http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ CWNP Forums en-US Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:44:47 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/search.php http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5794#post-22599 Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:40:21 +0000 GTHill 22599@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>802.1X and PSK are two ways to reach the same goal when it comes to encryption keys. Once an AES or TKIP key is created, and the subsequent PTK and GTK are bound to the device, it doesn't matter which authentication type got them there.</p> <p>I've never thought about it, but if you did a packet analysis of an AES frame you couldn't tell if it was keyed with WPA-PSK or 802.1X. </p> <p>GT </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5787#post-22598 Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:04:46 +0000 Paul Finlay 22598@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>I've just this minute come up against this very issue. Our vendor of choice's 11n APs have a maximum transmit power of 13dBm on 2.4Ghz which when compared with the 18dBm of their ABG kit seems very low. I've emailed their support team for clarification. </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5790#post-22597 Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:00:41 +0000 Cave 22597@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Brad,</p> <p>If you get sick of lugging around the controller and powering it with the ups, search "Aruba Site Survey Stand Alone Cookbook" Just tried it for a few surveys and it works pretty well! </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5795#post-22596 Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:48:17 +0000 Cave 22596@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Hey all,</p> <p>First post and it's a bit involved. I have a question about signal propagation in relation to power levels and would appreciate some insight.</p> <p>This is being simulated in Airmagnet with 2.15dB Antenna and concrete walls with a -70 mask. I realize this may not be exactly true to life but maybe the images will help stimulate some discussion. </p> <p>Lets say I have an AP at 100mW that has the following propagation.</p> <p><a href="http://i.imgur.com/mmjEQ.jpg">http://i.imgur.com/mmjEQ.jpg</a></p> <p>The same AP at 12 mW</p> <p><a href="http://i.imgur.com/7KHET.jpg">http://i.imgur.com/7KHET.jpg</a></p> <p>Is there any way you all reduce the "bad" signal from -70 to -100? Even with the AP powered down, the "good" signal is slightly reduced, but the signal from -70 to -100 still leaks to almost the entire building in practice and in this virtual simulation. I am trying to get a handle on this to avoid channel interference in 2.4.</p> <p>How do you all prevent floor bleed? Do you just work with it? I get -50 through some floors but it is not reliable enough, and does not provide enough coverage horizontally to be of use. Is there a way to "flatten" the signal using an omni by increasing the power as described in the CWNA books? How do you plan that? Measuring on each floor?</p> <p><a href="http://i.imgur.com/c3zHv.jpg">http://i.imgur.com/c3zHv.jpg</a></p> <p>Thanks,<br /> Cave </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5794#post-22595 Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:51:41 +0000 Pete Nugent 22595@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Thats where it all gets very confusing as I don't believe that is the case. 802.1x is a framework for want of a better term that uses various mechanisms. It can also WPA and WPA2 can also use 802.1x as part of it mechanisms in enterprise but not personal.</p> <p>So which is a part of which or do we have standards within standards.</p> <p>I dont believe its as simple as saying 802.1x is a part of WPA2.</p> <p>From what I have seen the attack is only on WPA/WPA2 personal? </p> <p>Have to read more over the weekend! </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5794#post-22594 Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:05:18 +0000 GTHill 22594@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Pete,</p> <p>802.1X is part of the WPA/WPA2 cert so yes, 802.1X is included. </p> <p>GT </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5794#post-22593 Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:22:52 +0000 Vertigo 22593@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>As described in Aruba's articles, actually Hole196 is MiTM attack with legitime AP as MiTM attack central point and possibility of simple attack prevention, is "isolate clients between SSIDs and within SSID". </p> <p>Our wlan with Cisco WAP4410N APs has such feature Enabled from pilot-project phase already. Older APs without such feature will be under attack hammer form insiders.</p> <p>Vertigo </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5794#post-22592 Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:19:20 +0000 Pete Nugent 22592@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>My understanding so far is that the attacker is inside the network authenticated etc and takes advantage of the GTK, the vulnerability does not exist in 802.1x so is only possible with WPA/WPA2. </p> <p>If an organisation is only running this as their core WLAN security then I am sure there are easier attack vectors as they are a user not an intruder as it were.</p> <p>However its in vogue as its wireless to comment on this. Any wireless vulnerability is news.</p> <p>Also if one of your users is doing this I would give them a job. </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5794#post-22591 Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:46:22 +0000 kevinsandlin 22591@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>OK, this one's been on the radar all week, from <a href="http://blog.aerohive.com/blog/?p=342">Devinator's blog</a> to dozens of others. <a href="http://www.airtightnetworks.com/WPA2-Hole196">AirTight is demonstrating the vulnerability at BlackHat</a>.