Chris Buechler schrieb:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:38 AM, muhammad panji [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear All,
Hi I start searching for option to implement captive portal on my
campus hotspot and I think pfsense captive portal will make it easier.
I'm not really familiar with wireless
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Bill Marquette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Considering that you are talking about the Linux variant of the
WRT54G, I think it's safe to say that Chris probably assumed you were
not running the stock Linksys firmware on it.
Actually that is what I meant - you
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
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?
Many righteous WLAN cards have the election process
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.
I'm happy to respond more fully to this:
A) off-list, and
B) when I'm back at my desk
The short answer is, I don't know because I don't have your data,
but what assumptions did your modeling make about adjacent channel
rejection figures and CCA thresholds on the clients?
By staying
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Jim Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm happy to respond more fully to this:
A) off-list,
Jim, I'd encourage you to keep it on-list, a number of us have learned
quite a bit from sharing of your expertise over the years. It may not
be precisely on-topic for
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
at the risk of talking about cisco gear on a freebsd list, they're
full of it.
In 802.11 the client gets to 'pick' the AP it associates to. Scanning
(which is a client activity)
off channel takes more time than scanning on-channel. Thus, a client
could pick an AP 'on-channel'
more
On Jul 17, 2008, at 5:36 AM, RB wrote:
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?
Many righteous
The short answer is, I don't know because I don't have your data, but what
assumptions did your modeling make about adjacent channel rejection figures
and CCA thresholds on the clients?
I wish I had those particular numbers myself - I've looked but didn't
come out of that employment with them.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Chris Buechler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:38 AM, muhammad panji [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear All,
Hi I start searching for option to implement captive portal on my
campus hotspot and I think pfsense captive portal will make it easier.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:38 PM, muhammad panji [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the answer Chris. Several months ago I help my friend setup
his WRT54GL but as I remember this AP have no option on set it up as a
bridge. Must I do a firmware upgrade? will it void the warranty?
Considering
13 matches
Mail list logo
