Well, you can convince me otherwise, but I don't think that is true.  As stated 
previously, we already see plenty of devices that are 5 gig capable connecting 
to 2.4.  Regardless of how long they spend there, they are still on the 2.4 for 
some period.  Running a 5 gig only SSID eliminates that.  So you eliminate some 
of the guess work of troubleshooting a client, and then you know when they 
connected, they were always at 5.  Seems like a win to me.  

And obviously there is no sharing of the radio.   

And also, let's face it.  The other SSID isn't a junk SSID in the nature that 
it would resemble the exact same SSID that you run now.  There is no additional 
overhead here, as we already run eduroam and a PSK network.  


Ryan Turner
Senior Network Engineer, ITS
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
+1 919 274 7926 Mobile
+1 919 445 0113 Office

> On Apr 15, 2016, at 7:48 AM, Osborne, Bruce W (Network Services) 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> That is not really a solution if the "junk" SSID uses the same radios as the 
> "premiere" SSID. The radio needs to beacon at the lower rates.
> 
> Running separate "junk" APs really adds to the cost.
> 
> ​​​​​
>  
> Bruce Osborne
> Wireless Engineer
> IT Network Services - Wireless
>  
> (434) 592-4229
>  
> LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
> Training Champions for Christ since 1971
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Turner, Ryan H [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 7:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Turning off 2.4 on a select SSID?
> 
> Well, as I pointed out from the very beginning, running a premiere SSID that 
> guarantees junk devices can't connect to better ensure some performance while 
> having a backup SSID for all the rest is a solution.   It is no different 
> than running a 802.1x SSID.  A lot of devices won't support that.  But in our 
> case, they fall back to a PSK SSID.   You still preserve connectivity, but 
> aren't connecting by the smallest common denominator.  
> 
> Ryan Turner
> Senior Network Engineer, ITS
> The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
> +1 919 274 7926 Mobile
> +1 919 445 0113 Office
> 
>> On Apr 14, 2016, at 7:39 AM, Osborne, Bruce W (Network Services) 
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> What about 11g or 11n devices that require the lower data rates in order to 
>> connect?
>> 
>> ​​​​​
>> 
>> Bruce Osborne
>> Wireless Engineer
>> IT Network Services - Wireless
>> 
>> (434) 592-4229
>> 
>> LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
>> Training Champions for Christ since 1971
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Trinklein, Jason R [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 9:32 AM
>> Subject: Re: Turning off 2.4 on a select SSID?
>> 
>> We presently do not permit 802.11a/b devices on our wireless network, but we 
>> do allow 802.11g. Luckily, there are only a few dozen 802.11g devices 
>> connected at any given time, the rest are 802.11n/ac. The performance hit 
>> for supporting g appears to be minimal in our environment.
>> 
>> We’ve been facing issues with special requests on our campus for supporting 
>> bizarre end devices. The most recent request was to support a wifi doorbell, 
>> which uses PSK and 2.4GHz only. Worse, it was easily stolen and cracked, 
>> giving up in cleartext the key.
>> 
>> Refusing to support these devices causes new problems, however. Some of 
>> these locations instead set up their own access points to serve these 
>> special devices, which causes channel interference with our official access 
>> points. To set up such devices is against policy, but it causes some angst 
>> against IT when we enforce it in these circumstances. How many exceptions do 
>> you make for special scenarios? How often do you prop up custom 
>> location-specific SSIDs to support unique requests?
>> --
>> Jason Trinklein
>> 
>> Wireless Engineering Manager
>> College of Charleston
>> 81 St. Philip Street | Office 311D | Charleston, SC 29403 
>> [email protected] | (843) 300–8009
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 4/13/16, 8:45 AM, "The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group 
>>> Listserv on behalf of Frank Sweetser" <[email protected] 
>>> on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> We were lucky enough here to start off from the beginning with a 
>>> policy of wireless being strictly best effort.  If it works, yay for 
>>> you!  If it doesn't work, plug into a wired port and we'll get around 
>>> to fixing wireless if and when we can.  Obviously we can't get away 
>>> with that kind of position these days, but it's been much easier to 
>>> start there than to have had the wireless network be priority one from the 
>>> start.
>>> 
>>> Based off of that, we've been able to stick to a basic functional 
>>> support requirement, rather than being obligated to twist wireless 
>>> around to support critical devices that someone else decided should 
>>> depend on wireless.  In our case, devices fall into one of three categories:
