It helped both believe it or not. The close clients had a problem with the AP hearing them because the AP was broadcasting too loud so that the far clients could hear (is how I understand it). Additionally, detuning made the close clients seem equal to the far clients so they could not step all over the signal from the far clients.
Remember physic, waves to cancel out need to be of EQUAL strength.. so theory is, the stronger closer device is still being heard even though there is destructive interference. (i.e. only a portion of its signal is being cancelled), but the remaining signal is still strong enough to hog the AP.. (i.e. Ethernet "retry" mechanisms do not take hold because the AP and closer CPE think all is honky dorey) Now if the issue is the AP not being able to hear the far clients (i.e. the far clients hear the AP fine, but the AP can't hear them back, remember, RF is a two way street, both have to hear each other), this will not help. (remember.. this was a trango game) Again, all theory.. just know it worked.. for Trango that is.. Scott -----Original Message----- From: "Blazen Wireless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:39:48 -0700 Subject: Re: [smartBridges] one user affecting traffic > Okay so Detuning the CLOSE clients helped the FAR clients or detuning > the > close clients helped the close clients? because I am having problems > with > the far clients. I can turn down the power on the near clients but I > think I > tried that already but am willing to try again.. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "shoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11:01 AM > Subject: Re: [smartBridges] one user affecting traffic > > > It does allow you to de-tune the rf signal (i.e. take it to -5 dbm), > but > that doesn't help what we call "gleaning" issue. I.e. where you have > one > close client and one far away client. To reach the far away client, > you > end up with an AP that may be too strong for the closer client > > (This seemed strange to me, because I could detune the AP to a point > where the far client could not here the AP anymore, and was getting > diminishing returns on the AP to SU(client) side.. (i.e.the close in > client started losing packets because it could not hear the AP..) > > But, based on a suggestion, we were told to turn the close in SU > (client) > away from the AP a little (physical detuning) to see if the side lobes > got better signal characteristics.. Wallah.. it did. Now I am no RF > engineer, and from what I understood from the RF engineer that > recommended this, there was no "science" to this.. it just worked. > So.. > my assumption (untested) is this may actually help in the 2.4 area as > well... Anybody have insite? > > Damn, here I am, a Chemical Engineer wishing I paid more attention to > those mandatory EE classes I had to take... > > Scott > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Blazen Wireless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:41:30 -0700 > Subject: Re: [smartBridges] one user affecting traffic > > > I thought the Trango gear does that automatically?? > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "shoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:29 AM > > Subject: RE: [smartBridges] one user affecting traffic > > > > > > You should try the trango trick on customers that are closer in. > I.e. > > turn the Client device so its "detuned" so that its signal strength > at > > the tower is equivalent to the ones further out. It worked on our > > Trangto gear. Goiung to try it on the 802.11 stuff. See if it > helps.. > > > > Scott > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: "Breiland, Derek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:31:39 -0500 > > Subject: RE: [smartBridges] one user affecting traffic > > > > > 75%-90% seems to be a pretty large fluctuation. If you are truly > > > getting as > > > high as 90% I would not expect it to drop below 85% - ever. 80% at > > the > > > very > > > minimum with peaks to 90%. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Del Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:04 AM > > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > > Subject: FW: [smartBridges] one user affecting traffic > > > > > > Scott, > > > The lowest link qual that the APPO sees for the clients is about > 60%, > > > most > > > of the link qualities shown on the APPO are 75 - 90%. Looking at > the > > > statistics tabs on the APPO, shows 360 failed packets, 16 aged > > packets, > > > and > > > zero retries, on the wireless side. It shows no errors on the > > Ethernet > > > side > > > of the APPO and 16,000 singledefered packets. It has been about 10 > > days > > > since the counters were reset on the APPO. > > > > > > We have all of the ABT radios set for auto fallback on the rate > > setting > > > and > > > the APPO set for auto fallback also with all of the rates selected > > (11, > > > 5.5, > > > 2, & 1 Mbps). > > > > > > I'm not certain what you mean about the rate negotiation in the > last > > > sentence of your reply. > > > Kind regards, > > > Del > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: shoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:50 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Del Thompson > > > Subject: Re: [smartBridges] one user affecting traffic > > > > > > > > > Del, > > > > > > I have noticed this problem (and I run a Cisco AP). It isn't a > > problem > > > but ht e nature of the beast (maybe). What link quality does your > > APPO > > > see for the ABTs? What we have