[MVMA] KAS: After 2018-11-20: What ?

[Moe]

I say this up front with no offense intended but its something members need to consider when reading these emails. Our previous leader was very pro-2.4 GHz and at least when I joined the mesh, anti-3.4 and 900. Our interim president is very pro-3.4 and staunchly anti-2.4, refusing to be involved in anything to do with it. I love 'em both, will leave it at that, and try to present pros, cons and my opinions here.

We found the KAS omni is on the WNW side of the tower. N8ADO and W8ADO are north of it and have neighbored with an omni there. That was done even with the degraded Rocket M2 from both N8ADO AGM2 and W8LRJ with the mesh loaner kit. Yes, it would be better if a KAS node was on the north side of the tower, but that would virtually mandate an alternative link to MVHS. We could explore moving the side arm at KAS to the north.
 
The 3.4 GHz band offers several ham-exclusive channels, however… IMO, the international 3.4 GHz band has no future, at least now. TP-Link and MikroTik don't support it, at least with OpenWRT compatibility. Ubiquiti did not include it in the AC series (the follow-on to our ancient Legacy series AREDN supports). Nor has Ubiquiti migrated any Legacy 3.4 node to the XW circuitry, as they have for Legacy 2.4 and 5.8. Not good signs. An AREDN member told me 3.4 is what it is and they see no future alternative devices. 
 
AREDN had to do a LOT of code optimization to get their firmware to fit 32 MB devices this time around. Our Bullets, airRouters, airGrids, Nano M2s, AND NANO M3s may soon become as firmware-stagnant as the WRT54G. I think it is unwise to invest in 32 MB devices now or expect MVMA members to do so. That leaves only 3.4 Rockets > 32 MB.

3.4 equipment costs about 50% more than much more common 2.4 and 5.8 equipment. A 3.4 omni at KAS will cost us $338. That’s on top of having to replace the cable, prudent no matter what we do. We have a 2.4 SISO Bullet, cavity filter, and L-Com high-gain omni on hand as “sunk cost.” But we may not want to use it all.

5.8 GHz/20 MHz/MIMO is great for linking sites above the trees at something approaching "high speed.” You'll see most future AREDN development focused on 5.8 We desperately need to rotate the W Xenia NSM5 back toward MVHS, and to install a different channel NSM5 on the KAS tower aimed at MVHS. This should give us a decent path from the AUXCOMM-possible KAS site to tornado-historic Xenia. But any foliage at all kills 5.8, so it's the wrong choice for linking end users, typically surrounded by trees here. BTDT!

2.4 GHz IS bad. It offers only one ham exclusive channel, Channel -2, at 10 MHz bandwidth. It is plagued with noise problems, especially in RF-hostile environments such as DARA, Vandalia, and KAS, something we've only been able to address on the slower SISO Bullet omnis. The MIMO Rocket series are not amenable to filtering and the attempt to do so _may_ have contributed to the KAS omni degradation and failure. Channel -2/10 MHz/SISO is as slow as a low-speed mesh can be, with constantly and widely varying LQs lower than 100%, sometimes much lower. That causes VoIP dropouts. These are all reasons why AREDN is scaling back any future 2.4, much less SISO, development. It's what our high-profile 2.4 omnis provide now.

We, the MVMA, made 2.4 as bad as it can be. Rather than isolate 2.4 into neighborhoods with lower-mounted, down-tilt omnis or sector antennas aimed away from each other, we chose very high gain omnis and mounted them as high as possible. Instead of the expected usable linking by omni pattern overlap, we got lots of channel contention and mostly useless, even detrimental, omni neighboring. Our worst performers have been our highest mounted omnis, which can poorly neighbor with many others. SSID changes only mask the problem of many same channel omnis. The 2.4 solution is to stop the same channel RF connectivity.

If it is to support N8ADO and W8LRJ, and hams in their area, NO OMNI should be installed at KAS—certainly not a high-gain one, and neither a 2.4, 3.4, or 5.8 omni. Our on-hand 2.4 omni will interfere with DARA, Vandalia if we ever use it, and with Xenia and XWARN. 3.4 may take us down a dead-end road. and 5.8 won’t reach N8ADO or W8LRJ with their trees, at least in Spring and Summer. For our 2.4 Bullet and cavity filter, perhaps a SISO L-Com sector panel that can be tilted down would be an interim option.They’re available up to 180º wide. We’ll eventually have to replace all our 32 MB Bullets, so one more at KAS won’t matter much.

N8JJ recommended in the survey, "Scale back activities and installations until Technology and software work better"

I think we should take that sage advice. This is a bad time to be investing much in any existing mesh technology or establishing a new direction for 2018-11-20 and beyond… at least until we know where Ubiquiti and AREDN are going.

—
Moe
73 de AB8XA







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mvma/attachments/20181121/bc7185e8/attachment.html>