RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans
Yup Just to clarify RF profiles work on the RRM platform , it just provides a more control on the variables that feed into the RRM decision making algorithm. One of the many applications is controlling how neighbor AP react if the primary goes down with minimal performance impacts to all connected devices... Both Cisco and Aruba offer customization of their RRM /Client Match algorithm... Glenn -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jeffrey D. Sessler Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:48 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans I would agree with you if we’re talking older code, but in 8.2 and beyond, static plans (channel or power) don’t seem to be a great idea. A static plan can’t compensate for changes in the RF environment, especially when you toss in flexible radio assignment, where you can have an AP changing its function, necessitating a possible recalculation of channels and power. Have an AP go down and RRM (and associated acronyms such as COF – coverage overlap factor) will compensate, negating the coverage hole. Jeff On 5/31/17, 1:05 PM, "The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf of Glenn Rodrigues" wrote: Hello Team RRM doesn't quite work well "out of the box" for high density Wi-Fi foot print. The key is to tweak RRM as per your user requirements (device type, application bandwidth) + what you designed for from a layer 1 (power/channel allocation) on a platform like Ekahau Using RF profiles per building or per floor you can tweak the client load, max and min data rates and transmit powers + many more variables.. you can achieve the best of both worlds (RRM scalability + consistency of static channel/power plan) My 2 cents ___ Glenn Rodrigues, PMP|CWNA|CWAP|CWSP|CWDP Senior Wireless & Mobility Architect OIT Network Engineering & Operations T 303 492 2193 C 720 934 2565 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Smith, Todd Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:47 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans Jeff, That is extremely interesting from a Cisco perspective and while we don't run Cisco here; that is very interesting about the channel bias building over time. What metrics does the RRM and DCA use to change channels? Is that something that you would adjust or is the preset defaults adequate for the channel adjustments? Our dense AP deployment favored 40 MHz channels since we didn't see a benefit to using 80MHz channels with the client mix that we have but I have not seen an 80MHz strategy like the FlexDFS. If I were using 80MHz then that would be a highly desirable feature. Todd -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jeffrey D. Sessler Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 10:35 To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans At least on the Cisco side, their RRM (radio resource management) and DCA (dynamic channel assignment) are so good that even the Cisco guys that once promoted static plans back nearly 10 years ago admitted it now does a much better job than a human. Environments change, so letting the magic-sauce do the work is the right answer. These technologies are more important if you have advanced WAP’s that can swap one of the radios between 2.4 and 5, where you absolutely need computer-managed channel (and width) assignments. Couple of other important points. DFS – On later Cisco code (8.2 plus), it will track radar events in the DFS channels and will avoid use of channels with a high incidence of radar events i.e. no ping-ponging between to a bad channel. There is also persistent device avoidance. With CleanAir WAPs, it will build channel bias based on interference over time i.e. if it sees a microware from time to time, it will avoid that channel, even during quiet times. FlexDFS - DFS Channel changes with 80MHz – Cisco also does something interesting when running 80-wide channels. In most vendor implementations, a radar event in any of the 20MHz segments forces abandonment of the entire 80MHz-wide space – that’s 30 minute loss of a huge chunk of space. Cisco abandons the problematic 20MHz segment and reconfigure for 40 or 20MHz channel. Clients are happy, and you don’t force a complicate
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans
I would agree with you if we’re talking older code, but in 8.2 and beyond, static plans (channel or power) don’t seem to be a great idea. A static plan can’t compensate for changes in the RF environment, especially when you toss in flexible radio assignment, where you can have an AP changing its function, necessitating a possible recalculation of channels and power. Have an AP go down and RRM (and associated acronyms such as COF – coverage overlap factor) will compensate, negating the coverage hole. Jeff On 5/31/17, 1:05 PM, "The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf of Glenn Rodrigues" wrote: Hello Team RRM doesn't quite work well "out of the box" for high density Wi-Fi foot print. The key is to tweak RRM as per your user requirements (device type, application bandwidth) + what you designed for from a layer 1 (power/channel allocation) on a platform like Ekahau Using RF profiles per building or per floor you can tweak the client load, max and min data rates and transmit powers + many more variables.. you can achieve the best of both worlds (RRM scalability + consistency of static channel/power plan) My 2 cents ___ Glenn Rodrigues, PMP|CWNA|CWAP|CWSP|CWDP Senior Wireless & Mobility Architect OIT Network Engineering & Operations T 303 492 2193 C 720 934 2565 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Smith, Todd Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:47 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans Jeff, That is extremely interesting from a Cisco perspective and while we don't run Cisco here; that is very interesting about the channel bias building over time. What metrics does the RRM and DCA use to change channels? Is that something that you would adjust or is the preset defaults adequate for the channel adjustments? Our dense AP deployment favored 40 MHz channels since we didn't see a benefit to using 80MHz channels with the client mix that we have but I have not seen an 80MHz strategy like the FlexDFS. If I were using 80MHz then that would be a highly desirable feature. Todd -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jeffrey D. Sessler Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 10:35 To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans At least on the Cisco side, their RRM (radio resource management) and DCA (dynamic channel assignment) are so good that even the Cisco guys that once promoted static plans back nearly 10 years ago