RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof)
That's good news to hear, we are hoping to upgrade over the summer for next year. -- Jason Cook The University of Adelaide, AUSTRALIA 5005 Ph: +61 8 8313 4800 e-mail: jason.c...@adelaide.edu.au<mailto:jason.c...@adelaide.edu.au<mailto:jason.c...@adelaide.edu.au%3cmailto:jason.c...@adelaide.edu.au>> From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Christopher Michael Allison Sent: Thursday, 6 November 2014 4:22 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof) Actually Jason we use in production at Southern Illinois University. As far as client seamlessly roaming from AP to AP not sure if it will help. 8.0 itself hasn't really been a burden for us to use. CHRISTOPHER ALLISON Network Technician Information Technology Mail Code 4622 625 Wham Drive Carbondale, Illinois 62901 chris.m.alli...@siu.edu<mailto:chris.m.alli...@siu.edu> P:618/453-6283 F:618/453-5261 INFOTECH.SIU.EDU netweb.it.siu.edu/net_profile.php Sent from Samsung S4 Original message From: Jason Cook Date:11/05/2014 19:07 (GMT-06:00) To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof) On that, has anyone been using 8.0 in production and how is it going? It's on our dev controller but we have had not time to play quite yet apart from upgrading and ensuring we can connect and use our main SSID's. There's certainly some good features, but like many others am pretty concerned about the potential pains of the upgrade. Had enough issues in 7.6.120, and that wasn't even first release of 7.6 I note that MR1 is out in Beta, https://supportforums.cisco.com/document/7721/wireless-lan-alerts -- Jason Cook The University of Adelaide, AUSTRALIA 5005 Ph: +61 8 8313 4800 e-mail: jason.c...@adelaide.edu.au<mailto:jason.c...@adelaide.edu.au<mailto:jason.c...@adelaide.edu.au%3cmailto:jason.c...@adelaide.edu.au>> -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Watters, John Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2014 3:43 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof) I'm hearing the same thing. Maybe by Christmas break. But more probably by Spring break. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 4, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Bradley Williams mailto:bwil...@clemson.edu<mailto:bwil...@clemson.edu%3cmailto:bwil...@clemson.edu>>> wrote: I think that has always been a problem with Cisco on our campus. I believe the last conversation I had with our SE about that said the 8.0 code had some improvements to client roaming addressing that. I just wouldn't trust using 8.0 code for another 6 months(my general wait time for bug fixes with Cisco) Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Mega(tm). Please excuse grammatical errors. Original message From: "Watters, John" Date:11/04/2014 9:05 PM (GMT-05:00) To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU%3cmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof) I meant latching onto an AP not a controller. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 4, 2014, at 8:01 PM, Watters, John > mailto:john.watt...@ua.edu<mailto:john.watt...@ua.edu%3cmailto:john.watt...@ua.edu>>> > wrote: > > We use both. Band select does seem to help push users to 5 GHz but doesn't > seem to have any effect on our problem with latching onto a controller and > not wanting to until after hell has frozen over. > > Load balancing does not seem to have an effect that we notice. Maybe I need > to look for a DEBUG that give me some insight into load balancing. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 4, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Kitri Waterman > mailto:ki...@uoregon.edu<mailto:ki...@uoregon.edu%3cmailto:ki...@uoregon.edu>><mailto:ki...@uoregon.edu>> > wrote: > > Hey John, > > Is this with Load Balancing and/or Band Select enabled on your WISM2's? > > There was some positive talk here awhile back about how far both features > have come and also client support for them. > > We're just beginning to test both features in our shop. > > Kitri Waterman > -- > Network Engineer (Wireless) > Information Services > University of Oregon > > > > On 11/4/14 1:22 PM, Watters, John wrote: > > We have a continuing problem with clients devices which refuse to move to an > AP that provides a much better signal. For exam
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof)
