You are here

NanoStation M5 PoE questions

37 posts / 0 new
Last post
KE0RSX
KE0RSX's picture
NanoStation M5 PoE questions

Hi, everyone,

I have a couple of questions about the Nanostation M5 that's in the supported matrix (the XW that is linked to an Amazon page). Does the PoE passthrough work on the secondary port, and if so, how many volts does it provide? We are thinking about mounting a PTZ camera that requires 48 V via PoE on a tower and powering it through the passthrough on the Nanostation. I'm wanting to make sure it will work.

Thanks and have a great day. :)
Patrick.

KE0RSX
KE0RSX's picture
I will add this as a second comment...

I'm going to assume my first question is "No" as it appears these only do 24 V passthrough (according to the questions/answer on Amazon). So, my question is this as well. Could we use one of these to power another NanoStation and a Dish? So, it would go like this: PoE adapter -> Nanostation1 -> Nanostation2 -> Dish.

Have a great day. :)
Patrick.

nc8q
nc8q's picture
24 V passthrough

Hi, Patrick:

The 'pass-through' voltage is passive, 24v in, 24v out; 12v in 12v out.
Yes, you can power multiple devices via the 'POE pass-through' feature.
I do not recommend more than 2 devices and use a 24 watt POE.
For 3 devices I recommend an Ubiquiti N-SW and a 24v 1.25 amp 30 watt POE injector.
The POE and 1 cable to a N-SW at the remote location, then 3 devices can be powered and DtD linked.
A set of 2 like this and you can power and DtD link 4 to 6 devices, if you add a LAN to LAN crossover at the POEs,
with only 2 ethernet cables to the remote site.
7 (to 9) nodes would require a 3rd set, 3 ethernet ethernet cables to the remote site, and a simple switch.
This does not provide LAN access to any specific node. It would be only a remote site switch. No LAN 'services'.

'Dish'es do not require power. Please clarify further.

I hope this helps,
Chuck
 

KE0RSX
KE0RSX's picture
A little clarification

Hi, Chuck,

Here's our scenario. Our nodes are 263' up on a tower at our local college. The power supplies are the three PoE adapters that come with them. Currently, we're using TP-Link CPE210's but are moving to 5.8GHz nodes. Our plan is to run three Nanostation M5's and connect two MikroTik LHG5 dishes to them. Along with this, we have a PTZ camera that we want to install. It's a 48 V PoE/12 VDC camera, so it won't run off of the nodes. We're hoping to minimize the number of cables that we have to run. Which is why we're hoping to run a Nanostation to another Nanostation to the LHG on one run, and a Nanostation to a LHG dish on another run. Or even better, a Nanostation to Nanostation to LHG on both runs and use the third run for the camera.

Hopefully that clarifies things. And thank you very much for the information. I'll pass it along to my EC, as he's the one buying the equipment.

Have a great day. :)
Patrick.

AB7PA
To minimize cable runs

Patrick, I'd second the suggestion provided by Chuck NC8Q.  To minimize cable runs there are at least two good options for outdoor, weather resistant PoE switches.  Here is a link to the Ubiquiti Nanoswitch, and here is a link to the Mikrotik PowerBox.  The Nanoswitch offers 3 passive PoE passthrough ports but only 1 amp total output power for all three ports.  The PowerBox offers 4 passive PoE passthrough ports, 2 amps total power output for all four ports, and it comes with a 24V DC 2.5A power adapter.  As long as you carefully plan your DC power budget you may be able to run two or three devices from an outdoor switch like these with a single cable run up the tower.

KE0RSX
KE0RSX's picture
I guess I need to make sure I

I guess I need to make sure I understand how you would set this up. We would have the injector inside of the building and run a single cable up the tower. That would feed the NanoSwitch, which would feed the nodes. Then, we would have a separate cable running up for the camera. Correct?

Have a great day. :)
Patrick.

AB7PA
Yes, but depends on your power budget

Essentially, yes.  It depends on the power budget you need for the number of nodes/cameras you want to run.  And there are probably 12v or 24v PTZ cameras that could be powered from the same PoE switch -- or you might use a boost converter to get 48v from the 24v passive PoE.

N0MRZ
N0MRZ's picture
Power Budget

Our total equipment list for this install is (3) Ubquiti NanoStation XW AirMax 5 GHz. nodes, (2) MikroTik RBLHG-5HPnD-XL dishes, and (1) Nikvision clone 48v POE PTZ camera. We already have all of the equipment listed so far.

AB7PA
Power budget

You guys have made great progress!  That is fantastic!  You could find the datasheets for your NanoStation M5 and LHG 5HP devices and look for the max power consumption.  The sum of max power for all devices on the tower will give you an estimate of your total power budget.  The other approach would be to put them on the bench with a power meter inline and take some actual measurements to determine how much power they typically consume while in use.

AB7PA
possible shielding

I'm not sure what your overall goals are for this project, but here's a random thought as far as collocating those devices.  The NanoStation M5 has a beamwidth of about 45° so with three of them you could cover not quite half a circle arc.  They are not particularly well shielded, but you can purchase shields for them that would help them operate in the intended direction.  The LHG 5HPXL has a very narrow beamwidth of about 7° so it would be a good point-to-point backbone or backhaul radio to link with another distant tower site.  All the best!

KE0RSX
KE0RSX's picture
I'll take a bite at this as Scott (Cary) is out of town

Our overall goal for the tower is this... We want to cover 360-degrees around it to provide the mesh backbone for our town (about 22,000 people). We'll have a dish pointing North to a town about 10 miles away. We have another smaller backbone in the downtown area, which we might need a dish pointing to because the location is right in the fringes of the 120-degree antennas. Also, we want to put up a PTZ camera on the tower since it's the tallest thing in our area.

The way the tower is set up, one leg points NW, one points NE, and one points almost directly S. The town is odd in that downtown is angled more NW than true N, because it was built around the bend in the Mississippi River. The portion of the town that the tower is in is angled more true N (which is why our second hub is right in the fringes of the 120-degree antennas). The reason we looked at the Nanostations is that they had the secondary Ethernet port, which meant fewer 300' cables that we have to buy. But, finding out that we would need at least 8 of them wipes out any benefit to using them.

On the tower right now, we have three CPE-210s. Originally we were going to put up three CPE-510s until we realized that our downtown node was right on the edge of the antenna. Then, we started looking for nodes with two ports, so we could put a dish pointing downtown, a dish pointing North, and the camera, and not have to run six cables up the tower leg. The camera would need its own power supply as it's 48 V. Which is where we're at now.

Our hope is to use as few devices as possible because we have a tight budget to work with and we're just starting out. So, our question now is what do you all recommend for getting this done with the fewest amount of nodes as possible? We're hoping for one node on each leg, with a dish pointing North and if necessary, the dish pointing downtown. if we have to run five or six cables, that's fine. If we can get by with two or three and Nanoswitches, even better.

Hopefully, that clears up everything.

Have a great day. :)
Patrick.

nc8q
nc8q's picture
Currently, we're using TP-Link CPE210's but are moving to 5.8GHz

"Currently, we're using TP-Link CPE210's but are moving to 5.8GHz"

Hi, Patrick:

 I am unclear on how many ethernet cables are installed now and whether or not more cables are to be installed.

The camera needs a separate POE and cable.

If you are to have additional cables installed:
Preferred: A separate POE and cable for each device.

What are your intentions with the CPE-210s?
There should not be more than one device on channel '-2' at the same site.
Channel '-1' at any bandwidth is shared with part 15 channel '1'. Essentially, channel '-1' is not a clear channel.

If you are to have 2 cables up the tower:
- one cable for camera, one cable for outdoor rated POE switch feeding 2x M5s and 1x LHG-5, option: pass-through one CPE210 from one of the Nano-M5s.
-----

A Mikrotik RB-260-GSP (indoor) will feed and DtD link 4 AREDN devices with 4 cables up the tower. i.e. no need for a separate switch.

An Ubiquiti N-SW (outdoor) will feed and DtD link 3 devices with one cable up the tower. No need for a separate switch.
Option: pass-through one CPE210 from one of the Nano-M5s.

Do you need/want individual LAN access to any of these AREDN devices?

Personally, I don't think 'voltage drop' will be an issue with 263' of cable.
On the bench, I have operated 3 nodes with 450' of cable. Although YMMV. :-|

I hope this helps,
Chuck

 

KE0RSX
KE0RSX's picture
Hi, Chuck,

Hi, Chuck,
We have three Cat-6 Ethernet cables on the tower. One for each node. Part of our plan is to replace these as they were not outdoor rated. So, it will be a completely new install when it's finished. We're removing the CPE210's completely. When we started planning our layout, we didn't know about the issues with having three 2.4 GHz nodes on the same tower on the same channel. So, our plan is to correct that mistake by putting up the 5.8 GHz nodes on three separate channels (177, 178, 179 at 10MHz bandwidth). Unless we should use different channels.

