Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

Jeff, I completely understand. And I have to be careful because this would quickly become a vendor pitch and that isn’t my intent. And I have to go back to the original question because I may have forgotten the context. :-) I have two hopefully simple RF related questions: 1.

FTE's for Wireless

Need your help. What is the number of network engineers you have dedicated to wireless? Please indicate the size of your network, the scope of your wireless team's responsibilities, whether you rely on other resources (like contractors or other internal groups) to complement your efforts, and

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

BTW, people on this list who know me will confirm that I'm an idiot. You might want to consider that if you're ever inclined to agree with me. -Original Message- From: Chuck Enfield [mailto:chu...@psu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 4:22 PM To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

"More channels means more capacity" is not true. Because the number of null subcarriers is fixed and independent of channel width, wider channels will make more efficient use of the spectrum. You'll get the most capacity out of the 802.11ac spectrum by using (6) 80MHz channels and (1) 20MHz. Of

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

GT, A better conclusion to draw may be, “Many wireless deployments suffer from questionable design choices and execution, often leading to less-than-optimal configuration decisions.” That I can get behind. In the case of the university with 20/40 channelization, would the same improvement

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

Jeff, I think your statement is fair. And it is just one data point. And I agree with other statements that in some environments 80 MHz channels work great. In fact, I have an environment (my missile silo) where 160 MHz would be a rock star. :-) My overall points are: I don’t trust software

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

>From the Cisco/Apple Design Guide Here: https://goo.gl/5bGWks "It is therefore not yet recommended to use 80 MHz channel width design. If necessary, it should only be considered for low AP density deployments where co-channel interference can be easily avoided." I personally like the

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

Jake, GT’s statement doesn’t speak to the quality of the university’s WiFi design, only that this change made a difference. Again, without the context, I still assert it’s meaningless. Jeff From: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" on behalf of Jake

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

All of this comes with the obvious statement, “It depends on your environment.” Speaking only to our residential, the construction is such that with life/safety and occupant comfort high on the list, our residential building, including those constructed in the mid-late 1920’s (with

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions (channel width)

Really like this convo (popcorn ;-) This podcast really is interesting for people who believe big channels and smart software solve all problems : http://www.cleartosend.net/cts-084-channel-widths-devin-akin/ -Kees On 26 Sep 2017, at 20:49, Jake Snyder

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

I’m a Wi-Fi guy first and foremost but I work for a vendor and that’s where I get that information, not from a user survey. My point was to show that I’ve seen quantifiable data showing that excessive use of 40 MHz channels can have negative effects. Of course everyone’s mileage will vary but

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

Jeff, Take in context that GT works for a company that builds a tool to quantify wireless problems based in depth packet analysis. So when he says he sees 35% improvement, there’s a lot of data that goes into it. Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 26, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Jeffrey D. Sessler

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

“After a switch to 20 MHz only, there was a 35% improvement in end-user Wi-Fi experience.” I would argue that this is a meaningless statement without context, and probably a bad question to ask a user in the first place. What does the user think “experience” means i.e. the ability to connect

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Aruba OS 6.5.X

We disabled the DPI on all our controllers and we stilll had a controller reboot. Might have additional issues not accounted for. We are moving to the s0-called “fix” on our most troublesome controller tonight and monitor the controller for the next couple of days M On Sep 25, 2017, at

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Aruba OS 6.5.X

We went to 6.5.3.2 for a fix to AirGroup, and hit the datapath timeout SoS crash on Sunday afternoon. TAC is reviewing our logs, they are curious about the high amount of untrusted unicast traffic in our network. Jonathan Miller Network Analyst Franklin and Marshall College On Mon, Sep 25,

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

Your experience is consistent with ours Jeff. We get good use of 40MHz channels in most areas. That said, complaints about basic connectivity greatly outnumber complaints about speed, so I recommend that when in doubt people should use 20MHz. However, we currently have locations where speed

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

How did you measure the 35% improvement? -- James Andrewartha Network & Projects Engineer Christ Church Grammar School Claremont, Western Australia Ph. (08) 9442 1757 Mob. 0424 160 877 From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

I’ve been reading more of the conversation and wanted to add another statement: The ONLY reason to have channelization above 20 MHz is budget. Which, is a valid reason. But, Wi-Fi networks ALWAYS perform better at smaller channel widths. Keep in mind, overall throughput per device is not the

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

I know that this is just one example, but I was at a large university site (Cisco Wi-Fi) that was running 20/40 channelization. After a switch to 20 MHz only, there was a 35% improvement in end-user Wi-Fi experience. Jake – One feature that I think many people agree is missing in FRA is the

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

For your residential, is that concern rooted in belief/assumption or proven by testing in production? I remember channel-width discussions with the advent of 11n, and people here advocated sticking to 20 MHz for the same reasons, only our in-field testing said it was a bad assumption,

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

My challenge, as I’ve stated on this list before, is that Mac OS X preferences width in its AP selection criteria. So while you may get more capacity, in a large Mac environment you lose most of that with Macs hanging onto APs linger and having to rate-shift down to slower PHY speeds due to

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

Couldn't have said it better myself. That is exactly what we do. *--Jeremy L. Gibbs* Sr. Network Engineer Utica College IITS T: (315) 223-2383 F: (315) 792-3814 E: jlgi...@utica.edu http://www.utica.edu On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Rob Harris wrote: >

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

While there are performance gains to be sure (by going to 40, or 80), there are other concerns as well. We use 20 in our dorms because of the density of APs and users, we need those additional channels (even with dfs in use). We use 40 in our public spaces when there’s adequate capacity for it,

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

It’s surprising to me that anyone would purchase a Lamborghini, then disconnect ten of the twelve cylinders and drive it at 25 mph on the autobahn. When I see static 20 MHz channels, or using 40 MHz in only limited areas, I wonder what’s behind the purposeful neutering of the system. If you are

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

If you’re responding to my comments, I don’t think I said what you think I said. From: Street, Chad A [mailto:cstr...@emory.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 9:59 AM To: Chuck Enfield Cc: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

What is your reasoning behind not wanting 40 megahertz channels if you have plenty of overhead with your channel utilization? People saying you should or should not do something without Gathering any type of metric worry me. On Sep 25, 2017 3:28 PM, Chuck Enfield wrote: 1.