Actually Jason we use in production at Southern Illinois University. As far as client seamlessly roaming from AP to AP not sure if it will help. 8.0 itself hasn't really been a burden for us to use. CHRISTOPHER ALLISON Network Technician Information Technology Mail Code 4622 625 Wham Drive Carbondale, Illinois 62901 chris.m.alli...@siu.edu P:618/453-6283 F:618/453-5261 INFOTECH.SIU.EDU netweb.it.siu.edu/net_profile.php Sent from Samsung S4 Original message From: Jason Cook Date:11/05/2014 19:07 (GMT-06:00) To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof) On that, has anyone been using 8.0 in production and how is it going? It's on our dev controller but we have had not time to play quite yet apart from upgrading and ensuring we can connect and use our main SSID's. There's certainly some good features, but like many others am pretty concerned about the potential pains of the upgrade. Had enough issues in 7.6.120, and that wasn't even first release of 7.6 I note that MR1 is out in Beta, https://supportforums.cisco.com/document/7721/wireless-lan-alerts -- Jason Cook The University of Adelaide, AUSTRALIA 5005 Ph: +61 8 8313 4800 e-mail: jason.c...@adelaide.edu.au<mailto:jason.c...@adelaide.edu.au> -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Watters, John Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2014 3:43 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof) I'm hearing the same thing. Maybe by Christmas break. But more probably by Spring break. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 4, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Bradley Williams mailto:bwil...@clemson.edu>> wrote: I think that has always been a problem with Cisco on our campus. I believe the last conversation I had with our SE about that said the 8.0 code had some improvements to client roaming addressing that. I just wouldn't trust using 8.0 code for another 6 months(my general wait time for bug fixes with Cisco) Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Mega(tm). Please excuse grammatical errors. Original message From: "Watters, John" Date:11/04/2014 9:05 PM (GMT-05:00) To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof) I meant latching onto an AP not a controller. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 4, 2014, at 8:01 PM, Watters, John > mailto:john.watt...@ua.edu>> wrote: > > We use both. Band select does seem to help push users to 5 GHz but doesn't > seem to have any effect on our problem with latching onto a controller and > not wanting to until after hell has frozen over. > > Load balancing does not seem to have an effect that we notice. Maybe I need > to look for a DEBUG that give me some insight into load balancing. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 4, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Kitri Waterman > mailto:ki...@uoregon.edu><mailto:ki...@uoregon.edu>> wrote: > > Hey John, > > Is this with Load Balancing and/or Band Select enabled on your WISM2's? > > There was some positive talk here awhile back about how far both features > have come and also client support for them. > > We're just beginning to test both features in our shop. > > Kitri Waterman > -- > Network Engineer (Wireless) > Information Services > University of Oregon > > > > On 11/4/14 1:22 PM, Watters, John wrote: > > We have a continuing problem with clients devices which refuse to move to an > AP that provides a much better signal. For example, students entering a > classroom typically have at least one WiFi device active when they enter the > room (e.g., their phone) and maybe more (e.g.,, tablet, laptop, etc). As has > been the case for years, the default client behavior seems to continue to be > to hold on to the original AP association until it becomes unusable, then > move to the best signal for where they currently are. I know that recent > Windows machines have settings to control how aggressive the radio is in > moving to a better AP. Surely UNIX-based machines can also do the same. We > encourage our laptop users to take advantage of a more aggressive setting. > And, we use the Cisco load-balancing stuff to also try to help. > > But, we still see the problem. > > Now, we are getting complaints about phones (iPhones & Android). users cannot > infinitely wander around a residence hall or Greek house without getting > small breaks in service (about 1 second or less) when they finally move from > one AP to one with a much stronger (and clearer) signal. > > Does anyone know
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof)
On that, has anyone been using 8.0 in production and how is it going? It's on our dev controller but we have had not time to play quite yet apart from upgrading and ensuring we can connect and use our main SSID's. There's certainly some good features, but like many others am pretty concerned about the potential pains of the upgrade. Had enough issues in 7.6.120, and that wasn't even first release of 7.6 I note that MR1 is out in Beta, https://supportforums.cisco.com/document/7721/wireless-lan-alerts -- Jason Cook The University of Adelaide, AUSTRALIA 5005 Ph: +61 8 8313 4800 e-mail: jason.c...@adelaide.edu.au<mailto:jason.c...@adelaide.edu.au> -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Watters, John Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2014 3:43 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof) I'm hearing the same thing. Maybe by Christmas break. But more probably by Spring break. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 4, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Bradley Williams mailto:bwil...@clemson.edu>> wrote: I think that has always been a problem with Cisco on our campus. I believe the last conversation I had with our SE about that said the 8.0 code had some improvements to client roaming addressing that. I just wouldn't trust using 8.0 code for another 6 months(my general wait time for bug fixes with Cisco) Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Mega(tm). Please excuse grammatical errors. Original message From: "Watters, John" Date:11/04/2014 9:05 PM (GMT-05:00) To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof) I meant latching onto an AP not a controller. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 4, 2014, at 8:01 PM, Watters, John > mailto:john.watt...@ua.edu>> wrote: > > We use both. Band select does seem to help push users to 5 GHz but doesn't > seem to have any effect on our problem with latching onto a controller and > not wanting to until after hell has frozen over. > > Load balancing does not seem to have an effect that we notice. Maybe I need > to look for a DEBUG that give me some insight into load balancing. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 4, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Kitri Waterman > mailto:ki...@uoregon.edu><mailto:ki...@uoregon.edu>> wrote: > > Hey John, > > Is this with Load Balancing and/or Band Select enabled on your WISM2's? > > There was some positive talk here awhile back about how far both features > have come and also client support for them. > > We're just beginning to test both features in our shop. > > Kitri Waterman > -- > Network Engineer (Wireless) > Information Services > University of Oregon > > > > On 11/4/14 1:22 PM, Watters, John wrote: > > We have a continuing problem with clients devices which refuse to move to an > AP that provides a much better signal. For example, students entering a > classroom typically have at least one WiFi device active when they enter the > room (e.g., their phone) and maybe more (e.g.,, tablet, laptop, etc). As has > been the case for years, the default client behavior seems to continue to be > to hold on to the original AP association until it becomes unusable, then > move to the best signal for where they currently are. I know that recent > Windows machines have settings to control how aggressive the radio is in > moving to a better AP. Surely UNIX-based machines can also do the same. We > encourage our laptop users to take advantage of a more aggressive setting. > And, we use the Cisco load-balancing stuff to also try to help. > > But, we still see the problem. > > Now, we are getting complaints about phones (iPhones & Android). users cannot > infinitely wander around a residence hall or Greek house without getting > small breaks in service (about 1 second or less) when they finally move from > one AP to one with a much stronger (and clearer) signal. > > Does anyone know anything else we can try to encourage client devices > (tablets, laptops, and phones) to change APs more aggressively? > > We are a Cisco shop using WiSM2 controllers (7.6.120.0 & 7.6.130.0) with > 5,000 APs of various models (1131, 1142, 2602, 2702, and a few 3502 & 3602s). > > > Thanks for any help/advice you can offer. > > > -jcw > > > John Watters The University of Alabama >Office of Information > Technology >
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof)
Have you looked into modifying the client roaming parameters under the wireless tab on your wism/wlc (they are usually default from what I've seen in most cases). Also, you could leverage 802.11k assisted roaming to help your devices make better roaming decisions. I haven't adjusted my client roaming parameters but have been looking into the 802.11k info more recently. Like most things, not all devices support 802.11k but it could help in your case. Another thing to look at (especially with smartphones) is the channels that your ap's are using. Are the clients not roaming because the ap is using a 5ghz channel they are unfamiliar with. I'm sure we're all aware that just because a device works in 5ghz doesn't mean it supports every 5ghz channel. Just me thinking aloud but sometimes that's the best thing :>) Craig On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Watters, John wrote: > > > We have a continuing problem with clients devices which refuse to move to > an AP that provides a much better signal. For example, students entering a > classroom typically have at least one WiFi device active when they enter > the room (e.g., their phone) and maybe more (e.g.,, tablet, laptop, etc). > As has been the case for years, the default client behavior seems to > continue to be to hold on to the original AP association until it becomes > unusable, then move to the best signal for where they currently are. I know > that recent Windows