On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:26 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, having gone back and re-reading this, I'm confused. This seems to be > exactly the RF contention issues that I understand and am prepared
Yes, RF contention, but what Scott is pointing out is that due to various implementation glitches, it's a lot worse than any theoretical anything. > you seem to be telling me that I don't need to worry about RF contention, I think he's saying "be pessimistic", dodgy wireless drivers, stupidly implemented programs will spew crap in the RF and mess things up :-) See the mention of a bogus ad-hoc network in the 2007 report. I've seen quite a few other mishaps where a single misbehaving node messes it all up. > As these articles say (and I was already planning), I want to have the > access points with power turned down so that I can fit more in a given > area without them overlapping on the same frequency. Yep, that's the other good point. I am with the Pycon guys that the all the multi-antenna enterprisey APs that I've seen don't deliver. Lots of carefully configured mid-range APs do better. cheers, m -- [email protected] [email protected] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
