help with large temporary network

Hi,

looking for some advice (long and complicated advice)

i need to set up a temporary network in a hotel. 802.11b is required to
accomodate all the users.

There will 200-250 users, the hotel backbone is a mixture of 10baseT and
100baseT...I will try my hardest to get to 100baseT connections to the
Access Points.

The users will be +generally spread over two floors, but the biggest
challenge will be opening and closing when everyone will be in the same
room.

I've been reading mixed messages about capacity and access points. From what
I can gather, 20-25 users per access point can provide decent service. So
I've been looking at putting in 12-15 APs spread around the hotel. (and
moving some into the big room for opening/closing)

For the big days, it's a typical open hotel ballroom 67' deep and 72' wide
with 250 high-bandwidth using laptops to connect to a files server onsite
and doing various things on the internet.

My question boils down to how to provide the capacity (much more than
coverage, as the space is not too big, and it's open). If 20-25 per AP is a
rule, I would need 10 APs in the room, but would interference then start to
cause a problem between the APs and remove the benefit of the extra
capacity?

My thinking right now is to place 9 APs in the room. (they will be connected
either right to a lan jack or through a switch in the room, depending on the
set up) One in each corner, one in the middle of each wall, and one in the
centre of the room (using a 1/6/11 channel plan). That way (my thinking
goes) there will be roughly equal overlap between the APs and users will be
roughly evenly distributed in proximity to the APs.
I want to make sure the users are spread out over all the APs, I understand
that windows clients will "lock on" to the strongest signal, but will they
also shift to an AP with more available capacity even if the signal might be
a little weaker? I think the APs I'm looking at have varialbe output power.
Would it help or hurt if I turned down the power of the APs?

I had a second thought entirely....overlay a second SSID to try to get users
balanced. Using the same layout above, but with every second AP using a
different SSID.

Can someone tell me if I'm anywhere near the ballpark, and offer any advice
with respect to capacity requirements/layouts/tips tricks etc and offer
answers to my questions?

I also have a few generic questions.

Is there a generic way to filter out specific types of traffic (ie VoIP) at
the AP level, or does it depend on the Access Point itself?

If I manually limit the bandwidth of the APs (to 2 or 5.5 Mbps), would that
help capacity, or are the automatic adjustments of the devices sufficient?

I'm hoping to be given a block of IP addresses to give to my APs so I can
manage them quickly, but if I don't and they are assigned IPs through DHCP,
how can I (using WinXP) find them and log on quickly? (i intend to use a web
interface to administer them, I don't have time to really learn the command
line interface)

thanks for any advice in advance, even if it's simply pointing to another
forum or a good book. The books I've read have been helpful, but not really
on point for what I need.

First I would read this

http://www.intel.com/business/bss/in...nt/hotspot.pdf

See if it answers some of your questions

thanks,

I had downloaded that as part of my research but hadn't read it yet. It
helps, but I'd still like some feedback on whether or not my current
thinking will lead to a network that will even remotely serve the users.


"Airhead" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> First I would read this
>
> http://www.intel.com/business/bss/in...nt/hotspot.pdf
>
> See if it answers some of your questions
>

"visitor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message news:4iQae.1205$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> looking for some advice (long and complicated advice)
>
> i need to set up a temporary network in a hotel. 802.11b is required
to
> accomodate all the users.
>
> There will 200-250 users, the hotel backbone is a mixture of 10baseT
and
> 100baseT...I will try my hardest to get to 100baseT connections to
the
> Access Points.
>
> The users will be +generally spread over two floors, but the biggest
> challenge will be opening and closing when everyone will be in the
same
> room.
>
> I've been reading mixed messages about capacity and access points.
From what
> I can gather, 20-25 users per access point can provide decent
service. So
> I've been looking at putting in 12-15 APs spread around the hotel.
(and
> moving some into the big room for opening/closing)
>
> For the big days, it's a typical open hotel ballroom 67' deep and
72' wide
> with 250 high-bandwidth using laptops to connect to a files server
onsite
> and doing various things on the internet.

So you expect up to 250 simultaneous users?
What is the bandwidth of the Internet connection?
How large of files will they be downloading from the
file server?

>
> My question boils down to how to provide the capacity (much more
than
> coverage, as the space is not too big, and it's open). If 20-25 per
AP is a
> rule, I would need 10 APs in the room, but would interference then
start to
> cause a problem between the APs and remove the benefit of the extra
> capacity?

You would see alot of interference with 9 0r 10 APS in a 67 x 72 foot
room
unless you could adjust the cell size down so you would really need
adjustable power and/or consider using directional patch antennas.

>
> My thinking right now is to place 9 APs in the room. (they will be
connected
> either right to a lan jack or through a switch in the room,
depending on the
> set up) One in each corner, one in the middle of each wall, and one
in the
> centre of the room (using a 1/6/11 channel plan). That way (my
thinking
> goes) there will be roughly equal overlap between the APs and users
will be
> roughly evenly distributed in proximity to the APs.




> I want to make sure the users are spread out over all the APs, I
understand
> that windows clients will "lock on" to the strongest signal, but
will they
> also shift to an AP with more available capacity even if the signal
might be
> a little weaker? I think the APs I'm looking at have varialbe output
power.
> Would it help or hurt if I turned down the power of the APs?

Help......... in a room of that size
>
> I had a second thought entirely....overlay a second SSID to try to
get users
> balanced. Using the same layout above, but with every second AP
using a
> different SSID.

The client adapter is going to try to connect to the strongest signal
regardless
of the SSID so this wont help in balancing.