machines have settings to control how aggressive the > radio is in moving to a better AP. Surely UNIX-based machines can also do > the same. We encourage our laptop users to take advantage of a more > aggressive setting. And, we use the Cisco load-balancing stuff to also try > to help. > > > > But, we still see the problem. > > > > Now, we are getting complaints about phones (iPhones & Android). users > cannot infinitely wander around a residence hall or Greek house without > getting small breaks in service (about 1 second or less) when they finally > move from one AP to one with a much stronger (and clearer) signal. > > > > Does anyone know anything else we can try to encourage client devices > (tablets, laptops, and phones) to change APs more aggressively? > > > > We are a Cisco shop using WiSM2 controllers (7.6.120.0 & 7.6.130.0) with > 5,000 APs of various models (1131, 1142, 2602, 2702, and a few 3502 & > 3602s). > > > > > > Thanks for any help/advice you can offer. > > > > > > -jcw > [image: UA Logo] > > > > > John Watters The University of Alabama > > Office of Information > Technology > > 205-348-3992 > > > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > -- Craig Eyre Network Analyst IT Services Department Mount Royal University 4825 Mount Royal Gate SW Calgary AB T2P 3T5 P. 403.440.5199 E. ce...@mtroyal.ca "The difference between a successful person and others is not a lack of strength, not a lack of knowledge, but rather in a lack of will." Vincent T. Lombardi" "MRU IT Services or any legitimate organization will *NEVER* ask for your password. Never email or share your password with anyone.". ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof)
On 5/11/2014 10:47 pm, "McClintic, Thomas" wrote: >What you are referring to is called optimized roaming. > >http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/8-0/configuration >-guide/b_cg80/b_cg80_chapter_010011001.html > >The AP will disassociate a client to force it to roam. In theory, if your >client is sticking to an AP then your application's performance is >already degraded and the disassociation/association is less of an impact. In my experience iOS devices will, after three or so disassociations in a short period of time, stop reconnecting entirely until the user manually selects an SSID again. So I¹d be very careful with this. Aruba¹s load balancing works in a similar fashion, or at least did in the PoC I did several years ago. For iOS a better method is what Ruckus APs do, they simply don¹t respond to probes if they don¹t want the device to associate. >It is based off the RSSI from the client, very interesting feature but >use with caution! This page (which was posted here recently) details the new RSSI-based roaming behaviour in iOS 8 on recent iOS devices: http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT6463 In short it triggers roaming on -70dB RSSI, uses 802.11k and 802.11r to speed up the process. It mentions there are other criteria in different environments, but annoyingly doesn¹t provide any references. -- James Andrewartha Network & Projects Engineer Christ Church Grammar School Claremont, Western Australia Ph. (08) 9442 1757 Mob. 0424 160 877 ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof)
What you are referring to is called optimized roaming. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/8-0/configuration-guide/b_cg80/b_cg80_chapter_010011001.html The AP will disassociate a client to force it to roam. In theory, if your client is sticking to an AP then your application's performance is already degraded and the disassociation/association is less of an impact. It is based off the RSSI from the client, very interesting feature but use with caution! -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Watters, John Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 11:13 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof) I'm hearing the same thing. Maybe by Christmas break. But more probably by Spring break. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 4, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Bradley Williams https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3ABWILLI2-40CLEMSON.EDU&d=AAIF-g&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=rYfqH_8oTvcXxRxUI3x3m3Y7Nwgir7tnuoGbdZsrUM4&m=JNf3m5hnFmqNtPeg1jSGdu7HtoLg22AeSNZSCt1DIyI&s=ShZnwZ_DkwyZWeLtggvlp6iWwXUefmA0pxFpOyLo56s&e= >> wrote: I think that has always been a problem with Cisco on our campus. I believe the last conversation I had with our SE about that said the 8.0 code had some improvements to client roaming addressing that. I just wouldn't trust using 8.0 code for another 6 months(my general wait time for bug fixes with Cisco) Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Mega(tm). Please excuse grammatical errors. Original message From: "Watters, John" Date:11/04/2014 9:05 PM (GMT-05:00) To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3AWIRELESS-2DLAN-40LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU&d=AAIF-g&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=rYfqH_8oTvcXxRxUI3x3m3Y7Nwgir7tnuoGbdZsrUM4&m=JNf3m5hnFmqNtPeg1jSGdu7HtoLg22AeSNZSCt1DIyI&s=a1z_hKRXhyB5hlrjfosaxckFtP4HyRw1kl_SR86icM0&e= > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof) I meant latching onto an AP not a controller. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 4, 2014, at 8:01 PM, Watters, John > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Ajohn.watters-40UA.EDU&d=AAIF-g&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=rYfqH_8oTvcXxRxUI3x3m3Y7Nwgir7tnuoGbdZsrUM4&m=JNf3m5hnFmqNtPeg1jSGdu7HtoLg22AeSNZSCt1DIyI&s=rEhb1epnKQhIP1Sh0j5806cAZEt68GjiaSC4u_1s3uk&e= > >> wrote: > > We use both. Band select does seem to help push users to 5 GHz but doesn't > seem to have any effect on our problem with latching onto a controller and > not wanting to until after hell has frozen over. > > Load balancing does not seem to have an effect that we notice. Maybe I need > to look for a DEBUG that give me some insight into load balancing. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 4, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Kitri Waterman > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Akitri-40UOREGON.EDU&d=AAIF-g&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=rYfqH_8oTvcXxRxUI3x3m3Y7Nwgir7tnuoGbdZsrUM4&m=JNf3m5hnFmqNtPeg1jSGdu7HtoLg22AeSNZSCt1DIyI&s=_qIB3gkHei_9W-XC3FFaznsvwsKXTmRpq1J4uf0dlZA&e= > > ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailto-3Akitri-40UOREGON.EDU&d=AAIF-g&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=rYfqH_8oTvcXxRxUI3x3m3Y7Nwgir7tnuoGbdZsrUM4&m=JNf3m5hnFmqNtPeg1jSGdu7HtoLg22AeSNZSCt1DIyI&s=_qIB3gkHei_9W-XC3FFaznsvwsKXTmRpq1J4uf0dlZA&e= > >> wrote: > > Hey John, > > Is this with Load Balancing and/or Band Select enabled on your WISM2's? > > There was some positive talk here awhile back about how far both features > have come and also client support for them. > > We're just beginning to test both features in our shop. > > Kitri Waterman > -- > Network Engineer (Wireless) > Information Services > University of Oregon > > > > On 11/4/14 1:22 PM, Watters, John wrote: > > We have a continuing problem with clients devices which refuse to move to an > AP that provides a much better signal. For example, students entering a > classroom typically have at least one WiFi device active when they enter the > room (e.g., their phone) and maybe more (e.g.,, tablet, laptop, etc). As has > been the case for years, the default client behavior seems to continue to be > to hold on to the original AP association until it becomes unusable, then > move to the best signal for where they currently are. I know that recent > Windows machines have settings to control how aggressive the radio is in > moving to a better AP. Surely UNIX-based machines can also
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof)
I suspect this Aruba presentation pretty much nails the enterprise-unfriendly behavior you're seeing: http://community.arubanetworks.com/t5/Airheads-EMEA-Italy-2014-June-9/Breakout-Wi-Fi-Behavior-of-Popular-Mobile-Devices/gpm-p/163614 Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.edu| For every problem, there is a solution that Manager of Network Operations | is simple, elegant, and wrong. Worcester Polytechnic Institute | - HL Mencken On 11/04/2014 04:22 PM, Watters, John wrote: We have a continuing problem with clients devices which refuse to move to an AP that provides a much better signal. For example, students entering a classroom typically have at least one WiFi device active when they enter the room (e.g., their phone) and maybe more (e.g.,, tablet, laptop, etc). As has been the case for years, the default client behavior seems to continue to be to hold on to the original AP association until it becomes unusable, then move to the best signal for where they currently are. I know that recent Windows machines have settings to control how aggressive the radio is in moving to a better AP. Surely UNIX-based machines can also do the same. We encourage our laptop users to take advantage of a more aggressive setting. And, we use the Cisco load-balancing stuff to also try to help. But, we still see the problem. Now, we are getting complaints about phones (iPhones & Android). users cannot infinitely wander around a residence hall or Greek house without getting small breaks in service (about 1 second or less) when they finally move from one AP to one with a much stronger (and clearer) signal. Does anyone know anything else we can try to encourage client devices (tablets, laptops, and phones) to change APs more aggressively? We are a Cisco shop using WiSM2 controllers (7.6.120.0 & 7.6.130.0) with 5,000 APs of various models (1131, 1142, 2602, 2702, and a few 3502 & 3602s). Thanks for any help/advice you can offer. -jcw UA Logo *__* John Watters The University of Alabama Office of Information Technology 205-348-3992 ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof)
