Thanks Thanks:  10
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Showing results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: NEC iPASOLINK Data

  1. #11
    Member Reputation: 83
    Join Date
    2012-01-19
    Posts
    186

    Default Re: NEC iPASOLINK Data

    Quote Originally Posted by Cost_Reducer View Post
    but Ceragon has FullOutdoor with Header Compression that reaches 1Gbps in 256QAM. 1024QAM is not such a big advantage as your System Gain drops dramatically and you are not able to reach that long links. However, Ceragon just announced to have 1024QAM in LH system...
    How Ceragon reaches 1Gbps? What is the channel size used for achieving 1Gbps?

    Also to mention that Header Compression has a meaning for very small size packets. For average packet lengths (700 bytes) I cannot see a big improvement.

  2. #12
    Member Reputation: 278
    Join Date
    2008-08-13
    Location
    I don't even know anymore
    Posts
    320

    Default Re: NEC iPASOLINK Data

    Quote Originally Posted by simog72 View Post
    i saw Ceragon FullOutdoor , as option but i did my choice..
    it s old concept device IMHO, i think they dont believe (at the momet) in FO, probably they will push later for a FO new design.
    Sysgain it's very good and 512/1024QAM means 25% for free Best efford traffic capacity (even without header compression option activated)
    First of all, the concept of having up to 1024 QAM for tail end hop (and full outdoor is the last mile/last yard) is a bit strange. What capacities are we talking about when using all outdoor solutions? Do we actually need 1 Gbps?
    Second, Ceragon does take FO solutions seriously, otherwise there wouldn't be IP10C, and there's also a roadmap for product development to make even more features available in the future. Also, it's not just the IP10C, there's also FibeAir70, a FO solution for 70/80 GHz, providing up to 1 Gbps of aggregate (for TDD version) or full-duplex (for FDD version) capacity.
    Third, why bother with 1024 QAM when Multi Layer Header Compression can bring same capacity as higher-order modulation? Yes, I know all the drawbacks of header compression and fact that with small packets it doesn't work as good as with small packets, but for tail end it does provide very good results.

    Quote Originally Posted by ankarb View Post
    How Ceragon reaches 1Gbps? What is the channel size used for achieving 1Gbps?

    Also to mention that Header Compression has a meaning for very small size packets. For average packet lengths (700 bytes) I cannot see a big improvement.
    Average packet size isn't (64+1518)/2. If you're carrying voice services and time-critical services, your packet size tends to be much smaller, close to 100 bytes. If you're hauling lot of data, then it's usually over 1000 bytes. There are 3GPP models for traffic distribution, so a good starting point is to compare against those models.
    Anyway, header compression in this case isn't just the preamble and IFG removal, as most vendors do. MLHC does L1 - L4 (IP and protocol headers) compression, so you can achieve quite a lot.
    So with 64 byte eth frame, you can get almost 1 Gbps even with one 40 MHz channel (and 256 QAM of course). With 56 MHz channel and let's say 128 byte eth frame, you can get up to 624 Mbps. This also depends a lot on what type of traffic you're carrying.

  3. #13
    Moderator Reputation: 153
    Join Date
    2011-05-10
    Posts
    364

    Default Re: NEC iPASOLINK Data

    Yes sure !!!
    "Ceragon does take FO solutions seriously ...there's also FibeAir70, a FO solution for 70/80 GHz.." so much seriously to offer a thirdpart solution


    http://www.siklu.com/products.html





    1024QAM from nera e 70/80 from siklu
    they are loosing R&D resources .. to develop radio terminal by himself?
    we are lucky they are considering themself MW specialist!!!!let s go to see what they are doing in future.
    I m just watching because to implement new networks today we need "robust" and real specialist BH MW suppliers, up to now they did well..
    Last edited by simog72; 2012-03-26 at 10:15 PM

  4. #14
    Junior Member Reputation: 6
    Join Date
    2012-08-02
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: NEC iPASOLINK Data

    Thank you very much and mark it

  5. #15
    Moderator Reputation: 153
    Join Date
    2011-05-10
    Posts
    364

    Default Re: NEC iPASOLINK Data

    ipasolink

    anybody test or has tech description about
    GX , SX and Epasolink
    to share

    thxx u

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •