Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
I'm not too keen on the -legacy thing, because it's not language agnostic. However it seems to be a trend. At 30c3 they do exactly that: https://twitter.com/arambartholl/statuses/416612652539191296/photo/1/large Best regards, Maciej On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote: I have long used 5 as an indicator that the 5ghz channel was better. This goes back to a long thread on nanog, like 4? 5? years ago, where the hope was to train users that 5 was better. Well, it's turned out that 5 is frequently better, but not always, AND that clients tend to go for the shortest of the SSIDs available. So a thought would be to create another ad-hoc standard for deprecating 2.4 ghz, and have the shorter SSID be the 5ghz one. Ideas for the 2ghz channel: CEROwrt-legacy CEROwrt2 I'm not huge on legacy because it's rather long but am stuck for standards, I'd like a default 2.4 ghz SSID that clearly indicates the real use to which 2.4ghz is suitable, like: CEROwrt-GET-OFF-MY-BABY-MONITOR-YOU-FREAK ideas for another ssid naming standard slightly longer than a single digit that would make sense to mom? -- Dave Täht Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: David Lang da...@lang.hm writes: I believe that Linux allows having both tagged and untagged packets on the samy physical interface, so the APs could communicate on a VLAN and one could be the gateway to the rest of the network (similar type of overhead in this case to GRE tunnels in that all traffic would get routed through one system, but I think it would still be less) What happens to the VLAN tags if the traffic goes through a non-VLAN-aware switch? non-aware switches will just pass the packets, reatining the tagging Also, presumably you would need one VLAN/tunnel for each wireless network (so four in the default cerowrt setup)? Yes. David Lang___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:05:21PM -0800, David Lang wrote: On Thu, 19 Dec 2013, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: David Lang da...@lang.hm writes: I believe that Linux allows having both tagged and untagged packets on the samy physical interface, so the APs could communicate on a VLAN and one could be the gateway to the rest of the network (similar type of overhead in this case to GRE tunnels in that all traffic would get routed through one system, but I think it would still be less) What happens to the VLAN tags if the traffic goes through a non-VLAN-aware switch? non-aware switches will just pass the packets, reatining the tagging Mostly. Some non-VLAN-aware switches will drop frames larger than 1518 bytes (including FCS). The switch needs to support up to 1522 byte frames to support the normal IP MTU of 1500 bytes plus a 4-byte VLAN tag. ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
Thanks for the detailed explanation about antenna issues. One question, if I might: (and don't put your AP in the attic and expect a good signal near the ground or in the basement. Physics will make sure that the signal is zero at any ground, so being closer to the ground than the antenna weakens the signal a lot!) I thought the opposite was true? That is, ground loses go up when the antenna is closer to the ground, so it was good to have bigger, taller atenna towers? If what you say is correct, how do antennas on cell towers mitigate this particular issue? - Ted ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
The tower is a slightly different situation. There you are not between the antenna and ground - the ground is between the antenna and you |/ | 0 |-+- | /\ == If the element is at the top of the mast at left, the path from it to your phone (e.g.) is not close to the ground, so the losses along the path from you to the element are small. But as the path gets closer to the ground, the electric field tends to be dragged toward zero. So the higher the antenna the better, because if it were close to the ground, the energy along the path would tend to be absorbed by the ground because it is closer to the antenna than you. But if the situation looks like this: __ [antenna] \ \ \ 0 -+- /\ = There is no ground between you and the antenna, but the field is forced to zero at the earth-ground, and also reflected away from you back towards the sky as the slanted ray between you and the antenna will reflect off the ground to the right. So you will find that since you are close to the ground, the field is zero near your head at the spot there, too. There is no absorption of energy by the air/wood between you and the antenna, but the zero boundary condition at the ground makes the field weaker around you by attenuating the field and reflecting it away from you. The differential equation solutions that describe the time varying EM fields in both situations are, of course, far more complicated (Maxwell's equation with fixed boundary conditions). But what I'm saying is a rough characterization of the fields' energy structure, given the earth-ground being a roughly flat surface that is conductive enough to hold a near constant zero voltage. Hope this helps. On Thursday, December 19, 2013 7:50pm, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu said: Thanks for the detailed explanation about antenna issues. One question, if I might: (and don't put your AP in the attic and expect a good signal near the ground or in the basement. Physics will make sure that the signal is zero at any ground, so being closer to the ground than the antenna weakens the signal a lot!) I thought the opposite was true? That is, ground loses go up when the antenna is closer to the ground, so it was good to have bigger, taller atenna towers? If what you say is correct, how do antennas on cell towers mitigate this particular issue? - Ted ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
