Why error occur when exporting to KMZ

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for some help because I'm seeing very unexpected performance from a pair of AF-5XHD radios.

Link Details

• Distance: 2.5 km
• Antennas: MikroTik 30 dBi dishes on both ends
• Same dishes used for both AF-4X and AF-5XHD testing
• Same tower locations
• Same alignment
• Same frequency/channel
• Same channel width
• Same transmit power
• Latest official AF-5XHD firmware (v1.15.x)

The Problem

I replaced an AF-4X link with an AF-5XHD pair, expecting equal or better performance.

Instead, the AF-5XHD performs significantly worse.

AF-4X

• Around 400 Mbps TCP (measured using MikroTik Bandwidth Test)
• Dashboard capacity also reflects the higher throughput

AF-5XHD

• Around 300 Mbps TCP, sometimes even lower
• Dashboard capacity is also noticeably lower than the AF-4X

Interference

The RF environment is noisy.

However, what I don't understand is:

• The AF-4X works well on the exact same channel.
• The AF-5XHD loses around 100 Mbps or more under identical conditions.

Troubleshooting Already Done

I've already tried:

• Latest firmware
• Different transmit power levels
• Manual TX power
• Different channel widths
• Frequency changes
• Careful realignment
• GPS Sync/settings checks
• General optimization recommendations

The AF-5XHD consistently underperforms compared to the AF-4X.

My Questions

1. Has anyone experienced the AF-5XHD performing worse than the AF-4X in a high-interference environment?
2. Is the AF-5XHD receiver known to be more sensitive to adjacent-channel or off-axis interference than the AF-4X?
3. Could the MikroTik 30 dBi dishes be limiting AF-5XHD performance?
4. Would switching to genuine Ubiquiti AF dishes likely make a significant difference, or would you expect only a small improvement?
5. Is there any hidden setting or known issue that could explain this behavior?
6. SIGNAL IS SOO GOOD -45 and both devices.
7. I DIED TO GOT THOSE devices into LEBANON. we have no DEALERS for ubiquiti products in lebanon, i hope if someone can help or send me authorized dealer in lebanonl. EVERYONE HAS no a single product for ubiquiti in lebanon.
8. THE COMPANY SHOULD RECONCIDER changing the dealers in lebanon because no one absolutely no one is getting ubiquiti products into lebanon, while the company states it has dealers, they even dont have a simple lite beam or power beam. I BOUGHT THEM FROM TURKEY AND PASSED 3 COUNTRIES TO RECEIVE THEM INTO LEBANON . @UI-Team
9. please help me ti solve this.
10. WHAT ABOUT THE POLARITY GOOGLE SAYS ABOUT X POSITION FOR THE DISH, INSTEAD OF USING + POSITION. shall i tilt my mikrotik dishes polarity ?: or use ALGCOM dishes instead ?

I'm trying to understand whether this is expected behavior in a noisy RF environment, an antenna compatibility issue, or if I'm missing something obvious.

Any advice or similar experiences would be greatly appreciated.

Appears this is only affecting LTU devices

I would like to ask if LTU devices currently support IPv6 when running in Router mode.

I found an older community thread about this topic, but it looks like the question was never clearly answered.

I am running the latest LTU firmware, and I would like to know:

1. Does LTU support IPv6 in Router mode?
2. If yes, does it support SLAAC, DHCPv6, prefix delegation, or only static IPv6?
3. If IPv6 is not supported in Router mode, is there any plan to add support in a future firmware release?

This is important for WISP deployments where LTU CPEs are used as routers for customers.

Thank you.

@UI-Team ?

Background:

In a LTU PTMP sector, airtime is a shared and finite resource. Throughput (Mbps) limits per client are not enough to ensure fair usage of the sector, because airtime consumption is directly tied to the modulation rate (MCS) of each station — not to the amount of data transferred.

The problem:

A CPE with poor signal or interference operates at a low MCS, meaning it needs significantly more airtime to transmit the same amount of data compared to a well-modulated client. For example, a station at MCS 3 can consume 4-5x more airtime than a station at MCS 9 to push the same throughput. This means a single poorly-placed or degraded CPE can monopolize the sector airtime during peak hours, causing latency spikes and connection drops for all other clients — even those with perfect signal.

Current limitation:

The only QoS tool available on LTU APs today is a Mbps rate limit per station. There is no way to limit how much airtime a single station can consume. This makes it impossible to protect well-modulated clients from being starved by a low-MCS neighbor on the same sector.

What we need:

- A configurable per-station maximum airtime percentage (e.g. "this CPE cannot use more than 15% of sector airtime")

- And/or an airtime fairness mode that distributes airtime equally among all associated stations regardless of their MCS, similar to what other PTMP systems implement

- Optionally, a minimum guaranteed airtime per station for prioritized clients

Expected benefit:

With airtime-based scheduling, a low-MCS client would be throttled at the medium-access level, preventing it from starving higher-MCS clients. This is far more effective than simple Mbps capping in protecting sector capacity during congestion, and would be a major improvement for any WISP running LTU in dense or mixed-quality deployments.

Currently, the UISP dashboard shows some basic airtime info in real time, but there is no way to look back at historical data with hourly granularity to identify when the AP was saturated.

The problem: Customers complain about poor performance at specific times of day (e.g. 6 PM). When we check the AP the next morning, the data we need is gone or only shows aggregate throughput. Throughput (Mbps) alone does not tell the full story — an LTU sector can be at 100% airtime utilization even at relatively low Mbps, causing severe latency and quality degradation for all connected clients.

What we need:

- Historical airtime utilization graphs per LTU AP (TX airtime + RX airtime separately)

- Hourly resolution with at least 7-30 days of retention

- Ability to identify at a glance when airtime hit 80%, 90%, 100%

- Ideally, per-station airtime breakdown so we can see which clients are consuming the most airtime at peak hours

Use case: If airtime is at 100% at 18:00 every day but throughput looks "acceptable", we know the sector is overloaded and we need to add capacity or migrate clients. Without this data, we are flying blind when diagnosing congestion complaints.

This would be an extremely valuable feature for any WISP running LTU infrastructure. Please consider adding dedicated airtime utilization graphs to the UISP LTU AP statistics section.

1. Receiving 1G service from ISP.
2. Servicing about 100 endpoints.
3. Distance between AP and Station is 600 ft at most.
4. Signal does not extend over 100 degrees.

What is the best AP, Antenna, and Stations for this deployment?

I am currently using an airMax Rocket Prism 5AC and airMAX Nanostation 5AC Locos. These work fine, except throughput is capping me at 400MBps. I think the LTU Rocket and LTU-LR are the answer but curious about airFiber and Wave MLO? Are these options? and what are their limitations?

I have LTU rocket and my clients are LTU LR and Lite, I'm using version 2.4.1, my clients are totally mad they complain about ping spikes and multiple connection drop, based on your experience, what is the best version of firmware?

Thank you.

EN UN ANCHO DE CANAL LICENCIADO

that are connected to (18) LTU-lite 11 on one and 7 on the other. They have they are right next to each other on a pole. What would the easiest way to stop these from interfering with each other be? We are having quit consistent drops.

I am looking to start a broadband internet service. I have already consulted with my fiber company for getting a DIA line, as well as a tower site. I wanted recommendations from current owners/tech, about the gear to use as the AP and Subscribers unit.

I had thoughts of using the LTU-Rocket, but it seems to be out of stock, I have since investigated the Ubiquiti 5GHz Rocket ac Gen2 airPrism. Does anyone have any recommendations? The estimated number of subscribers would be around <100. I am using UISP-R-Pro for the router.

Thanks for your help!

I’m troubleshooting a very strange LTU issue and I’d like to ask if anyone has seen something similar.

Setup:

• LTU Rocket (PtMP AP)
• One LTU CPE (test link)
• The link was working perfectly before
• No configuration changes were made

What happened:

• The PtP backhaul at the site was taken down for ~3 weeks, so during that period the LTU AP was powered but not actively used.
• After re-installing the PtP and bringing the site fully online again, the LTU CPE does not connect at all.
• Even a brand new LTU CPE does not see the AP in Find My AP.
• Channels are clean
• Tx power was temporarily set to max for testing — no change.
• Feeders, PoE injectors and client-side cabling were replaced — no change.

Cabling & grounding:

• Shielded SFTP outdoor cables are used.
• No obvious grounding faults observed.

What is strange:

• The LTU Rocket UI looks completely normal (no obvious errors).
• The LTU Rocket can see other radios on the tower (e.g. airFiber 5XHD) in AirView.
• The airFiber 5XHD can also see RF activity from the LTU Rocket.
• However, no LTU CPE can see or associate with the LTU AP at all.
• Logs show air driver resets / underflow / NOCARRIER events, but no hard fault.

Environment:

• There was a very strong thunderstorm in the area during the downtime.
• No visible physical damage yet (haven’t climbed the tower).

Question:

Has anyone seen an LTU Rocket with a partially dead TX chain or damaged RF output after a storm, where:

• UI looks normal
• RX still “hears” other radios
• But AP does not actually transmit usable RF for LTU CPEs?

Could this be:

• Dead TX chain
• Water ingress in pigtail / connector / antenna
• FPGA / RF damage from lightning (without full device failure)

Before climbing the tower, I’d really like to know if others have experienced this exact behavior.

Any input appreciated.

Thanks!

Ubiquiti may or may not have discontinued their ""Long Term"" line; which is supremely inconvenient, since it uses a proprietary protocol and won't interface with any other products. We've built out our whole WISP network using LTU equipment (as I'm sure many others have done), under the guise and promises of long term support, product availability, and future-proofing.

We can't get any LTU equipment at the moment (I know it's available in the UI store, but I'm from Australia and they don't ship here), the AU national distributor for UI has basically told us to go pound sand because they can't and/or won't get any more LTU products.

What do we do with all of our existing customers? What about new customers? We've strung this out as long as we can to give UI time to make an announcement or provide some kind of updates as to what to do moving forward; yet there's been nothing but radio silence. We're down to our last few antennas and can't afford to give it any more time to figure out what to do next.

Will there be an update to LTU equipment to make it compatible with some of UI's other offerings? (Seems unlikely, it would effectively turn every LTU device into an AirMax). Will there be an update to one of UI's other product lines to make it compatible with LTU? (Also seems unlikely, if they could do that then I doubt they'd have made custom hardware for LTU in the first place). Will we be forced to replace our entire network with new equipment?

The latter is not really financially viable; our business model and plan costs were designed with the idea that the equipment would be servicable for a period of 5-7 years. To replace all of our hardware would be an astronomic amount of money in not only hardware, but also labour; and what would we replace it with? AirMax and go backwards?

What *on earth* are people in our position supposed to do?? Ubiquiti! Some sort of communication and/or clarification is necessary at this point! Why be completely silent?! Is it EOL or not?! What are your customers supposed to do with their existing networks?!

we have received information from several of our suppliers stating that LTU products are no longer being manufactured. Could you please confirm whether this is accurate?

If this is the case, we are concerned about how we will be able to continue supplying our customers. In our mountainous regions here in Italy, it is not possible to cover all clients with Wave, as the distances to the transmission sites are very large.

Do you have any alternative solutions you could recommend for our situation?

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards,

Your DolomitiNet Team

I have got new customers, but when I tried to purchase LTU lite or LTU LR, all suppliers are saying it is discontinued, but I couldn't find any official statement from @Ubiquiti