admitted it now does a much better job than a human. Environments change, so letting the magic-sauce do the work is the right answer. These technologies are more important if you have advanced WAP’s that can swap one of the radios between 2.4 and 5, where you absolutely need computer-managed channel (and width) assignments. Couple of other important points. DFS – On later Cisco code (8.2 plus), it will track radar events in the DFS channels and will avoid use of channels with a high incidence of radar events i.e. no ping-ponging between to a bad channel. There is also persistent device avoidance. With CleanAir WAPs, it will build channel bias based on interference over time i.e. if it sees a microware from time to time, it will avoid that channel, even during quiet times. FlexDFS - DFS Channel changes with 80MHz – Cisco also does something interesting when running 80-wide channels. In most vendor implementations, a radar event in any of the 20MHz segments forces abandonment of the entire 80MHz-wide space – that’s 30 minute loss of a huge chunk of space. Cisco abandons the problematic 20MHz segment and reconfigure for 40 or 20MHz channel. Clients are happy, and you don’t force a complicated (and possibly disruptive) channel change. Jeff == CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. If this e-mail contains protected health information, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, except as permitted by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans
Hello Team RRM doesn't quite work well "out of the box" for high density Wi-Fi foot print. The key is to tweak RRM as per your user requirements (device type, application bandwidth) + what you designed for from a layer 1 (power/channel allocation) on a platform like Ekahau Using RF profiles per building or per floor you can tweak the client load, max and min data rates and transmit powers + many more variables.. you can achieve the best of both worlds (RRM scalability + consistency of static channel/power plan) My 2 cents ___ Glenn Rodrigues, PMP|CWNA|CWAP|CWSP|CWDP Senior Wireless & Mobility Architect OIT Network Engineering & Operations T 303 492 2193 C 720 934 2565 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Smith, Todd Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:47 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans Jeff, That is extremely interesting from a Cisco perspective and while we don't run Cisco here; that is very interesting about the channel bias building over time. What metrics does the RRM and DCA use to change channels? Is that something that you would adjust or is the preset defaults adequate for the channel adjustments? Our dense AP deployment favored 40 MHz channels since we didn't see a benefit to using 80MHz channels with the client mix that we have but I have not seen an 80MHz strategy like the FlexDFS. If I were using 80MHz then that would be a highly desirable feature. Todd -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jeffrey D. Sessler Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 10:35 To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans At least on the Cisco side, their RRM (radio resource management) and DCA (dynamic channel assignment) are so good that even the Cisco guys that once promoted static plans back nearly 10 years ago admitted it now does a much better job than a human. Environments change, so letting the magic-sauce do the work is the right answer. These technologies are more important if you have advanced WAP’s that can swap one of the radios between 2.4 and 5, where you absolutely need computer-managed channel (and width) assignments. Couple of other important points. DFS – On later Cisco code (8.2 plus), it will track radar events in the DFS channels and will avoid use of channels with a high incidence of radar events i.e. no ping-ponging between to a bad channel. There is also persistent device avoidance. With CleanAir WAPs, it will build channel bias based on interference over time i.e. if it sees a microware from time to time, it will avoid that channel, even during quiet times. FlexDFS - DFS Channel changes with 80MHz – Cisco also does something interesting when running 80-wide channels. In most vendor implementations, a radar event in any of the 20MHz segments forces abandonment of the entire 80MHz-wide space – that’s 30 minute loss of a huge chunk of space. Cisco abandons the problematic 20MHz segment and reconfigure for 40 or 20MHz channel. Clients are happy, and you don’t force a complicated (and possibly disruptive) channel change. Jeff == CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. If this e-mail contains protected health information, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, except as permitted by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans
Cisco does start with “best practice” metrics, but you can turn knobs – mine are at defaults. A lot of the setting start with basic low/med/high sensitivity. Cisco added DBS (dynamic bandwidth selection), which wraps into RRM, FlexDFS, etc (way too many acronyms). Basically, you set the global maximum channel width (typically 80 MHz), and using all the collected data including the percentage of a/n/ac clients in the area of each WAP, sets the appropriate bandwidth. In our residential halls, we have a dense 5 GHz deployment, and most of our students have 802.11ac-capable clients (mostly apple). As such, DBS runs a majority of radios at 80MHz, with a smattering of 40/20 if the client percentage (majority of a/n) warrant it. For the ac clients e.g. mac laptops, I see most sitting at 1170 or 1300 TX rates. This white paper has a lot of the details. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/technotes/8-3/b_RRM_White_Paper.html Jeff On 5/31/17, 7:47 AM, "The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf of Smith, Todd" wrote: Jeff, That is extremely interesting from a Cisco perspective and while we don't run Cisco here; that is very interesting about the channel bias building over time. What metrics does the RRM and DCA use to change channels? Is that something that you would adjust or is the preset defaults adequate for the channel adjustments? Our dense AP deployment favored 40 MHz channels since we didn't see a benefit to using 80MHz channels with the client mix that we have but I have not seen an 80MHz strategy like the FlexDFS. If I were using 80MHz then that would be a highly desirable feature. Todd -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jeffrey D. Sessler Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 10:35 To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans At least on the Cisco side, their RRM (radio resource management) and DCA (dynamic channel assignment) are so good that even the Cisco guys that once promoted static plans back nearly 10 years ago admitted it now does a much better job than a human. Environments change, so letting the magic-sauce do the work is the right answer. These technologies are more important if you have advanced WAP’s that can swap one of the radios between 2.4 and 5, where you absolutely need computer-managed channel (and width) assignments. Couple of other important points. DFS – On later Cisco code (8.2 plus), it will track radar events in the DFS channels and will avoid use of channels with a high incidence of radar events i.e. no ping-ponging between to a bad channel. There is also persistent device avoidance. With CleanAir WAPs, it will build channel bias based on interference over time i.e. if it sees a microware from time to time, it will avoid that channel, even during quiet times. FlexDFS - DFS Channel changes with 80MHz – Cisco also does something interesting when running 80-wide channels. In most vendor implementations, a radar event in any of the 20MHz segments forces abandonment of the entire 80MHz-wide space – that’s 30 minute loss of a huge chunk of space. Cisco abandons the problematic 20MHz segment and reconfigure for 40 or 20MHz channel. Clients are happy, and you don’t force a complicated (and possibly disruptive) channel change. Jeff == CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. If this e-mail contains protected health information, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, except as permitted by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans
Jeff, That is extremely interesting from a Cisco perspective and while we don't run Cisco here; that is very interesting about the channel bias building over time. What metrics does the RRM and DCA use to change channels? Is that something that you would adjust or is the preset defaults adequate for the channel adjustments? Our dense AP deployment favored 40 MHz channels since we didn't see a benefit to using 80MHz channels with the client mix that we have but I have not seen an 80MHz strategy like the FlexDFS. If I were using 80MHz then that would be a highly desirable feature. Todd -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jeffrey D. Sessler Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 10:35 To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans At least on the Cisco side, their RRM (radio resource management) and DCA (dynamic channel assignment) are so good that even the Cisco guys that once promoted static plans back nearly 10 years ago admitted it now does a much better job than a human. Environments change, so letting the magic-sauce do the work is the right answer. These technologies are more important if you have advanced WAP’s that can swap one of the radios between 2.4 and 5, where you absolutely need computer-managed channel (and width) assignments. Couple of other important points. DFS – On later Cisco code (8.2 plus), it will track radar events in the DFS channels and will avoid use of channels with a high incidence of radar events i.e. no ping-ponging between to a bad channel. There is also persistent device avoidance. With CleanAir WAPs, it will build channel bias based on interference over time i.e. if it sees a microware from time to time, it will avoid that channel, even during quiet times. FlexDFS - DFS Channel changes with 80MHz – Cisco also does something interesting when running 80-wide channels. In most vendor implementations, a radar event in any of the 20MHz segments forces abandonment of the entire 80MHz-wide space – that’s 30 minute loss of a huge chunk of space. Cisco abandons the problematic 20MHz segment and reconfigure for 40 or 20MHz channel. Clients are happy, and you don’t force a complicated (and possibly disruptive) channel change. Jeff == CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. If this e-mail contains protected health information, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, except as permitted by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans
At least on the Cisco side, their RRM (radio resource management) and DCA (dynamic channel assignment) are so good that even the Cisco guys that once promoted static plans back nearly 10 years ago admitted it now does a much better job than a human. Environments change, so letting the magic-sauce do the work is the right answer. These technologies are more important if you have advanced WAP’s that can swap one of the radios between 2.4 and 5, where you absolutely need computer-managed channel (and width) assignments. Couple of other important points. DFS – On later Cisco code (8.2 plus), it will track radar events in the DFS channels and will avoid use of channels with a high incidence of radar events i.e. no ping-ponging between to a bad channel. There is also persistent device avoidance. With CleanAir WAPs, it will build channel bias based on interference over time i.e. if it sees a microware from time to time, it will avoid that channel, even during quiet times. FlexDFS - DFS Channel changes with 80MHz – Cisco also does something interesting when running 80-wide channels. In most vendor implementations, a radar event in any of the 20MHz segments forces abandonment of the entire 80MHz-wide space – that’s 30 minute loss of a huge chunk of space. Cisco abandons the problematic 20MHz segment and reconfigure for 40 or 20MHz channel. Clients are happy, and you don’t force a complicated (and possibly disruptive) channel change. Jeff On 5/30/17, 5:31 AM, "The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf of Smith, Todd" wrote: In my efforts to continuous improve the wireless experience here; I occasionally like to revisit some of my assumptions to see if they are still valid. What is the current consensus around channel plans for both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz ranges? Do organizations plan a static channel plan for potentially thousands of access points or have the channel selection algorithms matured enough to be truly useful now? If you use static channel plans, are there tools that you use to build those plans? Do they handle 3 dimensions or are you mapping the channels across an 2D floor? If you use dynamic channel plans, are there tools that you use to build those plans? What parameters or metrics are being used to select a channel? Is the issue of 2.4 GHz radios constantly changing channels still a valid concern? If you are using 5 GHz DFS channels, do you have any concerns about clients not being able to hear those channels and having "dead spots". Thanks for the input! Todd Smith Charleston Area Medical Center == CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. If this e-mail contains protected health information, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, except as permitted by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans
Locally, our airport code is CRW, Charleston West Virginia and I have not had to turn off any DFS channel due to interference concerns. Obviously, some clients can’t see all of those channels but I have not had to disable any. Todd From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Edward Ip Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:23 To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans Oops my bad…we disable channel 120, 124, and 128 for the weather station not 144. Edward Ip Algonquin College | 1385 Woodroffe Avenue | Room C316 | Ottawa | Ontario | K2G 1V8 | Canada https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__algonquincollege.com&d=DwIGaQ&c=2GaipCMI-4CXTl0y2l8grQS3faC7QKiDQZYpyUtD00M&r=7X-vXFH8lhperH4PHdmXwvaMvzUVeh5xfN49DSclJycHY5Xrcl5OPEMsSJsuPn4R&m=TvU8lBOhgPqXolnvCWe_JEZBy8MajU1iqjj0ggS180M&s=PaUPo4nZE5jB62sJabeORqf2WcPJ_VuIBPGto9wFKH4&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__algonquincollege.com&d=DwQGaQ&c=2GaipCMI-4CXTl0y2l8grQS3faC7QKiDQZYpyUtD00M&r=uvxIRDMxwssmr2VjVNRe6I_MeNT0SmtowN9dpqcMAFc&m=qqNiRrFwdOjo4p8_FrVfAB5i75ThGeyZmhvCFv-QsN0&s=Ti9iq6dWc2cuA_SwjwIg5w00XIX8ddOMYj24edIrZFw&e=> == CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. If this e-mail contains protected health information, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, except as permitted by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans
What tool did you use to generate this chart? Is this from your network monitoring platform? Todd From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jeremy Gibbs Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:43 To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans I made a graph of % of clients that can/can't use what 5 Ghz channel. [cid:image002.png@01D2D957.29C64ED0] -- Jeremy L. Gibbs Sr. Network Engineer Utica College IITS T: (315) 223-2383 F: (315) 792-3814 E: jlgi...@utica.edu<mailto:jlgi...@utica.edu> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.utica.edu-5Butica.edu-5D&d=DwIGaQ&c=2GaipCMI-4CXTl0y2l8grQS3faC7QKiDQZYpyUtD00M&r=7X-vXFH8lhperH4PHdmXwvaMvzUVeh5xfN49DSclJycHY5Xrcl5OPEMsSJsuPn4R&m=3xhDiM4iyMTb286OA4EKlmvqQdSqgpP57xve1N156jE&s=MsyMNG7YyXOXDodu0DKuh7wE0QNmpcL1BL13kEKADP4&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.utica.edu&d=DwMFaQ&c=2GaipCMI-4CXTl0y2l8grQS3faC7QKiDQZYpyUtD00M&r=uvxIRDMxwssmr2VjVNRe6I_MeNT0SmtowN9dpqcMAFc&m=LMC3ZcluKimnmisHDTru8G1PqhqD3-GnBIkue6RfJ2Q&s=h6qjYeq5Amxh_8KK6fdn5CxRBkdvuk7LXrbEq9FLvCo&e=> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Edward Ip mailto:i...@algonquincollege.com>> wrote: Oops my bad…we disable channel 120, 124, and 128 for the weather station not 144. Edward Ip Algonquin College | 1385 Woodroffe Avenue | Room C316 | Ottawa | Ontario | K2G 1V8 | Canada algonquincollege.com[https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__algonquincollege.com&d=DwIGaQ&c=2GaipCMI-4CXTl0y2l8grQS3faC7QKiDQZYpyUtD00M&r=7X-vXFH8lhperH4PHdmXwvaMvzUVeh5xfN49DSclJycHY5Xrcl5OPEMsSJsuPn4R&m=3xhDiM4iyMTb286OA4EKlmvqQdSqgpP57xve1N156jE&s=76aUZ7NVS3lhkcUXEYLQpt6-SQoqidoM7CnBqzpORso&e= ]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__algonquincollege.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=2GaipCMI-4CXTl0y2l8grQS3faC7QKiDQZYpyUtD00M&r=uvxIRDMxwssmr2VjVNRe6I_MeNT0SmtowN9dpqcMAFc&m=LMC3ZcluKimnmisHDTru8G1PqhqD3-GnBIkue6RfJ2Q&s=7-qA5zvj67JdIeSsY-Bp_jxr-y4M48Z50RRhFcGq0VI&e=> From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>] On Behalf Of Edward Ip Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans I don’t know about your region, but we are located in Ottawa, Canada and we have turned off Channel 144 due to a weather radar station located near our city. Could be a possible source. Regards, Edward Ip Algonquin College | 1385 Woodroffe Avenue | Room C316 | Ottawa | Ontario | K2G 1V8 | Canada algonquincollege.com[https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__algonquincollege.com&d=DwIGaQ&c=2GaipCMI-4CXTl0y2l8grQS3faC7QKiDQZYpyUtD00M&r=7X-vXFH8lhperH4PHdmXwvaMvzUVeh5xfN49DSclJycHY5Xrcl5OPEMsSJsuPn4R&m=3xhDiM4iyMTb286OA4EKlmvqQdSqgpP57xve1N156jE&s=76aUZ7NVS3lhkcUXEYLQpt6-SQoqidoM7CnBqzpORso&e= ]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__algonquincollege.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=2GaipCMI-4CXTl0y2l8grQS3faC7QKiDQZYpyUtD00M&r=uvxIRDMxwssmr2VjVNRe6I_MeNT0SmtowN9dpqcMAFc&m=LMC3ZcluKimnmisHDTru8G1PqhqD3-GnBIkue6RfJ2Q&s=7-qA5zvj67JdIeSsY-Bp_jxr-y4M48Z50RRhFcGq0VI&e=> From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Smith, Todd Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:09 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans Hello Jon, Thanks for the input! Aruba’s ARM is frequently been cited as the poster child for dynamic channel plans. I am not using Aruba here but it is probably my next upgrade choice unless something better comes long. Does ARM detect if an AP goes down and adjust TX power and/or channel accordingly? Were you ever able to identify your DFS source on channel 144? Our core facilities are near a regional airport that also serves the Air National Guard and I don’t see DFS timeouts. I have read that sometimes false positives can be generated in DFS channels and channel switches in response. Todd From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Miller Todd, We are an Aruba shop using dynamic channel plans. We let Aruba's ARM (Adaptive Radio Management) decide on the best channel for each radio, and in some cases, give it the ability to turn off a 2.4 radio if it detects that there's too much co-channel interference in an area. ARM will not switch channels if there is a client associated to a radio, except in the case of an emergency (DFS beacon, etc). We also let it pic
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans
Todd, The Aruba equipment reports a radar event once in a while for channel 144; we are assuming that it's because we are close to a small airport. Even if it were a false positive, I'm not inclined to try to use the channel if there is a chance that clients will get knocked off. Based on the info that others have posted here, I think I'd avoid 144 even if we weren't near an airport. Learn something new every day! The best practice with ARM right now is to set it to a range of 3-6 dBm for Tx power. The general wisdom, we are told, is that this prevents having a few APs that start screaming and others that back way off to try to reduce CCI. So the short answer is kind of. ARM can adjust to the top of the specified range, but will not go past that even to compensate for a down neighbor. We are still in the process of our Aruba migration, and it's really been going well. We worked with a great VAR to get us bootstrapped, and now we're chugging right along. We have seen a dramatic drop in the number of wireless complaints with the new Aruba equipment. Jonathan Miller Network Analyst Franklin and Marshall College On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Smith, Todd wrote: > Hello Jon, > > > > Thanks for the input! Aruba’s ARM is frequently been cited as the poster > child for dynamic channel plans. I am not using Aruba here but it is > probably my next upgrade choice unless something better comes long. > > > > Does ARM detect if an AP goes down and adjust TX power and/or channel > accordingly? > > > > Were you ever able to identify your DFS source on channel 144? Our core > facilities are near a regional airport that also serves the Air National > Guard and I don’t see DFS timeouts. I have read that sometimes false > positives can be generated in DFS channels and channel switches in response. > > > > Todd > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto: > WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Miller > > > > Todd, > > > > We are an Aruba shop using dynamic channel plans. > > > > We let Aruba's ARM (Adaptive Radio Management) decide on the best channel > for each radio, and in some cases, give it the ability to turn off a 2.4 > radio if it detects that there's too much co-channel interference in an > area. ARM will not switch channels if there is a client associated to a > radio, except in the case of an emergency (DFS beacon, etc). We also let > it pick the Tx power within a range that we specify (typically 12 - 15 EIRP > on 5GHz, lower on the 2.4). > > > > ARM has some secret sauce about how it decides which channel is best, and > has some parameters that we can tune, but we haven't really fiddled with > the knobs too much. > > > > We are using DFS channels, but we haven't had complaints about clients > that can't see them. I suspect that part of the reason that we haven't had > complaints about dead spots is that we have a pretty dense deployment, so > in our res halls, a client should be able to see at 3-4 APs, and the odds > of all of them running on a channel that a given client does not support > seems to be slim enough. Also, it may be that we just got lucky and don't > have too many older 5GHz radios around that don't support all DFS > channels. We have disabled channel 144 because we did see some beacon > events on it, but all other 5GHz channels are enabled. > > > -- > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be > privileged and confidential. If this e-mail contains protected health > information, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution > or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, except as > permitted by law. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting it > from your computer. Thank you > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/ > discuss. > > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans
We are a Cisco shop and we discovered that channel 144 is not even available for APs in -A domain(for Canada). This channel is available for -B domain APs(for US). Although we enable channel 144 globally at the controller, none of our APs can pick up it. When I try to manually set channel 144 for an AP, this channel is not available from the drop down list. I was very curious about this and opened a TAC case. I was told channel 144 is not available for -A domain APs. I am not sure if it is same for other vendors. We use Cisco RRM to automatically manage channel and power settings. We enabled all DFS channels and discovered radar events on most of these channels. We receive alerts from Prime Infrastructure about radar events. If we find a radar event, we have to disable that channel. In the end, only four DFS channels are usable to us: 120,124,128, 136. Dennis Xu University of Guelph 519-824-4120 Ext 56217 d...@uoguelph.ca www.uoguelph.ca/ccs From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf of Kitri Waterman Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:44:47 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans Older clients that support DFS may still not support 144. We have left 144 off as we (gradually) roll out DFS to more of our locations. “Channel 144 was only added for WiFi use in 2013, with the emergence of 802.11ac, in order to support an additional 80 MHz channel. Hence, older 802.11n client devices and some access points do not recognize and therefore cannot operate on Channel 144.” http://www.networkcomputing.com/wireless/channel-bonding-wifi-rules-and-regulations/199326059 Also, Aruba ARM should only get even better as the Rasa analytics become more integrated: http://www.networkworld.com/article/3067760/big-data-business-intelligence/hpe-aruba-buys-networking-analysis-company-rasa-networks.html Kitri Waterman - Network Engineer, UW-IT University of Washington 4545 15th Ave NE Seattle, WA 98105 www.uw.edu From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf of Edward Ip Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 8:23 AM To: "WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU" Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans Oops my bad…we disable channel 120, 124, and 128 for the weather station not 144. Edward Ip Algonquin College | 1385 Woodroffe Avenue | Room C316 | Ottawa | Ontario | K2G 1V8 | Canada algonquincollege.com From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Edward Ip Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans I don’t know about your region, but we are located in Ottawa, Canada and we have turned off Channel 144 due to a weather radar station located near our city. Could be a possible source. Regards, Edward Ip Algonquin College | 1385 Woodroffe Avenue | Room C316 | Ottawa | Ontario | K2G 1V8 | Canada algonquincollege.com From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Smith, Todd Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:09 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans Hello Jon, Thanks for the input! Aruba’s ARM is frequently been cited as the poster child for dynamic channel plans. I am not using Aruba here but it is probably my next upgrade choice unless something better comes long. Does ARM detect if an AP goes down and adjust TX power and/or channel accordingly? Were you ever able to identify your DFS source on channel 144? Our core facilities are near a regional airport that also serves the Air National Guard and I don’t see DFS timeouts. I have read that sometimes false positives can be generated in DFS channels and channel switches in response. Todd From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Miller Todd, We are an Aruba shop using dynamic channel plans. We let Aruba's ARM (Adaptive Radio Management) decide on the best channel for each radio, and in some cases, give it the ability to turn off a 2.4 radio if it detects that there's too much co-channel interference in an area. ARM will not switch channels if there is a client associated to a radio, except in the case of an emergency (DFS beacon, etc). We also let it pick the Tx power within a range that we specify (typically 12 - 15 EIRP on 5GHz, lower on the 2.4). ARM has some secret sauce about how it decides which channel is best, and has some parameters that we can tune, but we haven't really fiddled with the knobs too much. We are using D
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans
Older clients that support DFS may still not support 144. We have left 144 off as we (gradually) roll out DFS to more of our locations. “Channel 144 was only added for WiFi use in 2013, with the emergence of 802.11ac, in order to support an additional 80 MHz channel. Hence, older 802.11n client devices and some access points do not recognize and therefore cannot operate on Channel 144.” http://www.networkcomputing.com/wireless/channel-bonding-wifi-rules-and-regulations/199326059 Also, Aruba ARM should only get even better as the Rasa analytics become more integrated: http://www.networkworld.com/article/3067760/big-data-business-intelligence/hpe-aruba-buys-networking-analysis-company-rasa-networks.html Kitri Waterman - Network Engineer, UW-IT University of Washington 4545 15th Ave NE Seattle, WA 98105 www.uw.edu From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf of Edward Ip Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 8:23 AM To: "WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU" Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans Oops my bad…we disable channel 120, 124, and 128 for the weather station not 144. Edward Ip Algonquin College | 1385 Woodroffe Avenue | Room C316 | Ottawa | Ontario | K2G 1V8 | Canada algonquincollege.com From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Edward Ip Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans I don’t know about your region, but we are located in Ottawa, Canada and we have turned off Channel 144 due to a weather radar station located near our city. Could be a possible source. Regards, Edward Ip Algonquin College | 1385 Woodroffe Avenue | Room C316 | Ottawa | Ontario | K2G 1V8 | Canada algonquincollege.com From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Smith, Todd Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:09 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans Hello Jon, Thanks for the input! Aruba’s ARM is frequently been cited as the poster child for dynamic channel plans. I am not using Aruba here but it is probably my next upgrade choice unless something better comes long. Does ARM detect if an AP goes down and adjust TX power and/or channel accordingly? Were you ever able to identify your DFS source on channel 144? Our core facilities are near a regional airport that also serves the Air National Guard and I don’t see DFS timeouts. I have read that sometimes false positives can be generated in DFS channels and channel switches in response. Todd From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Miller Todd, We are an Aruba shop using dynamic channel plans. We let Aruba's ARM (Adaptive Radio Management) decide on the best channel for each radio, and in some cases, give it the ability to turn off a 2.4 radio if it detects that there's too much co-channel interference in an area. ARM will not switch channels if there is a client associated to a radio, except in the case of an emergency (DFS beacon, etc). We also let it pick the Tx power within a range that we specify (typically 12 - 15 EIRP on 5GHz, lower on the 2.4). ARM has some secret sauce about how it decides which channel is best, and has some parameters that we can tune, but we haven't really fiddled with the knobs too much. We are using DFS channels, but we haven't had complaints about clients that can't see them. I suspect that part of the reason that we haven't had complaints about dead spots is that we have a pretty dense deployment, so in our res halls, a client should be able to see at 3-4 APs, and the odds of all of them running on a channel that a given client does not support seems to be slim enough. Also, it may be that we just got lucky and don't have too many older 5GHz radios around that don't support all DFS channels. We have disabled channel 144 because we did see some beacon events on it, but all other 5GHz channels are enabled. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. If this e-mail contains protected health information, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, except as permitted by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans
I made a graph of % of clients that can/can't use what 5 Ghz channel. [image: Inline image 1] *--Jeremy L. Gibbs* Sr. Network Engineer Utica College IITS T: (315) 223-2383 F: (315) 792-3814 E: jlgi...@utica.edu http://www.utica.edu On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Edward Ip wrote: > Oops my bad…we disable channel 120, 124, and 128 for the weather station > not 144. > > > > *Edward Ip* > > *Algonquin College* | 1385 Woodroffe Avenue | Room C316 | Ottawa | Ontario > | K2G 1V8 | Canada > > algonquincollege.com > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto: > WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Edward Ip > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:18 AM > > *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans > > > > I don’t know about your region, but we are located in Ottawa, Canada and > we have turned off Channel 144 due to a weather radar station located near > our city. Could be a possible source. > > > > Regards, > > *Edward Ip* > > *Algonquin College* | 1385 Woodroffe Avenue | Room C316 | Ottawa | Ontario > | K2G 1V8 | Canada > > algonquincollege.com > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [ > mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > ] *On Behalf Of *Smith, Todd > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:09 AM > *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans > > > > Hello Jon, > > > > Thanks for the input! Aruba’s ARM is frequently been cited as the poster > child for dynamic channel plans. I am not using Aruba here but it is > probably my next upgrade choice unless something better comes long. > > > > Does ARM detect if an AP goes down and adjust TX power and/or channel > accordingly? > > > > Were you ever able to identify your DFS source on channel 144? Our core > facilities are near a regional airport that also serves the Air National > Guard and I don’t see DFS timeouts. I have read that sometimes false > positives can be generated in DFS channels and channel switches in response. > > > > Todd > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [ > mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > ] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Miller > > > > Todd, > > > > We are an Aruba shop using dynamic channel plans. > > > > We let Aruba's ARM (Adaptive Radio Management) decide on the best channel > for each radio, and in some cases, give it the ability to turn off a 2.4 > radio if it detects that there's too much co-channel interference in an > area. ARM will not switch channels if there is a client associated to a > radio, except in the case of an emergency (DFS beacon, etc). We also let > it pick the Tx power within a range that we specify (typically 12 - 15 EIRP > on 5GHz, lower on the 2.4). > > > > ARM has some secret sauce about how it decides which channel is best, and > has some parameters that we can tune, but we haven't really fiddled with > the knobs too much. > > > > We are using DFS channels, but we haven't had complaints about clients > that can't see them. I suspect that part of the reason that we haven't had > complaints about dead spots is that we have a pretty dense deployment, so > in our res halls, a client should be able to see at 3-4 APs, and the odds > of all of them running on a channel that a given client does not support > seems to be slim enough. Also, it may be that we just got lucky and don't > have too many older 5GHz radios around that don't support all DFS > channels. We have disabled channel 144 because we did see some beacon > events on it, but all other 5GHz channels are enabled. > > > -- > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be > privileged and confidential. If this e-mail contains protected health > information, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution > or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, except as > permitted by law. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting it > from your computer. Thank you > > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/ > discuss. > > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/ > discuss. > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/ > discuss. > > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans
Oops my bad…we disable channel 120, 124, and 128 for the weather station not 144. Edward Ip Algonquin College | 1385 Woodroffe Avenue | Room C316 | Ottawa | Ontario | K2G 1V8 | Canada algonquincollege.com From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Edward Ip Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:18 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans I don’t know about your region, but we are located in Ottawa, Canada and we have turned off Channel 144 due to a weather radar station located near our city. Could be a possible source. Regards, Edward Ip Algonquin College | 1385 Woodroffe Avenue | Room C316 | Ottawa | Ontario | K2G 1V8 | Canada algonquincollege.com From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Smith, Todd Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:09 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans Hello Jon, Thanks for the input! Aruba’s ARM is frequently been cited as the poster child for dynamic channel plans. I am not using Aruba here but it is probably my next upgrade choice unless something better comes long. Does ARM detect if an AP goes down and adjust TX power and/or channel accordingly? Were you ever able to identify your DFS source on channel 144? Our core facilities are near a regional airport that also serves the Air National Guard and I don’t see DFS timeouts. I have read that sometimes false positives can be generated in DFS channels and channel switches in response. Todd From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Miller Todd, We are an Aruba shop using dynamic channel plans. We let Aruba's ARM (Adaptive Radio Management) decide on the best channel for each radio, and in some cases, give it the ability to turn off a 2.4 radio if it detects that there's too much co-channel interference in an area. ARM will not switch channels if there is a client associated to a radio, except in the case of an emergency (DFS beacon, etc). We also let it pick the Tx power within a range that we specify (typically 12 - 15 EIRP on 5GHz, lower on the 2.4). ARM has some secret sauce about how it decides which channel is best, and has some parameters that we can tune, but we haven't really fiddled with the knobs too much. We are using DFS channels, but we haven't had complaints about clients that can't see them. I suspect that part of the reason that we haven't had complaints about dead spots is that we have a pretty dense deployment, so in our res halls, a client should be able to see at 3-4 APs, and the odds of all of them running on a channel that a given client does not support seems to be slim enough. Also, it may be that we just got lucky and don't have too many older 5GHz radios around that don't support all DFS channels. We have disabled channel 144 because we did see some beacon events on it, but all other 5GHz channels are enabled. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. If this e-mail contains protected health information, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, except as permitted by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans
I don’t know about your region, but we are located in Ottawa, Canada and we have turned off Channel 144 due to a weather radar station located near our city. Could be a possible source. Regards, Edward Ip Algonquin College | 1385 Woodroffe Avenue | Room C316 | Ottawa | Ontario | K2G 1V8 | Canada algonquincollege.com From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Smith, Todd Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:09 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans Hello Jon, Thanks for the input! Aruba’s ARM is frequently been cited as the poster child for dynamic channel plans. I am not using Aruba here but it is probably my next upgrade choice unless something better comes long. Does ARM detect if an AP goes down and adjust TX power and/or channel accordingly? Were you ever able to identify your DFS source on channel 144? Our core facilities are near a regional airport that also serves the Air National Guard and I don’t see DFS timeouts. I have read that sometimes false positives can be generated in DFS channels and channel switches in response. Todd From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Miller Todd, We are an Aruba shop using dynamic channel plans. We let Aruba's ARM (Adaptive Radio Management) decide on the best channel for each radio, and in some cases, give it the ability to turn off a 2.4 radio if it detects that there's too much co-channel interference in an area. ARM will not switch channels if there is a client associated to a radio, except in the case of an emergency (DFS beacon, etc). We also let it pick the Tx power within a range that we specify (typically 12 - 15 EIRP on 5GHz, lower on the 2.4). ARM has some secret sauce about how it decides which channel is best, and has some parameters that we can tune, but we haven't really fiddled with the knobs too much. We are using DFS channels, but we haven't had complaints about clients that can't see them. I suspect that part of the reason that we haven't had complaints about dead spots is that we have a pretty dense deployment, so in our res halls, a client should be able to see at 3-4 APs, and the odds of all of them running on a channel that a given client does not support seems to be slim enough. Also, it may be that we just got lucky and don't have too many older 5GHz radios around that don't support all DFS channels. We have disabled channel 144 because we did see some beacon events on it, but all other 5GHz channels are enabled. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. If this e-mail contains protected health information, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, except as permitted by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans
Hello Jon, Thanks for the input! Aruba’s ARM is frequently been cited as the poster child for dynamic channel plans. I am not using Aruba here but it is probably my next upgrade choice unless something better comes long. Does ARM detect if an AP goes down and adjust TX power and/or channel accordingly? Were you ever able to identify your DFS source on channel 144? Our core facilities are near a regional airport that also serves the Air National Guard and I don’t see DFS timeouts. I have read that sometimes false positives can be generated in DFS channels and channel switches in response. Todd From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Miller Todd, We are an Aruba shop using dynamic channel plans. We let Aruba's ARM (Adaptive Radio Management) decide on the best channel for each radio, and in some cases, give it the ability to turn off a 2.4 radio if it detects that there's too much co-channel interference in an area. ARM will not switch channels if there is a client associated to a radio, except in the case of an emergency (DFS beacon, etc). We also let it pick the Tx power within a range that we specify (typically 12 - 15 EIRP on 5GHz, lower on the 2.4). ARM has some secret sauce about how it decides which channel is best, and has some parameters that we can tune, but we haven't really fiddled with the knobs too much. We are using DFS channels, but we haven't had complaints about clients that can't see them. I suspect that part of the reason that we haven't had complaints about dead spots is that we have a pretty dense deployment, so in our res halls, a client should be able to see at 3-4 APs, and the odds of all of them running on a channel that a given client does not support seems to be slim enough. Also, it may be that we just got lucky and don't have too many older 5GHz radios around that don't support all DFS channels. We have disabled channel 144 because we did see some beacon events on it, but all other 5GHz channels are enabled. == CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. If this e-mail contains protected health information, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, except as permitted by law. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Dynamic vs Static Channel Plans
Todd, We are an Aruba shop using dynamic channel plans. We let Aruba's ARM (Adaptive Radio Management) decide on the best channel for each radio, and in some cases, give it the ability to turn off a 2.4 radio if it detects that there's too much co-channel interference in an area. ARM will not switch channels if there is a client associated to a radio, except in the case of an emergency (DFS beacon, etc). We also let it pick the Tx power within a range that we specify (typically 12 - 15 EIRP on 5GHz, lower on the 2.4). ARM has some secret sauce about how it decides which channel is best, and has some parameters that we can tune, but we haven't really fiddled with the knobs too much. We are using DFS channels, but we haven't had complaints about clients that can't see them. I suspect that part of the reason that we haven't had complaints about dead spots is that we have a pretty dense deployment, so in our res halls, a client should be able to see at 3-4 APs, and the odds of all of them running on a channel that a given client does not support seems to be slim enough. Also, it may be that we just got lucky and don't have too many older 5GHz radios around that don't support all DFS channels. We have disabled channel 144 because we did see some beacon events on it, but all other 5GHz channels are enabled. We have been running several dorms like this for about a year and have had very few complaints. Hope this helps, Jon Jonathan Miller Network Analyst Franklin and Marshall College On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Smith, Todd wrote: > In my efforts to continuous improve the wireless experience here; I > occasionally like to revisit some of my assumptions to see if they are > still valid. What is the current consensus around channel plans for both > 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz ranges? Do organizations plan a static channel plan for > potentially thousands of access points or have the channel selection > algorithms matured enough to be truly useful now? > > If you use static channel plans, are there tools that you use to build > those plans? Do they handle 3 dimensions or are you mapping the channels > across an 2D floor? > > If you use dynamic channel plans, are there tools that you use to build > those plans? What parameters or metrics are being used to select a > channel? Is the issue of 2.4 GHz radios constantly changing channels still > a valid concern? If you are using 5 GHz DFS channels, do you have any > concerns about clients not being able to hear those channels and having > "dead spots". > > Thanks for the input! > > Todd Smith > Charleston Area Medical Center > > == > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be > privileged and confidential. If this e-mail contains protected health > information, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution > or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, except as > permitted by law. If you have received this communication in error, please > notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting it > from your computer. Thank you > > ** > Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent > Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss. > ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