</p> <p>Just now, Aruba Networks says it just ain't so:</p> <p><blockquote>Hole 196 WPA2 attack nothing but a publicity stunt - read why at #AirHeads On-Line. <a href="http://bit.ly/aDtBfV" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/aDtBfV</a> #ArubaNetworks #FB</blockquote></p> <p>Talk amongst yourselves. </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5788#post-22590 Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:13:43 +0000 Brad R 22590@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Hi Martin,<br /> We have tried to encompass a myriad of documents and information in our design. Specific to ASCOM, we spent our time on TD 92408GB titled: Considerations for ASCOM VoWiFi System Planning. The other information we have received from TAC and our various discussions. </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5792#post-22589 Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:49:57 +0000 dave1234 22589@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>No problem. Spillover is always a concern. Unfortunately, that's part and parcel of the whole licence free business. The system will be supporting both voice and data apps, so it will be interesting to see how they are going to engineer this. Hopefully ATT will play nice when such situations occur and at least try to come to a compromise.</p> <p>People will "suck up" as much bandwidth as they can. I cannot foresee any time in the future when people say "I now have enough bandwidth"....."Let me leave that movie running in the background while I open up my e-mail....let me watch that nice HD type news broacast at the same time as I go back and forth with my buddy playing "Doom"...etc etc". Loads of stuff running in the background.</p> <p>The whole 3G/4G congestion thing should not have caught any of the wireless carriers by surprise. If you say to people "Buy from XYZ and you can have a zillion bit/s of bandwidth", they will try to do that and more. The whole backhaul network has become congested as well, leading to the current situation where they have to try to offload onto Wi-Fi.</p> <p>Makes you think:</p> <p>Did they have the sense to run pilot trials with 3G/4G etc with loads of people and say to them "Go hog wild, download what you want, open up as many apps etc as you would like"and then see the effect on the network ?</p> <p>Or</p> <p>Did they get so greedy to get money coming in that they just went ahead and built the networks anyway..."Oh it'll sort itself out when we get the customers coming in" ?</p> <p>I spent years "fixing" poorly designed networks of all sorts. Frame Relay networks were the classic.....oversubscription ?.....a salesman's dream.</p> <p>Sadly, there probably will be many cases of "inteference", but the public's thirst for all this new bandwidth on cellular will probably take precedence.</p> <p>Dave </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5788#post-22588 Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:16:49 +0000 mericson 22588@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Hi Brad.</p> <p>Please let me know about your progress with your VoWiFI isntalaltion.<br /> Do you have our configuration manuals, recomendations etc.</p> <p>BR<br /> Martin<br /> Ascom Wireless<br /> International VoWiFi Trainer </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5788#post-22587 Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:13:02 +0000 Brad R 22587@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Ok I'm a bit clearer on it now. My concern when looking at higher power was cell size and user limit per AP. When going through AirMagnet and letting it plan where it wanted everything it came back with a 5 AP per floor design. The concern there was RTLS and user load. </p> <p>As we started with the ICU, I'll start there. On our 30 patient room ICU floor (approx 38k sqft), we have 50 ASCOM phones, 1 computer in motion (CIM) cart per room (=30), usually no less than 1 respritory specialist (laptop+ASCOM phone), 3 Nutritionists with ASCOM phones, Hospira pumps running on b (just to give it a number we'll say 10), and various individuals on laptops and ASCOM phones as well as blackberry's and such.</p> <p>Counting just the devices we know about we're looking at 95+ units on the floor at any one time. Given, that we assume the units are spread evenly across the floor we're still looking at 20+ units per AP at any one time. With Aruba telling us that we should plan for no more than 35-40 units on any one AP, a 5 AP plan leaves us little wiggle room. Add to that fact that about 10% of our units are b clients (and apparently irreplaceable with different technology), it gets me a bit nervous.</p> <p>Granted I am not yet a design guru, and that's why I came here for info. Originally my question was posed about it RTS/CTS was SSID or AP based for this reason. Big cell size high power and units that say they match the power settings of APs could cause the cells to be incredibly large. Thinking of course of a VoWiFi handset that is at the edge of one cell, also broadcasting at 25mW then increases the interference range on that channel by a significant margin. I guess this is one of the reasons you told me a while back that WLAN designing for VoWiFi isn't for the feint of heart.