The original whitpaper stems from the idea that individual wifi radios have more channel isolation capabilities than the ieee 802.11b spec accounted for.

This internal "isolation" will probably differ by brand and model. I bet Cisco has more potential at 4 channels vs. consumer brands.

By all means give it a try. It would be especially useful to deply a 4 channel system, load it up, and use analyzers to check the spectrum.

Mike

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 3:40pm, Jack Unger wrote:
Hey Michael,

What a good chance to get some real-world input!
Maybe you could monitor and log the retransmit percentages over
time of your co-located APs on channels 1 and 4 and advise
us if the retransmit percentages go up as the simultaneous traffic loading
on the two APs go up? Channels 1 and 4 (under heavy traffic
conditions) will be colliding with each other. On the other hand,
if your traffic levels remain low-to-moderate, it may work just fine.


jack


Michael Mee wrote:


> because of some consulting firms technical influence,

Afaik, the idea of using 4 channels stems from an original whitepaper found
here:
http://www.cirond.com/White_Papers/FourPoint.pdf
and discussed here:
http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,1583,a=33684,00.asp
Seemed reasonable when I read it, but I haven't ANY experience with trying
it.


Fwiw, we recently added a node to our Golden Hill network and chose channel
4 because we were already using channels 1 and 11 nearby and every linksys
on the planet seems to sit on channel 6.


cheers, michael

-- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" http://www.ask-wi.com/book.html True Vendor-Neutral WISP Training-Troubleshooting-Consulting http://www.ask-wi.com/services.html Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (818) 227-4220
--
Mike Outmesguine
TransStellar, Inc.

Reply via email to