UBNT to Epmp Questions

Well, I am seriously considering changing out my enitre UBNT WISP network to Epmp. I really need to have the GPS sync and my spectrum keeps shrinking. My current system is as follows. 

UBNT Nano bridge 5ghz backhaul on the tower: I will probably leave this alone as it performs very well. 

3 120 degree ubnt 2.4 rocket sectors with RF shields  on each 

1. I would like to put up some 5ghz sectors as well has anyone had any results with using a combination sector antenna of 5 and 2.4 ? If so what is the antenna and model number of it. 

2. Can I use my UBNT mimo sector antennas  with Epmp 2.4 ? If not or if I shouldnt what style antenna and gain is preferred. I am not opposed to swthcing sector antennas if I can gain performance and some gain. 

I also have a UBNT 900 rocket with 1 UBNT 120 Sector on the same tower

3. Will this 900 gear cause issues with the epmp sector because of the down conversion ubnt 900 uses? Anyone expeirence this? 

I am hoping that the epmp serious comes out with a Force 110 style for 2.4 ghz and I am told there is rumors of one very soon. 

Lastly, anyone have any real world stories to share if you have done this same conversion. 

The ePMP connectorized radios will work with the UBNT sectors, HOWEVER, in order for GPS sync to work, you'll want to take down the (3) 120deg sectors, and put up (4) 90deg sectors, and I'd recommend you use Cambium's recommended antenna P/N: C024900D004A it's very high quality and has a very good F/B ratio which is important when doing back to back GPS sync/frequency reuse.

ITElite makes some dual band 2.4/5ghz sector antennas. Some people have had varying success using these entennas (do some forum searches), while they are convienient and incure less tower costs, the performance over a dedicated antenna is questionable. I'm sure someone can weigh in on this.

Assuming that you're not having interference issues with the existing UBNT 900mhz gear, with the existing 2.4ghz airmax gear, I doubt you'd have issues with the ePMP gear. I would ensure that the 900mhz gear is shielded and phyiscally as far away from the 2.4 gear as possible. Even better yet, get rid of the UBNT 900mhz gear, and get the PMP450i 900mhz gear when it comes out later this year.

There's going to be a Force 110 sytle dish for 2.4 released around July of this year.

1 Like

Will gps sync not work with 120 degree sectors? 

If your goal is to use the (3) 120deg sectors to provide 360 deg coverage, then no. See this thread for more information.

I would also review this Ask the Experts thread on sync that occured today.

We are currently underway with a similar conversion, only were going 5Ghz UBNT to 5Ghz ePMP and Cambium 450. I would highly recommend you make the move. The ePMP hardware is 100 times more reliable then the UBNT hardware, and you receive MUCH more predictable results. Every time we do a service call for any UBNT customer, we replace their hardware with ePMP Force 110 Dishes. With GPS we have noticed higher latency, (15-20 MS) vs the non GPS mode that's similar to AirMax. Even in the non GPS mode we are using 5Mhz guard bands, and able to push 80+ Mbps on a 20 Mhz channel. Because our customers are high bandwidth users we put about 20-25 customers per sector, and currently run 90 Degree units. But have been looking into running 45 degree sectors. At the current time we have 4 ePMP 5ghz sectors, and 3 UBNT 5ghz sectors on the same tower. We operate our back haul on 11Ghz.

Hope this helps, and welcome to ePMP you get much more sleep at night here.

1 Like

Also, the other nice thing about going with Cambium products. You get actual sales, and technical support assistance directly from Cambium. I've had engineers that have even done screen shares with me to review issues on the radios, they always answer their phones, and actually help when problems pop up.

1 Like

So from what  I am reading I need to change out all the subs  epmp 1000 2.4 while still using the ubnt rocket ap's and once I have all the subs changed out I can then put up the new epmp ap's and begin using sync. But I CAN NOT change the  ap's first and use ubnt clients for a while until I change out all the clients even with sync turned off on the ap's

You would need to place the AP's and your current SM's into WIFI mode, it would likely be a time of pretty poor performance when in wifi mode. You would need to do this either way really, UBNT and ePMP both have their own TDD control systems that do not work at all together.  If 5Ghz is an option, and you have good LOS you might look at doing 5Ghz sectors next to your current 2.4 ones, then moving subs to 5ghz, once all the 2.4 Subs are gone remove the rockets and replace with 2.4 ePMP. By that time the force dishes should be out for the ePMP SMs.

