*People is no longer also the number of wireless devices! Many people carry 2 or more wireless-capable devices. I had originally wanted to use one Ubiquiti UAP-AC at full power to achieve full coverage, but since my studies, that's changed. They have 20-60 people* in the shop at any given time, but they have one large wall that's clad with corrugated steel, so I've decided on 3 small AC WAPs (Ubiquiti AP-AC-LITE) for full coverage with output power set to match that of the wireless clients they'll be serving. My real-world takeaway: I'm about to deploy wireless for a coffee shop that focuses on its trendy environment and seeks customers by providing comfy chairs and private nooks, etc. It's also MUCH more beneficial for 2.4GHz deployments, where only 3 non-overlapping channels exist (assuming you're not already in a 2.4GHz-saturated area, in which case your low-power radios would cause problems with Signal-to-Noise Ratio, although you could put 5GHz radios at lower power). PS: More APs at lower power allows better coverage with less overlap, and mobile clients more readily roam to the next AP as a user moves around. Here's the question part: When I see people saying how much they love long range APs, I now wonder if it's because they think they're improving service, or cutting costs by deploying fewer APs, or if they have a real genuine benefit from the LR-APs?Īnd in other research, it appears that most APs can only handle active throughput for ~30 clients each, although they can support 2-4x more connected. So unless I'm MOSTLY serving wireless clients with strong transmit power capability (ie: laptops, wireless desktops, some full-size tablets, etc), I'm doing a disservice to my wireless network users. Just because I have a LONG warehouse that's covered by 3 WAPs at full transmit power and I can stay connected to the SSID no matter where I go in the building with high signal bars doesn't mean I can download a large file in a reasonable timeframe anywhere in the building!įURTHER, my client which is not being received well by the APs is bogging down the AP's capability to serve other wireless clients by hogging more airtime to poorly transmit traffic! I know I've fallen into that trap: If I've got quality signal from the AP, then I must be good, right? WRONG. Most of us deploy coverage-based WLANs, but that's rarely a quality deployment. I've recently finished a fairly technical manual about high-density wireless deployments, and one of the things I learned was that wireless networks are much more efficient, and clients will achieve better performance (in all cases, but especially high-density) when they're best able to transcieve, which means that a low-power handheld device must be able to effectively reach the AP. Also, see data sheet for your access point for the number of power levels supported.So this post is both informational and a question: See the hardware installation guide for your access point for the maximum transmit power levels supported per regulatory domain. For example, if the last power level in the 3600E access point has a power value of 4dbm (total power), then it actually means the power value is -2dbm (per path). For example, Cisco 3500, 1140, and 1250 series access points allow the configuration of last power levels because those access points report the "per path power" to the controller, whereas all next generation acess points such as Cisco 3700, 3600, 2600, and 1600 series access points report "total power value" to the controller, thereby decreasing the allowed power levels for newer generation products. These power values are derived based on the regulatory compliance limits and minimum hardware limitation which varies across different Cisco access points. If the 8th power level is configured on those channels, the configuration would fail since the controller considers the 7th power level as the lowest acceptable valid power level. In certain cases, Cisco access points support only 7 power levels for certain channels, so that the Cisco Wireless Controller considers the 7th and 8th power levels as the same. For example, 1 = maximum power level in a particular regulatory domain, 2 = 50% power, 3 = 25% power, 4 = 12.5% power, and so on. However, power level 1 is always the maximum power level allowed per country code setting, with each successive power level representing 50% of the previous power level. The number of available power levels varies based on the access point model. The integer corresponds to a power level that varies depending on the regulatory domain in which the access points are deployed. The transmit power level is assigned an integer value instead of a value in mW or dBm. TX power level 1 is always maximum power level of access point.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |