Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> on behalf of "Jeffrey D. Sessler" <j...@scrippscollege.edu> Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Date: Tuesday,

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

Constituent Group Listserv <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: 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

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

p Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Curtis K. Larsen Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 3:17 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions >From the Cisco/Apple Design Guide Here: https://goo.gl/5bGWks "It is therefore n

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

on behalf of GT Hill <g...@gthill.com> Reply-To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 11:52 AM To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re:

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

behalf of "Jeffrey D. Sessler" <j...@scrippscollege.edu> Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 2:08 PM To: <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WI

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

reless Issues Constituent Group Listserv <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> on behalf of Jeffrey D. Sessler <j...@scrippscollege.edu> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 1:08 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions Jake, GT’s statement doe

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

n behalf of Jake Snyder <jsnyde...@gmail.com> Reply-To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 11:49 AM To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Su

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

tserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: 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 spe

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

uot;wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu<mailto:wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu>" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions I know that this is just one example, but I was at a large university site

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

D. Sessler" <j...@scrippscollege.edu> Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 1:41 PM To: <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questio

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

.com> > Reply-To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" > <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> > Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 8:47 AM > To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

se.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: 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 W

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jeffrey D. Sessler Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 11:43 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions For your residential, is that concern rooted

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

on behalf of GT Hill <g...@gthill.com> Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2017 at 11:47 pm To: "WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subjec

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

CAUSE.EDU> Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:47 AM To: <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: 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

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

lt;WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 9:39 AM To: <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: 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. S

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

;WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 7:33 AM To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions While there are performance gains to be sure (by going to 40, or 80), the

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

> <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> on behalf of "Street, Chad A" > <cstr...@emory.edu> > Reply-To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" > <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> > Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 6:59 AM > To: "wireless

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

rs.™* > > > > *Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.* > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto: > WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Jeffrey D. Sessler > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 26, 20

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

e.edu>" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>> Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 6:59 AM To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu<mailto:wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu>" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELE

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

A" <cstr...@emory.edu> Reply-To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 6:59 AM To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN

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 <chu...@psu.edu> Cc: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Que

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.

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

serv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Entwistle, Bruce Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 12:11 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions We have a similar configuration and have begun using the additional channels but continue to

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

We have a similar configuration and have begun using the additional channels but continue to use 20MHz channel width. Bruce Entwistle Network Manager University of Redlands From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

Hi Dave, I personally would not enable 40+ MHz wide channels without already having the UNII-2 channels enabled as it will cut down on your available channels. Also, stay away from any doppler radar frequencies used in Poughkeepsie ;-) -Eric Kenny > On Sep 25, 2017, at 3:16 PM, David Blahut

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

I have been moving our less AP dense buildings to 40 Mhz channels. In the dorms, I stick with 20 Mhz, unless there is little to no CCI when I do my testing. I see RADAR events, but they are sparse. I definitely see an improvement with the 40 Mhz channels and keeping users connected and happy in

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

We currently won't even touch 40MHz as we like having the ability to solve problems by throwing more APs at them. On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 2:28 PM Chuck Enfield wrote: > 1. Enable it in places to check for radar events. If you get few, > then yes. Client devices are almost

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

1. Enable it in places to check for radar events. If you get few, then yes. Client devices are almost fully capable now. Hidden SSID’s are the only issue. Some clients don’t probe on DFS channels, and will only respond to beacons. Make sure 2.4 is usable for the small number of

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Two RF Questions

Hi The answer is: it depends. Extended channels depend on the presence of TDWR radars in your environment (ex: if you are near an airport, there are lists of TDWR radars in the US). 40 Mhz channels depends on your clients: do you need more small cells in 20Mhz or can afford less available