Cambium 60Mhz cnwave is fantastic, legit 120 meters per link node to node
> or small CPE, 500M to big CPE, about 300 to the not-quite-released mid
> CPE.  Pushing 1.7Gbps FDX on against my preseem box and my m2 macbook with
> nperf UDP.
>
> Ubiquiti gigabeam line, <1km ok, <800m even better.  AF 'LR' and 'XR' rock
> solid at 2km, up to about 5km until they're down too much to be usable.
> Always backed up by a 5Ghz radio.
>
> Ubiquiti Wave, legit AP<>CPE out 2km and never fails over.  4km w/ wifi6
> failover.  Fantastic product... probably the one to beat.
>
> Mikrotik 60Ghz 'ay about 200m on AP to small CPE, 500m AP to nRay.  Can
> get a little more but it's really close and rain fade gets you.  These have
> 'ac wireless backup in them so we can EASILY push 300m on the small and
> 800m on the nRay knowing we have about 4 hours a year in 5Ghz failover.
>
> Basically, and MIMO 5Ghz, 6Ghz, or 2.4Ghz product isn't going to
> noticably fade.  MOST fade in these bands is actually thermal ducting
> 'turning' the beam off aim.
>
> 60Ghz should be considered 2 separate bands.  channels 1-4 are short
> range, <1km in PTP, <300m in PtMP if you want to have links stay up.
> channels 5,6 are 2-3x longer.  Unfortunately, only ubiquiti really playing
> in this space right now, mikrotik's channel 5 support is at a lower output
> power so it's 'ok'.  Tachyon coming into this space as well, but unproven
> and AFAIK zero beta deployments.
>
> 5Ghz <=200M service plans today with a well built network and good
> AP/Antenna choices, <=500Mbps with WiFi6 tech.  technically a bit more, but
> with reasonable ratios this is about right
> 6Ghz <=900Mbps plans on live beta users.  OFDMA+MUMIMO is really
> delivering here.
> 60Ghz 'low' band cambium, 1.7Gbps legit across the mesh, twice that with
> upcoming channel bonding.  base CPE 1Gbps port, mid 2.5gbps port, long
> 10Gbps port(s).  Build out model here is for 'In the rain' so no effective
> fade if built right.  if built wrong, fade to death.
> 60Ghz 'high' band ubiquiti wave.  <=800Mbps.  Technically a bit more but I
> haven't convinced a Wave AP to a Wave LR to do it.  I can however get 2
> customers/radios up to 1.5Gbps across the AP.  Plan with built in fade and
> intentional fail to 5Ghz beyond 2km.   Acceptable in Montana.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LibreQoS mailing list
> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9789 bytes --]

Re: [LibreQoS] Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[Herbert Wolverson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10442 bytes --]

I figured LTU was in trouble when they promised the moon, took years to
deliver anything, features kept dropping off the list and they went on a
posting spree of how MU-MIMO couldn't work outdoors. Glad we stayed away
from that one; it looks like Ubiquiti are quietly dropping it and going
802.11AX, which has the important features they dropped (OFDMA with tiny
sub-channels, in particular).

We have a bunch of 450m "medusa" running here (all 3ghz CBRS). Once we
found the magic combination of 5ms frames, GPS (via a SyncBox Junior), and
LTE Co-Existence Mode 2 (we have a lot of T-mobile in the area) it's been
pretty awesome. Top speeds aren't all that amazing (you can get 100 mbps
out of it), but it'll get 75 Mbps through some maple trees at 8 miles - and
that's really useful. Grouping has improved a bit in recent firmwares, but
still falls apart completely if you have more than 3-4 SMs who show up as
"not eligible" in sounding statistics. You have to watch the spatial
utilization from time to time to make sure you haven't flooded one of the
sub-channels. Overall, though - we've been really happy with it.  We
haven't loaded one much about 30 subscribers yet, and tend to use it as a
"5.x Ghz didn't work here" - but it really pushes the bits with 28 SMs at
8X and a couple of not-so-great ones.

The UI is funny. Many, many years ago we had Motorola WiMAX (the carrier
grade stuff that still had "clearwire" baked into the UI). The UI was
absolutely terrible. I'm pretty sure the Motorola group who developed it
went on to the Canopy group, because it's just like being back on that
system... (I poked around in one of their EMS management scripts and found
a hundred lines of x=1; y=1; x=y; y=x-y; etc. with a comment at the end ///
This should help my LoC count). I hope Cambium didn't keep that bit. :-|

We shied away from LTE, WiMAX burned a hole in our heads and our pockets!

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 8:25 AM dan via LibreQoS <
libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> LTU.. huge potential but majorly flawed product line.  We've stopped all
> LTU deployments because every site we built we'd watch the modulations
> slide down over time.  Every new netgear router in a neighborhood
> (practically...) takes modulations down a step.  Too many mornings hunting
> for a new usable channel because of a new source of noise and
> LTU's inability to cope with it at all.  We have mixed sites with airmax
> and LTU and the airmax outperforms the LTU because of these issues.  We
> even see more rain fade on LTU than airmax because it's so bad with
> multipathing.  Any fresnel infraction and LTU degrades at 2-3x the rate
> that airmax does.
>
> Wave's 16 client limitation is a challenge, looking forward to the mesh
> units (omni).  We don't have any saturated APs yet but I'm sure that's
> coming.  Doing a 6 AP 180 degree deployment next week and hoping to get
> near 100 subs directly off of that in ~2 months.
>
> I'm holding some of that AX gear in hand... no AP to compare against
> though :/  High hopes considering what we get out of force 4xx which is
> 'plain' AX.  I don't know how soon we'll see something, zero FCC leaks on a
> new AP so kinda waiting on that.
>
> I sht on ubiquiti a lot, mostly because the company likes to pull the rug
> on customers and leave them with obsolete hardware and perpetual bugs, and
> doesn't seem to ask any operators what we need, and the list goes on.  That
> said, it's far faster and easier to deploy ubiquiti gear than anything
> else. Installers love it.  The price is great.  If UI drops a 4x4-8x8 90
> degree AX AP we will almost certainly go that route over cambium.
>
> I've run or am running most brands out there with few exceptions.
> Frankly, we're getting just as good or better performance out of ubiquiti
> gear that cambium and have a lower failure rate.
>
> We also run Baicells LTE in CBRS, and 450i/450m in CBRS and we're getting
> more data through the LTE product than the cambium in nLoS.  In LoS 450i
> delivers about 50% more and latency is half.  HATE the 450i/450m
> interface.  1995.  finicky products as well, mumimo only working with many
> subs and evenly spread over a 90 degree arc which rarely fits our
> deployments.  450 gear is a huge letdown for us.  450m can deliver really
> well if conditions are right, but if they're not then it's a huge expense
> for little gain.
>
> Have held out hope that Mikrotik would show up to the AX race but nothing
> really there.  I have a decent sized single radio mesh network on Mikrotik
> Omnitiks that is working really well.  Using some wireless wire shots to
> shorten mesh paths up a bit.  Sell 25Mbps plans off those in a low income
> area.  It's a wave1 AC wireless driver so some pitfalls there, but their
> newer drivers don't support 802.11s or WDS yet so can't upgrade.  Would
> really love to find a dual radio openwrt AX box to run batman-adv on for a
> dual radio mesh but haven't found such a thing yet.
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 6:43 PM Mark Steckel <mjs@phillywisper.net> wrote:
>
>> Dan,
>>
>> Really appreciate the detailed breakdown of the various vendor gear. Very
>> helpful.
>>
>> We started Airmax AC, dabbled with LTU but don't trust it enough to
>> really deploy. Waiting for things to shake out a bit before we build out
>> broadcast on a new major site. (There is 200 units in the building and
>> people are switching from Comcast to us in droves, so can wait on the
>> broadcast equipment.)
>>
>> Have deployed some of the gen 1 Wave APs using AF50-LR as CPEs. Not as
>> big a fan as you yet. Finally received a couple of the new gen2 Wave APs.
>> planing to deploy them in the next couple of weeks along with Wave CPEs.
>> Cautiously optimisitc.
>>
>> My biggest concern about the Wave APs is the current limit of 16 clients.
>> Hopefully Ubnt will increase this to 32, other wise will have to think
>> about a lot more micro-pops.
>>
>> Any insight into Ubnt's new Airmax AX line?
>>
>> We have 3.3 km AF11 link that has been rock solid for 3 years. Signal
>> hovers around -35 dBm. This past May, an insane storm* just massively
>> dumped rain for 8 minutes. Never seen anything like it. The rain caused 34
>> dBm of fade. even so, the link stayed up and the signal recovered quickly.
>> A typical heavy storm usually causes only about 5 dBm of fade.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> * Mid-Atlantic coast
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 19:25:10 -0400 *dan via LibreQoS
>> <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>>* wrote
>> ---
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How bad are y'all's gear doing with rain fade on various techs and
>> bands? in 08, in nica, I'd go from a working 70 db 10 mile shot to
>> nothin at 5ghz when it rained, and I just laughed at the people trying
>> to deploy 60ghz - but times change. I see a vendor trying to ship 60
>> with *really good antennas* into the office market...
>>
>> big question to ask when so busy, please ignore me.
>>
>>
>> I have extensive testing with almost every gear out there.
>>
>> 5Ghz, no appreciable fade in snow or rain.  Longest shot on network right
>> now is 26 miles on AF5xHD 5Ghz on 2' dishes and we push a solid 300Mbps
>> across this with zero fade.  Actually gets a tiny bit better in the rain,
>> ie it is technically fading a bit but so is all the noise so it's a minor
>> improvement.
>>
>> I have 2x 7 miles force 425 links that are pushing 550Mbps.  And a 10
>> miles force 400c on 2' ubiquiti dishes that pushes 940 unidirectional in
>> 80Mhz.  No rain fade.  Lots of af5xhd and force4x links in different
>> distances.  We even mix in some LTU PtMP as PTP for price, ie LTU AP <>
>> LTU-LR or LTU-Pro for PTP.  Works well enough though this product is
>> susceptible to noise more than any other we use.
>>
>> Cambium 60Mhz cnwave is fantastic, legit 120 meters per link node to node
>> or small CPE, 500M to big CPE, about 300 to the not-quite-released mid
>> CPE.  Pushing 1.7Gbps FDX on against my preseem box and my m2 macbook with
>> nperf UDP.
>>
>> Ubiquiti gigabeam line, <1km ok, <800m even better.  AF 'LR' and 'XR'
>> rock solid at 2km, up to about 5km until they're down too much to be
>> usable.  Always backed up by a 5Ghz radio.
>>
>> Ubiquiti Wave, legit AP<>CPE out 2km and never fails over.  4km w/ wifi6
>> failover.  Fantastic product... probably the one to beat.
>>
>> Mikrotik 60Ghz 'ay about 200m on AP to small CPE, 500m AP to nRay.  Can
>> get a little more but it's really close and rain fade gets you.  These have
>> 'ac wireless backup in them so we can EASILY push 300m on the small and
>> 800m on the nRay knowing we have about 4 hours a year in 5Ghz failover.
>>
>> Basically, and MIMO 5Ghz, 6Ghz, or 2.4Ghz product isn't going to
>> noticably fade.  MOST fade in these bands is actually thermal ducting
>> 'turning' the beam off aim.
>>
>> 60Ghz should be considered 2 separate bands.  channels 1-4 are short
>> range, <1km in PTP, <300m in PtMP if you want to have links stay up.
>> channels 5,6 are 2-3x longer.  Unfortunately, only ubiquiti really playing
>> in this space right now, mikrotik's channel 5 support is at a lower output
>> power so it's 'ok'.  Tachyon coming into this space as well, but unproven
>> and AFAIK zero beta deployments.
>>
>> 5Ghz <=200M service plans today with a well built network and good
>> AP/Antenna choices, <=500Mbps with WiFi6 tech.  technically a bit more, but
>> with reasonable ratios this is about right
>> 6Ghz <=900Mbps plans on live beta users.  OFDMA+MUMIMO is really
>> delivering here.
>> 60Ghz 'low' band cambium, 1.7Gbps legit across the mesh, twice that with
>> upcoming channel bonding.  base CPE 1Gbps port, mid 2.5gbps port, long
>> 10Gbps port(s).  Build out model here is for 'In the rain' so no effective
>> fade if built right.  if built wrong, fade to death.
>> 60Ghz 'high' band ubiquiti wave.  <=800Mbps.  Technically a bit more but
>> I haven't convinced a Wave AP to a Wave LR to do it.  I can however get 2
>> customers/radios up to 1.5Gbps across the AP.  Plan with built in fade and
>> intentional fail to 5Ghz beyond 2km.   Acceptable in Montana.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LibreQoS mailing list
>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> LibreQoS mailing list
> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12660 bytes --]

Re: [LibreQoS] Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[dan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 11192 bytes --]

LTE is our primary '5Ghz didn't work' and 450i/450m the secondary.
primarily due to cost.  Baicells UI has zero advantage on Cambium's lol.
 But I can push 50Mbps through a -80 RSSI every day and nothing else can do
that (short of Tarana...)