If you look at N0MRZ's comment above, he lists out what equipment we're going to put on the tower. I'm thinking that we could run one cable up to a Ubuiquti N-SW, and then run one from the switch to each node. From two nodes, we can run one to each LHG5 dish. If we have to run a second cable for the camera, that's fine. Originally, we were running four up anyhow, so this still reduces the number. This also removes three of the PoE adapters from our mounting plate, to be replaced by one for the switch and one for the camera (unless we use a buck booster between the third node and the camera).

The total run of cable is about 310'. We're planning on running 300' and moving the lightning arrestors closer to the entrance to the building. The last 10' will be indoor-rated Cat-6 cable. We're going to use Cat-6 shielded direct-burial Ethernet cables outside.

I'm off to bed shortly as I work on third shift. Scott (N0MRZ) will most likely answer questions if you have any more.

Thank you all for your help. Have a great day. :)
Patrick.

N0MRZ
N0MRZ's picture
Would we be better off going

Would we be better off going with three of these 120 degree units? 

Mikrotik mANT15s 5GHz 120 degree 15dBi 2X2 MIMO Sector Antenna MTAS-5G-15D120


https://www.ebay.com/itm/201634180103?hash=item2ef2556c07:g:P~oAAOSw53Ff...

Connected to WBS510 nodes? Please forgive me as I am very green when it comes to the equipment we need to be able to accomplish a desirable end result.

nc8q
nc8q's picture
three separate channels (177, 178, 179 at 10MHz bandwidth)

Patrick/Scott:
 
 Those channels are 5 MHz spacing.
At 10 MHz bandwidth
the device on channel 177 will have half its signal in channel 178,
the device on channel 178 will have half its signal in channel 177 and the other half in channel 179,
the device on channel 179 will have half its signal in channel 178.
:-|
I recommend 20 MHz channels if you can maintain 18 dB SNR and links are < 22 miles.
Do a 'Wi-Fi Scan' at each end of the link at 20 MHz so you can see what (20 MHz) part 15 devices are on what channel,
then try the clearest channels that both ends of the link report..
I have had great success using channels between channel 133 and 165. :-)
Our longest link, 13.5 miles, a pair of LHG-HP5-XLs, is channel 140 @ 20 MHz and gets 100+ Tx Mbps. (winter, 80 summer)

NC8Q-Centerville-HuberHeights   100% 100% 117.0   IperfSpeed

The 'what channel and bandwidth to use issue' can be resolved after installation. ;-)

I hope this helps,
Chuck
 
 

KE0RSX
KE0RSX's picture
One of our members brought this up too

I wasn't thinking about that when I set up the channels originally. We'll space them out as needed. On the nodes we have downtown, the only thing that shows up is Channel 120 as an AP (but that's with our mesh set at 10MHz bandwidth). I think I'll set one to 20 MHz and find out what it sees. If we're able to use some of the lower channels that works even better.

Thanks and have a great day. :)
Patrick.

KE0RSX
KE0RSX's picture
a quick check shows...

There is a pretty good concentration between 134 and 161 on the one node at 20 MHz. If I'm understanding it right, the AP that uses channel 161 is actually covering 159 through 163 with their bandwidth? So, we would want to stay above say 166 to avoid interfering with them? Or am I misunderstanding how the channels and bandwidth work? I know their routers *should* auto select a channel away from us, but I don't want to assume it will.

Have a great day. :)
Patrick.

nc8q
nc8q's picture
The total run of cable is about 310'.

Patrick/Scott:
 
 The POE & switches needed to power the nodes will be determined by how many cables are installed.
The more cables the better.
The fewer 'power/DtD' splitting devices at 263' elevation the better.

Chuck
 

KE0RSX
KE0RSX's picture
A couple more notes

I should add a little more information. Our equipment is inside the building at the base of the tower. It's located in town, so we're not remote. The current setup is this:

PoE adapters to lightning arrestors to the nodes. On the LAN side, we have a MikroTik hAP ac lite with a Netgear 5-port switch on the dTd port. The nodes are all connected from the switch to the LAN ports on the PoE adapters that came with them. What I'm leaning towards is replacing the PoE adapters with something like a four-port PoE Texas injector and a power supply that will deliver the 24/30 Watts to each port. That would alleviate the need for the Ubiquiti N-SW.

