The 2.4 GHz unlicensed spectrum is anarchy. This “open” band is a magnet for any and all wireless consumer technologies, attracting everyone like FREE BEER at a frat house. With a big push in spectrum analysis lately, we’ve all been focused on non-Wi-Fi interferers like wireless video cameras, microwaves, motion sensors, and the like, for ruining our unlicensed frequency. But, with so many competing use cases for the technology and an open policy on spectrum use, Wi-Fi devices are perfectly capable of ruining the uncontrolled—I mean unlicensed—spectrum on their own. And they often do.
In a conversation last week, I was asked about hot topics in Wi-Fi. My list went something like this:
• Mobile, mobile, and more mobile device management and control
• Simple guest access and provisioning
• Spectrum analysis
• Architecture
Last summer, we announced a very special offer: free retakes. We had a tremendous response, and it was good. Earlier this spring, we began to hear the rumble of requests to bring back “the summer of confidence.”
A couple of weeks ago, some of the best brains in the Wi-Fi industry gathered at CWNP’s new facility in historic Vinings, GA, just across the river from Atlanta. The purpose of this three day beta class was to take a solid run through the beta courseware for the “Enterprise WLAN Analysis & Troubleshooting” class, which is the supporting instructor led training class for the CWAP certification.
This is the second article in a two-part discussion about WLAN overhead. Part 1 (Sources of Overhead) demonstrated that there are too many sources of overhead on W-Fi networks. Much of the overhead is required for successful protocol operation, but that reality doesn’t make it suck less. In fact, protocol overhead usually causes at least a 50% decrease in actual network throughput when compared with theoretical signaling rates. Ouch.
Radio communication requires overhead. Network protocols require overhead. Unfortunately, wireless network protocols, like Wi-Fi, are loaded with overhead. Some amount of overhead is necessary for effective communications and interoperability; however, there are also times when overhead is unnecessary. Proper network design and deployment can minimize this overhead and improve network performance. This article kicks off a two-part post that will identify the sources of overhead (part 1) on WLANs and then provide some recommendations for reducing it (part 2).
To date, three enterprise vendors (Aruba, HP, Meraki) have announced new three spatial stream APs (3×3:3), and others will follow. The progress of three spatial streams looks really good on paper, where our maximum throughput increases by 50%. It’s a marketing dream come true. But, what’s the reality? What are the real-world gains, and how important is the third spatial stream?
In the U.S. Department of the Treasury, when they train experts to recognize counterfeit money, they never show these agents the counterfeit. The agents are trained completely, thoroughly, painstakingly on the characteristics of the legal bills, the real thing, how it’s supposed to appear. Every nuance is noted, every feature documented in painful detail, so that when the Treasury Agent sees any difference in a bill, he knows immediately without any doubt that the bill is counterfeit. They study what the bill is supposed to look like, how it’s designed, so that when they detect any difference at all, they spot the error immediately.
In other words, they study “the standard.” So it is with the 802.11 frame and spectrum.
Completing a project, big or small, always comes with that moment of satisfaction followed by the realization that you never reach “the station”, as Robert J. Hastings so aptly put it in his essay. Then it’s time to get back to work.


Recent Comments