Yes - there are significant differences in the physical design of access points that may affect 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz differently. There are also modulation differences, and there may actually be scheduling/protocol differences. All of these affect connectivity far more than center-frequency will. 1) Antennas. One of the most obvious problems is antenna aperture. That is a measure of the effective 2-D area of the antenna on the receiving side. A dipole antenna (the cheapest kind, but not the only kind used in access points) is tuned by making its length a specific fraction of the wavelength. Thus a 5 GHz antenna of the dipole type has 1/4 the aperture of a dipole antenna for 2.4 GHz. This means that the 5 GHz antenna of the same design can access only 1/4 of the radiated energy at 5 GHz. But that's entirely due to antenna size. If you hold the antenna size constant (which means using a design that is inherently twice as big as a dipole), you will find that range dramatically increases. You can demonstrate this with parabolic reflecting *receive* antennas at the two frequencies. (the aperture can be kept constant by using the same dish diameter). If you look at the antenna elements for 5 and 2.4 in an access pony, you will probably see, if you understand the circuitry, that the 5 GHz antenna has a smaller aperture. The other problem is antenna directionality for the transmit and receive antennas. Indeed almost all AP antennas have flattened doughnut radiation patterns in free-space. Worse, however, is that indoors, the antenna patterns are shaped by reflectors and absorbers so that the energy is highly variable, and highly dependent on wavelength in the pattern. So 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz signals received at any particular point have highly variable relative energies. In one place the 5 GHz signal might be 10x the energy of a 2.4 GHz signal from the same AP, and in another, 1/10th. The point here is that a controlled experiment that starts at a point where 2.4 GHz works OK might find weak 5 GHz, but moving 1 foot to the side will cause 2.4 to be unworkable, whereas 5 works fine. Distances of 1 foot completely change the situation in a diffusive propagation environment. Fix: get the AP designers to hire smarter antenna designers. Even big companies don't understand the antenna issue - remember the Apple iPhone design with the antenna that did not work if you held the phone at the bottom, but worked fine if you held it at the top? Commercial APs are generally made of the cheapest parts, using the cheapest designs, in the antenna area. And you buy them and use them with no understanding of how antennas actually work. Caveat emptor. And get your antennas evaluated by folks who understand microwave antennas in densely complex propagation environments, not outdoor free-space. (and don't put your AP in the attic and expect a good signal near the ground or in the basement. Physics will make sure that the signal is zero at any ground, so being closer to the ground than the antenna weakens the signal a lot!) 2) Modulation and digitization. Indoor environments are multipath-rich. OFDM, because it reduces the symbol rate, doesn't mind multipath as much as does DSSS. But it does require a wider band and equalization across the band, in order to work well. The problem with 802.11 as a protocol is that the receiver has only a microsecond or so to determine how to equalize the signal from a transmitter, and to apply that equalization. Since the AP is constantly receiving packets from multiple sources, with a high dynamic range, the radios may or may not succeed in equalizing enough. The more bits/sample received, and the more variable the analog gain in the front-end can be adapted, the better the signal can be digitized. Receiver designs are highly variable, and there is no particularly good standard for adjusting the power of transmitters to minimize the dynamic range of signals at the receiver end of a packet transmission. This can be quite different in 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz due to the type of modulation used in the beacon packets sent by APs. Since the endpoints are made by a different designers the PHY layer standards are required to do the job of making the whole system work. Advanced modulation and digitization systems at 5 GHz are potentially better, but may in fact be far more incompatible with each other. I've seen some terrible design choices. 3) Software/Protocol. The most problematic software issue I know of is the idea of using RSSI as if it were meaningful for adaptation of rates, etc. The rate achieved is the best measure of channel capacity, not signal strength! You can get remarkably good performance at lower signal strengths, and poor performance at higher signal strengths - because performance is only weakly affected by signal strength. Even in the Shannon capacity law, inside the log
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