Have a great night. :)
Patrick.

nc8q
nc8q's picture
That would alleviate the need for the Ubiquiti N-SW.

The Ubiquiti N-SW is for when the number of cables is limited to < the number of desired nodes.

When I used 'remote' in an earlier post, I was referring to the separation/distance between the POE and the device.
;-)
 

K6CCC
K6CCC's picture
Be very careful when

Be very careful when combining very much stuff on that long of cable.  Cat-5 is pretty small wire so you can only get so much current through it.  You may end up better off running 48 volts up the tower and regulate that (switching converter, NOT a linear regulator) for the various loads.  That will far better handle the voltage drop, and if your switching converter is fairly efficient, you drop the current in the Cat-5.
 

nc8q
nc8q's picture
Be very careful when combining very much stuff

In theory, doubling the voltage will halve the 'voltage drop'.
In practice, there are 'off-the-shelf' devices to effect this scheme.
'Be very careful when combining very much stuff' at 263' elevation.
;-)
Chuck

 

KE0RSX
KE0RSX's picture
That's why I'm hoping to

That's why I'm hoping to reduce it to just the nodes and camera (along with the switch if necessary). We've got a really good relationship with the college that owns the tower and a really good deal on the lease. So, we don't want to overstep and cause problems if we can avoid it. Plus, we have a 2m antenna and a 70cm antenna at 267', along with whatever the other tower occupants have.

Have a great day. :)
Patrick.
Patrick.

KE0RSX
KE0RSX's picture
We're running Cat-6 cables

We're running Cat-6 cables with a potential total length of 310'. Part of the reason we're switching things up is that the current cables are not outdoor rated. And they are close to the maximum usable (theoretical if not real) distance. We're at 310' and the standard line is not to go past 100 m, which is around 327'. So we want to get to something that can handle longer distances more effectively.  I know the standard length is more for the data signal, but we are using dTd as well as LAN switching inside the building.

Thanks for your input and your suggestion. We will consider it as well as the others.

Have a great day. :)
Patrick.

N0MRZ
N0MRZ's picture
Equipment for 360 degree coverage

Would (3) Ubiquiti M5 Rockets, paired to (3) Ubiquiti AirMax 2x2 MIMO BaseStation Sector Antenna AM-5G16-120 Cross-polar Isolation 22 dB Min, give us the 360 degree coverage we are looking for? They would be connected to (1) 300' ethernet run hooked to a NanoSwitch N-SW feeding the switch with a 24v - 30w POE P/S. Then run (1) additional 300' ethernet run fed with a 48v POE to run the camera? No additional dishes. (We can run the dishes on the other end at the remote hubs if needed to get to this main hub).

nc8q
nc8q's picture
Would (3) Ubiquiti M5 Rockets, paired to (3) Ubiquiti AirMax 2x2

"Would (3) Ubiquiti M5 Rockets, paired to (3) Ubiquiti AirMax 2x2 MIMO BaseStation Sector Antenna AM-5G16-120 Cross-polar Isolation 22 dB Min, give us the 360 degree coverage we are looking for?"

Likely.
I do think that configuration will work for power and data.

+1 with Orv: " You likely won't really have users at all points of the compass (or maybe you do.)"

If: "shoestring budget as we are self-funded", then
If it were me and my budget,
I would install 'panel' style devices (Nanostation, Mikrotik-SXT) devices and
point them at those participating in the 'self-funding'.

3 rockets + 3 120 degrees panels = $600
.vs.
3 SXTs + already has antenna = $180

For less than $600 total: add another cable, N-SW, POE, 3 more SXTs; then
Patrick and Scott and 4 of their buddies can have individual PtP links to the switch.

3s, Chuck

N0MRZ
N0MRZ's picture
ARES

Chuck,
  Although I like the way you think.. I am the Emergency Coordinator for our ARES team. We have 33 members in our county. We really need one good high hub not only for the team members, but for our EmComm trailer. I do however like the idea when it comes to adding dishes in the small outlying towns in the county. It would give us a great way to expand the network across the county. We can have the members in those small communities sponsor that leg of the network. As a group we can basically give that, or those, members an estimate to join the network. We can then make the arrangements for the install and get it on-the-air.  That would definitely help with the funding aspect of making it happen. Thanks for you $.02 worth! Some times great things come out of direct responses!

w6bi
w6bi's picture
Not quite..

