Question on 802.11b channel assignments

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by pfisterfarm, Mar 26, 2010.

  1. pfisterfarm

    pfisterfarm Guest

    I've got a remote site that has a total of 25 1131 access points under
    the control of a 4402 WLC. A few locations in the building (mostly
    where the heaviest use is), are reporting connection drops and
    slowness (connection speed changes several times).

    I've been looking at the channel assignments. In one particular wing,
    for example, the two downstairs APs, which are at opposite ends of the
    hall, are channels 1 and 6. The floor above is has one access point,
    in the middle, which is also on channel 6. It's been a while since
    I've checked, but I think I can get at least some sort of signal
    upstairs in that area from the APs on the lower floor.

    Shouldn't the WLC have assigned channel 11 to one of those? What are
    the best options here? Should I force one to channel 11?

    There's another wing in this same building that's like that, and I'm
    thinking it might not be as easy to fix. There's 4 APs in a relatively
    close area. Two are on channel 1, one on 6, and one on 11.
    pfisterfarm, Mar 26, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. pfisterfarm

    bod43 Guest

    On 26 Mar, 19:42, Aaron Leonard <> wrote:
    > ~ I've got a remote site that has a total of 25 1131 access points

    > Now get a known good client device (like a laptop) and have it run
    > a continuous ping and verify that it can move around everywhere
    > and have good connectivity.  (If not, figure out why not.)

    Maybe it's worth mentioning that the Windows ping utility
    can not do a suitable ping. Well, not unless you have a
    lot of time to wait for a diagnosotic number of packets
    to be sent:), say an hour or two per sample point.

    I use fping.exe from
    (it's in the drop down list box)
    which can do a "cisco style" continuous ping.
    If you get 100's of packets per second then
    the the network is working very nicely indeed
    and you don't have to delay further:) I forget
    typical values since it's been a while.

    I think that the current linux ping does support
    a "flood" ping but I don't have one handy to check.

    I also like to use decent sized packets for wireless
    surveys, 1400 bytes or so since this stresses the
    network further.
    bod43, Mar 27, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. pfisterfarm

    alexd Guest

    On 27/03/10 10:20, bod43 wrote:

    > I think that the current linux ping does support
    > a "flood" ping but I don't have one handy to check.

    ping -f [flood ping, root only.]
    ping -A ['Cisco style', send next ping as soon as response is received.]

    Minimum interval in all cases is 200ms for non-root users.

    <> (AIM:troffasky) ()
    15:34:23 up 51 days, 18:54, 3 users, load average: 0.03, 0.29, 0.48
    It is better to have been wasted and then sober
    than to never have been wasted at all
    alexd, Mar 27, 2010
  4. pfisterfarm

    pfisterfarm Guest

    On Mar 26, 3:42 pm, Aaron Leonard <> wrote:
    > Then look at co-channel interference, noise, etc.  Make sure that
    > things look pretty solid.

    Thanks everyone for the information and links... I have one more
    question: How do I look at the co-channel interference and noise? Do I
    need a spectrum analyzer?
    pfisterfarm, Mar 29, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Oli
  2. Tony Warburton

    difference between 802.3b and 802.11b

    Tony Warburton, Nov 25, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Nov 25, 2004
  3. RobertABowie

    802.11b vs 802.11g

    RobertABowie, Jan 1, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Walter Roberson
    Jan 1, 2004
  4. Todd Blum

    802.1d and 802.11b

    Todd Blum, Jan 4, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Ron Bandes
    Jan 6, 2004
  5. Chris Davies
    Chris Davies
    Jun 15, 2004