On the Cisco, you also have a choice between TPCv1 coverage optimal mode or TPCv2 Interference Optimal. For dense deployments, you really want to be using TPCv2.
Jeff On 8/13/15, 1:05 PM, "The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf of James Michael Keller" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >On 08/13/2015 03:40 PM, Chuck Enfield wrote: >> Just to be clear, we don’t have to do these things to make wireless >> work. It makes it work better. But it is sometimes necessary to make >> wireless work acceptably in the most challenging environments. That >> said, left to defaults Aruba’s ARM also adjusts 2.4 GHz Tx power way >> down. So far down, in fact, that coverage gaps show up. It also tends >> to keep power higher on busy APs and lower on less busy ones. In some >> cases the power on the 2.4 radio will be the same as the power on the 5 >> GHz radio. These characteristics forces us to configure a range of >> acceptable power levels for ARM to choose from. Once you’re doing that, >> why not select the optimum power levels? >> >> While I’m no expert on Cisco wireless, I have assisted some departments >> with problems on their Cisco infrastructure. Based on that limited >> experience, I have far less confidence in RRM than you seem to. >> > >The main issue is the defaults for Aruba are for coverage networks, not >high density (30-40 ft) or very high density (30 Ft or less). You need >to adjust the coverage index min/ideal for high density deployments so >ARM will power down to Min TX powers without shutting down the 2.4 GHz >radios due to CCI (even with edge detection for the APs the default will >still end up with only a few 2.4 GHz APs). If you set Tx Min/Max to a >6dBm range the APs can power to around double the cell size for coverage >gaps if a radio is down. > >I also like to set the 5 GHz Tx Min/Max range at least 3dBm higher then >2.4 GHz because of the unattenuated propagation distance and better >attenuated penetration. Which also helps duel band devices make better >selections. However most devices have a fairly generous threshold on AP >signal drop before they even try and probe for candidate APs to >associate to. That's really where the controller based client stearing >solutions come in to play with selective acks or the probes to get the >client on the best AP regardless of what the client wants based on just >Rx signal. > >-- > >-James > >********** >Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group >discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
