Mikrotik VS Trango battle.
Ok Im so pissed. I have about 300 customers located in a small town. It appears that my competitor got some grant money and now are putting up Trango 5.8 equipment beside my tower site. To date there is about 6 trango AP's and 2 Trango backhauls beside me and it is driving my MT's offline. Is there a way that I can get my 5.8 backhauls to run in this enviroment with out shutting down ? Better yet is there a way to knock his crap off line? I have talked to the idiot and he just laughs and said to bad. All of my equipment is 5.8 for backhauls and 2.4/5.3 for distribution.
Hmm, quite a common case. Im not certain if there is any action you can take against him with use of the FCC'S fair use policy. (about 60% sure you can do something legally about it) ... if not well you would probably have to change the polarity of your system or ask him to do the same, as it would produce a <30db loss between polarisations resulting in "no interference" so you would once again have "free" spectrum to operate in. If that is not viable then i would suggest channel spacing. Perhaps 10mhz? ... Although not good news by any means, Its just a few suggestions.
Another thing you can do is perhaps emply higher gain antennas which would ergo mean a tighter beamwidth. Example a 32.5dbi with >4(degress both hori and vert)
Ignore the notion that more power is better! (It would only make things worse) - Ya gotta fight smart not dirty
Btw, im being brevit; im sure many others would aid you
To make a long story short, simply get the higher gain antennas and change the polorization and ignore the idiot.
Ah, when will it stop; umm you can also employ a channel filter to clean things up a bit.
Regards.
Another thing you can do is perhaps emply higher gain antennas which would ergo mean a tighter beamwidth. Example a 32.5dbi with >4(degress both hori and vert)
Ignore the notion that more power is better! (It would only make things worse) - Ya gotta fight smart not dirty
Btw, im being brevit; im sure many others would aid you
To make a long story short, simply get the higher gain antennas and change the polorization and ignore the idiot.
Ah, when will it stop; umm you can also employ a channel filter to clean things up a bit.
Regards.
I am currently using 32db antennas. What seems strange is that I must not be causing him interference issues but it sure shuts down a mikrotik system in short order. I could not even find him on a scan session until I used a spectrum analyzer. Why didnt it show up on a MT scan? Is there a way to get one of my cm9's or sr5's to transmitt constantly? Maybe that way I could transmitt out on 5.8 and use a different 5.8 for receiving only. Then maybe I could cut thru his crap.
If he's going to be a hard ass then go get a trango or motorola bh set and shot it through his tower with a full load for about 3 days. Maybe then he will start playing nice. JJ
I had a lot of problems in New Orleans till I started running the SR5 on 24dbi panel using 10mhz bandwidth. I had 90* sectors before with cm9 cards running at 20mhz bandwidth.
All the Canopy and Trango shit was eating my MT's up. The links never dropped but the speeds would become unusable.
It costs more but I think outdoor wireless systems should be built with more APs and higher gain small beam antennas and run the smaller 5 and 10mhz bandwidth.
I had a lot of problems in New Orleans till I started running the SR5 on 24dbi panel using 10mhz bandwidth. I had 90* sectors before with cm9 cards running at 20mhz bandwidth.
All the Canopy and Trango shit was eating my MT's up. The links never dropped but the speeds would become unusable.
It costs more but I think outdoor wireless systems should be built with more APs and higher gain small beam antennas and run the smaller 5 and 10mhz bandwidth.
-
-
GWISA-Kroonstad
Member Candidate
- Posts: 111
- Joined:
Having Same problem in South Africa.
Our Competitor set up Motorolla Canopies in town. It is useless now to use any channel below 11 on 2.4 Ghz. Even with SR2 and 9db HP omni. the problem is not the tower side I believe, but the client side as well. Had to upgrade a few clients to higher gain antennas in order to connect. Quite Disappointing! When is MT gonna support other technologies? Wimax, CDMA etc??? When??????????
By the way, just came back from Lebanon and everyone I spoke to over there is leaving MT only for Backhaul connections and changing to other technologies for DPs. Extremely sad.
To Normunds: If this upsets MT, please remove my post. Don't mean any harm but to encourage MT to concentrate on other than Wifi. Or at least try to present firmware upgrades for the pcmcia or mini-pci radios available worldwide to shift from the wifi bands so that we may move away from interference even to licensed bands.
Our Competitor set up Motorolla Canopies in town. It is useless now to use any channel below 11 on 2.4 Ghz. Even with SR2 and 9db HP omni. the problem is not the tower side I believe, but the client side as well. Had to upgrade a few clients to higher gain antennas in order to connect. Quite Disappointing! When is MT gonna support other technologies? Wimax, CDMA etc??? When??????????