I'm hearing the same thing. Maybe by Christmas break. But more probably by Spring break. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 4, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Bradley Williams mailto:bwil...@clemson.edu>> wrote: I think that has always been a problem with Cisco on our campus. I believe the last conversation I had with our SE about that said the 8.0 code had some improvements to client roaming addressing that. I just wouldn't trust using 8.0 code for another 6 months(my general wait time for bug fixes with Cisco) Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Mega™. Please excuse grammatical errors. Original message From: "Watters, John" Date:11/04/2014 9:05 PM (GMT-05:00) To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof) I meant latching onto an AP not a controller. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 4, 2014, at 8:01 PM, Watters, John > mailto:john.watt...@ua.edu>> wrote: > > We use both. Band select does seem to help push users to 5 GHz but doesn't > seem to have any effect on our problem with latching onto a controller and > not wanting to until after hell has frozen over. > > Load balancing does not seem to have an effect that we notice. Maybe I need > to look for a DEBUG that give me some insight into load balancing. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 4, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Kitri Waterman > mailto:ki...@uoregon.edu><mailto:ki...@uoregon.edu>> wrote: > > Hey John, > > Is this with Load Balancing and/or Band Select enabled on your WISM2's? > > There was some positive talk here awhile back about how far both features > have come and also client support for them. > > We're just beginning to test both features in our shop. > > Kitri Waterman > -- > Network Engineer (Wireless) > Information Services > University of Oregon > > > > On 11/4/14 1:22 PM, Watters, John wrote: > > We have a continuing problem with clients devices which refuse to move to an > AP that provides a much better signal. For example, students entering a > classroom typically have at least one WiFi device active when they enter the > room (e.g., their phone) and maybe more (e.g.,, tablet, laptop, etc). As has > been the case for years, the default client behavior seems to continue to be > to hold on to the original AP association until it becomes unusable, then > move to the best signal for where they currently are. I know that recent > Windows machines have settings to control how aggressive the radio is in > moving to a better AP. Surely UNIX-based machines can also do the same. We > encourage our laptop users to take advantage of a more aggressive setting. > And, we use the Cisco load-balancing stuff to also try to help. > > But, we still see the problem. > > Now, we are getting complaints about phones (iPhones & Android). users cannot > infinitely wander around a residence hall or Greek house without getting > small breaks in service (about 1 second or less) when they finally move from > one AP to one with a much stronger (and clearer) signal. > > Does anyone know anything else we can try to encourage client devices > (tablets, laptops, and phones) to change APs more aggressively? > > We are a Cisco shop using WiSM2 controllers (7.6.120.0 & 7.6.130.0) with > 5,000 APs of various models (1131, 1142, 2602, 2702, and a few 3502 & 3602s). > > > Thanks for any help/advice you can offer. > > > -jcw > > > John Watters The University of Alabama >Office of Information > Technology >205-348-3992 > > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > ** > Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent > Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof)
I think that has always been a problem with Cisco on our campus. I believe the last conversation I had with our SE about that said the 8.0 code had some improvements to client roaming addressing that. I just wouldn't trust using 8.0 code for another 6 months(my general wait time for bug fixes with Cisco) Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Mega™. Please excuse grammatical errors. Original message From: "Watters, John" Date:11/04/2014 9:05 PM (GMT-05:00) To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof) I meant latching onto an AP not a controller. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 4, 2014, at 8:01 PM, Watters, John wrote: > > We use both. Band select does seem to help push users to 5 GHz but doesn't > seem to have any effect on our problem with latching onto a controller and > not wanting to until after hell has frozen over. > > Load balancing does not seem to have an effect that we notice. Maybe I need > to look for a DEBUG that give me some insight into load balancing. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 4, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Kitri Waterman > mailto:ki...