|
Mike:
You make some good points about channel bonding and I
should point out that it is an optional element of the 802.11n standard, not
required. You are sure to see enterprise WLAN vendors recommend the use of
one channel in the 2.4 GHz range.
Things are not so dire in the 5 GHz band as you make them
out to be: we have at least 8 channels today with most vendors, and if you
count them all up it's about 23 or so if you add the upper UNII and the 255 MHz
that the FCC added many months ago. Even if you bond you have at least 10
channels in that range to choose from, so channel planning won't be that
horrific. My belief is that 5 GHz won't be put into serious use in the
enterprise until 802.11n is deployed at the end of next
year.
Frank From: Ruiz, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 7:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Meru Question Don,
As a Meru user I can personally tell you that Meru’s system does not negatively
impact any other access points unless you put them on overlapping channels or
use the rogue suppression. As far as the “bug” this is simply not true,
and I can provide more detail regarding this if you want but didn’t want to bore
anyone. There are lots of tests here and independent tests to verify the
first. Likewise Meru uses Atheros technology and 100% 802.11 standards
compliant client side technology.
My perspective on 802.11n is that Meru is most uniquely positioned to make 11n a
workable reality. Forget the fact that they will continue to eliminate
co-channel interference and contention across cells making the bandwidth
promised by 11n a reality. The real core of what makes 11n work is that
each channel uses more bandwidth. Thus in the 2.4GHz space you will
essentially need two of the three available channels to serve 11n. Well if
you’re using 1 and 6 or 6 and 11 what are you left with for neighboring
cells? A coordinated design that can overlap without interfering will be
required unless another “band-aid” solution like micro-cells is developed.
Or you can move the 5Ghz space, cut the number of channels in half and then be
faced with all the problems plaguing 802.11g today. It’s consistently
amazing to me that vendors tout 11n as a solution when problems like the crash
in available bandwidth when 3 or more users come online remains a reality.
Cheers, Mike -- Michael
Ruiz Network and Hobart and William
Smith Colleges
From: Donald R
Gallerie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Here at the University at offering. From our vantage point, it does
appear that Cisco is pushing the controller-based system so
we decided to look at other vendors in
this space. As part of this effort, we asked Cisco to come
in and give us an overview of their
offering as if they didn’t already have a presence on
campus. One of the items that came up had to
do with Meru’s method of distributing timeframes to
clients (don’t know if I’m phrasing this
correctly). The Cisco engineers said that Meru’s methodology
works well in a Meru-only rollout but that
they would negatively impact other, non-Meru access
points. Additionally, the said that there is
a “bug” in the current 802.11b/g standard that Meru takes
advantage of and that it may not be there in
future (802.11n) standards. Not that I would doubt anything
Cisco says but has anyone heard any similar remarks or can
anyone expand on Cisco’s
claims? Thanks…. Don
Gallerie The University at |
- Meru question Lee Badman
- Meru Question Donald R Gallerie
- RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Meru Question Frank Bulk
- RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Meru Question Ruiz, Mike
- RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Meru Question Frank Bulk
- RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Meru Question Ruiz, Mike
- RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Meru Question Frank Bulk
- RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Meru Question Ruiz, Mike
- RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Meru Question Dave Molta
- Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Meru Question Philippe Hanset
- RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Meru Question Frank Bulk
