Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere. I could not find anything else to answer these questions or any discussion of this roadmap.
Will there be a ePTP mode on the Force 300. If so, what is the estimated date we think that will happen?
What is the expected date for DFS bands (on Force 300 and PTP550)
Thanks,
Nathan
PTP is the ONLY mode currently supported in the 300.
I also asked about DFS, however no response yet
Hi all,
FCC DFS and Forward compatibility with ePMP2000 AP will be introduced in 4.2 Release in August.
PMP mode will be available once ePMP3000 will be delivered with 4.3 FW Release.
Thank you.
Thank you.
To clarify, did you mean ePTP mode will be available in 4.3 release?
Nathan - What do you mean by "ePTP"?
As skullzaflare points out, the Force 300-25 operates in PTP mode today, with the currently available software.
Fedor indicates that it will work as PMP SM when the ePMP 3000 AP is released, and all of that is planned for 4.3.
Matt
The mode of operation, ePTP... ePMP traditionally has TDD, TDD PTP, standard WIFI, and ePTP modes of operation. Offers a more low latency "flexible" mode for low cost backhaul.
Ah, now I see.
There are no plans to do ePTP for Force 300, because it's unnecessary. The latency is already about as good as it will get using 802.11ac Wave 2. The software will continue to see improvements in performance, stability, etc.
"Flexible" mode of operation is being considered in the near future as well.
@Fedor wrote:
Hi all,
FCC DFS and Forward compatibility with ePMP2000 AP will be introduced in 4.2 Release in August.
PMP mode will be available once ePMP3000 will be delivered with 4.3 FW Release.
Thank you.
Need some clarification here, please. What I am reading is 4.2 will allow the F300 to be backwards compatible with the ePMP2000AP, but PMP mode will not be available until 4.3 is released. Does this mean the F300 will only work in PTP mode with an ePMP2000 using 4.2 FW?
I think ePTP mode is very necessary. I understand this is a new product and it needs tweaking. Now I know that ePTP mode isn't happening I can move on to something else that will work for that application. Thanks.
Now Force 300 ( and PTP550) with 5 ms frame has avg 6-7 ms latency and more under heavy traffic load. It is too much in comparison with competitors.
To reduce latency in ptp operation to 2-4 ms ( under big trafiic load ) we need to have 1) flexible frame 2) frame size 2.5 ms.
Flexible frame is also very important to increase Download throughput up to 95% of total channel capacity against 75% ( in TDD DL/UL =75/25 ) that we have now.
If ePTP mode is not applicable for 802.11 ac wave 2, we should have flexible frame, frame size 2.5 ms both for Force 300 and PTP550.
@CambiumMatt wrote:There are no plans to do ePTP for Force 300
Was that what the Force300 and 3000 "a look forward webinar" said? I understood that the TDD mode was the 1st out of the box, but I thought that all the other modes were all coming as the software matured. Did I missunderstand?
@CWB wrote:
@Fedor wrote:
Hi all,
FCC DFS and Forward compatibility with ePMP2000 AP will be introduced in 4.2 Release in August.
PMP mode will be available once ePMP3000 will be delivered with 4.3 FW Release.
Thank you.Need some clarification here, please. What I am reading is 4.2 will allow the F300 to be backwards compatible with the ePMP2000AP, but PMP mode will not be available until 4.3 is released. Does this mean the F300 will only work in PTP mode with an ePMP2000 using 4.2 FW?
With backwards compatibility F300 will support PMP mode. However, keep in mind that in this PMP mode the F300 is speaking to an ePMP1k/2k series so its really 11n. The conversation around 4.3 is that, this is where the F300 will speak the 11AC PMP language and communcate to the ePMP3K along with support MUMIMO.
@Nathan Dothager wrote:
I think ePTP mode is very necessary. I understand this is a new product and it needs tweaking. Now I know that ePTP mode isn't happening I can move on to something else that will work for that application. Thanks.
Our original purpose for ePTP mode was to provide the lowest latency in PTP application where the PMP TDD mode did not. In F300 with fixed DL/UL ratio, you will notice that the latency is much lower. Around 5ms. We will continue to evaluate the need for ePTP so please keep the feedback coming. However, please try the TDD mode of operation. Beyond that Flexible mode makes the most sense even before ePTP as you can dynamically have the F300 allocated bandwidth depending on traffic profile.
@Vyacheslav wrote:
Now Force 300 ( and PTP550) with 5 ms frame has avg 6-7 ms latency and more under heavy traffic load. It is too much in comparison with competitors.
To reduce latency in ptp operation to 2-4 ms ( under big trafiic load ) we need to have 1) flexible frame 2) frame size 2.5 ms.
Flexible frame is also very important to increase Download throughput up to 95% of total channel capacity against 75% ( in TDD DL/UL =75/25 ) that we have now.
If ePTP mode is not applicable for 802.11 ac wave 2, we should have flexible frame, frame size 2.5 ms both for Force 300 and PTP550.
Vyachelav,
Are you looking at latency under load with ping? Please note that ping takes lower priority in both cases when there is traffic present. This is not the case in e1K/e2K.
Sakid
Sakid,
We are measuring throughput with ping . Max throughput is estimated as max TCP traffic with avg RTT <9ms without ping losses .Without traffic average RTT is 3-4ms. The same do our competitors.
If it is possible to give Ping high priority as default it will be good!
I think Flexible mode with 2.5ms frame size could help, but not reach as good results as ePTP.
Sure latency is way better than actual 802.11n-based TDD mode in ePMP 1000/2000, but I think you can do more.
We, as WISP, are continuously competing with fiber-based competitors with very low latency.
Having a link with 2-7ms latency instead of 1-2ms means a lot for some customers.
And what about when you have two hops? You're adding about 10ms of latency or more!
You say Force 300 is an upgrade, a "step forward", but you have to think about all situations. You have to admit ePTP mode was helpfull when it was launched on ePMP 1000 and it's even more usefull now the market is changed and every millisecond counts.
ePTP Mode is very, very helpfull when you need low-latency and low-budget links. We used and we're using it A LOT, and, as I can see from this thread, we're not alone.
You can see below the difference from Force 200 ePTP Mode in two very clean links.
Force 200 link is 95.5% traffic on MCS15 (64 QAM 5/6), Force 300 link is 95.6% traffic on DS MCS 9 (256 QAM 5/6), so very clean, both on 20MHz channel.
Both links were not under load.
As you can see ePTP is far more stable and the latency is very low. On Force 300 the latency is 4ms as avg, which is 4x times the latency on ePTP.
How can you say ePTP is "unnecessary"? That's a step backwards, not a step forward!
Force 200 ePTP Mode
Force 300 PTP Mode
What he said. If I'm being honest, the latency I'm seeing on our production Force 300 is not backhaul worthy. It's all over the place with or without traffic on it. I'm trying to be patient. Trying so hard...
D@mn it boys!!! Don't hold back....tell us how you really feel.
First our competitor ( based on 802.11 ac wave 2) has 2 ms frame size, adaptive ( flexible) UL/DL ratio, second one FPGA based radio- fixed UL/DL ratio 25/75, frame size 2 ms. Both have stable average 2-3 ms ping RTT under almost full channel load ( 95% of channel capacity). May be they have priority for ping packets, nobody knows.
Force 300 and PTP550 should have not worse latency result under heavy traffic load. Good result in ping delay in empty channel does not make sence.