dpr...@reed.com wrote: The other problem is antenna directionality for the transmit and receive antennas. Indeed almost all AP antennas have flattened doughnut radiation patterns in free-space. Worse, however, is that indoors, the antenna patterns are shaped by reflectors and absorbers so that the energy is highly variable, Is the donut aligned with the flat direction of the 3800, or another direction? My 3800 is mounted on a (concrete) wall, just below ground level in my basement. I have good 2.4Ghz coverage in my bedroom, two stories up. (This is constrast to the 54gl I used to use, which was above my TV in the den, but it was just an AP-router. My 3800 is next to the 24-port switch, and the DSL modem, since it does everything. Another 3800 is going into the attic, as soon as I dig through the insulation to run cables) As for having identical ESSID on the same layer-2... I think that perhaps cerowrt/openwrt/homenet should consider a wireless AP discovery attribute in the routing protocol, and given that, run GRE over IPv6 ULA between APs. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca writes: As for having identical ESSID on the same layer-2... I think that perhaps cerowrt/openwrt/homenet should consider a wireless AP discovery attribute in the routing protocol, and given that, run GRE over IPv6 ULA between APs. I was thinking something like that would be neat. I seem to recall that the homenet effort at IETF is in the process of specifying standard(s) for how multiple routes that get plugged into each other in random fashions should auto-configure themselves. In the meantime, perhaps a poor-mans version could be to have cero check, when the wan interface comes up, whether the upstream router is also running cero, and if so setup the appropriate GRE tunnels and, basically, turn off all other functionality. Some sort of negotiation would be needed, but a lua script running in the (upstream) web configuration (or even an inetd-powered pipe to a shell script) could work I guess. This could be authenticated by a shared secret (which the cero firmware would ship with), to prevent the most obvious abuse. Any reason why the above wouldn't work? -Toke signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:18:59 +, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca writes: As for having identical ESSID on the same layer-2... I think that perhaps cerowrt/openwrt/homenet should consider a wireless AP discovery attribute in the routing protocol, and given that, run GRE over IPv6 ULA between APs. I was thinking something like that would be neat. I seem to recall that the homenet effort at IETF is in the process of specifying standard(s) for how multiple routes that get plugged into each other in random fashions should auto-configure themselves. In the meantime, perhaps a poor-mans version could be to have cero check, when the wan interface comes up, whether the upstream router is also running cero, and if so setup the appropriate GRE tunnels and, basically, turn off all other functionality. Some sort of negotiation would be needed, but a lua script running in the (upstream) web configuration (or even an inetd-powered pipe to a shell script) could work I guess. This could be authenticated by a shared secret (which the cero firmware would ship with), to prevent the most obvious abuse. Any reason why the above wouldn't work? doing a lot of GRE tunnels could be a lot of overhead. What I would like is something that would be easier to scale (I run the wireless network for the Southern California Linux Expo and so I am a bit biased towards figuring out the large scale problem) What I do there is to have all the APs on the same ESSID, but them have them all bridge the wireless to the wired network (a different VLAN for 2.4 and 5) and then the wireless VLANs get run through a router to connect them to the wired networks. I don't do IP management (DHCP in my case) on the individual APs, I do it on the box that is the router/firewall to the rest of the networks. in this sort of system, what we would need is a system that would do something along the lines of: APs report signal strength of stations they hear to a central location (probably via UDP so that the messages can't queue and be stale when they arrive, but also allowing use of multicast MAC to turn this into a multicast) some process decides what the 'best' AP to respond would be and records it in some sort of database (not SQL, possibly memcache) when an AP gets a connection request, it checks the client against the database, if it doesn't respond, doesn't have any info on the client, or says that this AP is the best AP, allow the connection now, there is a race condition here that APs could be checking as the data is changing, but since the client will retry a couple of times, this should give time for the data to stabilize. If there is no central system, this gets a little uglier. By using multicast (either explicitly or by turning the UDP unicast address into a MAC multicast address) the data can be sent to all the APs and they can do their own calculations. The problem would be that this would increase the risk of running into race conditions. David Lang ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.cawrote: Fred Stratton fredstrat...@imap.cc wrote: For best 5GHz results, get rid of your walls and doors... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/14/virgin_media_superhub_update_modem_mode/ Yeah, in my house, my experience with 5Ghz is that it means the network doesn't work. I sometimes have a similar situation in my house. And I live in a radio quiet area, so I don't face the usual tradeoff of polluted 2.4ghz. But it does make it very hard to simply recommend 5 over 2.4ghz; there is no single right answer; the answer is it depends for the simple one router case. And the right solution is more routers, and using 5ghz once you have them. Sigh... - Jim ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:25 PM, dpr...@reed.com wrote: I know it will just trigger raging arguments, but it turns out that 5 GHz propagates far better in normal housing than does 2.4 GHz. In particular, actual scientific measurements of penetration of wood, fiberboard, concrete, brick, etc. have been done, and I can provide many of them (they are on my computer at home, I am in CA at the moment). The absorption of those materials is the same for both bands. Second, the Fresnel zone is 1/4 the size for 5 GHz than 2.4 GHz. This means that energy passes through holes far more intensely (6 dB better) on 5 GHz. Finally, 5 GHz modulations used in WiFi do not include the really lousy 802.11b modulations that are required for beacon signals to have legacy compatibility back to the beginning of 802.11b. Please don't repeat this urban legend. Don't believe *anything* you read in The Register about EM waves, and don't believe computer scientists about electrical and electronic engineering. In fact, 5 GHz, at the same power, is far superior for indoor signaling. Dave, I'm happy to believe you... But then my personal observations of behavior of 2.4 vs. 5ghz need some explanation... Could be 1) the antenna involved, 2) or the transmit power is not the same. 3) the system's reporting of signal strength is defective (but my empirical observations of what works best has seemed to be correlated with that). I'm not likely to be able to do much about 1) (until we have different routers to play with, anyway...) How do we get to the bottom on 2) or 3)? - Jim On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:51pm, Jim Gettys j...@freedesktop.org said: On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.cawrote: Fred Stratton fredstrat...@imap.cc wrote: For best 5GHz results, get rid of your walls and doors... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/14/virgin_media_superhub_update_modem_mode/ Yeah, in my house, my experience with 5Ghz is that it means the network doesn't work. I sometimes have a similar situation in my house. And I live in a radio quiet area, so I don't face the usual tradeoff of polluted 2.4ghz. But it does make it very hard to simply recommend 5 over 2.4ghz; there is no single right answer; the answer is it depends for the simple one router case. And the right solution is more routers, and using 5ghz once you have them. Sigh... - Jim ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
I concur with Jim. My observation is that in our house, upstairs the 5Ghz AP has low signal strength reported by the devices, and poor bandwidth. Could it be that the radiation pattern of the antenna in WDR3800 laying horizontally is different for each band. Maybe the 5Ghz band is more of a squashed donut? ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 03:43:45PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: I concur with Jim. My observation is that in our house, upstairs the 5Ghz AP has low signal strength reported by the devices, and poor bandwidth. Could it be that the radiation pattern of the antenna in WDR3800 laying horizontally is different for each band. Maybe the 5Ghz band is more of a squashed donut? I haven't done a careful study with the WNDR3800 running CeroWRT, but with my previous dual-band AP's, where my AP is located in the attic of my house, 5GHz works great on the 2nd floor, but on the first floor, it's very spotty; it tends to depend on the quality of the antenna (or WiFI chipset; that's not entirely clear) of the laptop or mobile handset involved. Some models show low signal strength on the 5GHz band; other models simply don't work at all on 5GHz. So it may be an urban legend that 5GHz penetrates residential housing materials more poorly than 2.4GHz radio waves, but all I can tell you is that 5GHz is definitely much works much more poorly in my house. I don't know if it has to do with the antenna quality, or the radio quality, at either the AP or the client, but it's definitely an observable phenomena. I'll have to program in the 5GHz SSID into some of my devices that historically have completely failed to function on 5GHz when on the first floor of my house (but which work just fine on the 2nd floor) to see if things are any better with CeroWRT running on the WNDR3800. I don't mind using multiple routers, if at some point CeroWRT were to gain the advanced feature of talking to other routers and forcing a disassociation when the signal strength talking to a particular client gets significantly weaker than compared to the signal strength from another AP. Is there any special hardware support needed to do this kind of AP-to-AP handoff, or is it just really complicated and no one has bothered to do it in an open source implementation? Cheers, - Ted ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 07:04:54PM -0800, David Lang wrote: As far as I have been able to tell this is purely a software thing. I'm not sure that it's even that it's so complicated as it is that there are no standards for APs to talk to each other to do this sort of thing so nobody has tackled it as an opensource project. The question is whether you can get the signal strength for a client from an AP which isn't associated with the client. It may not require special hardwar, but it would seem to me that it would require special firmware in the WiFi device on the AP, right? - Ted ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Theodore Ts'o wrote: On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 07:04:54PM -0800, David Lang wrote: As far as I have been able to tell this is purely a software thing. I'm not sure that it's even that it's so complicated as it is that there are no standards for APs to talk to each other to do this sort of thing so nobody has tackled it as an opensource project. The question is whether you can get the signal strength for a client from an AP which isn't associated with the client. It may not require special hardwar, but it would seem to me that it would require special firmware in the WiFi device on the AP, right? I don't believe so. kismit will show all devices without associating with them. You can't use it on an active AP, but that's because it wants to scan through the different channels. I don't see any reason why you couldn't report the signal strength that you do hear. Now, the fact that you are not scanning will mean that you will probably not see the client from all APs, so the smarts in the system will have to know where the various APs are, on what channels, and make decisions like 'nobody respond to this client on channel 1, AP 53 is on channel 6 and is closer than any AP on channel 1. David Lang ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
[Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
I have long used 5 as an indicator that the 5ghz channel was better. This goes back to a long thread on nanog, like 4? 5? years ago, where the hope was to train users that 5 was better. Well, it's turned out that 5 is frequently better, but not always, AND that clients tend to go for the shortest of the SSIDs available. So a thought would be to create another ad-hoc standard for deprecating 2.4 ghz, and have the shorter SSID be the 5ghz one. Ideas for the 2ghz channel: CEROwrt-legacy CEROwrt2 I'm not huge on legacy because it's rather long but am stuck for standards, I'd like a default 2.4 ghz SSID that clearly indicates the real use to which 2.4ghz is suitable, like: CEROwrt-GET-OFF-MY-BABY-MONITOR-YOU-FREAK ideas for another ssid naming standard slightly longer than a single digit that would make sense to mom? -- Dave Täht Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com writes: ideas for another ssid naming standard slightly longer than a single digit that would make sense to mom? -backup / -bak? Also, many phones don't support 5ghz unfortunately, so it probably shouldn't be too offputting... -Toke signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
Hi Dave, On Dec 16, 2013, at 20:46 , Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote: I have long used 5 as an indicator that the 5ghz channel was better. This goes back to a long thread on nanog, like 4? 5? years ago, where the hope was to train users that 5 was better. Well, it's turned out that 5 is frequently better, but not always, AND that clients tend to go for the shortest of the SSIDs available. So a thought would be to create another ad-hoc standard for deprecating 2.4 ghz, and have the shorter SSID be the 5ghz one. Ideas for the 2ghz channel: CEROwrt-legacy CEROwrt2 I'm not huge on legacy because it's rather long but am stuck for standards, I'd like a default 2.4 ghz SSID that clearly indicates the real use to which 2.4ghz is suitable, like: CEROwrt-GET-OFF-MY-BABY-MONITOR-YOU-FREAK ideas for another ssid naming standard slightly longer than a single digit that would make sense to mom? While being not really for mom, I went for name_2.4GHz and name_5GHz. Pretty clear, and the her name is shorter :) best Sebastian -- Dave Täht Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
I believe that generally, users understand versions and speeds but not the implications of certain frequencies. So, rather than focusing on the frequency I would throw these out there as suggestions: (even though the nit-picker in me is cringing a bit) For the 2.4GHz SSID: - CEROwrt-old - CEROwrt-slow and just CEROwrt for the 5GHz SSID, with the intent that the the choice offered to the users nudges them towards the better choice. Cheers, Kelvin On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote: I have long used 5 as an indicator that the 5ghz channel was better. This goes back to a long thread on nanog, like 4? 5? years ago, where the hope was to train users that 5 was better. Well, it's turned out that 5 is frequently better, but not always, AND that clients tend to go for the shortest of the SSIDs available. So a thought would be to create another ad-hoc standard for deprecating 2.4 ghz, and have the shorter SSID be the 5ghz one. Ideas for the 2ghz channel: CEROwrt-legacy CEROwrt2 I'm not huge on legacy because it's rather long but am stuck for standards, I'd like a default 2.4 ghz SSID that clearly indicates the real use to which 2.4ghz is suitable, like: CEROwrt-GET-OFF-MY-BABY-MONITOR-YOU-FREAK ideas for another ssid naming standard slightly longer than a single digit that would make sense to mom? -- Dave Täht Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
Re: [Cerowrt-devel] treating 2.4ghz as -legacy?
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013, Dave Taht wrote: I have long used 5 as an indicator that the 5ghz channel was better. This goes back to a long thread on nanog, like 4? 5? years ago, where the hope was to train users that 5 was better. Well, it's turned out that 5 is frequently better, but not always, AND that clients tend to go for the shortest of the SSIDs available. So a thought would be to create another ad-hoc standard for deprecating 2.4 ghz, and have the shorter SSID be the 5ghz one. Ideas for the 2ghz channel: CEROwrt-legacy CEROwrt2 I'm not huge on legacy because it's rather long but am stuck for standards, I'd like a default 2.4 ghz SSID that clearly indicates the real use to which 2.4ghz is suitable, like: CEROwrt-GET-OFF-MY-BABY-MONITOR-YOU-FREAK ideas for another ssid naming standard slightly longer than a single digit that would make sense to mom? for the Scale conference this year, we are going to use scale and scale-slow to try and discourage people from using 2.4 David Lang ___ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
