amerigowire
join:2004-07-27
Vacaville, CA
| Best 802.11b AP, period, $$ doesn't matter
Allot of AP's I have tried seem to peter out at 45 connection pretty badly... Who has the most pwerfull AP to support many connections? I run out of AP HP before bandwidth...
Was going to try Microtik next, Demarc looks good but have read a few posts about them locking up. has that been fixed, I really want to give them a try.
Thanks guys
Bill |
|
polk5
join:2001-12-29
New Orleans, LA | If I was looking for more than 45 clients on one A/P and money was no object I would be on 5.8 for sure. How much B/W you giveing these clients anyway? Business and Resedential mix%? |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to amerigowire
Excluding the ability for the AP to forward packets due to processor limits, the realistic limitation of any 802.11b AP regardless of manufacturer is going to be 45 users. It's not a matter of how much bandwidth it's the efficiency of 802.11b in an outdoor environment.
You'll find many manufacturers claiming a higher number of users, but reality is they don't match up.
This is where a proprietary solution is needed. |
|
IntraLink
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-14
Utah Valley
| reply to amerigowire
I have to agree that 45 users is going to be the max if you are expecting megabit speeds from 802.11b.
If your AP's are maxed you could try adding more AP's. If you have the space you could do 6 Ap's at one location by having 3 on vertical polarity and 3 on horizontal at channels 1, 6 and 11 I guess.
Otherwise, do what others have suggested; get a proprietary solution and add it to your mix. |
|
snowpro2000
join:2004-06-13
Canada | what kind of proprietary solution do you suggest? |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to amerigowire
The type of solution is going to vary based on your budget and needs. Personal preference is going to play into it as well, for example look at the airhaul nexus. Some people are going to like it for it's simplicity, personally I'm looking for something that's not simple. |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
 ·CenturyLink
| reply to IntraLink
said by IntraLink  :If your AP's are maxed you could try adding more AP's. If you have the space you could do 6 Ap's at one location by having 3 on vertical polarity and 3 on horizontal at channels 1, 6 and 11 I guess. I would agree that this is the best solution if you are committed to using standard 802.11b equipment.
Another alternative is to move towards a "microcell" topology, to allow increased frequency re-use within an area. (This requires a lot of "up front" planning and should not be used as an intermediate step since you would have to visit all the subs to re-point and adjust.)
After you have done this, and reached "the wall" again, you will have to move to the proprietary solution.
Quite frankly, it is best to do A LOT of pre-planning prior to deployment, because after that you are more committed to a course of action with each and every sub you activate.
--
A is A |
|
snowpro2000
join:2004-06-13
Canada
| reply to snowpro2000
If you put thirty clients on the first ap and them at one of those clients you feed another 30 clients of another ap (second level) will you end up with the same problem?
How many levels can you go before you have problems?
I am looking for the best solution for areas where you may have 50 to 300 clients. I thought that I could do it that way with regular ap's, a few dsl lines and Microtik os at the gateway.
thanks
Paul |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| said by snowpro2000 :If you put thirty clients on the first ap and them at one of those clients you feed another 30 clients of another ap (second level) will you end up with the same problem? How many levels can you go before you have problems? It is slightly unclear what you mean by "levels"...
--
A is A |
|
snowpro2000
join:2004-06-13
Canada | I mean I have dsl lines at main ap: at one of the clients four miles away, I install another ap feeding 30 or so clients. I call that the second level no? and if I run another ap of one of those clients further down, is that not third level? |
|
IntraLink
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-14
Utah Valley
| Your "level" idea is good. If you stagger 3 channels at 4 mile spacing you would have one on the same channel maybe 8-12 miles away. With proper power control this would allow for minimal interferrence (especially if you stagger polarity).
Of course this is starting to look like a mini-pop model or even a mesh system. |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| reply to snowpro2000
said by snowpro2000 :I mean I have dsl lines at main ap: at one of the clients four miles away, I install another ap feeding 30 or so clients. I call that the second level no? and if I run another ap of one of those clients further down, is that not third level? I am curious how the throughput for the far end users would be affected...especially if using equipment that did not specifically address this deployment configuration.
