11 Mar
2015
11 Mar
'15
8:38 p.m.
It seems that there is now preliminary support for nanobeam devices in
OpenWRT:
https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/16796
So that's nice, but the second to last comment says that speeds are much
lower than for stock firmware. It could be that this person just didn't
configure his node correctly or it could be that this is the case for all
ubiquiti devices.
Lately we've been talking about the possibility of using non-openwrt
routers for point to point bridged links. We've heard from a few people
that performance of ubiquiti M5 gear for point to point links is basically
the same in OpenWRT and stock firmware.
I think we should test that ourselves. I'm ordering some nanobridges and
nanostations right now and we should do a few tests with point to point and
point to multipoint using openwrt and stock firmware.
It'd be nice to have benchmarks on our wiki. I can't find any existing
benchmarks online?
--
marc/juul
11 Mar
11 Mar
9:01 p.m.
Hm, I may be able to help figure out why the performance is crap. It's
just an atheros chip; there's no 11ac radio in it right?
-a
On 11 March 2015 at 20:38, Marc Juul <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
It seems that there is now preliminary support for
nanobeam devices in
OpenWRT:
https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/16796
So that's nice, but the second to last comment says that speeds are much
lower than for stock firmware. It could be that this person just didn't
configure his node correctly or it could be that this is the case for all
ubiquiti devices.
Lately we've been talking about the possibility of using non-openwrt routers
for point to point bridged links. We've heard from a few people that
performance of ubiquiti M5 gear for point to point links is basically the
same in OpenWRT and stock firmware.
I think we should test that ourselves. I'm ordering some nanobridges and
nanostations right now and we should do a few tests with point to point and
point to multipoint using openwrt and stock firmware.
It'd be nice to have benchmarks on our wiki. I can't find any existing
benchmarks online?
--
marc/juul
_______________________________________________
mesh-dev mailing list
mesh-dev(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/mesh-dev
9:04 p.m.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian(a)freebsd.org> wrote:
Hm, I may be able to help figure out why the
performance is crap. It's
just an atheros chip; there's no 11ac radio in it right?
Yeah, it's just 11n but we don't actually have any lying around so we can't
verify that it's actually a problem.
--
marc/juul
9:23 p.m.
Hi!
Yes, we are often using original firmware on point-to-multipoint links
with Ubiquiti hardware because performance is much better. For
point-to-point link there is not much difference. We think that TDMA is
the reason.
It is not so big problem using original firmware. Because mostly we use
on the same location also a 2.4 GHz TP-Link router for local access,
having a switch, and then we run routing protocol on it, and having
Ubiquiti equipment in a bridge mode.
Mitar
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Adrian Chadd
<adrian(a)freebsd.org> wrote:
--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m
Hm, I may be able to help figure out why the
performance is crap. It's
just an atheros chip; there's no 11ac radio in it right?
Yeah, it's just 11n but we don't actually have any lying around so we can't
verify that it's actually a problem.
_______________________________________________
mesh-dev mailing list
mesh-dev(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/mesh-dev
9:34 p.m.
Is it actually a beamforming antenna thing?
If they're using the smart array antenna thing then, *cough* I know
how that works. Would you be able to take some photos of the
internals?
-adrian
On 11 March 2015 at 21:23, Mitar <mitar(a)tnode.com> wrote:
Hi!
Yes, we are often using original firmware on point-to-multipoint links
with Ubiquiti hardware because performance is much better. For
point-to-point link there is not much difference. We think that TDMA is
the reason.
It is not so big problem using original firmware. Because mostly we use
on the same location also a 2.4 GHz TP-Link router for local access,
having a switch, and then we run routing protocol on it, and having
Ubiquiti equipment in a bridge mode.
Mitar
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Adrian Chadd
<adrian(a)freebsd.org> wrote:
--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m Hm, I may be able to help figure out why the
performance is crap. It's
just an atheros chip; there's no 11ac radio in it right?
Yeah, it's just 11n but we don't actually have any lying around so we can't
verify that it's actually a problem.
_______________________________________________
mesh-dev mailing list
mesh-dev(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/mesh-dev
9:38 p.m.
Hi!
Oh, sorry, that was the reply to:
Lately we've been talking about the possibility of
using non-openwrt
routers for point to point bridged links. We've heard from a few
people that performance of ubiquiti M5 gear for point to point links >
is
basically the same in OpenWRT and stock firmware.
