sk1939 Premium Member join:2010-10-23 Frederick, MD ARRIS SB8200 Ubiquiti UDM-Pro Juniper SRX320
1 recommendation |
sk1939
Premium Member
2014-Jun-1 11:05 pm
802.11AC5 things to know about 802.11AC » www.zdnet.com/the-five-t ··· 0017112/For the enterprise people, things they didn't tell you about second-gen 802.11AC. » www.networkcomputing.com ··· 1234220?The short version: 2nd generation 802.11ac will require two switch ports and two cable runs per access point. Simple AP uplinks now become port channels. Joy. |
|
|
So can anyone -- the 802.11ac committee, the WIFI Alliance, the HW vendors, Bob off the street, ANYONE?! -- explain the obvious contradiction between this statement quote: 802.11ac is not going to give you a Gigabit of throughput
and this statement? quote: is that second-wave 802.11ac APs will require two, not one, Gigabit Ethernet ports.
IIRC, I seem to recall statements to the effect 802.11n had but actually didn't need GigE interfaces. Is it just a case of "scaling the uplink to the expected traffic patterns?" Otherwise, a pretty good read, thx for sharing sk1939 Regards |
|
koolman2 Premium Member join:2002-10-01 Anchorage, AK |
to sk1939
I don't understand why this would be necessary. Is it for higher throughput? If that's the reason, the push for widespread adoption of 10 Gbps Ethernet should be underway instead of this nightmare. |
|
Weasel Premium Member join:2001-12-03 Minnesota |
to sk1939
My only guesses would be either power needs (although that could be alleviated with PoE+), or one run for each radio (2.4Ghz and 5Ghz). |
|
sk1939 Premium Member join:2010-10-23 Frederick, MD ARRIS SB8200 Ubiquiti UDM-Pro Juniper SRX320
|
to koolman2
said by koolman2:I don't understand why this would be necessary. Is it for higher throughput? If that's the reason, the push for widespread adoption of 10 Gbps Ethernet should be underway instead of this nightmare. As far the two port requirement, there are two possible reasons; power needs, although PoE+ provides 70W as it is I believe, and/or two radios. |
|
Weasel Premium Member join:2001-12-03 Minnesota |
Weasel
Premium Member
2014-Jun-2 2:22 pm
said by sk1939:said by koolman2:I don't understand why this would be necessary. Is it for higher throughput? If that's the reason, the push for widespread adoption of 10 Gbps Ethernet should be underway instead of this nightmare. As far the two port requirement, there are two possible reasons; power needs, although PoE+ provides 70W as it is I believe, and/or two radios. PoE+ provides 25w I believe per standard. Cisco I think has an Ultra PoE that can push 60w. |
|
sk1939 Premium Member join:2010-10-23 Frederick, MD ARRIS SB8200 Ubiquiti UDM-Pro Juniper SRX320
|
sk1939
Premium Member
2014-Jun-2 3:49 pm
said by Weasel:said by sk1939:said by koolman2:I don't understand why this would be necessary. Is it for higher throughput? If that's the reason, the push for widespread adoption of 10 Gbps Ethernet should be underway instead of this nightmare. As far the two port requirement, there are two possible reasons; power needs, although PoE+ provides 70W as it is I believe, and/or two radios. PoE+ provides 25w I believe per standard. Cisco I think has an Ultra PoE that can push 60w. Possible, although there are limitations on the wire that I forgot about. Given the voltage and size of the conductors, the limit is a maximum of 36W per pair, and 32W after 100m (factoring in voltage drop). PoE PoE Plus UPOE Minimum cable type Cat5e Cat5e Cat5e IEEE standard definition 802.3af 802.3at Cisco proprietary Maximum power per PSE port 15.4W 30W 60W Maximum power to PD 12.95W 25.5W 51W Twisted pair used 2-pair 2-pair 4-pair |
|
koolman2 Premium Member join:2002-10-01 Anchorage, AK |
to sk1939
So this would only apply to devices that get power via PoE. Devices that have a power cord would not. |
|
sk1939 Premium Member join:2010-10-23 Frederick, MD ARRIS SB8200 Ubiquiti UDM-Pro Juniper SRX320
|
sk1939
Premium Member
2014-Jun-2 3:57 pm
said by koolman2:So this would only apply to devices that get power via PoE. Devices that have a power cord would not. While the article is from an enterprise point of view (most installations of AP's are PoE) it remains to be seen if it is just a power requirement, or if there is something more to it. |
|