--
A is A |
|
ponline
join:2004-03-04
presheva
2 edits | reply to snowpro2000
said by snowpro2000 :I mean I have dsl lines at main ap: at one of the clients four miles away, I install another ap feeding 30 or so clients. I call that the second level no? and if I run another ap of one of those clients further down, is that not third level? Do you mean using DSL for the backhaul to the NOC?????
If NOT!!!!That will give you only troubles, unless you do traffic shaping at the source CPEs, or at least on the AP facing those CPEs of the 'second level'. Plus, you will have to be sure you maintain a good connection at least 2Mbit to the main AP. But again 30 clients it is too much for a 'repeater site'.
Without shaping on the client side this would support some 3-5 clients before starting to make 'unknown' problems.
Not only to those clients but it affects the main AP too and decreses its performance.
I had once a client with a 1mb connection to the main AP, and to that link i installed one AP to feed only two 128kbs clients (who didnt have LOS to the main AP).
Imediately i started to deal with different and strange problems with those clients, until i realized that they are killing the whole 1mb connection to the main AP, becouse there were shaped far at the gateway.
I had to install on that site stronger antena and AP so i could maintain a stable 2mb connection only to suport those two 128kb clients withaut a problem.
I would be afraid to add another client there, if i dont isntall CPEs thats support shaping.
If you want to make it right you have to use point to poin connections to feed other APs.
It is adviced to use other frequencies for the backhaul, but if not posible you can use 2.4ghz ptp links on not used channels and/or polarity. |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA | reply to amerigowire
Assuming you don't plan on feeding the "levels" from the main APs you'll be fine. The problem is that while you're reducing the number of clients on the AP, you are increasing the average throughput on the AP. |
|
snowpro2000
join:2004-06-13
Canada
| reply to ponline
I am not sure what you mean by using dsl for the backhaul to the noc.
I do understand using ptp for the backhaul to the other ap's. I see many dual radio (Demarc,airHaul) designs.
When using a dual radio design (2.4/5.8) are there antennas for both frequencies at all sites. Do these radios have two connectors.
I am thinking of this only to free up 2.4 channels. This leaves 3 channels at all site to pick up clients there. These ap's and Microtik still provide an affordable solution for small areas with only 50 to 300 clients.
These clients are not always in the same area. Fifty here,thirty there...If you can pick up fifty or one hundred (or more)it can be worth setting up.
thanks
Paul |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to amerigowire
The airhaul is not a dual radio system. It is a single 802.11abg radio that allows it to be used at either 2.4 or 5.8. I believe the same is true of the Demarc. The airhaul does have a 2.4 and 5.8 port for two antennas, but it isn't designed to act as a repeater.
You're right about using 5.8 to backhaul, those systems typically offer higher throughput etc. You could possibly get away with a 5.8 AP backhauling more than one micro site but you still want to throttle at the site. |
|
wispman
join:2004-12-21
USA | reply to amerigowire
levels = hops right???
he's talking about 3 hops? |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| reply to snowpro2000
said by snowpro2000 :I am thinking of this only to free up 2.4 channels. This leaves 3 channels at all site to pick up clients there. These ap's and Microtik still provide an affordable solution for small areas with only 50 to 300 clients. Take a look at this site for some ideas:
»meshdynamics.com/index.html
They have great graphics here....
--
A is A |
|
snowpro2000
join:2004-06-13
Canada | reply to wispman
yes I am talking three hops |
|
ponline
join:2004-03-04
presheva
1 edit | You don't have to put dual radio devices, you can use one 2.4ghz AP and one 5.8 bridge inter-connected via UTP cable,if you want to route you can put a router between two APs.
Or, as you mentioning mikrotik, you can use one mikrotik box with two radios (one 2.4ghz and one 5.x). and you will be able to do everything on that box, 2.4ghz AP /5.x ghz backhaul/routing/shaping .... |
|