</p> <p>It is nice to see that the ~14mW our plan calls for is in a range you mention, even if that range is the low end. We'll see how it goes and I'll post back on here as we start getting some data. </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5793#post-22586 Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:20:39 +0000 Pete Nugent 22586@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Link not working? </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5793#post-22585 Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:20:39 +0000 Pete Nugent 22585@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Link not working? </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5788#post-22584 Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:47:20 +0000 jackman 22584@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Well, just to be clear, towards the end of my late night post above, I was trying to say that you don't really get value in your use case of going below ~10-15mW in my opinion. Recall the uplink situation mentioned above. I don't usually like to see APs going below that value in a typical deployment scenario. And, nothing more than 25mW in a high density, VoWiFi deployment.</p> <p>Ascom reports to go upwards of 100 mW, but I'm betting Jon's paycheck that if you look into the chipset specs, as you go to higher and higher PHY rates, Tx power lowers substantially as with just about every other client product. </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5788#post-22583 Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:40 +0000 Brad R 22583@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Hey Jackman,<br /> First, I'm not even sure my dad was Mr Reardon, much less me. ;-) That was some helpful info. I used 11.5 dbm EIRP for my design. Based on the floor layouts and everything we needed to support, it seemed to be sufficient. Also seeing as how ARM only adjusts in 3db incriments, we decided to start with 9db out of the controller with the 2.5db gain from the AP125.</p> <p>Our main objective was a good VoWiFi design. It also has to support RTLS. Past that we really weren't too worried about the data, as we've seen them be pretty resilient and the network is the least of your worries when we're in Oregon and the EPIC datacenter is in Virginia. Luckily Aruba's AirMonitors also forward location information (at least according to their verified design docs say they do), so we can add AMs for location needs without increasing the actual coverage and interference </p> <p>I'll have to look into the other portions you mentioned. I know our VoWiFi provider told us at one point that the handsets will go to 100mW, but I guess it's long past time to look up the specifics.</p> <p>As for placement, that was a big part of figuring out my design. As for previous placement, yes. All of the APs were placed in the hallways. As you can imagine, when you get to 13-20 APs on a 30 patient room floor, that makes for a lot of co-channel interference.</p> <p>Now for the good news. The design that a co-worker and I designed has been approved for roll out on the top floor of our building. We have also recommended reducing power on the floor below to limit floor to floor bleed through we are seeing around the elevators. Our wiring company is planning on having the moves done by the end of next week, so we'll be able to see if our theoretical work matches the real world.</p> <p>The optimistic me was hoping someone would have some resource that said, you never really want to go under X mW on a deployment because it causes these problems. I understand it isn't that cut and dry, but we should see at the end of next week.</p> <p>Thanks for all the help and the other items to drill down on. </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5793#post-22582 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:16:58 +0000 Anees 22582@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Bad thing is I bought my voucher 2 months back from here for $225 ,A friend made me aware of this only 2 days back I am attaching the link </p> <p><a href="https://www9.pearsonvue.com/Dispatcher?v=W2L&amp;embedApp=CurrentActivity&amp;application=WrapCandSignIn&amp;HasXSes=Y&amp;clientCode=CERTIFIEDWIRELE&amp;wscid=126737822&amp;action=actStartApp&amp;bfp=top&amp;wsid=1280372964782" rel="nofollow">https://www9.pearsonvue.com/Dispatcher?v=W2L&amp;embedApp=CurrentActivity&amp;application=WrapCandSignIn&amp;HasXSes=Y&amp;clientCode=CERTIFIEDWIRELE&amp;wscid=126737822&amp;action=actStartApp&amp;bfp=top&amp;wsid=1280372964782</a></p> <p>would have saved $125 if I knew this before :-( </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5790#post-22581 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:53:37 +0000 Brad R 22581@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>I know I'm a bit late on this one, but for information's sake in case someone else comes along:</p> <p>I have two machines. One is a Dell E6500. I rarely use this one for survey's mostly because a full day of lugging it around at arms length may have happened in my Marine days, but my arms are a little out of practice.</p> <p>I also have a Dell XT2. Touch screen plus Airmagnet is just great. Also the fact that it is a tablet allows me to weild it around patient beds and the like a bit easier. </p> <p>I am mostly using the internal cards as we are still just kinda starting out and management was concerned about "all the money when none of you know the tools." We recently got an AirPcap setup as well, but I have yet to try it out.</p> <p>I mostly use AirMagnet for the survey work. I have a Cisco Cognio PCMCIA card for spectrum analysis. I have put in a request for AirMagnet Analyzer simply to make the packet captures nice and Barney style for the higher-ups. Wireshark with the right card setup can work as well for pure information gathering on a small scale.</p> <p>We didn't have any money for an actual professional survey cart setup though, so we created our own project frankestein. It consists of a rubbermade nurse cart with a PVC pipe bungy corded and ziptied to the back. It even telescopes..... kinda. With an Aruba 800 controller and AP125 mounted with APC UPS. Enough power for about 6 hours of active survey work. I'm way past due for a website or something, so I'll make one and post pics for everyone to have a good laugh over.