According to the link below, my understanding is the AirPort update is
mainly for Apple own product line's benefit?
http://www.macworld.com/article/139168/2009/03/airport_timecapsule_changes.html?lsrc=rss_main
Normally, Wi-Fi devices choose somewhat arbitrarily which base station
they connec
When Aruba came on our campus they explained the difference
between "Broadcom Macs" and "Atheros Mac"...we all rushed to the
computerstore
get the last Atheros based ones!
The Broadcom on Macs cannot do Short Guard Interval
The Atheros can (0x168C is for Atheros on Mac profiler)
Here is a tab
Jeff,
Thanks for the specifics.
James
On Mar 4, 2009, at 4:59 PM, Jeffrey Sessler wrote:
Concerning the channel 161 issue...
While not specific to channel 161, there is an issue with the
broadcom chipset as installed in Apple and other products. The Cisco
unified AP's broadcast a "world
Lee,
I've seen this depending on the WiFi chipset the Mac is using. For
broadcom-based, it's a transmit rate of 270. For atheros-based, it's 300. What
does System Profiler on the Mac report as the manufacture of the AirPort card?
best,
jeff
>>> Lee H Badman 3/4/2009 2:47 PM >>>
One curious no
One curious note I saw today between two Macs- one was definitely using short
guard interval as configured on the AP, along with wide-channels and no legacy
mojo to get to 300 Mbps stated data rate. But- the other would top put at 270-
would not use SGI. As far as I can tell, there's no differen
Concerning the channel 161 issue...
While not specific to channel 161, there is an issue with the broadcom chipset
as installed in Apple and other products. The Cisco unified AP's broadcast a
"world mode" information item that the client should use to determine power
level. In the case of the b
We went to Aruba when they first came out and have been very pleased with
the solution.
Regards,
-- Jim
Jim Moskwa
Manager Networks & Security
Information Technology Department
Johnson & Wales University
8 Abbott Park Place
Providence, RI 02903
Office: 401-598-1556
Fax: 401-598-1329
Email: james.
All,
Please note I am also considering Aruba controllers as a replacement for
the Bluesocket controllers, too. Your comments are greatly
appreciated
All,
I know it's a broad question with many variables but I am wondering if
anyone has replaced the use of Bluesocket controllers with the C
You right James. After I changed from channel 161 to 157, it got up to
270M on 40M channels and 130M on 20M channel. But but it stuck back to
54M again after a while.
David Wang Networking Services, CCS
www.uoguelph.ca 519-824-4120 ext 52046
On 4-Mar-09, at 3:23 PM, James Nesbitt wrote:
We did it. They're not 100% identical products, but we're happy with
what we have and that we don't have bluesocket maintenance any more.
Feel free to ask for more details.
-Rick
Johnson, Ken wrote:
All,
I know it’s a broad question with many variables but I am wondering if
anyone has repl
All,
I know it's a broad question with many variables but I am wondering if
anyone has replaced the use of Bluesocket controllers with the Cisco
WiSM controllers and preserved or enhanced the features and
functionality within their wireless network while using APs from other
venders? I am consider
David,
In your output, the channel reading does not indicate bonding (channel
number followed by ,1 for above or ,-1 for below). Also, the SNR
listed in this output is excellent, this client should have an MCS
data rate of 14 or 15. Try changing the AP channel to anything but
161. I ha
Thanks for sharing that. It would be good to hear if anyone can confirm that it
helps.
I see a grand total of 11 words of "release notes." Geez.
Pete Morrissey
From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv
[mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.
Thanks James. Here is my output:
ccs-nss-macbook:~ nsteam$ /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/
Apple80211.framework/Versions/Current/Resources/airport -I
agrCtlRSSI: -55
agrExtRSSI: 0
agrCtlNoise: -95
agrExtNoise: 0
state: running
op mode: station
lastTxR
David,
Make sure that you have WMM enabled on the WLAN. This is under QoS on the WLAN
configuration on cisco WLC/WCS. It needs to be on to enable 802.11n rates.
Also, make sure wide-channel is enabled (40MHz).
To confirm what the Mac thinks is going on, enable the display of the WLAN icon
in t
Confirm what MCS rate you are connecting at, signal strength, and
noise. Is your Mac client really bonding (should have a channel number
with + or -1)? Make sure all of your data rates are enabled for the A
band as well.
user-111-123-111-1:~ $ /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/
Apple80211
I am testing Mac OS X 10.5.6 with cisco 1140 a/b/g/n APs, but only see
the AirPort's speed up to 78M with 802.11n once, most time it stuck at
54M of 802.11a. Another Linksys 802.11n card can easily up to 240M
with 40M channel on 802.11a/n. Do I miss something?
David Wang Networking Servic
Looks like Apple is listening:
http://support.apple.com/downloads/AirPort_Client_Update_2009_001
About AirPort Client Update 2009-001
This update is recommended for all Intel-based Macintosh computers
running Mac OS X 10.5.6.
It addresses issues with roaming and network selection in dual-ban
18 matches
Mail list logo