3 x 120 degrees is 360 degrees all right, BUT - Ubiquiti posts their beamwidths at the -6dB down points rather than the normal -3dB.   So they cheat!   Locally we overlap Ubiquiti sectors by 20 degrees or so to ensure someone doesn't get caught in the 'crack' between two adjacent sector antennas.    You likely won't really have users at all points of the compass (or maybe you do.)   So some fudging with coverage might be possible.

Hope this helps.
Orv W6BI
 

N0MRZ
N0MRZ's picture
Orv,

Orv,

  Thank you for your response! We actually have a slice to our East that faces into Illinois that we could probably steal some signal from to allow more uniform coverage where we really need it. If the equipment list looks good we will start shopping for the best price on those pieces. We have no choice but to do this on a shoestring budget as we are self-funded. Appreciate the help! Open to other ideas if it is economically possible.

N0MRZ
N0MRZ's picture
Is there really that much

Is there really that much difference in the 16db and the 19db sector antennas? They are quite a bit pricier.

w6bi
w6bi's picture
16...

I'd go with the 16dBi.  If a remote site has a weak signal into one of the sectors, there's always the possibility of adding more gain there to improve the link quality.
Orv W6BI
 

N0MRZ
N0MRZ's picture
Thank you Orv!.. Since this

Thank you Orv!.. Since this thread was actually something totally different than what we started it as (NanoStation I believe)... I think I am going to start a new thread with the setup we are contemplating going with and see if we can get some more traction. When I had mentioned the (3) M5 Rockets and the (3) sector antennas with a N-SW and 30 watt P/S... someone came back with "Why spend $600.... went you could..." I am wanting to know where you guys get your stuff at? Best price I can get on those components is $770!  Am I looking at... and buying from the wrong place?

nc8q
nc8q's picture
I was vague.

Hi, Scott:
 
 You specified 3x Ubiquiti Rockets, 3x Ubiquiti 120 degree Sector antennas, 1x Ubiquiti N-SW.
I quoted 6x Mikrotik SXTs (radio+60 degree panel antenna), 2x Ubiquiti N-SWs.
My bad.

73, Chuck

 

KE0RSX
KE0RSX's picture
We're trying the "Field of Dreams" approach...

If we build it, they will come...

In theory, we could always run three M5's with 20-degree overlap and a Nanostation M5 (45-degree bandwidth) to cover the gap. That's assuming we don't go with the SXT's or another option.

In truth, we need about 270-degrees of coverage right now (for Scott, that would cover Davenport for Aaron Webb, North to you, and Muscatine to Louisa County). If we can do that cheaper using Panel nodes, then I would say let's go that route. If we have to use the Rockets with sector antennas, that would be better (since we would only have to turn them a bit and add a node for the remaining gap in the future).

Lots of food for thought.

Have a great day. :)
Patrick.

AB7PA
You could estimate your coverage with computer modeling

You can get a rough estimate of your coverage area using tools like Radio Mobile.  If you have a combination of sectors at 80 meters above ground level covering the full circle using 5.8ghz channels , you might expect to see something like this (for example).

N0MRZ
N0MRZ's picture
We have plotted it out as

We have plotted it out as best we can on Ubiquiti's AirLink software. It has been a great help figuring out where we need to add a hub, and what hub the different members need to connect to so we can give them the azimuth and tilt needed. It has also given us some guidance in figuring routes to the smaller cities in our county. We have found it to be a very useful tool! And an eye-opener for sure for some locations that you would think would have no problems getting a route.

KE0RSX
KE0RSX's picture
Another possibliity?

In looking at different models, I found the MikroTik basebox RB912UAG-HPnd-OUT is supported and can be bought for around $85.00 from another site. I'm going on the assumption that it can be connected to the Ubiquiti AirMax 2x2 antennas to provide the same coverage as the Rocket M5/AirMax for a little less money. Is this a safe assumption? And, I noticed there were issues with flashing these a year or two ago. Are the issues resolved (for now at least)? Any tips that we need to know to get them flashed?

I'll add this here as well. Regardless of how we decide to proceed, this thread might be useful to smaller groups in the future. That's why I keep bringing up other options. Doing the heavy lifting, so they don't have to.

Thank you all for your help and have a great day. :)
Patrick.

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer