FYI. Matthew Gast has just published a 152 page book on 802.11ac,
called 802.11ac: A Survival Guide.
Published by O'Reilly:
http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920027768.do
I purchased the ebook version (DRM free!) and found it to be quite
informative. Recommended.
-Charles
Charles E. Spurgeon
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 02:53:18PM +, Lay, Daniel wrote:
We have experienced a similar issue. I had 1131's in several buildings
and coverage was decent. At the time that was acceptable because
wireless was treated as an convenience. Now perceptions have changed
to wireless is
Our test of 6.0.199.0 on a single WiSM WLC with 15 production APs
resulted in about 150-175K OSAPI-4-MUTEX_LOCK_FAILED error messages
logged every 24 hours. The WLC otherwise was operating normally and
there did not appear to be any client impact, but there are only a
couple of dozen clients on
Although the AssureWave doc lists the CSCtd84852 bugID as a caveat in
6.0.196.0 code, that bugID it is superseded by CSCte08161.
The new bugID says the issue is fixed in AP code 12.4(21a)JHA. We just
upgraded our system to 6.0.196.0 and the APs are now running
12.4(21a)JHA code. The latest v6.0
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 09:13:29AM -0500, Hector J Rios wrote:
Has anybody upgraded to 5.2.193? Can you provide any feedback?
We have upgraded 31 WLCs from 4.2.130.0 to 5.2.193.0, with no
operational issues seen and no problems reported for clients so far.
We have approx 3,500 APs, and the
FYI - A recent Slashdot posting mentioned an analysis of WiFi
performance in England that was commissioned by Ofcom (communications
regulatory office in England).
A Register article on the Ofcom report notes that baby monitors and
other devices were causing signal degradation issues and that
We're not using 4.2.176, but we've had 30 WLCs on 4.2.130 code since
July 08 with a current load of 3,000 APs and a client peak load of
over 9,000 concurrent users.
WLC operations have been stable, but we don't run any Web services on
the WLCs and our WLC configs are non-standard WRT RF Groups
tested
this with. Maybe others have some as well to add to a list of either
working or not. Thanks,
--
Don Wright
Brown University
CIS - NTG
On 9/10/08 10:41 AM, Charles Spurgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FYI. This documents something that we have stumbled over with UNII-2e
If you have trouble viewing or submitting this form, you can fill it out
online:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?key=pvI5m65uYyGaZlGrZV7fxFA
WiFi Client Interface 5 GHz Channel Test Spreadsheet
This form is provided to help automate the process of collecting test
information on
FYI. This documents something that we have stumbled over with UNII-2e
channels and is a heads up for anyone running Cisco LWAPP gear and
using the auto channel selection component of RRM (Dynamic Channel
Assignment (DCA) in Cisco-speak).
The Cisco WLC release notes for v4.1.185.0 have an
We tried this out on a couple of LWAPP controllers with several busy
buildings in April and it appeared to significantly improve the
channel performance.
Our rough measurements of AP co-channel interference showed a
reduction in CCI (less channel time being occupied by beacons), and
iperf
The 4.2.112.0 version may well fix the bug that you are working with
TAC, but be advised that 4.2.112.0 is crashing for us every few days
on a production controller.
It has never crashed in the lab, but started crashing once it had been
installed in our first real world test of it. This WiSM
Peter,
I very much appreciated your contribution, and found the paper to be a
useful overview of the territory. While your affiliation with Aruba
was clear, I thought you did a good job of describing the basics of
the architectures without leaving an impression of excessive
bias.
Obviously
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 08:25:06AM -0400, Dave Molta wrote:
I agree with Chuck about the need for better information about WLAN
scalability. It's an issue I've struggled with for many years but I'm not
optimistic about a resolution. I've discussed this issue extensively with
Phil Belanger, the
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:31:50PM -0500, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
I wish it was easier to evaluate the performance (not only aggregrate
throughput, but also QoS) of the MCA and SCA products in various scenarios
and density and usage, but unfortunately examining the impact of co-channel
Sounds familiar. Here's the help doc we've created at UT Austin for
Leopard dot1x config:
http://www.utexas.edu/its/support/topics/leopard/restricted.php
-Charles
Charles E. Spurgeon / UTnet
UT Austin ITS / Networking
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 512.475.9265
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 10:53:45AM -0400,
Doug,
Thanks for the posting.
I thought that each WLC on a WiSM can download 10 APs at a time. In
4.1.185.0 code we typically see 9 APs being download at a time when
doing a bulk AP upgrade to LWAPP. On our 1230 APs the download seems
to take approx 1.5 to 2 minutes.
It sounds like you are
I agree, the WiSM/WLC docs are unimpressive.
This FAQ has some useful bit and pieces:
http://cisco.com/en/US/customer/products/ps6366/products_qanda_item09186a008064a991.shtml
Note that Cisco has recently re-engineered the radio resource
management (RRM) system to make it more stable. You need
Todd,
Many thanks for your replies to the issue list from Lee Badman.
I wanted to ask for more info on your response to point 10, in which
you said that you had to disable cdp in order to get lwapp radios to
come up.
Am I reading that correctly? We're working on a WiSM deployment
beginning
19 matches
Mail list logo
