Ask the Experts: Synchronization

1) I've seen a wimax product that requires 20+ minutes to acquire GPS lock on a cold start.  I'm told in the carrier Wimax/LTE/cellular space that's actually fast, and some products require up to an hour, and I heard of one older product that supposedly needed 24 hours.

Canopy seems to only need 30-90 seconds to have GPS sync up and running, and the PMP320 might have been 5 minutes at the most.  I've been wondering what the difference is.  I suppose it's a long shot that you (Forrest) would know, but I thought I'd ask.

2) Forrest, do you foresee Packetflux making GPS sync products for any platform besides Canopy? 

3) The biggest downside I see to GPS sync is that you have a problem when it stops working.  What options do we have to "harden" our GPS sync setups?  Would it be worth having surge protectors on sync cables for example?

From Forest Post

"Thinking about this logically you'll see that the SM will hear both AP's at roughly the same signal strength.   Because the 60 degree antenna in the SM is going to be at most 3db down at 30 degrees off axis (half of the beamwidth), then you're going to have somethng less than 3db of reduction 20 degress off access (aka the second AP).   In addition, both AP's will be hearing a similar signal from this SM, which will cause interference with the second AP.    The solution is simply to reduce the beamwidth of the SM's antenna such that it both picks up a strong singal only from the AP it's interested in, and only transmits toward the AP it's interested in.   Or put very shortly:  Put a dish on the SM to narrow the antenna pattern and reduce the second AP as an interference source."

Having read this and the rest of the thread..

How much negative impact would it be to use 120 degree antennas on the AP in a crowded RF area?

One thing missed from the reply from Cambium_Sri or Forrest Christian is the performance penalty for not having synchronisation on a base site. Since the transmission from one AP antenna may be seen by an adjacent AP antenna, the adjacent channel performance requirement becomes unrealistically large particularly if all antennas are mounted on one pole. In order to make such a system work it is necessary to apply extra screening between each antenna, or mount the 4 antennas on different sides of a building where one antenna cannot 'see' another antenna. It may also be necessary to have a large guard band.

1 Like

@Logonix wrote:

Here is my list of questions.

What is the expected bandwidth when using 7MHz channels in 3.65?


With 7MHz, you can get up to 28 Mbps (8X), 21 Mbps (6X), 14 Mbps (4X) and 7 Mbps (2X) real world sector throughput (Link Tests will show higher throuhgput since its a 1-to-1 measurement). However, depending on the rates at which each SM is at under the AP, the sector throughput may be impacted. I strongly recommend using the PMP 450 Capacity Planner R13.3 available here to get a better prediction of sector throughput for your specific deployment. Alternately, there is a very good tool called LinkPlanner available here to aid with this.

 


@Logonix wrote:

Here is my list of questions.


Regarding 3.65GHz in the PMP450 only:

What can be done to limit interference from other 3.65 APs and towers in RF range?

  • Site planning becomes increasingly difficult when dealing with only 3 x 10MHz channels and one polarity (MIMO) when deploying multiple tower sites within RF range of each other.

If the other towers are yours its imperative that you sync the APs across towers to reduce self interference. If the other tower is not yours, then you have two options:

1. Work with the other owner to sync APs between the two towers if that owner is also using similar Cambium gear. 

2. Do channel planning so you don't interfer with each other in an unsynchronized deployment. 

If the above two are not options, then you are pretty much dealing with external interference and is like any other deployment. We believe PMP 450 provides class leading performance when it comes external interference. However, proper channel planning goes a long way in dealing with it. 

I invite other WISPs who are reading this response to chime in on their experience in dealing with external interference and how they have solved it. 


@Logonix wrote:

Here is my list of questions.


Regarding 3.65GHz in the PMP450 only:

Any comments on 900MHz PMP450i?

Any idea when FW v13.4 will be released?


We would like to keep this thread focussed on Synchronization topics.

However to quickly answer your off topic questions:

1. 900 MHz: A general search of this forum will provide you good information of this upcoming platform. One such thread is this where CambiumMatt and others talk about the product. 

2. Release 13.4: Not yet determined. This is currently in Beta. We're working through some final bugs and we are close! Keep checking back on the Beta forum. 


@Logonix wrote:

Here is my list of questions.


Any comments on 900MHz PMP450i?

Any idea when FW v13.4 will be released?


Regarding PMP 450i 900 MHz, there will be more information in the near future... for now (and not to completely highjack this synchronization topic) we're planning for a 4th quarter release of the product, and it will absolutely synchronize with PMP 100 900 MHz to ease migration to the new platform.

Regarding R13.4, we're hard at work finalizing this thing and working out the remaining issues... beta is available here, and we're very close.  I am hopeful we'll have the release out within a couple of weeks.

edit:  Didn't see Sri already responded to this one... good thing we're on the same page!!

1 Like

@Eric Ozrelic wrote:

@CambiumMatt wrote:

My favorite color is RAL 5015.


Ha! That makes sense... otherwise known as 'Cambium Blue'? Pretty close... my favorite blue is Leguna Seca Blue:

bmw-750-laguna-seca-blue-21-655x436.jpg


Eric, That's the prettiest thing I've seen on the forum today! :)

Sorry all, had to go off topic for a second on seeing that beauty! 

1 Like

Forrest and the developers will be joining in a few minutes. Please feel free to post your questions/comments now.


@Logonix wrote:

From Forest Post

"Thinking about this logically you'll see that the SM will hear both AP's at roughly the same signal strength.   Because the 60 degree antenna in the SM is going to be at most 3db down at 30 degrees off axis (half of the beamwidth), then you're going to have somethng less than 3db of reduction 20 degress off access (aka the second AP).   In addition, both AP's will be hearing a similar signal from this SM, which will cause interference with the second AP.    The solution is simply to reduce the beamwidth of the SM's antenna such that it both picks up a strong singal only from the AP it's interested in, and only transmits toward the AP it's interested in.   Or put very shortly:  Put a dish on the SM to narrow the antenna pattern and reduce the second AP as an interference source."

Having read this and the rest of the thread..

How much negative impact would it be to use 120 degree antennas on the AP in a crowded RF area?


As Forest said, the key is to reduce the beamwidth of the SM to reduce the second AP as an interference source. With 120 degree antennas, first off, we do not recommend frequency reuse at all. We DO recommend synchronization between the 3 APs because that reduces the need for guard band and reduces self-interference. 

By crowded RF area, if you mean external interference sources, then a 120 degree antenna will invite more interference sources per sector due to its wider beamwidth. 

Hope that answers your question. 


@Cambium_Sri wrote:

@Logonix wrote:

Here is my list of questions.


Regarding 3.65GHz in the PMP450 only:

What can be done to limit interference from other 3.65 APs and towers in RF range?

  • Site planning becomes increasingly difficult when dealing with only 3 x 10MHz channels and one polarity (MIMO) when deploying multiple tower sites within RF range of each other.

If the other towers are yours its imperative that you sync the APs across towers to reduce self interference. If the other tower is not yours, then you have two options:

1. Work with the other owner to sync APs between the two towers if that owner is also using similar Cambium gear. 

2. Do channel planning so you don't interfer with each other in an unsynchronized deployment. 

If the above two are not options, then you are pretty much dealing with external interference and is like any other deployment. We believe PMP 450 provides class leading performance when it comes external interference. However, proper channel planning goes a long way in dealing with it. 

I invite other WISPs who are reading this response to chime in on their experience in dealing with external interference and how they have solved it. 


We've had an ongoing problem with 'internal' tower-to-tower interference, NOT solved.

We've deployed a PMP450-365 AP within a network containing many PMP320 APs.  We're running newest beta firmware with settings per PMP320->PMP450 migration frame calculator.  Had a ticket open for weeks with Cambium with remote access for Cambium to the AP and test SM.  That ticket was eventually closed against our will unresolved, stating that the interference should go away once we've migrated completely away from PMP320, and that if we still have problems (after all the 1000+ PMP320 SMs and 70+ PMP320 APs are gone) then they will look into it again.

WTF is the point of the 5ms frame timing and frame calculator and network-wide sync and what-not if it's going to intermittently lose 10-20dB SNR?  This experience has definitely caused us to re-think our future plans as a WISP.

j

Hi Joel, 

Sorry to hear about the trouble you are having with sync'ing PMP 320 and PMP 450s. Can you please PM me the ticket number and I will follow up with the Support folks? 

In the meantime, is this self interference seen AP to AP or is this a case of the 1st AP interfereing with the SMs/CPEs of the second AP?

Thanks,

Sriram


@adammoffett wrote:

1) I've seen a wimax product that requires 20+ minutes to acquire GPS lock on a cold start.  I'm told in the carrier Wimax/LTE/cellular space that's actually fast, and some products require up to an hour, and I heard of one older product that supposedly needed 24 hours.