1 Like

@pgator17 wrote:

Will gps sync not work with 120 degree sectors? 


Hi.  Well my answer would be:  You 'can' turn GPS Syncing on with 120 degree sectors, so  technically it 'does function', but what they mean is that you'll be defeating much of the benefit that GPS Sync is designed for.

You see, there are two sources of interference - competative interference and self interference. You can't control competative interference (although ePMP does an awesome job or workign in the face of competative interference) so what GPS Syncing is about is trying to control SELF interference, and trying to do Frequency Reuse, so that you can get the best use of the quietest channels.  The single biggest source of interference is self interference, and you CAN control much of that with proper design.  Using 3 sectors instead of 4 will defeat much of the design.

So, the idea with GPS is to Syncronize two Access Points which are pointed 180 degrees opposite ways from each other so that they both broadcast at the same instant, and so that they both listen at the same instant, and that they therefor can use the same channel.  If two non-Syncronized AP's are on the same tower and if one is listening while another is transmitting (even if they are on different channels) the listening one can get deafened by the nearby AP and the broadcasting AP can stomp all over the clients which are trying to talk to the listening AP.

Also, when both AP's are in listening mode, the idea is that they need to be issolated as much as possible from the CPE's of any other AP. Again, if you have two Sectors which are pointed in exactly opposite directions, and if the F/B ratio is >30dB, then the idea is that clients on Sector A won't be very loud on Sector B (which is pointed 180 degrees away with only a 90 degree beamwidth and with a >30 dB F/B ratio). So, when both AP's are in their listening part of the frame, they (hopefully) should only hear their own CPEs very loudly.

Now, if you only put up three 120 degree sectors, and if you point them 120 degrees apart, and if their Front/Back ratios are ~20 dB instead of >30 dB - then a client on the edge of one sector may be hear by two sectors at about the same level.  If you are trying to do frequency reuse on those, then that client will be talking and two of your Sectors will be hearing it at about the same level, and it'll be stomping on whomever is trying to talk to the other Sector at the same instant.


So - my answer to this question would be 'Yes and No'.  Yes, you can still use GPS Syncing - meaning that you can stil turn it on, and it'll still Sync the Transmit and Receive frames of all the AP's in your network. There 'may' still be some benefit by having all your AP's transmit at the same instant, and all of them receive at the same instant. Logically, that would HAVE to be better than what every other manufacturer else does.  HOWEVER, you won't really get frequency reuse - certainly not on any CPE's which are near the edge of your 120 degree beams.  You see, when two AP's are talking, that CPE will hear both of them at the same time at about the same signal level, and when that CPE is talkign, both AP Sectors will hear it at the same time at about the same signal level, and that'll defeat much of the benefits of GPS Syncing & Frequency Reuse that you'll get with sectors which are pointed in opposite directions.

2 Likes

@pgator17 wrote:

1. I would like to put up some 5ghz sectors as well has anyone had any results with using a combination sector antenna of 5 and 2.4 ? If so what is the antenna and model number of it. 


Hi.  I'm not sure if this is helpful information or not - we have used DualBand antennas on our older (non-Cambium) gear with pretty good results before. We have NOT used these exact iTElite ones, but they claim that they are >35dB Front/Back (which is what Cambium stresses as an important feature for frequency reuse) and I'd expect that they should work fine with two AP's connected to them.

http://www.itelite.net/en/Katalog/Multi-Band-Antennas//PRO-SECTOR-XL-245dual-band2xdual-HV.html


It looks like these are also $210 or so - so buying 4 of these would be quite a bit cheaper than 8 separate sectors, as long as they work as well as their SPEC sheets claims they do. :)

The Cambium Sectors are DualSlant however - and these are H/V - so the theory that DualSlant AP's would be to reduce the noise in each chain by 3 dB.  Going H/V could increase noise by that 3dB, but if you need to save tower space, then these might be worth a try.