</p> <p>Anyway, hope that helps. </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5792#post-22580 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:40:31 +0000 Brad R 22580@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Dave,<br /> I wasn't targeting your comments at all with my post and I hope it didn't come across that way. I have a hard time with anyone saying they are going to limit their wireless to a specific footprint when that footprint is as large as a metropolitan area. </p> <p>I just don't see it being feasible for AT&amp;T to work with every business in this circle of operation to ensure they don't step on any toes. And even if they have a decent plan for narrow coverage down a street or something, you're going to have lobes that extend into the buildings down the street. Even if you allow 8-12db loss through a metal and concrete wall, the chance that Joe CEO can't have a conference in his board room on the street side of his building seems to be enough to at the very least cause some hair loss amongst the IT guys in the area. </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5787#post-22579 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:11:49 +0000 dave1234 22579@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Just called the FCC’s office of Engineering and Technology and am waiting for a callback.</p> <p>In the meantime, found the following:</p> <p><a href="http://www.atcb.com/seminardocs2/Desert.ppt" rel="nofollow">http://www.atcb.com/seminardocs2/Desert.ppt</a></p> <p>The third slide seems to suggest composite power.</p> <p>Am sure GT and Devin will be able to talk to their engineering depts and find out.</p> <p>Dave </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5787#post-22578 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:22:32 +0000 Wlanman 22578@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>I can't find any answers to this question even though I'm sure it's a simple answer.</p> <p>What do the rules say?. What do various Regulatory Agnecies (e.g. FCC) say about this? </p> <p>In older diversity devices, only one antenna at a time was transmitting. Now that multiple antennas will be transmitting simultaneously on the same frequency, have the rules changed?</p> <p>GT ?</p> <p>Dave1234 ? </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5793#post-22577 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:33:24 +0000 kevinsandlin 22577@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p><blockquote>The CWSP-204 exam voucher on pearson vue is for $100</blockquote></p> <p>Where do you see this? Please provide a URL.</p> <p>Wlanman is correct: you have to TAKE THE EXAM between May 1 and Aug 31 2010 to be eligible for the free second shot retake.</p> <p>Kevin </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5793#post-22576 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:08:51 +0000 Wlanman 22576@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>The rule is you have to <strong>take</strong> the test - nothing about what you paid for it.</p> <p>However, I can't find any such listing on the Pearson Vue website. Or for any CWNP exam for that matter - perhaps this is a regional website or something. The site I'm looking at does give discounts for buying bunches of vouchers at one time, but still none for CWNP on that page either. </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5793#post-22575 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:42:26 +0000 Anees 22575@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Hi,<br /> The CWSP-204 exam voucher on pearson vue is for $100 ? but on here it says $225 please clarify if anyone buys it from pearson vue directly are they eligible for a free second shot ? </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5788#post-22574 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:57:44 +0000 jackman 22574@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Mr Reardon:</p> <p>Good to see on on the forums. :) I was doing a little research for the CWDP and saw your post. I like where Wlanman is going basing this on the client. There are a lot of factors at play here, but at the highest of levels I'd say:<br /> + look at the devices you're supporting and understand their max Tx power at the higher PHY rates. Usually manufacturers say "we do 100 mW", but that is only at DSSS and not OFDM. Even at higher OFDM rates, Tx power can drop significantly. Usually assume 25 mW max Tx power for high mobile devices like VoWiFi phones.<br /> + AP placement is key. APs placed in the hallways down a hospital corridor, for example, will see each other very strongly and usually only adjust their power based on how they hear each other. That might decrease your usable coverage at the edges of the patient rooms where you are downlink limited (AP isn't transmissing with enough juice to get a signal back to the client). In other words, it's really not that different than your colleagues setting their APs down to 5 dBm.<br /> + DTPC (dynamic transmit power control) isn't supported on all client devices and client may not reciprocate by powering down their transmissions back to the AP. Remember, it's not just AP transmissions we're concerned about; think about the clients, too. Also, sometimes infrastructure is configured to not advertise its transmit power and clients therefore have no clue how to set their Tx power even if they did support DTPC.<br /> + uplink receive sensitivty never changes regardless of transmit power. Putting APs in a highly dense fashion is never good regardless of how low you set the Tx power to. Unless you're also putting attenuators on the receive inputs of the AP you're going to get a lot of RF contention at 2.4 GHz especially.</p> <p>I generally assume VoWiFi support is a current or future application and survey AP placements based on 12.5 or 25 mW depending on the facility and other factors. Less than that has diminishing returns in my opinion. Going more than 25 mW usually results in link budget imbalances and some devices will struggle.