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 7:43 AM Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS <
libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> I figured LTU was in trouble when they promised the moon, took years to
> deliver anything, features kept dropping off the list and they went on a
> posting spree of how MU-MIMO couldn't work outdoors. Glad we stayed away
> from that one; it looks like Ubiquiti are quietly dropping it and going
> 802.11AX, which has the important features they dropped (OFDMA with tiny
> sub-channels, in particular).
>
> We have a bunch of 450m "medusa" running here (all 3ghz CBRS). Once we
> found the magic combination of 5ms frames, GPS (via a SyncBox Junior), and
> LTE Co-Existence Mode 2 (we have a lot of T-mobile in the area) it's been
> pretty awesome. Top speeds aren't all that amazing (you can get 100 mbps
> out of it), but it'll get 75 Mbps through some maple trees at 8 miles - and
> that's really useful. Grouping has improved a bit in recent firmwares, but
> still falls apart completely if you have more than 3-4 SMs who show up as
> "not eligible" in sounding statistics. You have to watch the spatial
> utilization from time to time to make sure you haven't flooded one of the
> sub-channels. Overall, though - we've been really happy with it.  We
> haven't loaded one much about 30 subscribers yet, and tend to use it as a
> "5.x Ghz didn't work here" - but it really pushes the bits with 28 SMs at
> 8X and a couple of not-so-great ones.
>
> The UI is funny. Many, many years ago we had Motorola WiMAX (the carrier
> grade stuff that still had "clearwire" baked into the UI). The UI was
> absolutely terrible. I'm pretty sure the Motorola group who developed it
> went on to the Canopy group, because it's just like being back on that
> system... (I poked around in one of their EMS management scripts and found
> a hundred lines of x=1; y=1; x=y; y=x-y; etc. with a comment at the end ///
> This should help my LoC count). I hope Cambium didn't keep that bit. :-|
>
> We shied away from LTE, WiMAX burned a hole in our heads and our pockets!
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 8:25 AM dan via LibreQoS <
> libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>> LTU.. huge potential but majorly flawed product line.  We've stopped all
>> LTU deployments because every site we built we'd watch the modulations
>> slide down over time.  Every new netgear router in a neighborhood
>> (practically...) takes modulations down a step.  Too many mornings hunting
>> for a new usable channel because of a new source of noise and
>> LTU's inability to cope with it at all.  We have mixed sites with airmax
>> and LTU and the airmax outperforms the LTU because of these issues.  We
>> even see more rain fade on LTU than airmax because it's so bad with
>> multipathing.  Any fresnel infraction and LTU degrades at 2-3x the rate
>> that airmax does.
>>
>> Wave's 16 client limitation is a challenge, looking forward to the mesh
>> units (omni).  We don't have any saturated APs yet but I'm sure that's
>> coming.  Doing a 6 AP 180 degree deployment next week and hoping to get
>> near 100 subs directly off of that in ~2 months.
>>
>> I'm holding some of that AX gear in hand... no AP to compare against
>> though :/  High hopes considering what we get out of force 4xx which is
>> 'plain' AX.  I don't know how soon we'll see something, zero FCC leaks on a
>> new AP so kinda waiting on that.
>>
>> I sht on ubiquiti a lot, mostly because the company likes to pull the rug
>> on customers and leave them with obsolete hardware and perpetual bugs, and
>> doesn't seem to ask any operators what we need, and the list goes on.  That
>> said, it's far faster and easier to deploy ubiquiti gear than anything
>> else. Installers love it.  The price is great.  If UI drops a 4x4-8x8 90
>> degree AX AP we will almost certainly go that route over cambium.
>>
>> I've run or am running most brands out there with few exceptions.
>> Frankly, we're getting just as good or better performance out of ubiquiti
>> gear that cambium and have a lower failure rate.
>>
>> We also run Baicells LTE in CBRS, and 450i/450m in CBRS and we're getting
>> more data through the LTE product than the cambium in nLoS.  In LoS 450i
>> delivers about 50% more and latency is half.  HATE the 450i/450m
>> interface.  1995.  finicky products as well, mumimo only working with many
>> subs and evenly spread over a 90 degree arc which rarely fits our
>> deployments.  450 gear is a huge letdown for us.  450m can deliver really
>> well if conditions are right, but if they're not then it's a huge expense
>> for little gain.
>>
>> Have held out hope that Mikrotik would show up to the AX race but nothing
>> really there.  I have a decent sized single radio mesh network on Mikrotik
>> Omnitiks that is working really well.  Using some wireless wire shots to
>> shorten mesh paths up a bit.  Sell 25Mbps plans off those in a low income
>> area.  It's a wave1 AC wireless driver so some pitfalls there, but their
>> newer drivers don't support 802.11s or WDS yet so can't upgrade.  Would
>> really love to find a dual radio openwrt AX box to run batman-adv on for a
>> dual radio mesh but haven't found such a thing yet.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 6:43 PM Mark Steckel <mjs@phillywisper.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dan,
>>>
>>> Really appreciate the detailed breakdown of the various vendor gear.
>>> Very helpful.
>>>
>>> We started Airmax AC, dabbled with LTU but don't trust it enough to
>>> really deploy. Waiting for things to shake out a bit before we build out
>>> broadcast on a new major site. (There is 200 units in the building and
>>> people are switching from Comcast to us in droves, so can wait on the
>>> broadcast equipment.)
>>>
>>> Have deployed some of the gen 1 Wave APs using AF50-LR as CPEs. Not as
>>> big a fan as you yet. Finally received a couple of the new gen2 Wave APs.
>>> planing to deploy them in the next couple of weeks along with Wave CPEs.
>>> Cautiously optimisitc.
>>>
>>> My biggest concern about the Wave APs is the current limit of 16
>>> clients. Hopefully Ubnt will increase this to 32, other wise will have to
>>> think about a lot more micro-pops.
>>>
>>> Any insight into Ubnt's new Airmax AX line?
>>>
>>> We have 3.3 km AF11 link that has been rock solid for 3 years. Signal
>>> hovers around -35 dBm. This past May, an insane storm* just massively
>>> dumped rain for 8 minutes. Never seen anything like it. The rain caused 34
>>> dBm of fade. even so, the link stayed up and the signal recovered quickly.
>>> A typical heavy storm usually causes only about 5 dBm of fade.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> * Mid-Atlantic coast
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---- On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 19:25:10 -0400 *dan via LibreQoS
>>> <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>>*
>>> wrote ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How bad are y'all's gear doing with rain fade on various techs and
>>> bands? in 08, in nica, I'd go from a working 70 db 10 mile shot to
>>> nothin at 5ghz when it rained, and I just laughed at the people trying
>>> to deploy 60ghz - but times change. I see a vendor trying to ship 60
>>> with *really good antennas* into the office market...
>>>
>>> big question to ask when so busy, please ignore me.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have extensive testing with almost every gear out there.
>>>
>>> 5Ghz, no appreciable fade in snow or rain.  Longest shot on network
>>> right now is 26 miles on AF5xHD 5Ghz on 2' dishes and we push a solid
>>> 300Mbps across this with zero fade.  Actually gets a tiny bit better in the
>>> rain, ie it is technically fading a bit but so is all the noise so it's a
>>> minor improvement.
>>>
>>> I have 2x 7 miles force 425 links that are pushing 550Mbps.  And a 10
>>> miles force 400c on 2' ubiquiti dishes that pushes 940 unidirectional in
>>> 80Mhz.  No rain fade.  Lots of af5xhd and force4x links in different
>>> distances.  We even mix in some LTU PtMP as PTP for price, ie LTU AP <>
>>> LTU-LR or LTU-Pro for PTP.  Works well enough though this product is
>>> susceptible to noise more than any other we use.
>>>
>>> Cambium 60Mhz cnwave is fantastic, legit 120 meters per link node to
>>> node or small CPE, 500M to big CPE, about 300 to the not-quite-released mid
>>> CPE.  Pushing 1.7Gbps FDX on against my preseem box and my m2 macbook with
>>> nperf UDP.
>>>
>>> Ubiquiti gigabeam line, <1km ok, <800m even better.  AF 'LR' and 'XR'
>>> rock solid at 2km, up to about 5km until they're down too much to be
>>> usable.  Always backed up by a 5Ghz radio.
>>>
>>> Ubiquiti Wave, legit AP<>CPE out 2km and never fails over.  4km w/ wifi6
>>> failover.  Fantastic product... probably the one to beat.
>>>
>>> Mikrotik 60Ghz 'ay about 200m on AP to small CPE, 500m AP to nRay.  Can
>>> get a little more but it's really close and rain fade gets you.  These have
>>> 'ac wireless backup in them so we can EASILY push 300m on the small and
>>> 800m on the nRay knowing we have about 4 hours a year in 5Ghz failover.
>>>
>>> Basically, and MIMO 5Ghz, 6Ghz, or 2.4Ghz product isn't going to
>>> noticably fade.  MOST fade in these bands is actually thermal ducting
>>> 'turning' the beam off aim.
>>>
>>> 60Ghz should be considered 2 separate bands.  channels 1-4 are short
>>> range, <1km in PTP, <300m in PtMP if you want to have links stay up.
>>> channels 5,6 are 2-3x longer.  Unfortunately, only ubiquiti really playing
>>> in this space right now, mikrotik's channel 5 support is at a lower output
>>> power so it's 'ok'.  Tachyon coming into this space as well, but unproven
>>> and AFAIK zero beta deployments.
>>>
>>> 5Ghz <=200M service plans today with a well built network and good
>>> AP/Antenna choices, <=500Mbps with WiFi6 tech.  technically a bit more, but
>>> with reasonable ratios this is about right
>>> 6Ghz <=900Mbps plans on live beta users.  OFDMA+MUMIMO is really
>>> delivering here.
>>> 60Ghz 'low' band cambium, 1.7Gbps legit across the mesh, twice that with
>>> upcoming channel bonding.  base CPE 1Gbps port, mid 2.5gbps port, long
>>> 10Gbps port(s).  Build out model here is for 'In the rain' so no effective
>>> fade if built right.  if built wrong, fade to death.
>>> 60Ghz 'high' band ubiquiti wave.  <=800Mbps.  Technically a bit more but
>>> I haven't convinced a Wave AP to a Wave LR to do it.  I can however get 2
>>> customers/radios up to 1.5Gbps across the AP.  Plan with built in fade and
>>> intentional fail to 5Ghz beyond 2km.   Acceptable in Montana.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LibreQoS mailing list
>>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> LibreQoS mailing list
>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LibreQoS mailing list
> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 13711 bytes --]

