Holiday project: Ubiquiti NanoStation Loco M5 blog

Foreword: I was supposed to post this over December 2013 but got caught up with life.

I really enjoyed this project and even moreso the results of my efforts. I've been a MikroTik fan for 6 years but the maintenance cost, for me at least, has been too high.

Historically I've been maintaining a personal wireless bridge comprising 2 CPE's obtained from Miro. The make-up of each CPE comprised: an 11dBi Poynting 5.8GHz antenna housing (CPE); Mikrotik RB411 RouterBoards; R52 miniPCI wireless cards. Over 6 years I replaced the RB411 3 times - at R500 to R700 a pop (they've gotten cheaper over the years), the maintenance cost (and downtime) was an annoyance. I also had roaming issues between Site 1 and Site 2 that I couldn't solve (clients using the wireless network at each site); the solution on a MikroTik wireless bridge was beyond me.

Cue Ubiquiti.

I've long been an admirer of Ubiquiti but wasn't sure how they'd stack up to MikroTik. Well, I wish I had switched a lot sooner. Each of my MikroTik CPE's above cost R3,300 to build. A NanoStation Loco M5 costs a mere 25% of that. This means that in the event of loss, there is no deconstructing the CPE - one simply replaces the entire NanoStation, download your config file from Dropbox, upload and BOOM!...back online.

In fairness, the Mikrotik's performed very well of the years and I will miss them...

Edit: I see DBG sell a R650 + VAT CPE which I never really considered before. I also tend not to use cheap equipment, well, ever.

Existing point-to-point link

I estimate that Site 1 and Site 2 are a mere 100m apart with perfect line of sight. CAT5e had already been installed to each point for the Mikrotik CPE's, so that was one less thing to do.

Old setup at Site 2:



Distance and LOS obstacles:



This time I opted to make a big change at Site 1 and move the CPE off a mast and out of the weather. My idea was to locate it directly against a wall under the eave, thereby having protection from sun and rain. Initially I wasn't sure how the link would perform if I no longer had perfect line-of-sight. In this case, the link would be passing directly through a palisade gate. I'm happy to jump the gun and report that it had no effect at all.

Old setup exposted to the weather at Site 1:



Setup and installation

As with my MikroTiK routerboards, it made sense to pair the Nano's up front before mounting. This was quite a fun little exercise and I'm sorry I didn't take photos of the ghetto setup.

I started off by familiarising myself with airOS (internal configuration for the hardware). Wow! What a much nicer place to be compared to RouterOS and Winbox! This is a perfect example in life where KISS trumps all other methodologies for UI experience.

I dialled down the output power and had the two Nano's connected in short time...well, I had to play around with the connection settings for a bit. Then I disconnected my MacBook from the wireless network and connected to one Nano (to simulate a wireless bridge). The other Nano was hooked up directed to an available LAN port on my B593 LTE router. This is where the connection / signal strength LEDs really worked nicely.

I used this test configuration for 12 hours before I decided to deploy into my live network. I noted that the Nano's themselves ran quite hot.

I ordered the optional NanoBracket Univeral by RF Elements which really made for a tidy and simple installation. Excellent build quality and 100% compatible with the NanoStation. After tightening the bolts, the swivel and rotation were very usable. All that was left was to remove 1m of old UV blasted cable and terminate with new RJ45 connectors.

Quick continuity test:



Ready to connect and install trunking for the cable:



I upped the power output ever so slightly and got a strong link. As stated before, LOS being impeded somewhat by my gate was a total non issue.

Day-to-day performance

Purely on paper alone the link speed rocks. I'm getting 270Mbps bi-directional and the link handles whatever I throw at it. YouTube at 1080p from multiple clients on either side of the wireless bridge worked without skipping a frame/packet.

I'm really happy with these units and highly recommend them!

Here's the final result at each site:







After permanent installation the power / signal strength LEDs become useless which is a pity. I'd like to see the LEDs move to the front of the unit, under the connection cover.

A quick glance at what airOS looks like:

Are you using shielded CAT5 cabling for the Nano Loco's ?

Nope, standard CAT 5e. I know I should for weather protection but had 100m standard stuff left over from a previous job.

Azimuth said:

Nope, standard CAT 5e. I know I should for weather protection but had 100m standard stuff left over from a previous job.

Click to expand...

I have had some problems with not grounding the nano's resulting in ESD damage to the LAN port. Needless to say we ground everything now and problems seem to have gone away.

Hmm, please do elaborate further?

Azimuth said:

Hmm, please do elaborate further?

Click to expand...

Basically as a rule of thumb all outdoor ubiquity equipment needs to be grounded, head over to the ubnt forum for more info, there are many threads which cover this in detail.

Chatted to a buddy who has a business in Durban North. He's been installing Ubiquiti for 7 years now and has only ever used plain CAT5/e.

I think shielded cable is only necessary in high static areas so probably joburg is a good example. Either way I still use it because they don't call it toughcable for nothing.

I'd recommend using the ToughCable as companies will have the right to refuse replacement should it be damaged by ESD. Maybe not so much if you using a ~R500 device but when you looking at R2.5k for a TS Pro, rather don't take chances.

TERMS OF USE: Ubiquiti radio devices must be professionally installed. Shielded Ethernet cable and earth grounding must be used as conditions of product warranty

Click to expand...

Azimuth said:

Chatted to a buddy who has a business in Durban North. He's been installing Ubiquiti for 7 years now and has only ever used plain CAT5/e.

Click to expand...

Well then none of his devices are covered under warranty anymore ...UBNT requires outdoor equipment to be grounded. And another thing is that I hope he is not using standard cat5 outdoors :-( it is not UV stable, it basically disintegrates over time

Manufacturers trying to limit/escape liability is not a new thing.

It might not be a new thing, but it's certainly not a system you want to test by avoiding their recommendations especially when the consequences outweigh the cost.

There's no sticker like on the inside of a cellphone to say it was dropped in water ie. they won't be able to prove how it was installed nor CSI the damage.

In any event, to each their own. My own install is not in the open so I'm not worried.