Specifications for Internet services on public frequency

Dennis Burgess dmburgess at linktechs.net
Mon Sep 20 13:27:14 UTC 2010

UBNT is fine if you need a bridged network, using them in junction to MikroTik's RouterBOARDs will give you all of the tools you will need to be successful as well.   Routing, traffic shaping etc.    Contact me off-list if you need pre-built / configured solutions with either hardware.  

Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer 
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training - Author of "Learn RouterOS"

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Lyon [mailto:jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net] 
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 1:33 AM
To: Jared Mauch
Cc: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Specifications for Internet services on public frequency

Another +1 UBNT. We're using the NanoStation2 to deliver 802.11g to remote camps in Afghanistan. They advertise a 60 deg LOS signal but it seems to do much better. Supposedly they will reach 15 km but we've never tried to use them that far. What's really neat is they come ready to mount with some heavy duty zip ties.

I'm also a fan of the Cisco Aironet 1310, but we're using the built-in omni-directional antennae so the range isn't as nice as the Ubiquity and they cost about five times as much. The terminations are RG6 and the mount kit comes with the cable and weather strips to protect the terminations. The Ubiquity by comparison is all PoE so you'll want to use loom to protect the ethernet cable.

I would venture to say that the UBNT omni-directional devices (eg.
PicoStation2HP) have better range than the aforementioned Aironet 1310.


On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2010, at 2:59 PM, John Gammons wrote:
>> Ubiquiti Networks - www.ubnt.com
>> I have deployed numerous rural wireless provider nets with a variety 
>> of technologies and vendors and this is by far, the most cost 
>> effective and reliable last mile solution.
>> IMHO, based on testing and real life lessons learned, unlicensed is 
>> the only way to go in rural.  The benefits of licensed frequencies 
>> are "typically" lost in rural environments as there aren't many 
>> contending devices.  The above N based equipment performs roughly at 
>> the same level as fixed wimax, without the expense of the wimax 
>> chipsets.  Of course I am generalizing a bit and each deployment has 
>> it's own requirements and challenges to be considered.
> +1 UBNT.
> Can not beat the price/performance of the equipment. ($160 for a pair of dual-pol 802.11n equipment).
> - Jared

Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions

More information about the NANOG mailing list