] 4-channels in 2.4 GHz
With no intent to open a conversational can 'o worms, I'm curious if anyone is
running a 4-channel plan on their production WLANs, that is willing to share
their opinions and experiences on the topic.
Thanks-
Lee
Lee H. Badman
Wireless/Network Engineer, ITS
Adjunct
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Kevin Semrau
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 8:26 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 4-channels in 2.4 GHz
Dave,
I would appreciate a copy of the report.
Thanks in advance,
Kevin
Kevin Semrau
Network Specialist
: [WIRELESS-LAN] 4-channels in 2.4 GHz
With no intent to open a conversational can 'o worms, I'm curious if anyone is
running a 4-channel plan on their production WLANs, that is willing to share
their opinions and experiences on the topic.
Thanks-
Lee
Lee H. Badman
Wireless/Network Engineer, ITS
-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 14:34:19 +
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] 4-channels in 2.4 GHz
With no intent to open a conversational can 'o worms, I'm
Lee,
Univ. of TN Knoxville still runs 4 channels (1-4-8-11) and has been doing so
since 2000!
This said, we had a long discussion with Aruba Networks engineers about 3 VS 4
and they mentioned that
their algorithms are better tuned for 3 channels (I suspect that it is the case
for most vendors
a selection of
channels for minimal interference.)
David Gillett, CISSP CCNP
_
From: Lee H Badman [mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 07:34
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] 4-channels in 2.4 GHz
With no intent to open a conversational
, and generally let it try to find a selection
of channels for minimal interference.)
David Gillett, CISSP CCNP
--
*From:* Lee H Badman [mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu]
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 08, 2012 07:34
*To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
*Subject:* [WIRELESS-LAN] 4
On May 8, 2012, at 3:00 PM, Coehoorn, Joel wrote:
The short answer is no. It comes down to the skirts again. Most low-end tools
to measure wireless coverage do a poor job of showing this, but my
understanding is that wifi RF is such that the skirts flare out quickly, and
you have nearly all
Phillippe, this is something I would **love** to be shown to be wrong
about.
I think all of us could benefit from a 4th channel (I know I would), if it
comes with clear guidelines for when and how to use it in a way that will
increase rather than decrease throughput. Right now, the best
Cisco has a paper on this with some graphs showing energy overlap on
4 channel deployments for both 802.11b and 802.11g. The 802.11g OFDM
signal seemed more prone to interference in a 4 channel setup so we
stuck with 1,6,11.
Joel,
You last comment hit the nail on the head. We have been advising clients
to migrate to 5.8 Ghz ASAP for years. 2.4 Ghz is a garbage band and all
the rogues make it impossible to gain any density and throughput. While
you may be adhering to 1-6-11, the rogues may not be, and many
11 matches
Mail list logo