noticed is that the ABT's see the > > > towers > > > much better than the Towers see the ABT's. And in actuality, we > > > actually see large re-try counts (no, lowering frag has not helped) > > and > > > we also believe that the radio's are actually talking at 1 MBps up, > > and > > > therefore usable bandwidth is much smaller (600kbps?.. ) and with > > the > > > retries, one customer allowed at 256 can eat-up all that 600 kbps > > > pretty > > > fast... > > > > > > Btw.. Save me some reading time.. in the rate negotiation, do the > > > systems > > > negotiate well both ways (i.e. Client to AP is as controlling in > rate > > > setting as AP to client?) > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Del Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:36:23 -0500 > > > Subject: [smartBridges] one user affecting traffic > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > I have the following setup: > > > > ISP >> router >> backhaul >> router >> Mikrotic (bandwidth > control > > > > unit) >> > > > > APPO >> ABT > > > > > > > > This particular APPO has 30 customers all using the ABT's. > > > > > > > > All customers are bandwidth limited at the tower site by the > > > MiKrotic, > > > > most > > > > customers are 256Kbps down, 128Kbps up. The maximum bandwidth > > > > purchased on > > > > this APPO is 512kbps/512Kbps. > > > > > > > > The problem I've noticed is if a particular customer is doing a > > > > download > > > > that lasts several minutes, every other user on that access point > > > sees > > > > a > > > > severe degradation in service. The other customers on that AP > see > > > > download > > > > speeds drop to about 128Kbps and uploads drop to about 64Kbps. > In > > > > other > > > > words, they see a decrease to about 1/2 of what they should have. > > > > > > > > We tried setting the RTS threshold on the ABT's to 500 and this > had > > > no > > > > noticable effect. (APPO RTS & Fragmentation left as default > > setting) > > > > Then we lowered the RTS threshold to 256 on all of the ABT's, > > again, > > > > this > > > > had no noticable effect. > > > > We have not set the fragmentation threshold on any of our radios. > > > > > > > > We started noticing this phenomena when the number of associated > > > radios > > > > on > > > > the APPO reached 20. > > > > > > > > My question is, has anyone else seen this behavior and is there a > > > fix? > > > > > > > > APPO firmware is 1.4j.8, ABT firmware is 0.01.07 > > > > > > > > Thank you in advance for any feedback. > > > > Del > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- > > > > Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV > > > > http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm > > > > > > > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > > > > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > > > > smartBridges <yournickname> > > > > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type > > unsubscribe > > > > smartBridges) > > > > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > > > ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- > > > Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV > > > http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm > > > > > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > > > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > > > smartBridges <yournickname> > > > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type > unsubscribe > > > smartBridges) > > > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > > > ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- > > > Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV > > > http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm > > > > > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > > > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > > > smartBridges <yournickname> > > > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type > unsubscribe > > > smartBridges) > > > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > > > > ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- > > Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV > > http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm > > > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > > smartBridges <yournickname> > > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe > > smartBridges) > > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > > > > > > ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- > > Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV > > http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm > > > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > > smartBridges <yournickname> > > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe > > smartBridges) > > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > > ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- > Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV > http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > smartBridges <yournickname> > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe > smartBridges) > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org > > > ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- > Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV > http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm > > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe > smartBridges <yournickname> > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe > smartBridges) > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://archives.part-15.org