Re: [LibreQoS] Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[Dave Taht]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:25 PM dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> How bad are y'all's gear doing with rain fade on various techs and
>> bands? in 08, in nica, I'd go from a working 70 db 10 mile shot to
>> nothin at 5ghz when it rained, and I just laughed at the people trying
>> to deploy 60ghz - but times change. I see a vendor trying to ship 60
>> with *really good antennas* into the office market...
>>
>> big question to ask when so busy, please ignore me.
>>
>
> I have extensive testing with almost every gear out there.
>
> 5Ghz, no appreciable fade in snow or rain.  Longest shot on network right now is 26 miles on AF5xHD 5Ghz on 2' dishes and we push a solid 300Mbps across this with zero fade.  Actually gets a tiny bit better in the rain, ie it is technically fading a bit but so is all the noise so it's a minor improvement.
>
> I have 2x 7 miles force 425 links that are pushing 550Mbps.  And a 10 miles force 400c on 2' ubiquiti dishes that pushes 940 unidirectional in 80Mhz.  No rain fade.  Lots of af5xhd and force4x links in different distances.  We even mix in some LTU PtMP as PTP for price, ie LTU AP <> LTU-LR or LTU-Pro for PTP.  Works well enough though this product is susceptible to noise more than any other we use.
>
> Cambium 60Mhz cnwave is fantastic, legit 120 meters per link node to node or small CPE, 500M to big CPE, about 300 to the not-quite-released mid CPE.  Pushing 1.7Gbps FDX on against my preseem box and my m2 macbook with nperf UDP.
>
> Ubiquiti gigabeam line, <1km ok, <800m even better.  AF 'LR' and 'XR' rock solid at 2km, up to about 5km until they're down too much to be usable.  Always backed up by a 5Ghz radio.
>
> Ubiquiti Wave, legit AP<>CPE out 2km and never fails over.  4km w/ wifi6 failover.  Fantastic product... probably the one to beat.
>
> Mikrotik 60Ghz 'ay about 200m on AP to small CPE, 500m AP to nRay.  Can get a little more but it's really close and rain fade gets you.  These have 'ac wireless backup in them so we can EASILY push 300m on the small and 800m on the nRay knowing we have about 4 hours a year in 5Ghz failover.
>
> Basically, and MIMO 5Ghz, 6Ghz, or 2.4Ghz product isn't going to noticably fade.  MOST fade in these bands is actually thermal ducting 'turning' the beam off aim.
>
> 60Ghz should be considered 2 separate bands.  channels 1-4 are short range, <1km in PTP, <300m in PtMP if you want to have links stay up.  channels 5,6 are 2-3x longer.  Unfortunately, only ubiquiti really playing in this space right now, mikrotik's channel 5 support is at a lower output power so it's 'ok'.  Tachyon coming into this space as well, but unproven and AFAIK zero beta deployments.
>
> 5Ghz <=200M service plans today with a well built network and good AP/Antenna choices, <=500Mbps with WiFi6 tech.  technically a bit more, but with reasonable ratios this is about right
> 6Ghz <=900Mbps plans on live beta users.  OFDMA+MUMIMO is really delivering here.
> 60Ghz 'low' band cambium, 1.7Gbps legit across the mesh, twice that with upcoming channel bonding.  base CPE 1Gbps port, mid 2.5gbps port, long 10Gbps port(s).  Build out model here is for 'In the rain' so no effective fade if built right.  if built wrong, fade to death.
> 60Ghz 'high' band ubiquiti wave.  <=800Mbps.  Technically a bit more but I haven't convinced a Wave AP to a Wave LR to do it.  I can however get 2 customers/radios up to 1.5Gbps across the AP.  Plan with built in fade and intentional fail to 5Ghz beyond 2km.   Acceptable in Montana.

Thx for such a deep dive! How about Tarana?

How does "Terragraph" derived tech tie back into shipping products?

I've been involved with a bunch of other highly speculative
technologies over the years.

# Free space optics

Koruza showed promise at one point: http://www.koruza.net/

Google's been trying to line up folk for this for a while:

https://x.company/projects/taara/

# Radios

... I appreciate the data on all these radios, their relative
performance and range. This stuff needs to  end up in
a wiki chart somewhere. ?
... but it's not knowing the buffering on em that bugs me the most. :/
Got all kinds of measurement tools for that

crusader, in particular, is coming along.
packet caps from iperf sessions...
flent to a raspi on the other side of the link...

# Still a hardware guy at heart

Back in 2013 I had thought hard about entering the market for radios
in the 11ghz (and wispa just freed up a lot of space in the 10? or 12?
band for future use) licensed spectrums, but I couldn't stomach
working with qualcomm again. I have some hope a mediatek might get
into that, and I could work with them.

anyone got devices that can use channel 172 yet? That just got freed up too.

>
>
>



-- 
This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Re: [LibreQoS] Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[dan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6848 bytes --]

Tarana is a mess.  On one hand there's magic in their multipathing and
reassembly, frankly the next best thing is 10% as good.  On the flip side,
it's a highly manipulated transport and virtually none of your typical
tools for monitoring connects works all that well because there's so much
prioritization and filtering going on.  Next wisp up the road is demoing it
out and talking about it a lot.    LOTS of bugs.

Terragraph is just a transparent fabric.  Like doing a big RSTP mesh of
switches.  How this comes back to shaping is that it's necessary to shape
for that first hop out since the second and third etc hops are all
essentially the same speed.  Have to produce an artificial bottleneck at
the head end PER DN to keep that in shape.  Also the complication of having
1.8-3.6Gbps 'backhauls' or worse, 3.6-7.2Gbps with channel bonding and dual
radios on the POP DN.  Also, since you can have multiple DNs off your
headend, each with that kind of bandwidth, now have to consider running a
dedicated shaper box/instance able to handle that for each radio.

We're already selling 200,600, 1G services off these and they're
incredible.  Smokes a docsis plant, we're 4ms to google on the headend and
customers on an Eero Pro 6E will see 5-8ms on their devices.

As far as FSO, interesting but 80Ghz is basically better in every way and
those radios are coming down in price pretty quickly.   10Gbps FDX link on
siklu 8010 is under $6k if you have a good rep.  2.5Gbps <$3500.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:57 AM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:25 PM dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> How bad are y'all's gear doing with rain fade on various techs and
> >> bands? in 08, in nica, I'd go from a working 70 db 10 mile shot to
> >> nothin at 5ghz when it rained, and I just laughed at the people trying
> >> to deploy 60ghz - but times change. I see a vendor trying to ship 60
> >> with *really good antennas* into the office market...
> >>
> >> big question to ask when so busy, please ignore me.
> >>
> >
> > I have extensive testing with almost every gear out there.
> >
> > 5Ghz, no appreciable fade in snow or rain.  Longest shot on network
> right now is 26 miles on AF5xHD 5Ghz on 2' dishes and we push a solid
> 300Mbps across this with zero fade.  Actually gets a tiny bit better in the
> rain, ie it is technically fading a bit but so is all the noise so it's a
> minor improvement.
> >
> > I have 2x 7 miles force 425 links that are pushing 550Mbps.  And a 10
> miles force 400c on 2' ubiquiti dishes that pushes 940 unidirectional in
> 80Mhz.  No rain fade.  Lots of af5xhd and force4x links in different
> distances.  We even mix in some LTU PtMP as PTP for price, ie LTU AP <>
> LTU-LR or LTU-Pro for PTP.  Works well enough though this product is
> susceptible to noise more than any other we use.
> >
> > Cambium 60Mhz cnwave is fantastic, legit 120 meters per link node to
> node or small CPE, 500M to big CPE, about 300 to the not-quite-released mid
> CPE.  Pushing 1.7Gbps FDX on against my preseem box and my m2 macbook with
> nperf UDP.
> >
> > Ubiquiti gigabeam line, <1km ok, <800m even better.  AF 'LR' and 'XR'
> rock solid at 2km, up to about 5km until they're down too much to be
> usable.  Always backed up by a 5Ghz radio.
> >
> > Ubiquiti Wave, legit AP<>CPE out 2km and never fails over.  4km w/ wifi6
> failover.  Fantastic product... probably the one to beat.
> >
> > Mikrotik 60Ghz 'ay about 200m on AP to small CPE, 500m AP to nRay.  Can
> get a little more but it's really close and rain fade gets you.  These have
> 'ac wireless backup in them so we can EASILY push 300m on the small and
> 800m on the nRay knowing we have about 4 hours a year in 5Ghz failover.
> >
> > Basically, and MIMO 5Ghz, 6Ghz, or 2.4Ghz product isn't going to
> noticably fade.  MOST fade in these bands is actually thermal ducting
> 'turning' the beam off aim.
> >
> > 60Ghz should be considered 2 separate bands.  channels 1-4 are short
> range, <1km in PTP, <300m in PtMP if you want to have links stay up.
> channels 5,6 are 2-3x longer.  Unfortunately, only ubiquiti really playing
> in this space right now, mikrotik's channel 5 support is at a lower output
> power so it's 'ok'.  Tachyon coming into this space as well, but unproven
> and AFAIK zero beta deployments.
> >
> > 5Ghz <=200M service plans today with a well built network and good
> AP/Antenna choices, <=500Mbps with WiFi6 tech.  technically a bit more, but
> with reasonable ratios this is about right
> > 6Ghz <=900Mbps plans on live beta users.  OFDMA+MUMIMO is really
> delivering here.
> > 60Ghz 'low' band cambium, 1.7Gbps legit across the mesh, twice that with
> upcoming channel bonding.  base CPE 1Gbps port, mid 2.5gbps port, long
> 10Gbps port(s).  Build out model here is for 'In the rain' so no effective
> fade if built right.  if built wrong, fade to death.
> > 60Ghz 'high' band ubiquiti wave.  <=800Mbps.  Technically a bit more but
> I haven't convinced a Wave AP to a Wave LR to do it.  I can however get 2
> customers/radios up to 1.5Gbps across the AP.  Plan with built in fade and
> intentional fail to 5Ghz beyond 2km.   Acceptable in Montana.
>
> Thx for such a deep dive! How about Tarana?
>
> How does "Terragraph" derived tech tie back into shipping products?
>
> I've been involved with a bunch of other highly speculative
> technologies over the years.
>
> # Free space optics
>
> Koruza showed promise at one point: http://www.koruza.net/
>
> Google's been trying to line up folk for this for a while:
>
> https://x.company/projects/taara/
>
> # Radios
>
> ... I appreciate the data on all these radios, their relative
> performance and range. This stuff needs to  end up in
> a wiki chart somewhere. ?
> ... but it's not knowing the buffering on em that bugs me the most. :/
> Got all kinds of measurement tools for that
>
> crusader, in particular, is coming along.
> packet caps from iperf sessions...
> flent to a raspi on the other side of the link...
>
> # Still a hardware guy at heart
>
> Back in 2013 I had thought hard about entering the market for radios
> in the 11ghz (and wispa just freed up a lot of space in the 10? or 12?
> band for future use) licensed spectrums, but I couldn't stomach
> working with qualcomm again. I have some hope a mediatek might get
> into that, and I could work with them.
>
> anyone got devices that can use channel 172 yet? That just got freed up
> too.
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7966 bytes --]

Re: [LibreQoS] 10G radios Was: Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[Mark Steckel]

Dan,

---- On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 22:22:04 -0400 dan via LibreQoS  wrote ---
 > 
 > As far as FSO, interesting but 80Ghz is basically better in every way and those radios are coming down in price pretty quickly.   10Gbps FDX link on siklu 8010 is under $6k if you have a good rep. 

Do you have any experience with Aviat or other 80 GHz radios? Planning to purchase some links in the next few months and I'm look for unbiased info.

Thanks
Mark





 > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:57 AM Dave Taht dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
 > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:25 PM dan dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >>
 >  >>
 >  >>
 >  >> How bad are y'all's gear doing with rain fade on various techs and
 >  >> bands? in 08, in nica, I'd go from a working 70 db 10 mile shot to
 >  >> nothin at 5ghz when it rained, and I just laughed at the people trying
 >  >> to deploy 60ghz - but times change. I see a vendor trying to ship 60
 >  >> with *really good antennas* into the office market...
 >  >>
 >  >> big question to ask when so busy, please ignore me.
 >  >>
 >  >
 >  > I have extensive testing with almost every gear out there.
 >  >
 >  > 5Ghz, no appreciable fade in snow or rain.  Longest shot on network right now is 26 miles on AF5xHD 5Ghz on 2' dishes and we push a solid 300Mbps across this with zero fade.  Actually gets a tiny bit better in the rain, ie it is technically fading a bit but so is all the noise so it's a minor improvement.
 >  >
 >  > I have 2x 7 miles force 425 links that are pushing 550Mbps.  And a 10 miles force 400c on 2' ubiquiti dishes that pushes 940 unidirectional in 80Mhz.  No rain fade.  Lots of af5xhd and force4x links in different distances.  We even mix in some LTU PtMP as PTP for price, ie LTU AP  LTU-LR or LTU-Pro for PTP.  Works well enough though this product is susceptible to noise more than any other we use.
 >  >
 >  > Cambium 60Mhz cnwave is fantastic, legit 120 meters per link node to node or small CPE, 500M to big CPE, about 300 to the not-quite-released mid CPE.  Pushing 1.7Gbps FDX on against my preseem box and my m2 macbook with nperf UDP.
 >  >
 >  > Ubiquiti gigabeam line, <1km ok, <800m even better.  AF 'LR' and 'XR' rock solid at 2km, up to about 5km until they're down too much to be usable.  Always backed up by a 5Ghz radio.
 >  >
 >  > Ubiquiti Wave, legit APCPE out 2km and never fails over.  4km w/ wifi6 failover.  Fantastic product... probably the one to beat.
 >  >
 >  > Mikrotik 60Ghz 'ay about 200m on AP to small CPE, 500m AP to nRay.  Can get a little more but it's really close and rain fade gets you.  These have 'ac wireless backup in them so we can EASILY push 300m on the small and 800m on the nRay knowing we have about 4 hours a year in 5Ghz failover.
 >  >
 >  > Basically, and MIMO 5Ghz, 6Ghz, or 2.4Ghz product isn't going to noticably fade.  MOST fade in these bands is actually thermal ducting 'turning' the beam off aim.
 >  >
 >  > 60Ghz should be considered 2 separate bands.  channels 1-4 are short range, <1km in PTP, <300m in PtMP if you want to have links stay up.  channels 5,6 are 2-3x longer.  Unfortunately, only ubiquiti really playing in this space right now, mikrotik's channel 5 support is at a lower output power so it's 'ok'.  Tachyon coming into this space as well, but unproven and AFAIK zero beta deployments.
 >  >
 >  > 5Ghz <=200M service plans today with a well built network and good AP/Antenna choices, <=500Mbps with WiFi6 tech.  technically a bit more, but with reasonable ratios this is about right
 >  > 6Ghz <=900Mbps plans on live beta users.  OFDMA+MUMIMO is really delivering here.
 >  > 60Ghz 'low' band cambium, 1.7Gbps legit across the mesh, twice that with upcoming channel bonding.  base CPE 1Gbps port, mid 2.5gbps port, long 10Gbps port(s).  Build out model here is for 'In the rain' so no effective fade if built right.  if built wrong, fade to death.
 >  > 60Ghz 'high' band ubiquiti wave.  <=800Mbps.  Technically a bit more but I haven't convinced a Wave AP to a Wave LR to do it.  I can however get 2 customers/radios up to 1.5Gbps across the AP.  Plan with built in fade and intentional fail to 5Ghz beyond 2km.   Acceptable in Montana.
 >  
 >  Thx for such a deep dive! How about Tarana?
 >  
 >  How does "Terragraph" derived tech tie back into shipping products?
 >  
 >  I've been involved with a bunch of other highly speculative
 >  technologies over the years.
 >  
 >  # Free space optics
 >  
 >  Koruza showed promise at one point: http://www.koruza.net/
 >  
 >  Google's been trying to line up folk for this for a while:
 >  
 >  https://x.company/projects/taara/
 >  
 >  # Radios
 >  
 >  ... I appreciate the data on all these radios, their relative
 >  performance and range. This stuff needs to  end up in
 >  a wiki chart somewhere. ?
 >  ... but it's not knowing the buffering on em that bugs me the most. :/
 >  Got all kinds of measurement tools for that
 >  
 >  crusader, in particular, is coming along.
 >  packet caps from iperf sessions...
 >  flent to a raspi on the other side of the link...
 >  
 >  # Still a hardware guy at heart
 >  
 >  Back in 2013 I had thought hard about entering the market for radios
 >  in the 11ghz (and wispa just freed up a lot of space in the 10? or 12?
 >  band for future use) licensed spectrums, but I couldn't stomach
 >  working with qualcomm again. I have some hope a mediatek might get
 >  into that, and I could work with them.
 >  
 >  anyone got devices that can use channel 172 yet? That just got freed up too.
 >  
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  
 >  
 >  
 >  -- 
 >  This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
 >  https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
 >  Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
 > _______________________________________________
 > LibreQoS mailing list
 > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
 > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
 > 

Re: [LibreQoS] Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[Dave Taht]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 7:22 PM dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Tarana is a mess.  On one hand there's magic in their multipathing and reassembly, frankly the next best thing is 10% as good.  On the flip side, it's a highly manipulated transport and virtually none of your typical tools for monitoring connects works all that well because there's so much prioritization and filtering going on.  Next wisp up the road is demoing it out and talking about it a lot.    LOTS of bugs.

Thank you as always for the torrent of information. I've been trying
to get them to give fq_codel and cake a shot, they
haven't listened.

>
> Terragraph is just a transparent fabric.  Like doing a big RSTP mesh of switches.  How this comes back to shaping is that it's necessary to shape for that first hop out since the second and third etc hops are all essentially the same speed.  Have to produce an artificial bottleneck at the head end PER DN to keep that in shape.  Also the complication of having 1.8-3.6Gbps 'backhauls' or worse, 3.6-7.2Gbps with channel bonding and dual radios on the POP DN.  Also, since you can have multiple DNs off your headend, each with that kind of bandwidth, now have to consider running a dedicated shaper box/instance able to handle that for each radio.

This strikes me as a good goal for something like libreqos on the
march to 100Gbit, or dedicated hw like what paraqum
provides. I am dying to see if 100Gbit is feasible with 64 cores, now.

> We're already selling 200,600, 1G services off these and they're incredible.  Smokes a docsis plant, we're 4ms to google on the headend and customers on an Eero Pro 6E will see 5-8ms on their devices.

Docsis 4.0 LL has a much faster request/grant cycle available as a
priority queue via the L4S concept. About 2ms. They want to sell low
latency to gamers, and open up the diffserv bits so that they can bill
both services trying to use that channel, and the customer.

> As far as FSO, interesting but 80Ghz is basically better in every way and those radios are coming down in price pretty quickly.   10Gbps FDX link on siklu 8010 is under $6k if you have a good rep.  2.5Gbps <$3500.
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:57 AM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:25 PM dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How bad are y'all's gear doing with rain fade on various techs and
>> >> bands? in 08, in nica, I'd go from a working 70 db 10 mile shot to
>> >> nothin at 5ghz when it rained, and I just laughed at the people trying
>> >> to deploy 60ghz - but times change. I see a vendor trying to ship 60
>> >> with *really good antennas* into the office market...
>> >>
>> >> big question to ask when so busy, please ignore me.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I have extensive testing with almost every gear out there.
>> >
>> > 5Ghz, no appreciable fade in snow or rain.  Longest shot on network right now is 26 miles on AF5xHD 5Ghz on 2' dishes and we push a solid 300Mbps across this with zero fade.  Actually gets a tiny bit better in the rain, ie it is technically fading a bit but so is all the noise so it's a minor improvement.
>> >
>> > I have 2x 7 miles force 425 links that are pushing 550Mbps.  And a 10 miles force 400c on 2' ubiquiti dishes that pushes 940 unidirectional in 80Mhz.  No rain fade.  Lots of af5xhd and force4x links in different distances.  We even mix in some LTU PtMP as PTP for price, ie LTU AP <> LTU-LR or LTU-Pro for PTP.  Works well enough though this product is susceptible to noise more than any other we use.
>> >
>> > Cambium 60Mhz cnwave is fantastic, legit 120 meters per link node to node or small CPE, 500M to big CPE, about 300 to the not-quite-released mid CPE.  Pushing 1.7Gbps FDX on against my preseem box and my m2 macbook with nperf UDP.
>> >
>> > Ubiquiti gigabeam line, <1km ok, <800m even better.  AF 'LR' and 'XR' rock solid at 2km, up to about 5km until they're down too much to be usable.  Always backed up by a 5Ghz radio.
>> >
>> > Ubiquiti Wave, legit AP<>CPE out 2km and never fails over.  4km w/ wifi6 failover.  Fantastic product... probably the one to beat.
>> >
>> > Mikrotik 60Ghz 'ay about 200m on AP to small CPE, 500m AP to nRay.  Can get a little more but it's really close and rain fade gets you.  These have 'ac wireless backup in them so we can EASILY push 300m on the small and 800m on the nRay knowing we have about 4 hours a year in 5Ghz failover.
>> >
>> > Basically, and MIMO 5Ghz, 6Ghz, or 2.4Ghz product isn't going to noticably fade.  MOST fade in these bands is actually thermal ducting 'turning' the beam off aim.
>> >
>> > 60Ghz should be considered 2 separate bands.  channels 1-4 are short range, <1km in PTP, <300m in PtMP if you want to have links stay up.  channels 5,6 are 2-3x longer.  Unfortunately, only ubiquiti really playing in this space right now, mikrotik's channel 5 support is at a lower output power so it's 'ok'.  Tachyon coming into this space as well, but unproven and AFAIK zero beta deployments.
>> >
>> > 5Ghz <=200M service plans today with a well built network and good AP/Antenna choices, <=500Mbps with WiFi6 tech.  technically a bit more, but with reasonable ratios this is about right
>> > 6Ghz <=900Mbps plans on live beta users.  OFDMA+MUMIMO is really delivering here.
>> > 60Ghz 'low' band cambium, 1.7Gbps legit across the mesh, twice that with upcoming channel bonding.  base CPE 1Gbps port, mid 2.5gbps port, long 10Gbps port(s).  Build out model here is for 'In the rain' so no effective fade if built right.  if built wrong, fade to death.
>> > 60Ghz 'high' band ubiquiti wave.  <=800Mbps.  Technically a bit more but I haven't convinced a Wave AP to a Wave LR to do it.  I can however get 2 customers/radios up to 1.5Gbps across the AP.  Plan with built in fade and intentional fail to 5Ghz beyond 2km.   Acceptable in Montana.
>>
>> Thx for such a deep dive! How about Tarana?
>>
>> How does "Terragraph" derived tech tie back into shipping products?
>>
>> I've been involved with a bunch of other highly speculative
>> technologies over the years.
>>
>> # Free space optics
>>
>> Koruza showed promise at one point: http://www.koruza.net/
>>
>> Google's been trying to line up folk for this for a while:
>>
>> https://x.company/projects/taara/
>>
>> # Radios
>>
>> ... I appreciate the data on all these radios, their relative
>> performance and range. This stuff needs to  end up in
>> a wiki chart somewhere. ?
>> ... but it's not knowing the buffering on em that bugs me the most. :/
>> Got all kinds of measurement tools for that
>>
>> crusader, in particular, is coming along.
>> packet caps from iperf sessions...
>> flent to a raspi on the other side of the link...
>>
>> # Still a hardware guy at heart
>>
>> Back in 2013 I had thought hard about entering the market for radios
>> in the 11ghz (and wispa just freed up a lot of space in the 10? or 12?
>> band for future use) licensed spectrums, but I couldn't stomach
>> working with qualcomm again. I have some hope a mediatek might get
>> into that, and I could work with them.
>>
>> anyone got devices that can use channel 172 yet? That just got freed up too.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
>> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
>> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC



-- 
This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Re: [LibreQoS] 10G radios Was: Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[dan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6844 bytes --]

Siklu is great, service and support are ok.  Aviat is also great, a bit
more money, but better support via their reps. One issue with siklu that
aviat doesn’t have is that siklu support is all in Israel so you have some
delays but it’s manageable.  8010 is really hard to beat.  Also? Siklu
pairs up with a dual band dish so you can slap on an Af5xhd or force 400c
and pass that through the siklu for hitless failover.


