You are here

NanoStation: Noobs need advice on first steps with MESH

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
AL7MH
AL7MH's picture
NanoStation: Noobs need advice on first steps with MESH
A couple of us would like to take initial steps with MESH on the west side of Phoenix (Goodyear and Peoria).  We learn by doing.

We're thinking of buying a couple Ubiquity NanoStations and would appreciate advice:

  1. Is NanoStation a good starting point for learning how things work and doing some experimentation?  We're not necessarily looking for the ultimate solution.
  2. ​2.5 GHz vs 5.8 GHz - we plan to buy 5.8 GHz units because there are more channels available, and this appears to us to be the way many people are going.  Is there an argument for 2.5 GHz (aside from it's a little less expensive).
  3. The NanoStation Loco is a little less expensive - is the increased capacity of the (regular) NanoStation a good investment?  It's only $20 more.
  4. This:   https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-Networks-0000070700985-NanoStation-loco/dp/B004EHSV4W/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1519257197&sr=8-2&keywords=nanostation
  5. ​Or this:   https://www.amazon.com/Ubiquiti-Nanostation-NSM5-802-11a-Hi-power/dp/B00HXT8KJ4/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1519257653&sr=8-7&keywords=nanostation

Thanks all, look forward to hearing from those with some experience.
73,de AL7MH

KG6JEI
I tend to view the
I tend to view the NanoStation as the best starting device for any network.  Its only downside is that you need a managed switch if you want to connect to the internet for tunnel access or similar, but for field testable RF only connections its the best device in my opinion.

​Band is going to be a your area decisions. If you have no 2.4GHz gear that rules out one reason for going 2.4.   The main argument I've been apart of is that you reserve 5.8 for distribution (medium distance paths)   3.4 for backbone (very high speed long path and highly cordinated access)  and use 2.4 (congested but doesn't need to go far low level user access)  .   I view 2.4 as needing to cover a few square miles for normal access and 5.8 handles getting you between areas.   Others have gone different routes.

​I would go with the full NSM, the loco may send you 20$  but you loose up to 7db one way (14db round trip) between two M5 Loco's vs 2 M5 non loco's.

​Mesh nodes have to decrease speed the higher transmit power they use (they also must decrease speed the weaker the received signal.)  Assuming you were right on the borderline of levels (and ignoring the receive side for a moment) the 4db difference gain of the antenna on the transmit could be the difference between having a link that transmits over the air at 6mbps and a link that transmits at 52mbps (actual over the air useable speeds will be less because of timing to allow for signals to go back and forth over the air, but the node will reserve less time for the packets at 52mbps vs 6mbps leaving more time for others to use the RF bandwidth and since the actual data carrying portion is shorter its less likely an interference spike will hit it allowing better chance to get through)

​Just my 2cents on it.




 
k1ky
k1ky's picture
I tend to view the
I agree with what Conrad said. In addition to the extra power of the Nanostation over the Loco, I believe they may have more memory (especially the XW models).  They definitely have more antenna gain.  Power draw is basically the same around 2.8 watts.

No - brainer - go with the full Nanostation (M) model.  I have a few Loco's but I haven't spent any more than about $20 on them.
 
K5DLQ
K5DLQ's picture
Totally agree with Conrad and
Totally agree with Conrad and Tom's advise!  they are spot on.

 
AL7MH
AL7MH's picture
It works!
Bought a NanoStation M5.  Downgraded the Ubiquity firmware to 5.5, then installed the AREDN firmware.  Did some testing with other Phoenix, AZ nodes - it works.  Very cool.

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer