If they can do that and pass the OOBE certs I’ll be impressed. Seems the tx power would be nerfed quite substantially.
I suppose having 256 QAM probably means that they’re not cutting corners on the LNA though. From: Josh Luthman Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 11:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 802.11ac wave 2 Sounds like that to me, too. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Eric Muehleisen <[email protected]> wrote: According to this article below, 160mhz or (80+80) is a requirement of wave 2. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/enterprise-networks/802-11ac-solution/q-and-a-c67-734152.html "However, given that 160 MHz of relatively unused contiguous spectrum is difficult to find, there is an 80+80-MHz mode, which is simply the 160 MHz waveform split into two different 80-MHz frequency segments, enabling them to be placed more flexibly." Would imply that adjacent channels is not necessary. You could bond a UNII-1 (80mhz) and a UNII-3 (80mhz) to create a 160mhz channel. On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: Channel bonding still uses adjacent channels under 802.11ac. Most indoor APs in the US do not have DFS support, and most client devices do not support DFS. This is slowly starting to change. 160MHz is wave3, not wave2. On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Eric Muehleisen <[email protected]> wrote: > I've noticed in our wireless router testing that many router > manufacturers advertise 802.11ac wave2 support but are not certified > to operate in the UNII-2 bands. My understanding is wave 2 channel > bonds two 80mhz channels. Can UNII-1 and UNII-3 be bonded to create a > 160mhz channel for wave 2 certification? I thought that wi-fi channel > bonding had to be done using adjacent channels...no?