On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 8:29 PM Mark Steckel <mjs@phillywisper.net> wrote:

> Dan,
>
> ---- On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 22:22:04 -0400 dan via LibreQoS  wrote ---
>  >
>  > As far as FSO, interesting but 80Ghz is basically better in every way
> and those radios are coming down in price pretty quickly.   10Gbps FDX link
> on siklu 8010 is under $6k if you have a good rep.
>
> Do you have any experience with Aviat or other 80 GHz radios? Planning to
> purchase some links in the next few months and I'm look for unbiased info.
>
> Thanks
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>  > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:57 AM Dave Taht dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:25 PM dan dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >>
>  >  >>
>  >  >>
>  >  >> How bad are y'all's gear doing with rain fade on various techs and
>  >  >> bands? in 08, in nica, I'd go from a working 70 db 10 mile shot to
>  >  >> nothin at 5ghz when it rained, and I just laughed at the people
> trying
>  >  >> to deploy 60ghz - but times change. I see a vendor trying to ship 60
>  >  >> with *really good antennas* into the office market...
>  >  >>
>  >  >> big question to ask when so busy, please ignore me.
>  >  >>
>  >  >
>  >  > I have extensive testing with almost every gear out there.
>  >  >
>  >  > 5Ghz, no appreciable fade in snow or rain.  Longest shot on network
> right now is 26 miles on AF5xHD 5Ghz on 2' dishes and we push a solid
> 300Mbps across this with zero fade.  Actually gets a tiny bit better in the
> rain, ie it is technically fading a bit but so is all the noise so it's a
> minor improvement.
>  >  >
>  >  > I have 2x 7 miles force 425 links that are pushing 550Mbps.  And a
> 10 miles force 400c on 2' ubiquiti dishes that pushes 940 unidirectional in
> 80Mhz.  No rain fade.  Lots of af5xhd and force4x links in different
> distances.  We even mix in some LTU PtMP as PTP for price, ie LTU AP
> LTU-LR or LTU-Pro for PTP.  Works well enough though this product is
> susceptible to noise more than any other we use.
>  >  >
>  >  > Cambium 60Mhz cnwave is fantastic, legit 120 meters per link node to
> node or small CPE, 500M to big CPE, about 300 to the not-quite-released mid
> CPE.  Pushing 1.7Gbps FDX on against my preseem box and my m2 macbook with
> nperf UDP.
>  >  >
>  >  > Ubiquiti gigabeam line, <1km ok, <800m even better.  AF 'LR' and
> 'XR' rock solid at 2km, up to about 5km until they're down too much to be
> usable.  Always backed up by a 5Ghz radio.
>  >  >
>  >  > Ubiquiti Wave, legit APCPE out 2km and never fails over.  4km w/
> wifi6 failover.  Fantastic product... probably the one to beat.
>  >  >
>  >  > Mikrotik 60Ghz 'ay about 200m on AP to small CPE, 500m AP to nRay.
> Can get a little more but it's really close and rain fade gets you.  These
> have 'ac wireless backup in them so we can EASILY push 300m on the small
> and 800m on the nRay knowing we have about 4 hours a year in 5Ghz failover.
>  >  >
>  >  > Basically, and MIMO 5Ghz, 6Ghz, or 2.4Ghz product isn't going to
> noticably fade.  MOST fade in these bands is actually thermal ducting
> 'turning' the beam off aim.
>  >  >
>  >  > 60Ghz should be considered 2 separate bands.  channels 1-4 are short
> range, <1km in PTP, <300m in PtMP if you want to have links stay up.
> channels 5,6 are 2-3x longer.  Unfortunately, only ubiquiti really playing
> in this space right now, mikrotik's channel 5 support is at a lower output
> power so it's 'ok'.  Tachyon coming into this space as well, but unproven
> and AFAIK zero beta deployments.
>  >  >
>  >  > 5Ghz <=200M service plans today with a well built network and good
> AP/Antenna choices, <=500Mbps with WiFi6 tech.  technically a bit more, but
> with reasonable ratios this is about right
>  >  > 6Ghz <=900Mbps plans on live beta users.  OFDMA+MUMIMO is really
> delivering here.
>  >  > 60Ghz 'low' band cambium, 1.7Gbps legit across the mesh, twice that
> with upcoming channel bonding.  base CPE 1Gbps port, mid 2.5gbps port, long
> 10Gbps port(s).  Build out model here is for 'In the rain' so no effective
> fade if built right.  if built wrong, fade to death.
>  >  > 60Ghz 'high' band ubiquiti wave.  <=800Mbps.  Technically a bit more
> but I haven't convinced a Wave AP to a Wave LR to do it.  I can however get
> 2 customers/radios up to 1.5Gbps across the AP.  Plan with built in fade
> and intentional fail to 5Ghz beyond 2km.   Acceptable in Montana.
>  >
>  >  Thx for such a deep dive! How about Tarana?
>  >
>  >  How does "Terragraph" derived tech tie back into shipping products?
>  >
>  >  I've been involved with a bunch of other highly speculative
>  >  technologies over the years.
>  >
>  >  # Free space optics
>  >
>  >  Koruza showed promise at one point: http://www.koruza.net/
>  >
>  >  Google's been trying to line up folk for this for a while:
>  >
>  >  https://x.company/projects/taara/
>  >
>  >  # Radios
>  >
>  >  ... I appreciate the data on all these radios, their relative
>  >  performance and range. This stuff needs to  end up in
>  >  a wiki chart somewhere. ?
>  >  ... but it's not knowing the buffering on em that bugs me the most. :/
>  >  Got all kinds of measurement tools for that
>  >
>  >  crusader, in particular, is coming along.
>  >  packet caps from iperf sessions...
>  >  flent to a raspi on the other side of the link...
>  >
>  >  # Still a hardware guy at heart
>  >
>  >  Back in 2013 I had thought hard about entering the market for radios
>  >  in the 11ghz (and wispa just freed up a lot of space in the 10? or 12?
>  >  band for future use) licensed spectrums, but I couldn't stomach
>  >  working with qualcomm again. I have some hope a mediatek might get
>  >  into that, and I could work with them.
>  >
>  >  anyone got devices that can use channel 172 yet? That just got freed
> up too.
>  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  --
>  >  This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
>  >
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
>  >  Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > LibreQoS mailing list
>  > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
>  > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>  >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8760 bytes --]

Re: [LibreQoS] 10G radios Was: Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[Mark Steckel]

Thanks

---- On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:09:45 -0400 dan  wrote ---
 > 
 > Siklu is great, service and support are ok.  Aviat is also great, a bit more money, but better support via their reps. One issue with siklu that aviat doesn’t have is that siklu support is all in Israel so you have some delays but it’s manageable.  8010 is really hard to beat.  Also? Siklu pairs up with a dual band dish so you can slap on an Af5xhd or force 400c and pass that through the siklu for hitless failover.

Didn't know that Siklu supported the 2nd radio pass-through. Nice feature

I'm actually looking at the dual-band Aviat radios. Likely 80/18 or possibly 80/11 for a 3.3 Km link.

What is your longest 80 GHz link and how does it deal w/ precipitation? 



