On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Martin Langhoff wrote: > 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.
yeah, two years ago when I attened this event I found that just about every other vendor booth was running their own AP as well. I mentioned it at the time and got a 'what can we do' response. This year I plan to do some patrolling to spot such things and try and convince them to turn them off, but I have to have a usable system to do so. >> 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. that's my impression as well. The enterprisey things may work well for a hotel or office where you have a lot of area to cover and only a few people really using it, but they just don't work when you have a lot of geeks in a tight area. David Lang _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