By the way, just came back from Lebanon and everyone I spoke to over there is leaving MT only for Backhaul connections and changing to other technologies for DPs. Extremely sad.
To Normunds: If this upsets MT, please remove my post. Don't mean any harm but to encourage MT to concentrate on other than Wifi. Or at least try to present firmware upgrades for the pcmcia or mini-pci radios available worldwide to shift from the wifi bands so that we may move away from interference even to licensed bands.
Similar experience to Jober's, same conclusions. ISM in the U.S. is the "wild west". Louder won't help, but smarts will. We've had very positive results mitigating interference by moving to narrow channels, higher gain, flipped polarity. Narrow is especially helpful; Carrier sense in 802.11 is synthetic so a link with a decent budget won't get fooled into back-off just because it hears a faint "carrier" from another site. Device working a narrow channel can't detect channels using other bandwidths, thus ignores those channels in its own CSMA determinations.It costs more but I think outdoor wireless systems should be built with more APs and higher gain small beam antennas and run the smaller 5 and 10mhz bandwidth.
A lot of these problems could be mitigated if manufacturers and operators of 802.11 gear had better understanding about RTS/CTS, physical vs. virtual carrier senses, NAV etc. Unfortunately at this point the layers of mythology surrounding these are apparently too deep to penetrate even with the extensive theoretical and empirical rationale for including these in the highly evolved 802.11 specifications. Hence they're largely missing from the picture, even with some of our favorite vendors.
its a about timing of the timeslot signals , certain companies have adjusted this signalling to their own needs.
to explain it simple all Accesspoints in the area usually see the traffic of other AP and they handle out time slots between each other to send and receive datapackets ....
certain vendors now change the timing and trivially speaking , their APs send nonstop announcements of datatransmission, leaving all other APs of other vendors in the queue behind ...
its all about OFDM SIFS Time and OFDM Preamble Time - in theory you can kick any AP with the right timing ...
well talk about competition
btw we found out that the timing of mikrotik APs is has also a adjusted timing which leave under certain circumstances other vendor APs behind ...
to explain it simple all Accesspoints in the area usually see the traffic of other AP and they handle out time slots between each other to send and receive datapackets ....
certain vendors now change the timing and trivially speaking , their APs send nonstop announcements of datatransmission, leaving all other APs of other vendors in the queue behind ...
its all about OFDM SIFS Time and OFDM Preamble Time - in theory you can kick any AP with the right timing ...
well talk about competition
btw we found out that the timing of mikrotik APs is has also a adjusted timing
which leave under certain circumstances other vendor APs behind ...I would find out what type of grant my competor got. Most of those grants are only for areas that do not have existing broadband. If you can prove you were already in existence when he applied - he would be repaying all of that cash - plus possibly facing criminal charges for fraud. That would shut down his Trango in a heartbeat. I have also heard that Trango does not do well with interference. Maybe an SR5 doing a PtP through his tower back to your "new" locatation will send him packing.
-
-
WildWISP_N2
just joined
- Posts: 5
- Joined:
Montana,
You won't be able to see the Trango radios at all with MT radios since the Trangos are not using the 802.11A MAC. However, they are occupying the same spectrum and they will give you troubles, as you noted.
This is sheer ISM piracy. It is difficult to deal with people who don't want to play nice. We had a similar experience: a new competitor would put up gear aimed right at our BH links (no reason to do this other than give us troubles) and beam us off the air. Our only quick solution was to change channels or polarities to give us space and then our competitor would occupy that channel. The Trangos have software controlled polarity so it is hard to compete with them if you have to physically rotate and repoint antennas.
Sorry to say, but in the end, the guy with customers on always gets chased out. The new guy has less to lose since he hasn't got down customers.
In our case we found a new way to backhaul to our target area and we left the problem tower.
It is a shame but it seems that all the grant/govt money always seems to go to people like this....
You won't be able to see the Trango radios at all with MT radios since the Trangos are not using the 802.11A MAC. However, they are occupying the same spectrum and they will give you troubles, as you noted.
This is sheer ISM piracy. It is difficult to deal with people who don't want to play nice. We had a similar experience: a new competitor would put up gear aimed right at our BH links (no reason to do this other than give us troubles) and beam us off the air. Our only quick solution was to change channels or polarities to give us space and then our competitor would occupy that channel. The Trangos have software controlled polarity so it is hard to compete with them if you have to physically rotate and repoint antennas.
Sorry to say, but in the end, the guy with customers on always gets chased out. The new guy has less to lose since he hasn't got down customers.