 > 
 > 
 > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 8:29 PM Mark Steckel mjs@phillywisper.net> wrote:
 > 
 > Dan,
 >  
 >  ---- On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 22:22:04 -0400 dan via LibreQoS  wrote ---
 >   > 
 >   > As far as FSO, interesting but 80Ghz is basically better in every way and those radios are coming down in price pretty quickly.   10Gbps FDX link on siklu 8010 is under $6k if you have a good rep. 
 >  
 >  Do you have any experience with Aviat or other 80 GHz radios? Planning to purchase some links in the next few months and I'm look for unbiased info.
 >  
 >  Thanks
 >  Mark
 >  
 >  
 >  
 >  
 >  
 >   > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:57 AM Dave Taht dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
 >   > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:25 PM dan dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
 >   >  >
 >   >  >
 >   >  >
 >   >  >>
 >   >  >>
 >   >  >>
 >   >  >> How bad are y'all's gear doing with rain fade on various techs and
 >   >  >> bands? in 08, in nica, I'd go from a working 70 db 10 mile shot to
 >   >  >> nothin at 5ghz when it rained, and I just laughed at the people trying
 >   >  >> to deploy 60ghz - but times change. I see a vendor trying to ship 60
 >   >  >> with *really good antennas* into the office market...
 >   >  >>
 >   >  >> big question to ask when so busy, please ignore me.
 >   >  >>
 >   >  >
 >   >  > I have extensive testing with almost every gear out there.
 >   >  >
 >   >  > 5Ghz, no appreciable fade in snow or rain.  Longest shot on network right now is 26 miles on AF5xHD 5Ghz on 2' dishes and we push a solid 300Mbps across this with zero fade.  Actually gets a tiny bit better in the rain, ie it is technically fading a bit but so is all the noise so it's a minor improvement.
 >   >  >
 >   >  > I have 2x 7 miles force 425 links that are pushing 550Mbps.  And a 10 miles force 400c on 2' ubiquiti dishes that pushes 940 unidirectional in 80Mhz.  No rain fade.  Lots of af5xhd and force4x links in different distances.  We even mix in some LTU PtMP as PTP for price, ie LTU AP  LTU-LR or LTU-Pro for PTP.  Works well enough though this product is susceptible to noise more than any other we use.
 >   >  >
 >   >  > Cambium 60Mhz cnwave is fantastic, legit 120 meters per link node to node or small CPE, 500M to big CPE, about 300 to the not-quite-released mid CPE.  Pushing 1.7Gbps FDX on against my preseem box and my m2 macbook with nperf UDP.
 >   >  >
 >   >  > Ubiquiti gigabeam line, <1km ok, <800m even better.  AF 'LR' and 'XR' rock solid at 2km, up to about 5km until they're down too much to be usable.  Always backed up by a 5Ghz radio.
 >   >  >
 >   >  > Ubiquiti Wave, legit APCPE out 2km and never fails over.  4km w/ wifi6 failover.  Fantastic product... probably the one to beat.
 >   >  >
 >   >  > Mikrotik 60Ghz 'ay about 200m on AP to small CPE, 500m AP to nRay.  Can get a little more but it's really close and rain fade gets you.  These have 'ac wireless backup in them so we can EASILY push 300m on the small and 800m on the nRay knowing we have about 4 hours a year in 5Ghz failover.
 >   >  >
 >   >  > Basically, and MIMO 5Ghz, 6Ghz, or 2.4Ghz product isn't going to noticably fade.  MOST fade in these bands is actually thermal ducting 'turning' the beam off aim.
 >   >  >
 >   >  > 60Ghz should be considered 2 separate bands.  channels 1-4 are short range, <1km in PTP, <300m in PtMP if you want to have links stay up.  channels 5,6 are 2-3x longer.  Unfortunately, only ubiquiti really playing in this space right now, mikrotik's channel 5 support is at a lower output power so it's 'ok'.  Tachyon coming into this space as well, but unproven and AFAIK zero beta deployments.
 >   >  >
 >   >  > 5Ghz <=200M service plans today with a well built network and good AP/Antenna choices, <=500Mbps with WiFi6 tech.  technically a bit more, but with reasonable ratios this is about right
 >   >  > 6Ghz <=900Mbps plans on live beta users.  OFDMA+MUMIMO is really delivering here.
 >   >  > 60Ghz 'low' band cambium, 1.7Gbps legit across the mesh, twice that with upcoming channel bonding.  base CPE 1Gbps port, mid 2.5gbps port, long 10Gbps port(s).  Build out model here is for 'In the rain' so no effective fade if built right.  if built wrong, fade to death.
 >   >  > 60Ghz 'high' band ubiquiti wave.  <=800Mbps.  Technically a bit more but I haven't convinced a Wave AP to a Wave LR to do it.  I can however get 2 customers/radios up to 1.5Gbps across the AP.  Plan with built in fade and intentional fail to 5Ghz beyond 2km.   Acceptable in Montana.
 >   >  
 >   >  Thx for such a deep dive! How about Tarana?
 >   >  
 >   >  How does "Terragraph" derived tech tie back into shipping products?
 >   >  
 >   >  I've been involved with a bunch of other highly speculative
 >   >  technologies over the years.
 >   >  
 >   >  # Free space optics
 >   >  
 >   >  Koruza showed promise at one point: http://www.koruza.net/
 >   >  
 >   >  Google's been trying to line up folk for this for a while:
 >   >  
 >   >  https://x.company/projects/taara/
 >   >  
 >   >  # Radios
 >   >  
 >   >  ... I appreciate the data on all these radios, their relative
 >   >  performance and range. This stuff needs to  end up in
 >   >  a wiki chart somewhere. ?
 >   >  ... but it's not knowing the buffering on em that bugs me the most. :/
 >   >  Got all kinds of measurement tools for that
 >   >  
 >   >  crusader, in particular, is coming along.
 >   >  packet caps from iperf sessions...
 >   >  flent to a raspi on the other side of the link...
 >   >  
 >   >  # Still a hardware guy at heart
 >   >  
 >   >  Back in 2013 I had thought hard about entering the market for radios
 >   >  in the 11ghz (and wispa just freed up a lot of space in the 10? or 12?
 >   >  band for future use) licensed spectrums, but I couldn't stomach
 >   >  working with qualcomm again. I have some hope a mediatek might get
 >   >  into that, and I could work with them.
 >   >  
 >   >  anyone got devices that can use channel 172 yet? That just got freed up too.
 >   >  
 >   >  >
 >   >  >
 >   >  >
 >   >  
 >   >  
 >   >  
 >   >  -- 
 >   >  This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
 >   >  https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
 >   >  Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
 >   > _______________________________________________
 >   > LibreQoS mailing list
 >   > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
 >   > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
 >   > 
 > 

Re: [LibreQoS] 10G radios Was: Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[Herbert Wolverson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8751 bytes --]

Siklu tells us that their prices have gone up, especially if you need the
larger dish. They quoted us $9k for a link (I'll let you know how it
performs if the client goes for it).

We keep getting large circuits recently, because "planning" in Missouri
isn't really a thing. This client built a 3,000 bed luxury apartment
complex for students, including fiber rings and infrastructure that deliver
really high-speed connectivity to 9k jacks. Once they finished
construction, they decided to order some connectivity. If they'd done their
homework, they might have noticed that CenturyLink's entire available
capacity to that neighborhood is... 1 gbit/s. On a single cable! So they
bought it, and unsurprisingly it's not enough - lots of unhappy students.
Then CL lost a legal battle with the city (it turns out they haven't paid
for any of their aerial fiber runs in the last 5 years!), began the
Lumen/Quantum Fiber/Titan/Whatever The New Name Is shell-game to try and
avoid paying (they lost similar lawsuits elsewhere) and are quoting "we can
add some bandwidth by 2025" currently). They are *also* suing to keep an
exclusivity agreement that includes that part of town, preventing anyone
else from laying fiber in the meantime!

The really irksome part? There's really high capacity city-owned fiber
right there, and the state government prohibited the city from connecting
any private companies to it - even as transit to a private ISP. :-/


On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 11:09 PM dan via LibreQoS <
libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

>
> Siklu is great, service and support are ok.  Aviat is also great, a bit
> more money, but better support via their reps. One issue with siklu that
> aviat doesn’t have is that siklu support is all in Israel so you have some
> delays but it’s manageable.  8010 is really hard to beat.  Also? Siklu
> pairs up with a dual band dish so you can slap on an Af5xhd or force 400c
> and pass that through the siklu for hitless failover.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 8:29 PM Mark Steckel <mjs@phillywisper.net> wrote:
>
>> Dan,
>>
>> ---- On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 22:22:04 -0400 dan via LibreQoS  wrote ---
>>  >
>>  > As far as FSO, interesting but 80Ghz is basically better in every way
>> and those radios are coming down in price pretty quickly.   10Gbps FDX link
>> on siklu 8010 is under $6k if you have a good rep.
>>
>> Do you have any experience with Aviat or other 80 GHz radios? Planning to
>> purchase some links in the next few months and I'm look for unbiased info.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:57 AM Dave Taht dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:25 PM dan dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  >  >
>>  >  >
>>  >  >
>>  >  >>
>>  >  >>
>>  >  >>
>>  >  >> How bad are y'all's gear doing with rain fade on various techs and
>>  >  >> bands? in 08, in nica, I'd go from a working 70 db 10 mile shot to
>>  >  >> nothin at 5ghz when it rained, and I just laughed at the people
>> trying
>>  >  >> to deploy 60ghz - but times change. I see a vendor trying to ship
>> 60
>>  >  >> with *really good antennas* into the office market...
>>  >  >>
>>  >  >> big question to ask when so busy, please ignore me.
>>  >  >>
>>  >  >
>>  >  > I have extensive testing with almost every gear out there.
>>  >  >
>>  >  > 5Ghz, no appreciable fade in snow or rain.  Longest shot on network
>> right now is 26 miles on AF5xHD 5Ghz on 2' dishes and we push a solid
>> 300Mbps across this with zero fade.  Actually gets a tiny bit better in the
>> rain, ie it is technically fading a bit but so is all the noise so it's a
>> minor improvement.
>>  >  >
>>  >  > I have 2x 7 miles force 425 links that are pushing 550Mbps.  And a
>> 10 miles force 400c on 2' ubiquiti dishes that pushes 940 unidirectional in
>> 80Mhz.  No rain fade.  Lots of af5xhd and force4x links in different
>> distances.  We even mix in some LTU PtMP as PTP for price, ie LTU AP
>> LTU-LR or LTU-Pro for PTP.  Works well enough though this product is
>> susceptible to noise more than any other we use.
>>  >  >
>>  >  > Cambium 60Mhz cnwave is fantastic, legit 120 meters per link node
>> to node or small CPE, 500M to big CPE, about 300 to the not-quite-released
>> mid CPE.  Pushing 1.7Gbps FDX on against my preseem box and my m2 macbook
>> with nperf UDP.
>>  >  >
>>  >  > Ubiquiti gigabeam line, <1km ok, <800m even better.  AF 'LR' and
>> 'XR' rock solid at 2km, up to about 5km until they're down too much to be
>> usable.  Always backed up by a 5Ghz radio.
>>  >  >
>>  >  > Ubiquiti Wave, legit APCPE out 2km and never fails over.  4km w/
>> wifi6 failover.  Fantastic product... probably the one to beat.
>>  >  >
>>  >  > Mikrotik 60Ghz 'ay about 200m on AP to small CPE, 500m AP to nRay.
>> Can get a little more but it's really close and rain fade gets you.  These
>> have 'ac wireless backup in them so we can EASILY push 300m on the small
>> and 800m on the nRay knowing we have about 4 hours a year in 5Ghz failover.
>>  >  >
>>  >  > Basically, and MIMO 5Ghz, 6Ghz, or 2.4Ghz product isn't going to
>> noticably fade.  MOST fade in these bands is actually thermal ducting
>> 'turning' the beam off aim.
>>  >  >
>>  >  > 60Ghz should be considered 2 separate bands.  channels 1-4 are
>> short range, <1km in PTP, <300m in PtMP if you want to have links stay up.
>> channels 5,6 are 2-3x longer.  Unfortunately, only ubiquiti really playing
>> in this space right now, mikrotik's channel 5 support is at a lower output
>> power so it's 'ok'.  Tachyon coming into this space as well, but unproven
>> and AFAIK zero beta deployments.
>>  >  >
>>  >  > 5Ghz <=200M service plans today with a well built network and good
>> AP/Antenna choices, <=500Mbps with WiFi6 tech.  technically a bit more, but
>> with reasonable ratios this is about right
>>  >  > 6Ghz <=900Mbps plans on live beta users.  OFDMA+MUMIMO is really
>> delivering here.
>>  >  > 60Ghz 'low' band cambium, 1.7Gbps legit across the mesh, twice that
>> with upcoming channel bonding.  base CPE 1Gbps port, mid 2.5gbps port, long
>> 10Gbps port(s).  Build out model here is for 'In the rain' so no effective
>> fade if built right.  if built wrong, fade to death.
>>  >  > 60Ghz 'high' band ubiquiti wave.  <=800Mbps.  Technically a bit
>> more but I haven't convinced a Wave AP to a Wave LR to do it.  I can
>> however get 2 customers/radios up to 1.5Gbps across the AP.  Plan with
>> built in fade and intentional fail to 5Ghz beyond 2km.   Acceptable in
>> Montana.
>>  >
>>  >  Thx for such a deep dive! How about Tarana?
>>  >
>>  >  How does "Terragraph" derived tech tie back into shipping products?
>>  >
>>  >  I've been involved with a bunch of other highly speculative
>>  >  technologies over the years.
>>  >
>>  >  # Free space optics
>>  >
>>  >  Koruza showed promise at one point: http://www.koruza.net/
>>  >
>>  >  Google's been trying to line up folk for this for a while:
>>  >
>>  >  https://x.company/projects/taara/
>>  >
>>  >  # Radios
>>  >
>>  >  ... I appreciate the data on all these radios, their relative
>>  >  performance and range. This stuff needs to  end up in
>>  >  a wiki chart somewhere. ?
>>  >  ... but it's not knowing the buffering on em that bugs me the most. :/
>>  >  Got all kinds of measurement tools for that
>>  >
>>  >  crusader, in particular, is coming along.
>>  >  packet caps from iperf sessions...
>>  >  flent to a raspi on the other side of the link...
>>  >
>>  >  # Still a hardware guy at heart
>>  >
>>  >  Back in 2013 I had thought hard about entering the market for radios
>>  >  in the 11ghz (and wispa just freed up a lot of space in the 10? or 12?
>>  >  band for future use) licensed spectrums, but I couldn't stomach
>>  >  working with qualcomm again. I have some hope a mediatek might get
>>  >  into that, and I could work with them.
>>  >
>>  >  anyone got devices that can use channel 172 yet? That just got freed
>> up too.
>>  >
>>  >  >
>>  >  >
>>  >  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >  --
>>  >  This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
>>  >
>> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
>>  >  Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>>  > _______________________________________________
>>  > LibreQoS mailing list
>>  > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>  > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>>  >
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LibreQoS mailing list
> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 11012 bytes --]

Re: [LibreQoS] Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[Herbert Wolverson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10387 bytes --]

Tarana makes me chuckle a bit. Every few years, various WISP forums fill up
with "game changer, must buy X!" and it's tulip mania
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania> all over again. Tarana is
really expensive, and with the typical 3-5 year life cycle of wireless
products it's pretty hard to justify the cost if you have any sort of
competition, or lower population densities. Even if it weren't buggy, it's
a tough one. They also have a relatively limited window, because their
special sauce is pretty amazing but it's not *that* far ahead of what you
can do with 802.11AX and the sync extensions (and the Quantenna chips they
use just got discontinued, which is going to cause them - and Mimosa - a
lot of pain). And like all excited tulip purchases, we're already starting
to see people complain who bought it for areas that aren't the type of
deployment for which Tarana really shines.