</p> <p>I'm doing more of the 12.5 mW (11 dBm) lately because I'm giving the automatic RF management algorithm a +/- 3 dB window to make adjustments. The survey is how APs are placed and what determine what types of antennas are used.</p> <p>Does that help? </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5782#post-22573 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:40:40 +0000 jackman 22573@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Aerojith:</p> <p>It is frankly up to Motorola to support that. There's nothing at the routing and switching layer that would prevent this. Like Paul said, you can do dynamic VLAN assignment and achieve that, but there rarely is ever a justifiable use case to use two SSIDs to assign to a single VLAN. </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5784#post-22572 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:33:38 +0000 jackman 22572@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>I'll try to respond to both of you in this post.</p> <p>LEAP, in my humble opinion, offers no usable form of mutual authentication. If I can't configure a supplicant to discriminate against a specific AS (or a short list) then it will therefore talk to anyone. That would include an attacker performing a MiTM attack.</p> <p>I've debated this topic a bit with my colleagues and at the end of the day the only way you can say LEAP performs any type of mutual authentication is based on the MS-CHAPv2 protocol that LEAP is loosely based upon (it is not exact). The nature of this protocol is that it never actually transmits the actual password for a username (transmitted in plain text), but rather a hash of the password. The AS receives that hash from the supplicant and and compares the hash values to the user directory.</p> <p>In other words, LEAP is garbage and none of us shall ever use it. ;)</p> <p>Scotty, I didn't follow exactly what your question was, but I think you're asking if AKM operations take place in LEAP as well. Yes, it does. Theoretically, if LEAP was used as an auth type with WPA2 Enterprise, the key derivation should be identical to other EAP methods because a MSK is still a result. Upon success of an EAP type is when the the "KM" part of AKM really kicks in. However, the MSK is used differently depending on the encryption methodology. For example, dynamic WEP, TKIP and CCMP will all use this MSK differently.</p> <p>Hope that helps. </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5791#post-22571 Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:32:53 +0000 GTHill 22571@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Sorry, I thought I provided a link.</p> <p><a href="http://www.ruckuswireless.com/press/releases/20100706-extraordinary-growth" rel="nofollow">http://www.ruckuswireless.com/press/releases/20100706-extraordinary-growth</a></p> <p>I'm checking to see if I can share the actual paper. </p> <p>GT </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5792#post-22570 Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:30:54 +0000 dave1234 22570@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Yes, that's why I said "properly engineered". Unfortunately, the whole concept of "license free operation" has it's pros and cons.</p> <p>If they have any sense, they'll set up pilot projects first on a small scale. Even though they have no "obligation" to coordinate with existing users of other Wi-Fi systems, I'm sure some sort of horse trading will be done will be made if major problems occur re "interference levels". </p> <p>I'd imagine that most of these zones will be set up in "downtown" areas first.</p> <p>Dave </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5791#post-22569 Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:58:45 +0000 Pete Nugent 22569@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>GT</p> <p>Can you let us have an insight into some of the other product share, I am not sure if that is a controlled doc from Dell Oro or if you can share it? </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5791#post-22568 Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:20:35 +0000 GTHill 22568@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>I feel like I should add my 2 cents here. :)</p> <p>I just want to throw Ruckus into the mix. According to Dell Oro, we now have 57% of the outdoor mesh market in terms of shipped devices. </p> <p>Anywhoo... if you are in the market for outdoor Wi-Fi, let me know and I'll see what I can do to help. </p> <p>GT </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5791#post-22567 Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:19:30 +0000 Pete Nugent 22567@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>I must have stayed in a hotel like the Westin, I swear the walls were so thin I coul here the mice farting 3 floors away! So yeah I guess 6 aps could cover that area! </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5791#post-22566 Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:11:06 +0000 Brad R 22566@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>Has anyone actually seen the as builts for the Westin? 998 rooms seems like an awful large coverage area for 6 APs. Granted it says units, so I guess it could be an array, but still. </p> http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=5792#post-22565 Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:28:51 +0000 Brad R 22565@http://www.cwnp.com/bbpress/ <p>This sounds like a great idea.... right up until the point at which it comes through the windows and floods my network. I would like to see more on it from AT&amp;T and see how it is they plan on containing this. </p> <p>Maybe contain is the wrong word. Wrangle maybe? I know. I know, "that's why you do a site survey." Honestly though I could see this causing some problems. I know my iPhone doesn't run on 5GHz, so if they are planning in essense to provide a widespread 2.4GHz network, I am concerned. </p>