If you're going with Extricom you don't need to worry about channel planning beyond adding more "channel blankets".
Frank -----Original Message----- From: Carl Karsten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 10:56 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Adrian Chadd; Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Thank you for all the advice - it was nice to see 20 replies that all basically agreed (and with me too.) If only the 6 people involved in this project were such. On Wifi for 1000: I have tried to make sure everyone involved in this PyCon Wifi project has read http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/ppt/joel.pdf - too bad some have read it and don't get it. I think it will be OK, because someone else wrote up the plan, which is basically to use http://wavonline.com/vendorpages/extricom.htm If anyone would like to see it in action, I am sure something can be arranged. (you are welcome to come look at it, but I would think would want to actually peek under the hood and see some stuff in real time, etc. ) March 13-16 in Chicago. Carl K Joel Jaeggli wrote: > Frank Bulk wrote: >> I would have disagree with your point on centralized AP controllers -- >> almost all the vendors have some form of high availability, and Trapeze's >> offering, new (and may not yet be G.A) purports to be almost entirely >> seamless in its load sharing and failover support. > > I have a few scars to show from deploying centralized ap controllers, > from several vendors including the one that you mention above. Hence my > observation that they must be deployed in a HA setup in that sort of > environment... > > We you lose a fat-ap, unless cascading failure ensues you just lost one > ap... When your ap-controller with 80 radio's attached goes boom, you > are dead. So, as I said if you're going to use a central ap controller > for an environment like this you need to avail yourself of it's HA features. > >> Now that dual-band radios in laptops are becoming more prevalent, it's >> possible to get 30 to 50% of your user population using 802.11a. >> >> Frank >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joel >> Jaeggli >> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:51 PM >> To: Adrian Chadd >> Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; nanog@merit.edu >> Subject: Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs >> >> Adrian Chadd wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>>> Speaking of all that, does someone have a "conference wireless' bcp >>>> handy? The sort that starts off with "dont deploy $50 unbranded >>>> taiwanese / linksys etc routers that fall over and die at more than 5 >>>> associations, place them so you dont get RF interference all over the >>>> place etc" before going on to more faqs like what to do so worms dont >>>> run riot? >>>> >>>> Comes in handy for that, as well as for public wifi access points. >>> Everyone I speak to says something along the lines of >>> >>> "Why would I put that sort of stuff up? I want people to pay me for >>> that kind of clue." >> I did a presentation a couple of years ago at nanog on high-density >> conference style wireless deployments. It's in the proceedings from >> Scottsdale. Fundamentally the game hasn't changed that much since then: >> >> Newer hardware is a bit more robust. >> >> Centralized AP controllers are beguiling but have to be deployed with >> high availability in mind because putting all your eggs in a smaller >> number of baskets carriers some risk... >> >> If you can, deploy A to draw off some users from 2.4ghz. >> >> Design to keep the number of users per radio at 50 or less in the worst >> case. >> >> Instrument everything... >> >> >>> There are slides covering basic stuff and observations out there. >>> >>> (I'm going through a wireless deployment at an ISP conference next week; >>> I'll draft up some notes on the nanog cluepon site.) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Adrian >>> >> > >