Canopy seems to only need 30-90 seconds to have GPS sync up and running, and the PMP320 might have been 5 minutes at the most.  I've been wondering what the difference is.  I suppose it's a long shot that you (Forrest) would know, but I thought I'd ask.

2) Forrest, do you foresee Packetflux making GPS sync products for any platform besides Canopy? 

3) The biggest downside I see to GPS sync is that you have a problem when it stops working.  What options do we have to "harden" our GPS sync setups?  Would it be worth having surge protectors on sync cables for example?


Answering your question by the numbers:

1)  A lot of it comes down to two factors:  a) the quality of the GPS receiver and b) the amount (and type) of timing accuracy required by the application.

Older GPS receivers were not that sensitive and only listened on a few channels at a time (12 channels used to be a good receiver).  This resulted in very long lock times.   With more modern receivers, coupled with more advanced algorithms and processors to go with, the base acquisition goes down to 35 seconds (cold).   As an aside, the current chipset we use receives on 66 channels and can receive signals as low as -165dBm.

With that in mind, I suspect the main difference is the quality or type of the timing needed.   Most off the shelf receivers such as is used by cambium GPS sync sources have 1PPS (one pulse per second) sources accurate to somewhere around 10 nanoseconds (1/10,000,000th of a second) per second once they have a lock.  The cambium radios don't even need that level of accuracy, mainly since they only use it for transmit/receive switching which happens over tens or hundreds of microseconds (1/1,000,000th of a second) instead of nanoseconds.

On the other hand, some other technologies need a much more accurate clock (perhaps 1nS or better), or more likely - a high precision 10Mhz (or higher) frequency source.   The most cost effective way to attain a very high accuracy source is through a process called disciplining where the frequency of a already high-accuracy oscillator is adjusted using the GPS signal as a reference.   Over a fairly long period a disciplined oscillator compares the signal being generated by the oscillator with the 1PPS signal from the GPS.   If there are less than 10 million counts received in a 1PPS interval, it turns up the frequency.  If there are more than 10 million counts, it turns it down.  It has to do this over a fairly wide time period since the best accuracy is obtained over a long period.    For instance, if you only measured every 100th 1PPS count, you now have an accuracy of 10ns over that 100 seconds, which is, of course 100 times more accurate than once per second.     If you need that level of accuracy, you have to wait 100 seconds for the first measurement, and may need more measurements than that to trim the frequency source to within tolerance.    This is what is refered to as "warm-up time", and it can definitely take a lot of time.

As an aside:  GPS antennas are now showing up at broadcast sites - they're used for the frequency source for the transmitter and/or a subcarrier and as a result, are definitely of the "needs warm up time" type.

2) It really depends.   A lot of the reason why I am able to provide synchronization for cambium products is that they rely on an external synchronization source.   Many of the other radios which need a synchronization (or timing) source rely on an internal receiver which isn't really able to be bypassed.   At most I could sell a external antenna but those are widely available and I prefer a bit less competititon in my markets.

If there was a radio (or device) which needed a external precision timing and/or frequency source and the available sources were priced significantly higher than I could produce a unit for, I sure would consider it.

3) The easiest way is to use multiple GPS sources.  Modern cambium gear handles multiple inputs from multiple sources.  For instance on the 450, you can use the internal GPS, and two external GPS sources (sync over power and.or timing port).   With the ePMP you have both internal and sync over power.  With my products being relatively inexpensive, it doesn't make a lot of sense not to provide multiple sources, especially on those radios which have a built in GPS aleady there.

Beyond that, there isn't much you can do to improve other than standard precautions you'd take with any radio receiver (away from other RF sources, pay attention to mounting location, etc).   You could add a surge supressor, but generally that's not necessary (I have integral surge supression on both ends of the sync cable in our products).

1 Like

@Logonix wrote:

How much negative impact would it be to use 120 degree antennas on the AP in a crowded RF area?


In the WISP environment I deal with, 120 degree antennas are pretty common, but they're used where you want to use all channels in an area that's fairly narrow.   As an example, I know of one site where 6 120's were in place, covering roughly 180 degrees.  Because of synchronization we were able to avoid self interference, and because we now have numerous AP's pointed at the same area, we can pick and choose which frequency works best for the customer.   As outside noise has crept up in this area I believe we've narrowed some of them down so we can use channels which are only available on certain bearings - and the 120s were picking up the noise source.

In an environment where this works for you - that is, you have little or no customers behind you, using numerous wide antennas pointed at the same area gives you exactly the benefit I described.   Because many issues are local-to-the-SM interference, you may have frequencies which work very well for uplinks from the SM, but the SM can't hear the AP due to a neighbor with some interfering device.   Because the interfering device is near the SM, and not near the AP, the ap is not affected much, but the SM is affected a lot.   Trying to find a single frequency where none of the SM's on a given sector are affected can be difficult.  By providing numerous frequency options off of an AP site, you can then switch SM's between AP's to find a clear frequency for both the SM and the AP, without having to change any given AP's frequency.

1 Like

@Cambium_Sri wrote:

Hi Joel, 

Sorry to hear about the trouble you are having with sync'ing PMP 320 and PMP 450s. Can you please PM me the ticket number and I will follow up with the Support folks? 

In the meantime, is this self interference seen AP to AP or is this a case of the 1st AP interfereing with the SMs/CPEs of the second AP?

Thanks,

Sriram


We deployed a PMP450-365 AP on a water tank with a full circle of PMP320 and PMP100-900mhz.  We use 4 channels 10MHz wide on 365 band, the channel the PMP450 is using (3682) is NOT in use on that tank, but IS in use on a tower 8.2 miles distant, aiming AT the tank.  (the two sectors are each about 20 degrees off-axis of the other)  CMM4 sync both ends.  (3682 is also in use on 11 other APs on the network, only two of them conceivably contributing to this - one is 90 degrees off-axis the other 180 degrees off-axis from this AP's POV, and neither is aimed AT the tank hosting the PMP450, and no client of either should be visible to the PMP450 AP)

What we see is that the PMP450 uplink SNR will sometimes be high 30s low 40s, other times low teens.  The downlink SNR is reasonably stable in the low 30s, but sometimes drops to low 20s.  SM is just over 0.25 miles from AP, clear LOS.  Typically -49dB uplink, -54dB downlink.

Given the geometry and symptoms, I've assumed that the PMP450 AP is intermittently seeing interference from the PMP320 AP opposite.

There is no significant load on the PMP450 link, just intermittent testing, so I suppose it's unsurprising that we haven't seen similar interference at the PMP320 end of things. 

j

I have a sync question, with what looks like the ideal mix of persons to answer.

ePMP Users Guide indicates that we need to set the Front/Back option differently for Frequency Reuse, depending on where the sync is derived.  (CMM4, CMMmicro, SyncPipe, etc)

Does this mean there is some difference between the various sync signals?  If so, what?

j

Having looked at a lot of timing sources let me see if I can clarify:

1) Every currently-shipping sync over timing port source that I've seen is so close to identical timing-wise that it doesn't matter.

2) For sync-over-power for the 100, 450, and ePMP products, the original CMM Micro (CMM3), the CTM products from LMG, and all of the packetflux devices use the same timing for the sync pulse edges.   The CMM4 is a bit 'different'.   Or at least it was the last time I looked at it - someone from cambium will need to address the current specifics about the CMM4 timing in relation to the rest.

3) For the 430 and 320 (48V products), I know that I (packetflux) use the same timing as the CMM4.   This is because the CMM3 won't power a 430 or 320 so I chose to use that as my standard.

4) In all of the recent (rev H or later) sync products that we ship from packetflux, the timing for the sync-over-power products are software-generated but fixed in firmware.   If for some odd reason we discovered we weren't where we needed to be we could adjust them.  In fact, based on the fact that the ePMP seems to treat the CMM4 differently, I may look at providing both compatibility modes in a future release.

-forrest

We are working on a detailed response for Joel, and will post that.

I would like to thank our panelists, and special thanks to Forrest for your time in sharing your insights.

Please continute to post comments and experiences to this thread. These exchanges help everyone.

Thank you.

I'd also like to add my thanks to everyone who posted questions.   I always find I learn something through participating in sessions like this, and this was no exception. 

I'll try to check here over the next couple of days and answer any additional questions which come up.   Otherwise, myself and my support team at packetflux can be reached via the contact information on our website at www.packetflux.com.

-forrest

Forrest,

I have been using Syncinjectors on all my sites for the past 2 years and it works great. Except fpr one nagging issue. sponateous reboots of ALL of our 450 AP's and some of our 430 AP's throughout our network at irregular times. Sometimes they will be up for a month, sometimes a few days. Weather doesn't seem be a factor. We have tried different firmwares up to 13.2.1 and they still reboot.

We have a fellow wisp in southern CO who uses Cambiums CMM's and he claims that they never have sponateous reboots of his AP.

Is there any remedy in this situation?