@uoregon.edu>> wrote: > > Hey John, > > Is this with Load Balancing and/or Band Select enabled on your WISM2's? > > There was some positive talk here awhile back about how far both features > have come and also client support for them. > > We're just beginning to test both features in our shop. > > Kitri Waterman > -- > Network Engineer (Wireless) > Information Services > University of Oregon > > > > On 11/4/14 1:22 PM, Watters, John wrote: > > We have a continuing problem with clients devices which refuse to move to an > AP that provides a much better signal. For example, students entering a > classroom typically have at least one WiFi device active when they enter the > room (e.g., their phone) and maybe more (e.g.,, tablet, laptop, etc). As has > been the case for years, the default client behavior seems to continue to be > to hold on to the original AP association until it becomes unusable, then > move to the best signal for where they currently are. I know that recent > Windows machines have settings to control how aggressive the radio is in > moving to a better AP. Surely UNIX-based machines can also do the same. We > encourage our laptop users to take advantage of a more aggressive setting. > And, we use the Cisco load-balancing stuff to also try to help. > > But, we still see the problem. > > Now, we are getting complaints about phones (iPhones & Android). users cannot > infinitely wander around a residence hall or Greek house without getting > small breaks in service (about 1 second or less) when they finally move from > one AP to one with a much stronger (and clearer) signal. > > Does anyone know anything else we can try to encourage client devices > (tablets, laptops, and phones) to change APs more aggressively? > > We are a Cisco shop using WiSM2 controllers (7.6.120.0 & 7.6.130.0) with > 5,000 APs of various models (1131, 1142, 2602, 2702, and a few 3502 & 3602s). > > > Thanks for any help/advice you can offer. > > > -jcw > > > John Watters The University of Alabama >Office of Information > Technology >205-348-3992 > > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > ** > Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent > Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof)
I meant latching onto an AP not a controller. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 4, 2014, at 8:01 PM, Watters, John wrote: > > We use both. Band select does seem to help push users to 5 GHz but doesn't > seem to have any effect on our problem with latching onto a controller and > not wanting to until after hell has frozen over. > > Load balancing does not seem to have an effect that we notice. Maybe I need > to look for a DEBUG that give me some insight into load balancing. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 4, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Kitri Waterman > mailto:ki...@uoregon.edu>> wrote: > > Hey John, > > Is this with Load Balancing and/or Band Select enabled on your WISM2's? > > There was some positive talk here awhile back about how far both features > have come and also client support for them. > > We're just beginning to test both features in our shop. > > Kitri Waterman > -- > Network Engineer (Wireless) > Information Services > University of Oregon > > > > On 11/4/14 1:22 PM, Watters, John wrote: > > We have a continuing problem with clients devices which refuse to move to an > AP that provides a much better signal. For example, students entering a > classroom typically have at least one WiFi device active when they enter the > room (e.g., their phone) and maybe more (e.g.,, tablet, laptop, etc). As has > been the case for years, the default client behavior seems to continue to be > to hold on to the original AP association until it becomes unusable, then > move to the best signal for where they currently are. I know that recent > Windows machines have settings to control how aggressive the radio is in > moving to a better AP. Surely UNIX-based machines can also do the same. We > encourage our laptop users to take advantage of a more aggressive setting. > And, we use the Cisco load-balancing stuff to also try to help. > > But, we still see the problem. > > Now, we are getting complaints about phones (iPhones & Android). users cannot > infinitely wander around a residence hall or Greek house without getting > small breaks in service (about 1 second or less) when they finally move from > one AP to one with a much stronger (and clearer) signal. > > Does anyone know anything else we can try to encourage client devices > (tablets, laptops, and phones) to change APs more aggressively? > > We are a Cisco shop using WiSM2 controllers (7.6.120.0 & 7.6.130.0) with > 5,000 APs of various models (1131, 1142, 2602, 2702, and a few 3502 & 3602s). > > > Thanks for any help/advice you can offer. > > > -jcw > > > John Watters The University of Alabama >Office of Information > Technology >205-348-3992 > > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > ** > Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent > Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof)
We use both. Band select does seem to help push users to 5 GHz but doesn't seem to have any effect on our problem with latching onto a controller and not wanting to until after hell has frozen over. Load balancing does not seem to have an effect that we notice. Maybe I need to look for a DEBUG that give me some insight into load balancing. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 4, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Kitri Waterman mailto:ki...@uoregon.edu>> wrote: Hey John, Is this with Load Balancing and/or Band Select enabled on your WISM2's? There was some positive talk here awhile back about how far both features have come and also client support for them. We're just beginning to test both features in our shop. Kitri Waterman -- Network Engineer (Wireless) Information Services University of Oregon On 11/4/14 1:22 PM, Watters, John wrote: We have a continuing problem with clients devices which refuse to move to an AP that provides a much better signal. For example, students entering a classroom typically have at least one WiFi device active when they enter the room (e.g., their phone) and maybe more (e.g.,, tablet, laptop, etc). As has been the case for years, the default client behavior seems to continue to be to hold on to the original AP association until it becomes unusable, then move to the best signal for where they currently are. I know that recent Windows machines have settings to control how aggressive the radio is in moving to a better AP. Surely UNIX-based machines can also do the same. We encourage our laptop users to take advantage of a more aggressive setting. And, we use the Cisco load-balancing stuff to also try to help. But, we still see the problem. Now, we are getting complaints about phones (iPhones & Android). users cannot infinitely wander around a residence hall or Greek house without getting small breaks in service (about 1 second or less) when they finally move from one AP to one with a much stronger (and clearer) signal. Does anyone know anything else we can try to encourage client devices (tablets, laptops, and phones) to change APs more aggressively? We are a Cisco shop using WiSM2 controllers (7.6.120.0 & 7.6.130.0) with 5,000 APs of various models (1131, 1142, 2602, 2702, and a few 3502 & 3602s). Thanks for any help/advice you can offer. -jcw John Watters The University of Alabama Office of Information Technology 205-348-3992 ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Client Roaming (or, Actually, Lack Thereof)
Hey John, Is this with Load Balancing and/or Band Select enabled on your WISM2's? There was some positive talk here awhile back about how far both features have come and also client support for them. We're just beginning to test both features in our shop. Kitri Waterman -- Network Engineer (Wireless) Information Services University of Oregon On 11/4/14 1:22 PM, Watters, John wrote: > > > > We have a continuing problem with clients devices which refuse to move > to an AP that provides a much better signal. For example, students > entering a classroom typically have at least one WiFi device active > when they enter the room (e.g., their phone) and maybe more (e.g.,, > tablet, laptop, etc). As has been the case for years, the default > client behavior seems to continue to be to hold on to the original AP > association until it becomes unusable, then move to the best signal > for where they currently are. I know that recent Windows machines have > settings to control how aggressive the radio is in moving to a better > AP. Surely UNIX-based machines can also do the same. We encourage our > laptop users to take advantage of a more aggressive setting. And, we > use the Cisco load-balancing stuff to also try to help. > > > > But, we still see the problem. > > > > Now, we are getting complaints about phones (iPhones & Android). users > cannot infinitely wander around a residence hall or Greek house > without getting small breaks in service (about 1 second or less) when > they finally move from one AP to one with a much stronger (and > clearer) signal. > > > > Does anyone know anything else we can try to encourage client devices > (tablets, laptops, and phones) to change APs more aggressively? > > > > We are a Cisco shop using WiSM2 controllers (7.6.120.0 & 7.6.130.0) > with 5,000 APs of various models (1131, 1142, 2602, 2702, and a few > 3502 & 3602s). > > > > > > Thanks for any help/advice you can offer. > > > > > > -jcw > > UA Logo > > *_ > > _* > > John Watters The University of Alabama > > Office of Information > Technology > > 205-348-3992 > > > > ** Participation and subscription information for this > EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
