Sascha:
In a recent briefing with Meru they claimed that the Wi-Fi Alliance
requested that their equipment be re-tested to verify the claims of
interference. Meru said that the Wi-Fi Alliance gave their equipment a
clean bill of health, so it's possible that concerns of their product
causing inte
Mike:
I'm in general agreement, but any wireless-based rogue suppression is going
to generate additional wireless traffic, and in doing so, make it slightly
more difficult for other clients, AP's, or wireless phones to communicate.
But you're right, it's not like some jammers that just blast the w
thanks for the info! we've just begun replacing some of the radios
in our Aironet 1200 APs with dot11g radios and I hadn't
considered OFDM might not work quite the same as CCK with the 4 channel
overlap.
-
Gabriel Kuri | Operating Systems & Network Analyst
Instructional and Information Techn
The other caveat here is that the Cirond testing was performed with older
Prism II chip sets from Intersil (now Conexant). My understanding is that
there were some unique properties of those chip sets that made them more
conducive to the 4-channel model and that this model is not as applicable to
m
caveat!
Univ. of TN tested and implemented the 4 channels (1, 4, 7,
11) in 2000 and was very pleased
with it until we upgraded to 802.11g (3 months ago)
OFDM seems to be more sensitive to the channel overlap.
Philippe Hanset
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Gabriel Kuri wrote:
> you may want to check out t
you may want to check out this paper from Cirond. it discusses
from an RF perspective, the use of 4 channels, given the
overlap is very small with a negligible amount
of interference.
http://www.cirond.com/pdf/FourPoint.pdf
-
Gabriel Kuri | Operating Systems & Network Analyst
Instructional
