Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > Except it's not effecting the ap's further out. Even if they were on a > different segment they should still pick up the interference from the > ap's right?
Basically, yeah. I think. :) (Good thing I never claimed to know much about RF, innit.) A different picture, so to speak, at http://thedave.us/pics/mvn/wispamap2.gif, which includes some of the relevant bits of the network's physical design. If it were a problem with, say, one of my Trango backhaul links, why does it only affect one of the two SUs on "Trango AP1"? And why does it affect customers on the far end of my licensed 39GHz link? For that matter, note the two overlapping dots. (Green is "good" towers, red is "bad," and the one yellow dot on the left is a tower that we've seen a couple issues with at the same time, but not nearly as bad. Note: not to scale, and please don't make fun of me just because I can't draw straight lines with MS Paint.) The points with overlapping dots show where there are two 2.4GHz APs on the same water tower - the ones facing north are having issues, the ones facing south rarely do. And when the south-facing antennas' customers are having problems, the noise levels and network latency are at their worst (a couple days ago I saw one ping packet that took almost thirty seconds to complete a round-trip, a new record). The backhaul links appear to be solid, because all the while, I can ping the APs themselves, and the managed switches at the key tower locations, with the expected 2-3ms latency and zero packet loss. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
