eply-To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu"
<WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Date: Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 4:35 AM
To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 5GHz Channel Width
For those with large d
AM
*To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
*Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 5GHz Channel Width
Our environment (residential) is about 80% Mac and I’ve not run into issues
with DBS. With a dense deployment, it’s rare that there would be a reason
to force a client to another AP as the number of clients
] On Behalf Of Jake Snyder
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 4:40 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 5GHz Channel Width
One things to keep in mind is that certain device manufacturers preference
wider channels. Apple in the Mac OS X products for instance, will always
One things to keep in mind is that certain device manufacturers preference
wider channels. Apple in the Mac OS X products for instance, will always
prefer an 80MHz channel over a 40MHz channel. As well as a 40MHz channel over
a 20MHz channel. Things like DBS can lead to stickier clients, as
@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman
Sent: Thursday, 1 December 2016 12:39 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 5GHz Channel Width
Hi Donald,
I’m not quite following the questions. Where we are very dense and likely to
risk channel overlap with 40, we use 20. Examples
Depending on the building construction, and assuming you are using DFS
channels, running 40Mhz and even 80Mhz is very likely with no downside. 5GHz
does not propagate very well, so a static 20Mhz plan in anything but big open
spaces is IMHO unnecessary.
If you are a Cisco customer, enabling
UCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Donald Ambrose
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 7:24 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 5GHz Channel Width
Any advice on manually setting up the 5 Ghz channels?
@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 5GHz Channel Width
20 in our dense spaces, 40 where it can be done safely- about 50/50.
Lee Badman (mobile)
On Nov 29, 2016, at 6:09 PM, Jason Cook
<jason.c...@adelaide.edu.au<mailto:jason.c...@adelaide.edu.au>> wrote:
It all comes down to
We run 40mhz in 5ghz for all our ap's (around 4,000). We monitor channel
utilization and interference but so far it
looks fine. Our argument was 40 or 80 and we decided to play it safe and do
just 40.
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I was just reading a blog article that heavily recommends *not* to use
We’re running a 20MHz channel plan due to our AP density (one per classroom),
over summer I’m going to look at enabling 40MHz in the less-dense non-teaching
areas. Whenever I try out DFS channels they always get radared out within a day.
While troubleshooting a performance issue recently I was
20 in our dense spaces, 40 where it can be done safely- about 50/50.
Lee Badman (mobile)
On Nov 29, 2016, at 6:09 PM, Jason Cook
> wrote:
It all comes down to requirements & design, if you can have 0 channel overlap
while using
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 5:49 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 5GHz Channel Width
I have seen real data where changing from 20/40 to 20 MHz only improved network
congestion by 30+%. I would say based on data that I see, a default config of
20 MHz
I have seen real data where changing from 20/40 to 20 MHz only improved network
congestion by 30+%. I would say based on data that I see, a default config of
20 MHz channelization is a good best practice with 40 MHz done strategically if
necessary. Just my $.02.
GT
From: The EDUCAUSE
Where we’ve carefully located APs, matched Tx power and available rates to
the AP layout, and use DFS channels we’ve had no trouble using 40Mhz
channels. Were we have a legacy layout without optimized RF settings we’ve
achieved better results with 20Mhz layouts. You’re probably only forced
14 matches
Mail list logo