I'm setting up 2 SXTs to cover the area between 2 buildings approx 60 meters apart. There should also be a link between the buildings.
Configured the units as ap bridge and set up dynamic WDS. Mode was 802.11 /bgn.
The wds link was established, but disconnected after just a few seconds. Found that signals were quite strong (-20dBm) and reduced transmit power to get received signals around -40dBm. Stability improved, but still frequent disconnections. In order to get the client up and running I decided to configure one of the unints as station bridge and disable wds. This worked ok.
Did som more testing in the lab, using two 951 in a similar setup. Found the same instability until I change the mode to 802.11 /bg. This gave a link that seemed a lot more stable, even with quite strong signals (-30dBm). Is there a reason for this? Sould the /n mode be avoided when using WDS?

still too hot. shoot for -65 between your links.

Thanks for the response.
Sure, it seems like the WDS-link is quite sensitive to signal strength.
What seems strange, however, is that 802.11 /bgn seems less stable or more sensitive to high signal levels than 802.11 /bg. Is this correct - in other words - would it be smart to avoid the /n ?

Think about it, if you use WDS, you should set just one standard, be it G or N. If you set it to b/g/n, and the wireless WDS link is stablished in say N, then a station comes and connects in G, it forces the radio to change standards, recalibrating between each station.

2.4GHz radio band is already rather crowded, also using WDS usually doesn't provide miraculous results vs a dedicated link.

I'd ditch WDS for s start and focus on getting an stable and optimal link in ap-bridge - station-bridge setup in terms of channel, channel width,supported MCS etc. Once you're sure that's the optimal setup and only then, I'd add WDS in the mix.

Have you done an spectral scan? can you post Wireless > registration details? noise floor, etc?

Thanks for your response.
Makes sense to stick to only one standard
I've not done a coplete spectral scan, but have used a tool called Network Stumbler. It sees only WLAN systems - not other devices. Only a couple of access points showed up (this is far out in the countryside). Found a channel with no other access ponts and good distance to other, used channels.

Will skip the WDS. Primary goal is to get a good link between ap and station. A benefit of using WDS would be better (wider) coverage of the area between the buildings, but I'll handle this in another way if needed.

Thanks again!

The best would be leaving those SXT2 for AP purposes, then make a PTP link with two SXT5 Lite, for such distance can provide 0-2ms latency for symmetric 70Mbps TCP and up.

Sure. That would obviously be a better solution.
However - customer is quite cost sensitive

Check SXT5 Lite price... they're $20 cheaper than SXT2.

I've never had a single customer complaining for having invested a little more for a rock-solid, performing, stable solution... neither any has congratulated me for deploying a "so-so" solution but "saving" some money.

I usually run away from 2.4Ghz links, but if your zone has at least a couple clear channels, the cheapest solution would be an additional SXT2 Lite: leave both regular SXT2 in AP mode, adding that SXT2 Lite on the remote end as a CPE device, wired to the remote AP. That way you avoid WDS and have both APs providing coverage.

It won't be the ideal solution as you'll need to limit "main" AP MCS rates if you want to get an optimized, stable link between it and the CPE, thus rate-limiting in MCS all clients of that AP, but depending on your situation maybe not much limiting or any at all may be needed. The CON is you won't be able to use nstreme or NV2 for that link.