Terragraph is nice on paper, but it's really over-engineered. (Not that
surprising if you've ever looked at Meta's "Folly" and other code; Meta
doesn't do "keep it simple") It does look great for getting coverage out
over a high-density area.

And that's the big problem with the current wave of tech. Ranges are
getting shorter, because competing with fiber requires MUCH higher CINR
numbers. That's *great* for the high-density areas (which tend to be
getting fiber anyway), but it's problematic for the really rural
deployments. It's really common out here to have to hop 10-15 miles between
clusters of buildings, and you're still only hitting 10 houses within a
couple of miles of a POP. So "decent service at longer ranges" is a lot
more useful here than "amazing service at 1.5 miles". That's also where
they are crying out for service (we've had so many customers "leave" for
StarLink and be back within a month when they find out what high-latency,
frequent disconnect 1d6+1 * 10 Mbps service feels like) - and the fiber
companies don't want to go. We've been working with an electric co-op that
rolled out fiber to provide wireless for the areas they don't plan on ever
building into (for example, 3 houses that connect to a fiber-served road...
with a 5 mile driveway).

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:26 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 7:22 PM dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Tarana is a mess.  On one hand there's magic in their multipathing and
> reassembly, frankly the next best thing is 10% as good.  On the flip side,
> it's a highly manipulated transport and virtually none of your typical
> tools for monitoring connects works all that well because there's so much
> prioritization and filtering going on.  Next wisp up the road is demoing it
> out and talking about it a lot.    LOTS of bugs.
>
> Thank you as always for the torrent of information. I've been trying
> to get them to give fq_codel and cake a shot, they
> haven't listened.
>
> >
> > Terragraph is just a transparent fabric.  Like doing a big RSTP mesh of
> switches.  How this comes back to shaping is that it's necessary to shape
> for that first hop out since the second and third etc hops are all
> essentially the same speed.  Have to produce an artificial bottleneck at
> the head end PER DN to keep that in shape.  Also the complication of having
> 1.8-3.6Gbps 'backhauls' or worse, 3.6-7.2Gbps with channel bonding and dual
> radios on the POP DN.  Also, since you can have multiple DNs off your
> headend, each with that kind of bandwidth, now have to consider running a
> dedicated shaper box/instance able to handle that for each radio.
>
> This strikes me as a good goal for something like libreqos on the
> march to 100Gbit, or dedicated hw like what paraqum
> provides. I am dying to see if 100Gbit is feasible with 64 cores, now.
>
> > We're already selling 200,600, 1G services off these and they're
> incredible.  Smokes a docsis plant, we're 4ms to google on the headend and
> customers on an Eero Pro 6E will see 5-8ms on their devices.
>
> Docsis 4.0 LL has a much faster request/grant cycle available as a
> priority queue via the L4S concept. About 2ms. They want to sell low
> latency to gamers, and open up the diffserv bits so that they can bill
> both services trying to use that channel, and the customer.
>
> > As far as FSO, interesting but 80Ghz is basically better in every way
> and those radios are coming down in price pretty quickly.   10Gbps FDX link
> on siklu 8010 is under $6k if you have a good rep.  2.5Gbps <$3500.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:57 AM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:25 PM dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> How bad are y'all's gear doing with rain fade on various techs and
> >> >> bands? in 08, in nica, I'd go from a working 70 db 10 mile shot to
> >> >> nothin at 5ghz when it rained, and I just laughed at the people
> trying
> >> >> to deploy 60ghz - but times change. I see a vendor trying to ship 60
> >> >> with *really good antennas* into the office market...
> >> >>
> >> >> big question to ask when so busy, please ignore me.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I have extensive testing with almost every gear out there.
> >> >
> >> > 5Ghz, no appreciable fade in snow or rain.  Longest shot on network
> right now is 26 miles on AF5xHD 5Ghz on 2' dishes and we push a solid
> 300Mbps across this with zero fade.  Actually gets a tiny bit better in the
> rain, ie it is technically fading a bit but so is all the noise so it's a
> minor improvement.
> >> >
> >> > I have 2x 7 miles force 425 links that are pushing 550Mbps.  And a 10
> miles force 400c on 2' ubiquiti dishes that pushes 940 unidirectional in
> 80Mhz.  No rain fade.  Lots of af5xhd and force4x links in different
> distances.  We even mix in some LTU PtMP as PTP for price, ie LTU AP <>
> LTU-LR or LTU-Pro for PTP.  Works well enough though this product is
> susceptible to noise more than any other we use.
> >> >
> >> > Cambium 60Mhz cnwave is fantastic, legit 120 meters per link node to
> node or small CPE, 500M to big CPE, about 300 to the not-quite-released mid
> CPE.  Pushing 1.7Gbps FDX on against my preseem box and my m2 macbook with
> nperf UDP.
> >> >
> >> > Ubiquiti gigabeam line, <1km ok, <800m even better.  AF 'LR' and 'XR'
> rock solid at 2km, up to about 5km until they're down too much to be
> usable.  Always backed up by a 5Ghz radio.
> >> >
> >> > Ubiquiti Wave, legit AP<>CPE out 2km and never fails over.  4km w/
> wifi6 failover.  Fantastic product... probably the one to beat.
> >> >
> >> > Mikrotik 60Ghz 'ay about 200m on AP to small CPE, 500m AP to nRay.
> Can get a little more but it's really close and rain fade gets you.  These
> have 'ac wireless backup in them so we can EASILY push 300m on the small
> and 800m on the nRay knowing we have about 4 hours a year in 5Ghz failover.
> >> >
> >> > Basically, and MIMO 5Ghz, 6Ghz, or 2.4Ghz product isn't going to
> noticably fade.  MOST fade in these bands is actually thermal ducting
> 'turning' the beam off aim.
> >> >
> >> > 60Ghz should be considered 2 separate bands.  channels 1-4 are short
> range, <1km in PTP, <300m in PtMP if you want to have links stay up.
> channels 5,6 are 2-3x longer.  Unfortunately, only ubiquiti really playing
> in this space right now, mikrotik's channel 5 support is at a lower output
> power so it's 'ok'.  Tachyon coming into this space as well, but unproven
> and AFAIK zero beta deployments.
> >> >
> >> > 5Ghz <=200M service plans today with a well built network and good
> AP/Antenna choices, <=500Mbps with WiFi6 tech.  technically a bit more, but
> with reasonable ratios this is about right
> >> > 6Ghz <=900Mbps plans on live beta users.  OFDMA+MUMIMO is really
> delivering here.
> >> > 60Ghz 'low' band cambium, 1.7Gbps legit across the mesh, twice that
> with upcoming channel bonding.  base CPE 1Gbps port, mid 2.5gbps port, long
> 10Gbps port(s).  Build out model here is for 'In the rain' so no effective
> fade if built right.  if built wrong, fade to death.
> >> > 60Ghz 'high' band ubiquiti wave.  <=800Mbps.  Technically a bit more
> but I haven't convinced a Wave AP to a Wave LR to do it.  I can however get
> 2 customers/radios up to 1.5Gbps across the AP.  Plan with built in fade
> and intentional fail to 5Ghz beyond 2km.   Acceptable in Montana.
> >>
> >> Thx for such a deep dive! How about Tarana?
> >>
> >> How does "Terragraph" derived tech tie back into shipping products?
> >>
> >> I've been involved with a bunch of other highly speculative
> >> technologies over the years.
> >>
> >> # Free space optics
> >>
> >> Koruza showed promise at one point: http://www.koruza.net/
> >>
> >> Google's been trying to line up folk for this for a while:
> >>
> >> https://x.company/projects/taara/
> >>
> >> # Radios
> >>
> >> ... I appreciate the data on all these radios, their relative
> >> performance and range. This stuff needs to  end up in
> >> a wiki chart somewhere. ?
> >> ... but it's not knowing the buffering on em that bugs me the most. :/
> >> Got all kinds of measurement tools for that
> >>
> >> crusader, in particular, is coming along.
> >> packet caps from iperf sessions...
> >> flent to a raspi on the other side of the link...
> >>
> >> # Still a hardware guy at heart
> >>
> >> Back in 2013 I had thought hard about entering the market for radios
> >> in the 11ghz (and wispa just freed up a lot of space in the 10? or 12?
> >> band for future use) licensed spectrums, but I couldn't stomach
> >> working with qualcomm again. I have some hope a mediatek might get
> >> into that, and I could work with them.
> >>
> >> anyone got devices that can use channel 172 yet? That just got freed up
> too.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
> >>
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
> >> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>
>
>
> --
> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12521 bytes --]

Re: [LibreQoS] Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[dan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3770 bytes --]

Tarana makes me chuckle a bit. Every few years, various WISP forums fill up
> with "game changer, must buy X!" and it's tulip mania
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania> all over again. Tarana is
> really expensive, and with the typical 3-5 year life cycle of wireless
> products it's pretty hard to justify the cost if you have any sort of
> competition, or lower population densities. Even if it weren't buggy, it's
> a tough one. They also have a relatively limited window, because their
> special sauce is pretty amazing but it's not *that* far ahead of what you
> can do with 802.11AX and the sync extensions (and the Quantenna chips they
> use just got discontinued, which is going to cause them - and Mimosa - a
> lot of pain). And like all excited tulip purchases, we're already starting
> to see people complain who bought it for areas that aren't the type of
> deployment for which Tarana really shines.
>
> Terragraph is nice on paper, but it's really over-engineered. (Not that
> surprising if you've ever looked at Meta's "Folly" and other code; Meta
> doesn't do "keep it simple") It does look great for getting coverage out
> over a high-density area.
>

The way I see it, and a couple of those I know that are using it, is that
it's your gap fill.  expensive gap fill, but just that.  One guy is beta on
epmp4600 and he's thinking 95% on that 6Ghz platform and tarana will be the
'we service everyone' option.  It's very expensive, but complete market
penetration has value.  Another guy (the neighbor) is Wave is primary,
tarana as gap fill.    A third friend has been waiting for G2 because he's
desperate for an nLoS ptmp backhaul product, he's been doing 450m 5 and
3Ghz for ptmp backhauls but the ~100M per that was once awesome is now not
cutting it.