>>> 
>>> - If your configuration is fully supported by CloudPath, we'll back 
>>> up that support, including opening vendor tickets on your behalf if 
>>> you find a real problem.
>>> 
>>> - If you're outside of CloudPath support, but you still support our 
>>> encryption and authentication requirements (WPA2/EAP-TLS), we'll pr 
>>> work, plug into a wired port and we'll get around to fixing wireless 
>>> if and when we can.  Obviously we can't get away with that kind of 
>>> position these days, but it's been much easier to start there than to 
>>> have had the wireless network be priority one from the start.
>>> 
>>> Based off of that, we've been able to stick to a basic functional 
>>> support requirement, rather than being obligated to twist wireless 
>>> around to support critical devices that someone else decided should 
>>> depend on wireless.  In our case, devices fall into one of three categories:
>>> 
>>> - If your configuration is fully supported by CloudPath, we'll back 
>>> up that support, including opening vendor tickets on your behalf if 
>>> you find a real problem.
>>> 
>>> - If you're outside of CloudPath support, but you still support our 
>>> encryption and authentication requirements (WPA2/EAP-TLS), we'll 
>>> provide you with an identity cert and some general directions, but 
>>> you're responsible for the actual configuration.
>>> 
>>> - If your device only supports PSK, then sorry, you're out of luck!  
>>> This also happens to rule out all of the devices that we've seen 
>>> require 1Mbit data rates, like the Wii, which has made it much easier for 
>>> us to trim out those bottom rates.
>>> 
>>> Obviously we've had to dump resources into wireless over the years to 
>>> keep pace with actual requirements and user expectations, but 
>>> starting from the convinience only stance has made it much easier for us to 
>>> manage expectations over time.
>>> 
>>> Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.edu    |  For every problem, there is a solution 
>>> that
>>> 
>>> Manager of Network Operations   |  is simple, elegant, and wrong. 
>>> Worcester Polytechnic Institute |           - HL Menckenovide you with an
>>> identity cert and some general directions, but you're responsible for 
>>> the actual configuration.
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 
>>> Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.edu    |  For every problem, there is a solution 
>>> that
>>> 
>>> Manager of Network Operations   |  is simple, elegant, and wrong. 
>>> Worcester Polytechnic Institute |           - HL Mencken
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 12:23 +0000, Chris Adams (IT) wrote:
>>>> I think this raises an interesting challenge that I've faced too: 
>>>> should we enact a minimum specification requirement (ex. no
>>>> 802.11a/b) for wireless network access?
>>>> 
>>>> For student PCs that our service desk supports, we have minimum 
>>>> requirements, IE Windows versions, AV vendors, etc. Outside of those 
>>>> requirements, they cannot support the machines. Should we do 
>>>> something similar for wireless?
>>>> 
>>>> Is it fair to potentially reduce the network experience for others 
>>>> associated to access point to support devices that only utilize 
>>>> legacy wireless methods?
>>>> 
>>>> I am certainly sympathetic to allow as much device freedom as 
>>>> possible - but at what cost to performance and user experience?
>>>> 
>>>> I am interested if any of you may have already crossed this bridge.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Chris Adams, CISSP
>>>> 
>>>> Director, Network & Telecom Services Division of Information 
>>>> Technology University of North Georgia
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
>>>> [mailto:WIRELE [email protected]] On Behalf Of Osborne, 
>>>> Bruce W (Network
>>>> Services)
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 8:18 AM
>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Turning off 2.4 on a select SSID?
>>>> 
>>>> We have  some management with Visio TVs that requires 802.11b rates 
>>>> in order to associate. That presents a challenge too.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Bruce Osborne
>>>> Wireless Engineer
>>>> IT Network Services - Wireless
>>>> 
>>>> (434) 592-4229
>>>> 
>>>> LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
>>>> Training Champions for Christ since 1971
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Gogan, James Patrick [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:08 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Turning off 2.4 on a select SSID?
>>>> 
>>>> I'm unfortunately seeing that we may actually start to experience an 
>>>> INCREASE in 2.4GHz-only devices ..... when we asked about this on 
>>>> campus recently, I received this reply ... and this is from a central IT 
>>>> person:
>>>> 
>>>> " I wanted to point out that many brand new phones don't speak 5GHz 
>>>> such as the Motorola Moto G (3rd generation) which just began 
>>>> shipping late last summer.  In fact, none of the generations of Moto 
