[161080] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Mon Feb 25 12:56:09 2013
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:55:47 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Warren Bailey <wbailey@satelliteintelligencegroup.com>,
Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com>
In-Reply-To: <cx8po8q29hyi4a4rhhmfdub0.1361810517282@email.android.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2/25/13 8:42 AM, Warren Bailey wrote:
> I should probably know this, but doesn't N just spread better and have the ability to send receive on multiple polarizations?
That would be a rather extreme over-simplifcation of
spatial-division-multiplexing and space-time-coding.
> As an RF engineer I should probably know this, but I can't think of many people in my industry who really care about 802.11_. I really don't even use wireless in my house, though it's generally due to overcrowding the spectrum in populous areas.
>
>
> From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
> Date: 02/25/2013 8:38 AM (GMT-08:00)
> To: Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com>
> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
>
>
> Correct. However, while A is 5Ghz (only), it's not significantly better than G.
>
> The true performance gains come from 5Ghz and N together. N on 2.4Ghz has
> limited benefit over G. N on 5Ghz is significantly better.
>
> Owen
>
> On Feb 24, 2013, at 8:56 PM, "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com> wrote:
>
>> The IEEE 802.11n standards do not require 5 GHz support. It's typical, but
>> not necessary.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 2:07 PM
>> To: Jay Ashworth
>> Cc: NANOG
>> Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
>>
>>
>> On Feb 17, 2013, at 08:33 , Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Scott Howard" <scott@doc.net.au>
>>>>> A VPN or SSH session (which is what most hotel guests traveling for
>>>>> work will do) won't cache at all well, so this is a very bad idea.
>>>>> Might improve some things, but not the really important ones.
>>>> The chances of the average hotel wifi user even knowing what SSH means
>>>> is close to zero.
>>> {{citation-needed}}
>>>
>>>> As an aside, I was sitting in JFK airport (terminal 4) a few days ago and
>>>> having a shocking time getting a good internet connection - even from my
>>>> own Mifi. I fired up inSSIDer, and within a few seconds it had detected
>>>> 122 AP's...
>>> Yup; B/G/N congestion is a real problem. Nice that the latest generation
>>> of both mifi's and cellphones all seem to do A as well, in addition to
>>> current-gen business laptops (my x61 is almost 5 years old, and speaks A).
>>>
>> I think by A you actually mean 5Ghz N. A doesn't do much better than G,
>> though
>> you still have the advantage of wider channels and less frequency congestion
>> with other uses.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