That we are confirming something like this in wlan slovenija network as
well.
We haven't tried NanoBeam there yet. But we are using NanoBeams (with
original firmware) in Berkeley now. But there is no comparison made here
with OpenWrt firmware (I am a lazy person and I am letting others figure
OpeWrt for it first before I will be flashing them).
Mitar
Is it actually a beamforming antenna thing?
If they're using the smart array antenna thing then, *cough* I know
how that works. Would you be able to take some photos of the
internals?
-adrian
On 11 March 2015 at 21:23, Mitar <mitar(a)tnode.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Yes, we are often using original firmware on point-to-multipoint links
> with Ubiquiti hardware because performance is much better. For
> point-to-point link there is not much difference. We think that TDMA is
> the reason.
>
> It is not so big problem using original firmware. Because mostly we use
> on the same location also a 2.4 GHz TP-Link router for local access,
> having a switch, and then we run routing protocol on it, and having
> Ubiquiti equipment in a bridge mode.
>
>
> Mitar
>
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian(a)freebsd.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hm, I may be able to help figure out why the performance is crap. It's
>>> just an atheros chip; there's no 11ac radio in it right?
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, it's just 11n but we don't actually have any lying around so we
can't
>> verify that it's actually a problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mesh-dev mailing list
>> mesh-dev(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/mesh-dev
>>
>
> --
> http://mitar.tnode.com/
> https://twitter.com/mitar_m
--
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m
12 Mar
12 Mar
3:27 a.m.
We compared performances of Bullet and NanoBridge with stock firmware
and OpenWRT AA, there were no major differences.
Don't know about 802.11 AC though.
Mitar is right regarding Point to multipoint links. Although my
experience with ptmp links is that cause all sorts of (human) problems
when the community grows because most people tend to connect there
(because they don't need to ask somebody else to buy a new device) and
then owners of ptmpt nodes start thinking about restricting access and
then all sort of fights happen. I spoke about this with Leandro Navarro
of Guifi.net and he told me they have a lot of these cases too and had
in some cases they had deal with them with community lawyers.
Federico
On 03/12/2015 05:38 AM, Mitar wrote:
Hi!
Oh, sorry, that was the reply to:
Lately we've been talking about the
possibility of using non-openwrt
routers for point to point bridged links. We've heard from a few
people that performance of ubiquiti M5 gear for point to point links >
is
basically the same in OpenWRT and stock firmware.
That we are confirming something like this in wlan slovenija network as
well.
We haven't tried NanoBeam there yet. But we are using NanoBeams (with
original firmware) in Berkeley now. But there is no comparison made here
with OpenWrt firmware (I am a lazy person and I am letting others figure
OpeWrt for it first before I will be flashing them).
Mitar
> Is it actually a beamforming antenna thing?
>
> If they're using the smart array antenna thing then, *cough* I know
> how that works. Would you be able to take some photos of the
> internals?
>
>
>
> -adrian
>
>
> On 11 March 2015 at 21:23, Mitar <mitar(a)tnode.com> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Yes, we are often using original firmware on point-to-multipoint links
>> with Ubiquiti hardware because performance is much better. For
>> point-to-point link there is not much difference. We think that TDMA is
>> the reason.
>>
>> It is not so big problem using original firmware. Because mostly we use
>> on the same location also a 2.4 GHz TP-Link router for local access,
>> having a switch, and then we run routing protocol on it, and having
>> Ubiquiti equipment in a bridge mode.
>>
>>
>> Mitar
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian(a)freebsd.org>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hm, I may be able to help figure out why the performance is crap.
It's
>>>> just an atheros chip; there's no 11ac radio in it right?
>>>>
>>> Yeah, it's just 11n but we don't actually have any lying around so we
can't
>>> verify that it's actually a problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mesh-dev mailing list
>>> mesh-dev(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/mesh-dev
>>>
>> --
>> http://mitar.tnode.com/
>> https://twitter.com/mitar_m
9:41 a.m.
Hi,
That's all quite cool. But - does it have a simple antenna inside, or
an active antenna array? :)
(Read: I've been looking for an atheros 11n based device that uses the
smartantenna feature so I can actually write support for it.)
-a
3543
days inactive
3543
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Adrian Chadd -
Marc Juul -
Mitar -
Nemesis