>
> And that's the big problem with the current wave of tech. Ranges are
> getting shorter, because competing with fiber requires MUCH higher CINR
> numbers. That's *great* for the high-density areas (which tend to be
> getting fiber anyway), but it's problematic for the really rural
> deployments. It's really common out here to have to hop 10-15 miles between
> clusters of buildings, and you're still only hitting 10 houses within a
> couple of miles of a POP. So "decent service at longer ranges" is a lot
> more useful here than "amazing service at 1.5 miles". That's also where
> they are crying out for service (we've had so many customers "leave" for
> StarLink and be back within a month when they find out what high-latency,
> frequent disconnect 1d6+1 * 10 Mbps service feels like) - and the fiber
> companies don't want to go. We've been working with an electric co-op that
> rolled out fiber to provide wireless for the areas they don't plan on ever
> building into (for example, 3 houses that connect to a fiber-served road...
> with a 5 mile driveway).
>

For us, we have a lot of assets to handle that shorter range.  We still
have some 'traditional' longer rural shots but we've shorted them up with
narrow/high gain horns and we can push 100x20 today and a slight bump in an
AX radio would make us safe from 'starlink advertised speeds'.  We've had
people switch back from starlink already.  2km on 60Ghz WAVE is immensely
useful and legit ~850Mbps.  Twice that on a low EIRP 5/6Ghz product with
some AX special sauce and that's about 90% of our potential population.

It's a pretty solid argument for next gen wireless agility vs slow and
costly yet permanent fiber build.

end of the day though, everything needs shaped so every single delivery
tech is a target for libreqos.  We even shape our LTE in preseem vs
LTE's scheduler.  Actually we do both, a 50x5 LTE Plan is 52x6 in preseem
and 55x7 in LTE service plan.  My small GPON deployments have preseem as
well.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4533 bytes --]

Re: [LibreQoS] 10G radios Was: Rain Fade (was Ack-filtering)

[dan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10746 bytes --]

Similar rules here (Montana), local gov can't be involved in internet
delivery per state rules.  Closest they can get is lease conduit.

I also run into a CenturyLink/Lumen issue in that for a small town I pull
off of a 1Gbps Lumen port and I've been asking for 10G and they 'cant' but
the reality is that they are running all 1G SFP ports on a 12 strand stub
and have just 3 open (and I took one) and refuse to put 10-40Gbps modules
in despite their equipment on both sides supporting it with a number of
spare SFP+ and QSFP ports.  I know the local tech so I rode along with him
and we checked it out.  This is why big corps with effective government
backed monopolies are fundamentally bad.

As far as Siklu's performance, I have a 4km that has never dropped but it's
modulated down to around gig in the heaviest rain we saw that caused all
the floods up here.  It's performance is within 1dB of their link
calculator.  Has AF5xHD backup and that's never been used.  One VERY
important thing to remember about Siklu is that they are quite happy to
pitch you really hard on 3 9's service as good.  REAL happy.   20km on
80Ghz?  Oh yeah, that's no problem at all it'll be so amazing with a 80/11
pairing and AF11 as the backup link.  You'll be 10G for like, 360 days a
year like a BOSS.  Only 5 entire days of accumulated outages and *7%*
capacity.  No problem I guess, I'll just throw a cake shaper on that
haha..   But the link calc is spot on :)


On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 7:02 AM Herbert Wolverson via LibreQoS <
libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Siklu tells us that their prices have gone up, especially if you need the
> larger dish. They quoted us $9k for a link (I'll let you know how it
> performs if the client goes for it).
>
> We keep getting large circuits recently, because "planning" in Missouri
> isn't really a thing. This client built a 3,000 bed luxury apartment
> complex for students, including fiber rings and infrastructure that deliver
> really high-speed connectivity to 9k jacks. Once they finished
> construction, they decided to order some connectivity. If they'd done their
> homework, they might have noticed that CenturyLink's entire available
> capacity to that neighborhood is... 1 gbit/s. On a single cable! So they
> bought it, and unsurprisingly it's not enough - lots of unhappy students.
> Then CL lost a legal battle with the city (it turns out they haven't paid
> for any of their aerial fiber runs in the last 5 years!), began the
> Lumen/Quantum Fiber/Titan/Whatever The New Name Is shell-game to try and
> avoid paying (they lost similar lawsuits elsewhere) and are quoting "we can
> add some bandwidth by 2025" currently). They are *also* suing to keep an
> exclusivity agreement that includes that part of town, preventing anyone
> else from laying fiber in the meantime!
>
> The really irksome part? There's really high capacity city-owned fiber
> right there, and the state government prohibited the city from connecting
> any private companies to it - even as transit to a private ISP. :-/
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 11:09 PM dan via LibreQoS <
> libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Siklu is great, service and support are ok.  Aviat is also great, a bit
>> more money, but better support via their reps. One issue with siklu that
>> aviat doesn’t have is that siklu support is all in Israel so you have some
>> delays but it’s manageable.  8010 is really hard to beat.  Also? Siklu
>> pairs up with a dual band dish so you can slap on an Af5xhd or force 400c
>> and pass that through the siklu for hitless failover.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 8:29 PM Mark Steckel <mjs@phillywisper.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dan,
>>>
>>> ---- On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 22:22:04 -0400 dan via LibreQoS  wrote ---
>>>  >
>>>  > As far as FSO, interesting but 80Ghz is basically better in every way
>>> and those radios are coming down in price pretty quickly.   10Gbps FDX link
>>> on siklu 8010 is under $6k if you have a good rep.
>>>
>>> Do you have any experience with Aviat or other 80 GHz radios? Planning
>>> to purchase some links in the next few months and I'm look for unbiased
>>> info.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 10:57 AM Dave Taht dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>  > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:25 PM dan dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  >  >
>>>  >  >
>>>  >  >
>>>  >  >>
>>>  >  >>
>>>  >  >>
>>>  >  >> How bad are y'all's gear doing with rain fade on various techs and
>>>  >  >> bands? in 08, in nica, I'd go from a working 70 db 10 mile shot to
>>>  >  >> nothin at 5ghz when it rained, and I just laughed at the people
>>> trying
>>>  >  >> to deploy 60ghz - but times change. I see a vendor trying to ship
>>> 60
>>>  >  >> with *really good antennas* into the office market...
>>>  >  >>
>>>  >  >> big question to ask when so busy, please ignore me.
>>>  >  >>
>>>  >  >
>>>  >  > I have extensive testing with almost every gear out there.
>>>  >  >
>>>  >  > 5Ghz, no appreciable fade in snow or rain.  Longest shot on
>>> network right now is 26 miles on AF5xHD 5Ghz on 2' dishes and we push a
>>> solid 300Mbps across this with zero fade.  Actually gets a tiny bit better
>>> in the rain, ie it is technically fading a bit but so is all the noise so
>>> it's a minor improvement.
>>>  >  >
>>>  >  > I have 2x 7 miles force 425 links that are pushing 550Mbps.  And a
>>> 10 miles force 400c on 2' ubiquiti dishes that pushes 940 unidirectional in
>>> 80Mhz.  No rain fade.  Lots of af5xhd and force4x links in different
>>> distances.  We even mix in some LTU PtMP as PTP for price, ie LTU AP
>>> LTU-LR or LTU-Pro for PTP.  Works well enough though this product is
>>> susceptible to noise more than any other we use.
>>>  >  >
>>>  >  > Cambium 60Mhz cnwave is fantastic, legit 120 meters per link node
>>> to node or small CPE, 500M to big CPE, about 300 to the not-quite-released
>>> mid CPE.  Pushing 1.7Gbps FDX on against my preseem box and my m2 macbook
>>> with nperf UDP.
>>>  >  >
>>>  >  > Ubiquiti gigabeam line, <1km ok, <800m even better.  AF 'LR' and
>>> 'XR' rock solid at 2km, up to about 5km until they're down too much to be
>>> usable.  Always backed up by a 5Ghz radio.
>>>  >  >
>>>  >  > Ubiquiti Wave, legit APCPE out 2km and never fails over.  4km w/
>>> wifi6 failover.  Fantastic product... probably the one to beat.
>>>  >  >
>>>  >  > Mikrotik 60Ghz 'ay about 200m on AP to small CPE, 500m AP to
>>> nRay.  Can get a little more but it's really close and rain fade gets you.
>>> These have 'ac wireless backup in them so we can EASILY push 300m on the
>>> small and 800m on the nRay knowing we have about 4 hours a year in 5Ghz
>>> failover.
>>>  >  >
>>>  >  > Basically, and MIMO 5Ghz, 6Ghz, or 2.4Ghz product isn't going to
>>> noticably fade.  MOST fade in these bands is actually thermal ducting
>>> 'turning' the beam off aim.
>>>  >  >
>>>  >  > 60Ghz should be considered 2 separate bands.  channels 1-4 are
>>> short range, <1km in PTP, <300m in PtMP if you want to have links stay up.
>>> channels 5,6 are 2-3x longer.  Unfortunately, only ubiquiti really playing
>>> in this space right now, mikrotik's channel 5 support is at a lower output
>>> power so it's 'ok'.  Tachyon coming into this space as well, but unproven
>>> and AFAIK zero beta deployments.
>>>  >  >
>>>  >  > 5Ghz <=200M service plans today with a well built network and good
>>> AP/Antenna choices, <=500Mbps with WiFi6 tech.  technically a bit more, but
>>> with reasonable ratios this is about right
>>>  >  > 6Ghz <=900Mbps plans on live beta users.  OFDMA+MUMIMO is really
>>> delivering here.
>>>  >  > 60Ghz 'low' band cambium, 1.7Gbps legit across the mesh, twice
>>> that with upcoming channel bonding.  base CPE 1Gbps port, mid 2.5gbps port,
>>> long 10Gbps port(s).  Build out model here is for 'In the rain' so no
>>> effective fade if built right.  if built wrong, fade to death.
>>>  >  > 60Ghz 'high' band ubiquiti wave.  <=800Mbps.  Technically a bit
>>> more but I haven't convinced a Wave AP to a Wave LR to do it.  I can
>>> however get 2 customers/radios up to 1.5Gbps across the AP.  Plan with
>>> built in fade and intentional fail to 5Ghz beyond 2km.   Acceptable in
>>> Montana.
>>>  >
>>>  >  Thx for such a deep dive! How about Tarana?
>>>  >
>>>  >  How does "Terragraph" derived tech tie back into shipping products?
>>>  >
>>>  >  I've been involved with a bunch of other highly speculative
>>>  >  technologies over the years.
>>>  >
>>>  >  # Free space optics
>>>  >
>>>  >  Koruza showed promise at one point: http://www.koruza.net/
>>>  >
>>>  >  Google's been trying to line up folk for this for a while:
>>>  >
>>>  >  https://x.company/projects/taara/
>>>  >
>>>  >  # Radios
>>>  >
>>>  >  ... I appreciate the data on all these radios, their relative
>>>  >  performance and range. This stuff needs to  end up in
>>>  >  a wiki chart somewhere. ?
>>>  >  ... but it's not knowing the buffering on em that bugs me the most.
>>> :/
>>>  >  Got all kinds of measurement tools for that
>>>  >
>>>  >  crusader, in particular, is coming along.
>>>  >  packet caps from iperf sessions...
>>>  >  flent to a raspi on the other side of the link...
>>>  >
>>>  >  # Still a hardware guy at heart
>>>  >
>>>  >  Back in 2013 I had thought hard about entering the market for radios
>>>  >  in the 11ghz (and wispa just freed up a lot of space in the 10? or
>>> 12?
>>>  >  band for future use) licensed spectrums, but I couldn't stomach
>>>  >  working with qualcomm again. I have some hope a mediatek might get
>>>  >  into that, and I could work with them.
>>>  >
>>>  >  anyone got devices that can use channel 172 yet? That just got freed
>>> up too.
>>>  >
>>>  >  >
>>>  >  >
>>>  >  >
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  >  --
>>>  >  This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
>>>  >
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
>>>  >  Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>>>  > _______________________________________________
>>>  > LibreQoS mailing list
>>>  > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>  > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>>>  >
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LibreQoS mailing list
>> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LibreQoS mailing list
> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 13310 bytes --]