802.1x performance

Hi,

I have somehow succeeded in getting my little network to go with RADIUS and
802.1x. (OK, so its not too difficult

The trouble is the bytes / second throughput is a bit down on what I was
hoping for. I am getting around 1.3 MB/s on a G network that says Excellent
signal strength and 54mbps.

I am using TKIP / whatever other defaults are normal. CPU loading on both
sides of the link when testing is marginal.

I have tried some of the tweaks hinted at in some web articles IE setting to
G mode only with no noticeable changes.

The WAP is a D-Link device (DWL 2000 AP+) with the latest firmware. It is
plugged into a 10/100 NIC directly for the moment.

I have also checked the firmware / drivers for the other wireless adapters I
have at hand which include a Dynalink WLG25USB (a USB 2 device - Device
Manager says it is on an Intel 82801EB **USB2** Enhanced Host Controller).
The other adapter is an Intel 2000BG inside an Asus laptop (Pentium M
1.8GHz). I have tried the latest Intel drivers which worked fine (the
applications that came with it had many bugs during install so I made sure
the apps were removed). I have also tried reverting back to the Asus issue
drivers which are 2 versions prior. The throughput is about the same
(1.3MBs) to both the laptop / intel or desktop / Dynalink.

I do have both Machine authentication and User authentication setup as I
mucked around trying to get the link running prior to logon by setting the
driver Start to 2 with the idea that the machine (laptop & desktop) should
authenticate first & it does.

The client machines are both fully patched running XP SP2 without the latest
WAP2 hotfix (I tried that and removed it). The server is running WIndows
2003 Server with RRAS and IAS, ISA, Exchange etc.

This tends to make me think it is the access point.... but surely it has
very little to do in such a config?

Anyone?

- Tim

Dear Tim,

As I am using 3Com 54G wireless Router, I tired to have download test from
my local webserver, the speed should be apporx 1.3MB - 1.7MB. For wireless
network, it really depends on the environment, where you setup your router
and any wall blocked.

Calvin K.P. Lui - MCP

"Tim" wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have somehow succeeded in getting my little network to go with RADIUS and
> 802.1x. (OK, so its not too difficult
>
> The trouble is the bytes / second throughput is a bit down on what I was
> hoping for. I am getting around 1.3 MB/s on a G network that says Excellent
> signal strength and 54mbps.
>
> I am using TKIP / whatever other defaults are normal. CPU loading on both
> sides of the link when testing is marginal.
>
> I have tried some of the tweaks hinted at in some web articles IE setting to
> G mode only with no noticeable changes.
>
> The WAP is a D-Link device (DWL 2000 AP+) with the latest firmware. It is
> plugged into a 10/100 NIC directly for the moment.
>
> I have also checked the firmware / drivers for the other wireless adapters I
> have at hand which include a Dynalink WLG25USB (a USB 2 device - Device
> Manager says it is on an Intel 82801EB **USB2** Enhanced Host Controller).
> The other adapter is an Intel 2000BG inside an Asus laptop (Pentium M
> 1.8GHz). I have tried the latest Intel drivers which worked fine (the
> applications that came with it had many bugs during install so I made sure
> the apps were removed). I have also tried reverting back to the Asus issue
> drivers which are 2 versions prior. The throughput is about the same
> (1.3MBs) to both the laptop / intel or desktop / Dynalink.
>
> I do have both Machine authentication and User authentication setup as I
> mucked around trying to get the link running prior to logon by setting the
> driver Start to 2 with the idea that the machine (laptop & desktop) should
> authenticate first & it does.
>
> The client machines are both fully patched running XP SP2 without the latest
> WAP2 hotfix (I tried that and removed it). The server is running WIndows
> 2003 Server with RRAS and IAS, ISA, Exchange etc.
>
> This tends to make me think it is the access point.... but surely it has
> very little to do in such a config?
>
> Anyone?
>
> - Tim
>
>
>