They most likely are getting it from Cisco of all places. Cisco talks about using 3 non-overlapping channels when establishing a multi-AP roaming wireless network with their APs, and they explain the reasoning behind it in their documentation. Bottom line, if there is too much overlap on the same channel the device may have issues with "hearing" the AP it is trying to connect to. I'm not going to get into the right or wrong here as what works with one may not with another AP/device, but their method does work at least with their own APs. I've implemented a multi-AP wireless network in a large sub-zero freezer warehouse of all places using their APs and every AP is on a different channel than an adjacent AP. The hand-offs are clean and quick as the signal strength drops from one AP and they see the next one on a different channel. The users run around on forklifts with wireless scanners so their movements are fairly quick also.
Ron On Thursday 17 July 2008 15:01, Jim Thompson wrote: > Assuming you want continiois coverage, same channel is actually best, > unless you can go cross-band, which impacts roaming. > > The number of people who don't understand this, and instead want to > talk about "3 non-overlapping channels" and other cr*p is amazing. > > Same ESSID is what you want, too. > > Jim > > On Jul 17, 2008, at 4:58 AM, Rainer Duffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > RB wrote: > >>> I'm not very familiar with building large-scale WLANs, but AFAIK, > >>> it's a > >>> little more than just buying enough APs and placing them in the > >>> right > >>> spots... > >> > >> I am, and it actually is just that. If you already have UTP ports > >> within 300' the AP locations, it's by far the most effective route - > >> then you only have to worry about channelization and overlap. > > > > That's what I was thinking: isn't it a problem to have to APs with > > same SSID (and maybe the same channel) in reach of each other? > > Don't the clients get confused? Or are the drivers usually smart > > enough not to flap between the two? > > > > Sorry, I'm just curious... > > > > > > Regards, > > Rainer
