[148467] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: enterprise 802.11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Lyon)
Sun Jan 15 18:43:48 2012
From: Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <B763C6D4-7883-4125-8F50-B9DCC853AE65@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:42:51 -0800
To: Greg Ihnen <os10rules@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Another one which looks promising for high-density locations is Xirrus
(www.xirrus.com)
Haven't ever used them though.
-mike
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 15, 2012, at 15:36, Greg Ihnen <os10rules@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since we're already top-posting=85
>
> I've heard a lot of talk on the WISPA (wireless ISP) forum that 802.11g/n=
starts to fall apart with more than 30 clients associated if they're all r=
easonably active. I believe this is a limitation of 802.11g/n's media acces=
s control (MAC) mechanism, regardless of who's brand is on the box. This is=
most important if you're doing VoIP or anything else where latency and jit=
ter is an issue.
>
> To get around that limitation, folks are using proprietary protocols with=
"polling" media access control. Ubiquiti calls theirs AirMax. Cisco uses s=
omething different in the "Canopy" line. But of course then you've gone to =
something proprietary and only their gear can connect. So it's meant more f=
or back-hauls and distribution networks, not for end users unless they use =
a proprietary CPE.
>
> Since you need consumer gear to be able to connect, you need to stick wit=
h 802.11g/n. You should limit to 30 clients per AP. You should stagger your=
2.4GHZ APs on channels 1, 6 and 11, and turn the TX power down and have th=
em spaced close enough that no more than 30 will end up connecting to a sin=
gle AP. 5.8GHz APs would be better, and you'll want to stagger their channe=
ls too and turn the TX power down so each one has a small footprint to only=
serve those clients that are nearby.
>
> Stay away from "mesh" solutions and WDS where one AP repeats another, tha=
t kills throughput because it hogs airtime. You'll want to feed all the APs=
with Ethernet.
>
> Greg
>
> On Jan 15, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>
>> Ubiquiti's Unifi products are decent, and have *MUCH* improved since the=
ir original release (amazing what you can do with better code!). In the or=
iginal release, you had to have a management server running on the same L2 =
network as the Aps - they've moved the management to a L3 model so you can =
put the controller elsewhere. The big PITA with their system is that any c=
hange requires 'reprovisioning' the APs, which means rebooting all of them =
in sequence. They've added VLANs, multiple SSID's/AP, wireless backhaul/ch=
aining, guest portalling, and limiters to balance the # of clients / AP.
>>
>> In a noisy environment, I've found that they top out at around 30 device=
s / AP for good performance, and 50 devices / AP for 'working/not working'.=
In a clean environment, I've seen decent performance with 70 - 100 device=
s / AP. Of course, if one bad client comes along (with a card that doesn't=
backoff its TX power, etc), it can wreak havoc with higher densities. You=
really can't argue with Unifi's price.
>>
>> If you move up the price scale, Meraki seems to be a good midrange solut=
ion, and they have some really sweet reporting functionality. They're more=
expensive, though.
>>
>> And then, yes, Cisco is the gold standard, but it will cost you some gol=
d to get it.
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mike Lyon [mailto:mike.lyon@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:54 AM
>>> To: Meftah Tayeb
>>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>>> Subject: Re: enterprise 802.11
>>>
>>> Ubiquity (www.ubnt.com) has their Unifi line of products. It's still pr=
etty new
>>> in the marketspace and this, working out the bugs. I use their other pr=
oducts
>>> exclusively for outdoor wireless.
>>>
>>> However, in the offices ive done, ive used Cisco's WLC 4402 controller =
which
>>> supports 12 access points. They have controllers which support more APs=
as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> Hit me up offlist if you have any quesrions.
>>>
>>> -mike
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2012, at 11:39, Meftah Tayeb <tayeb.meftah@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ubiquity
>>>> or ubikity, maybe is miss spelled
>>>> Someone correct the spelling for him please thank you
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken King" <kking@yammer-inc.com>
>>>> To: <nanog@nanog.org>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 9:30 PM
>>>> Subject: enterprise 802.11
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I need to choose a wireless solution for a new office.
>>>>
>>>> up to 600 devices will connect. most devices are mac books and mobile
>>> phones.
>>>>
>>>> we can see hundreds of access points in close proximity to our new off=
ice
>>> space.
>>>>
>>>> what are the thoughts these days on the best enterprise solution/vendo=
r?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your replies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ken King
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>> signature database 6793 (20120113) __________
>>>>
>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>> signature database 6793 (20120113) __________
>>>>
>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