>>>> G have a 5GHz radio.  Motorola has reserved 5GHz wifi for the Moto X which 
>>>> is their
>>>> premium spec phone.    The Moto G is a pretty common phone - I know of
>>>> several folks (in our department) that have such including myself 
>>>> and a coworker who just bought a brand new one Friday.  Republic 
>>>> Wireless sells a ton of these.  The Moto E, which is the base model, 
>>>> also doesn't speak 5GHz.  Several folks in our building also have that 
>>>> phone."
>>>> 
>>>> Don't know whether to blame Motorola or folks that go for the 
>>>> cheapest stuff possible.
>>>> 
>>>> -- Jim Gogan / Univ of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
>>>> [mailto:WIRELE [email protected]] On Behalf Of Earl 
>>>> Barfield
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:07 PM
>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Turning off 2.4 on a select SSID?
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 04/07/2016 09:24 AM, Hector J Rios wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I guess this brings up another good question, and that is, what is 
>>>>>> the percentage of 5GHz vs 2.4GHz you all see in your institutions?
>>>>>> For us is still 50-50. And it’s been like that for a while. I 
>>>>>> still see new laptops that only come with 2.4GHz adapters.
>>>> 
>>>> While it can be useful to track what percentage of connections use 
>>>> 5GHz radios, we've found that a better question to ask is "What 
>>>> percentage of 5GHz-capable clients are actually connecting at 5GHz".
>>>> 
>>>> In our environment, it varies wildly by building: some as high as 
>>>> 95% of sessions and others, such as our outdoor spaces, down close to zero.
>>>> 
>>>> We focus our resources on improving the 5GHz coverage in the 
>>>> buildings with the lower percentages.
>>>> 
>>>> All this data is in the Airwave Management Platform database.   It just
>>>> takes a little gentle coaxing to get it out.
>>>> 
>>>> In our high density spaces, we have many many APs on 5GHz with 
>>>> directional antennas, along with turning of lower data rates and
>>>> raising RxSOP to limit the cell size.   We turn off 2.4GHz
>>>> radios on all but a few APs in the room,   From the user side, this
>>>> should look about like APs with multiple 5GHz radios.
>>>> 
>>>> We're using Cisco AP3702Es right now but we're anxious to take a 
>>>> look at the upcoming AP3802Es that should allow us to use fewer APs 
>>>> to but the same number of 5GHz antennas serving a room.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Earl Barfield -- Academic & Research Tech / Information Technology 
>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
>>>> Internet: [email protected]    [email protected]
>>>> 
>>>> **********
>>>> Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE 
>>>> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at 
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.educause.edu_groups_&d=CwIFaQ&c=7MSSWy9Bs2yocjNQzurxOQ&r=AuveJXIorHW4s-aGSHEbnQZt5LubWGCZik-5HxxaRqU&m=aT15Yz-lMtOrU2rxTLo7F6LlZRuyTkPWUMAHokr4IXc&s=Tw9w9P8HI6xCmHgUCr8EkE1kp6en3hm5Nhysgq9iIqc&e=
>>>>  .
>>>> 
>>>> **********
>>>> Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE 
>>>> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at 
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.educause.edu_groups_&d=CwIFaQ&c=7MSSWy9Bs2yocjNQzurxOQ&r=AuveJXIorHW4s-aGSHEbnQZt5LubWGCZik-5HxxaRqU&m=aT15Yz-lMtOrU2rxTLo7F6LlZRuyTkPWUMAHokr4IXc&s=Tw9w9P8HI6xCmHgUCr8EkE1kp6en3hm5Nhysgq9iIqc&e=
>>>>  .
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> **********
>>>> Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE 
>>>> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at 
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.educause.edu_groups_&d=CwIFaQ&c=7MSSWy9Bs2yocjNQzurxOQ&r=AuveJXIorHW4s-aGSHEbnQZt5LubWGCZik-5HxxaRqU&m=aT15Yz-lMtOrU2rxTLo7F6LlZRuyTkPWUMAHokr4IXc&s=Tw9w9P8HI6xCmHgUCr8EkE1kp6en3hm5Nhysgq9iIqc&e=
>>>>  .
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> **********
>>>> Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE 
>>>> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at 
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.educause.edu_groups_&d=CwIFaQ&c=7MSSWy9Bs2yocjNQzurxOQ&r=AuveJXIorHW4s-aGSHEbnQZt5LubWGCZik-5HxxaRqU&m=aT15Yz-lMtOrU2rxTLo7F6LlZRuyTkPWUMAHokr4IXc&s=Tw9w9P8HI6xCmHgUCr8EkE1kp6en3hm5Nhysgq9iIqc&e=
>>>>  .
>>> 
>>> **********
>>> Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent 
>>> Group discussion list can be found at 
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.educause.edu_groups_&d=CwIFaQ&c=7MSSWy9Bs2yocjNQzurxOQ&r=AuveJXIorHW4s-aGSHEbnQZt5LubWGCZik-5HxxaRqU&m=aT15Yz-lMtOrU2rxTLo7F6LlZRuyTkPWUMAHokr4IXc&s=Tw9w9P8HI6xCmHgUCr8EkE1kp6en3hm5Nhysgq9iIqc&e=
>>>  .
>> 
>> **********
>> 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/.
> 
> **********
> 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/.
> 

**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group 
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Reply via email to