In our case we found a new way to backhaul to our target area and we left the problem tower.
It is a shame but it seems that all the grant/govt money always seems to go to people like this....
We started service in 2004 without supporting of local authorities. Now, with more than 200 customers, the municipal goverment (only for electoral intentions) has supported a big company to make a wireless network in our city.
The company use 2.4 Canopy stuff, so we have a lot of troubles now. The company hasn't contacted with our, simply put their mast in the same frequencies.
We are changing to horizontal polarized infraestructure, because canopy only works in vertical. When I will finish the new network and all our old network will work on 5.8, I'll put two 17 sectors pointing to their masts
. It's incredible the lack of respect of this kind of companies
The company use 2.4 Canopy stuff, so we have a lot of troubles now. The company hasn't contacted with our, simply put their mast in the same frequencies.
We are changing to horizontal polarized infraestructure, because canopy only works in vertical. When I will finish the new network and all our old network will work on 5.8, I'll put two 17 sectors pointing to their masts
. It's incredible the lack of respect of this kind of companiesMicrowave ovens with a wave guide make any network melt down. JJ
I was faced with the same problem so I started moving all my customers to 5.8 and added a 2.4 AP to them so I could run a hotspot from all the customers locations. I use rb532's for all customers.
The towers 2.4 antennas are going to 5mhz on 3 channels and the other two 20mhz channels are for the hotspots.
I got to it before the mayor could spend the towers money on something the town already has. I also told her I would go to the new paper and give them a nice story on more city funds going to waist on something thats already being done by a local home town company. And that she wants to give our towns money to an out of town company when the home town company can finish it with or without the towns money.
The free service will be sponsored by local business and then theres the faster paid service and to boot if you are a fixed base wireless or DSL customer of ours, you get a free high speed service use/pass for the hotspot. Next I want to start handing out WiFi VoIP phones to some good customers to play with.
I know this rant really doesn't help you now that your way past that point. But maybe some other wisp's will get on it before they end up like you.
And again, I'm sorry to hear you have this problem.
I was faced with the same problem so I started moving all my customers to 5.8 and added a 2.4 AP to them so I could run a hotspot from all the customers locations. I use rb532's for all customers.
The towers 2.4 antennas are going to 5mhz on 3 channels and the other two 20mhz channels are for the hotspots.
I got to it before the mayor could spend the towers money on something the town already has. I also told her I would go to the new paper and give them a nice story on more city funds going to waist on something thats already being done by a local home town company. And that she wants to give our towns money to an out of town company when the home town company can finish it with or without the towns money.
The free service will be sponsored by local business and then theres the faster paid service and to boot if you are a fixed base wireless or DSL customer of ours, you get a free high speed service use/pass for the hotspot. Next I want to start handing out WiFi VoIP phones to some good customers to play with.
I know this rant really doesn't help you now that your way past that point. But maybe some other wisp's will get on it before they end up like you.
And again, I'm sorry to hear you have this problem.
Well things are heating up. I need to know exactly how to take out trango radio. I cant have 300+ customers out of service because of this. If so how! I have looked at "jober's" microwave guide but am not sure that would have any effect on trango 5.8 equipment but it should fry my 2.4 ap's. Can a cm9 ore sr5 be set to continous transmitt? I will be glad to discuss this off post to learn more. Contact me at iguy@hush.ai thanks all for the input.
You're screwed.
Had a similar issue with Trango 900.
The Trango 900 gear would completely knock out my MT/SR9 and Tranzeo 900 gear as soon as it was powered up. Didn't matter what channels what spacing or what polorization. The SR9 and Tranzeo (Zcomax card) lived together without any issue. Trango flat out does not play nice.
So.... I put a Moto Canopy 900 AP next to the Trango and it had the same effect on the Trango - The Canopy AP took out the Trango AP.
Now I use all Moto Canopy for PtMP.
I'm only using MT for backhaul.
Had a similar issue with Trango 900.
The Trango 900 gear would completely knock out my MT/SR9 and Tranzeo 900 gear as soon as it was powered up. Didn't matter what channels what spacing or what polorization. The SR9 and Tranzeo (Zcomax card) lived together without any issue. Trango flat out does not play nice.
So.... I put a Moto Canopy 900 AP next to the Trango and it had the same effect on the Trango - The Canopy AP took out the Trango AP.
Now I use all Moto Canopy for PtMP.
I'm only using MT for backhaul.
Are you sure that will help?If you have all mikrotik equipment then you can use the nstreme protocol and use this setting: "disable-csma=yes"
It looks like Motorola built their radios to kill any and all competition. I have to wonder if any of the new WiMax radios will even work in the same area as the Canopy radios.
Someone better do something soon or we will all be using Canopy.
LOL, I love the word should.
1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.
4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.
Just joking here so please don't get mad.
Anyway, I would try it. It can't hurt anything. Hey if it works then we can all start using it when Canopy comes to town.
1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.
4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.
Just joking here so please don't get mad.
Anyway, I would try it. It can't hurt anything. Hey if it works then we can all start using it when Canopy comes to town.
I found these posts with a search here in the forum.
http://forum.mikrotik.com//viewtopic.ph ... isablecsma
http://forum.mikrotik.com//viewtopic.ph ... light=csma
http://forum.mikrotik.com//viewtopic.ph ... light=csma
http://forum.mikrotik.com//viewtopic.ph ... isablecsma
http://forum.mikrotik.com//viewtopic.ph ... light=csma
http://forum.mikrotik.com//viewtopic.ph ... light=csma
Whoa. That second post there scared the crap outta me. I hope that's not indicative of what the average AP would see when using that feature.I found these posts with a search here in the forum.
http://forum.mikrotik.com//viewtopic.ph ... isablecsma
http://forum.mikrotik.com//viewtopic.ph ... light=csma
http://forum.mikrotik.com//viewtopic.ph ... light=csma
-- Nathan
Of course... nothave you seen any experiments that will make your statement solid?
This is basically the problem with Motorola Canopy, for example. When you use a propietary transmision protocol, your equipment is not 802.11. What happens? You are pure noise at the eyes of usual wireless equipment.
Besides, this companies uses more and more aggresive protocols, destinated to squash the others.
The worst, that WiFi alliance allows this practices and give certifications to this products.
Re:
We started service in 2004 without supporting of local authorities. Now, with more than 200 customers, the municipal goverment (only for electoral intentions) has supported a big company to make a wireless network in our city.
The company use 2.4 Canopy stuff, so we have a lot of troubles now. The company hasn't contacted with our, simply put their mast in the same frequencies.
We are changing to horizontal polarized infraestructure, because canopy only works in vertical. When I will finish the new network and all our old network will work on 5.8, I'll put two 17 sectors pointing to their masts
Get a baseball bat it will "fix" the competitor gear and the competitor itself .... =)
-
-
NetTraptor
Frequent Visitor
- Posts: 76
- Joined:
- Location: Athens Greece
- Contact:
Re: Mikrotik VS Trango battle.
I wonder if those devices transmit within legal limits... If they do not, I am sure that you can mention this to your local authorities... I find it hard to believe that a few of those devices can kick you completely out of a mast system. I know of nodes in our community network with a lot more than 6 5GHz IFs, all working with 80cm dishes about 32db, good signals, 1db tx power, at very long distances and with bw throughput at about 35-38Mbit...
Something is not right there and i believe you can do something about it. I also agree that you have to play nice yourself, work smart, with smart techniques and get support from your local regulatory authority. If you find that you can't do the above.... there is a good chance that you have not been good boys your self in the past.
I really sometimes can not understand why those SR5, XR5 are so popular apart from their sensitivity... we only used those on extremely long vital links. Saying this we have very long links (to areas that we do not have access to cables and are very remote) with CM9 and large prime focus dishes.... 2 of those links work great linking 2 remote wireless communities through a site that is 200 meters away from an antenna park
...scratch.. scratch... y?
Something is not right there and i believe you can do something about it. I also agree that you have to play nice yourself, work smart, with smart techniques and get support from your local regulatory authority. If you find that you can't do the above.... there is a good chance that you have not been good boys your self in the past.
I really sometimes can not understand why those SR5, XR5 are so popular apart from their sensitivity... we only used those on extremely long vital links. Saying this we have very long links (to areas that we do not have access to cables and are very remote) with CM9 and large prime focus dishes.... 2 of those links work great linking 2 remote wireless communities through a site that is 200 meters away from an antenna park
...scratch.. scratch... y?
Re: Mikrotik VS Trango battle.
anyone tested the disable-csma as suggested above?
-
-
kapusta_kiszona
Frequent Visitor
- Posts: 70
- Joined:
- Location: Poland
Re: Mikrotik VS Trango battle.
I'm testing on one link in noisy area and it works slightly better.
Re: Mikrotik VS Trango battle.
Care to expand on this, many thanks.I'm testing on one link in noisy area and it works slightly better.
-
-
jacoblydon
Member Candidate
- Posts: 100
- Joined:
- Location: Arkansas
Re: Mikrotik VS Trango battle.
Has anyone tried new circular polorazation antennea? Works well