What would you guys  consider a good noise floor for 10 and 20 mhz to work well in epmp ap's 2.4 ghz world using sync. I would love to use 20mhz channels  with 4 sectors . My rocket 2.4 aps are  at -92 according to the web interface of the rocket ap. But this at 10mhz channels and with 3 sectors of 2.4 on the same tower. 

My ubnt 900 single 120 sector rocket gear is at -96 according to the web interface. 

few antenna food for thoughts, the biggest reason for using the dual slant is the systems ability to deal with physical obstructions.     if you look at a lot of your ubnt links that run H and V you'll see some of them have very large variations between the chains, X pol antennas help a lot with reducing that difference. easiest explanation is trees and houses stand tall, if your standing wave hits a tree, you'll lose quite a bit in the vertical pol, more so than horizontal pol. if an X shaped signal hits the same tree, it is more evenly reduced. it also narrows up your frezel zones some by causing that same X pattern. since the cambiums are designed to work like this, they also get a little more noise resistance from that crazy math they have these radios doing.  in short, X pol antennas are a good chuck of the EPMP and PMP 450 magic sauce, as well as LTE and wimax platforms. 

we've been abandoning the UBNT as fast as we can, we are using ABAB reuse with the same 2 channels everywhere (we have caused a little CNIR interference causing CPEs to stay at MCS13 ot 14 BUTTTTT we set every customers router to same two channels and leaving the 3 for our use. its been working nicely and the little drop has been worth it.

running your tower with 3 120 panels, GPS will aid you some, but you still need to use 3 channels and it will stop the next tower from interfering with each other. but you still have those -6db holes in your antenna pattern and 1 less AP to share the load. if you run 4 panels, the hole shrinks to -3 points, and you've got an extra AP   AND your using 10 mhz less spectrum.  

dont forget to make sure you've set your antenna tilt just so. only send your beam as far as you need it to go to maximize the GPS effectiveness and to help dodge distant noise.

I agree with dropping the ubnt 900 for the cambium 450 gear.... once you've gotten a taste the cambium MAC, you'll be in love. its even better than the EPMP ;)

1 Like

What is  the  cambium MAC? 


@pgator17 wrote:

What is  the  cambium MAC? 


Cambium's propriatary MAC or media access controller is designed specifically for WISP/outdoor/high density use and includes special features like time slots, and the ability to use GPS sync, specially adapated modulation rates, etc... in comparison to a WiFi MAC which is designed primarily for home/indoor use and can be bursty in nature, and typically doesn't handle interference very well. There's a raft of other differences, but this will get you started.

Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_access_control

WiFi uses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_sense_multiple_access 

Cambium uses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_division_multiple_access

2 Likes

 what type of antennas are you guys using on the cient side when the integraded antenna is not enough in 2.4 ghz 

the passive reflector adds 8 points of signal gain, that usually works well.  if extreme cases UBNTs RD24 dish with a connectorized CPE works. rather bulky though. 

1 Like

what type of antennas are you guys using on the cient side when the integraded antenna is not enough in 2.4 ghz 


We've been using these 22dB DualPol grids with our older (StarOS) gear.  They have RPSMA pigtails, so they also connect to a Connectorized ePMP SM just fine.  They are about $40 USD from China.  I don't think they are ideal - and I think the Force's will be MUCH nicer, but these antennas are available.  :)

2 Likes

There is no link to the antenna? 

Can you run the connectorized subscriber radio in 5 mhz channle width? Or is it just 20 or 40? 


@pgator17 wrote:

Can you run the connectorized subscriber radio in 5 mhz channle width? Or is it just 20 or 40? 


In TDD mode, you can run any ePMP radio in 5, 10, 20 or 40 MHz channels widths.  We do not support 5 MHz channels on DFS bands. 

We do not support 5 and 10 MHz channels in WiFi or ePTP mode. 

Thanks,

Sriram