>
> Can someone tell me if I'm anywhere near the ballpark, and offer any
advice
> with respect to capacity requirements/layouts/tips tricks etc and
offer
> answers to my questions?
>
> I also have a few generic questions.
>
> Is there a generic way to filter out specific types of traffic (ie
VoIP) at
> the AP level, or does it depend on the Access Point itself?

If you have an AP that supports QoS and it is configurable for various
traffic types you could assign VoIP to the lowest priority.


>
> If I manually limit the bandwidth of the APs (to 2 or 5.5 Mbps),
would that
> help capacity, or are the automatic adjustments of the devices
sufficient?

Not sure what your budget is, but it sounds like a wireless switch
with
thin APs is what you need, they self configure, are bandwidth
controllable,
auto power adjust to the least interference etc... but for a temporary
situation where are you going to get all this equipment for a
temporary
situation?



>
> I'm hoping to be given a block of IP addresses to give to my APs so
I can
> manage them quickly, but if I don't and they are assigned IPs
through DHCP,
> how can I (using WinXP) find them and log on quickly? (i intend to
use a web
> interface to administer them, I don't have time to really learn the
command
> line interface)

You really need static IPs or it could be a nightmare


>
> thanks for any advice in advance, even if it's simply pointing to
another
> forum or a good book. The books I've read have been helpful, but not
really
> on point for what I need.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Airhead,

I was afraid of that (the interference in the room) . The access points I'm
looking at right now do have power control, and i've been trying to find out
exactly what the available power levels are so I can try to figure out what
the smallest footprint would be....

I have to plan for 250 users for the opening and closing days. it will most
likely be less, but a good 90% will have laptops and all will be running. It
will be a T3 (45 Mbps) into the building with a 3 meg DSL backup.

....I located the power control numbers. The APs can be set to 12.5% (10
dBm), 25% (12 dBm), 50% (15 dBm) and 100% (17 dBm). They also allow the
transmit rate to be fixed at 11 Mbps (or any of the other levels) - that's
supposed to limit the footprint as well, right?

Budget is one of my problems.... I would have to rent a more sophisticated
set-up (like a switch and thin APs)...but it's considerably cheaper to buy a
simpler setup like I'm contemplating than rent one for two weeks (same thing
with projectors).

I've got a couple more questions so I can confirm I'm thinking about things
the right way. The nominal speed of an access point (i.e. 11 Mbps) is the
throughput PER CHANNEL, so that all the users connected to the AP share that
total amount bandwidth. If that's correct, then:

a) plugging a single access point into a 10baseT lan connection shouldn't
hurt the performance of the AP because the throughputs are about the same,
but if I plugged more than one AP into a segment running at 10 Mbps, there
would be an impact on performance of each AP because they would be sharing a
smaller bandwidth connection.

b) the formula for calculating how much bandwidth each user would have
(simultaneously) would look like ((actual AP throughput) x (number of APs))
/ (number of users). *This requires the assumption that the users are evenly
distributed between the APs.

*** users is known at 250
*** 9 access points
*** 5 Mbps actual throughput per access point
==== 184.3 kbps per user (which is the same as the Internet connection)

Is this a reasonable way to calculate things? Is the estimated actual
throughput reasonable considering the level of interference I will get? (I
don't intend to use any security on the wireless link, and I've read using a
short preamble can help - is that worth it?)


thanks again












"Airhead" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:426ea95a$0$1911$(E-Mail Removed) ...
>
> "visitor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> message news:4iQae.1205$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hi,
>>
>> looking for some advice (long and complicated advice)
>>
>> i need to set up a temporary network in a hotel. 802.11b is required
> to
>> accomodate all the users.
>>
>> There will 200-250 users, the hotel backbone is a mixture of 10baseT
> and
>> 100baseT...I will try my hardest to get to 100baseT connections to
> the
>> Access Points.
>>
>> The users will be +generally spread over two floors, but the biggest
>> challenge will be opening and closing when everyone will be in the
> same
>> room.
>>
>> I've been reading mixed messages about capacity and access points.
> From what
>> I can gather, 20-25 users per access point can provide decent
> service. So
>> I've been looking at putting in 12-15 APs spread around the hotel.
> (and
>> moving some into the big room for opening/closing)
>>
>> For the big days, it's a typical open hotel ballroom 67' deep and
> 72' wide
>> with 250 high-bandwidth using laptops to connect to a files server
> onsite
>> and doing various things on the internet.
>
> So you expect up to 250 simultaneous users?
> What is the bandwidth of the Internet connection?
> How large of files will they be downloading from the
> file server?
>
>>
>> My question boils down to how to provide the capacity (much more
> than
>> coverage, as the space is not too big, and it's open). If 20-25 per
> AP is a
>> rule, I would need 10 APs in the room, but would interference then
> start to
>> cause a problem between the APs and remove the benefit of the extra
>> capacity?
>
> You would see alot of interference with 9 0r 10 APS in a 67 x 72 foot
> room
> unless you could adjust the cell size down so you would really need
> adjustable power and/or consider using directional patch antennas.
>
>>
>> My thinking right now is to place 9 APs in the room. (they will be
> connected
>> either right to a lan jack or through a switch in the room,
> depending on the
>> set up) One in each corner, one in the middle of each wall, and one
> in the
>> centre of the room (using a 1/6/11 channel plan). That way (my
> thinking
>> goes) there will be roughly equal overlap between the APs and users
> will be
>> roughly evenly distributed in proximity to the APs.
>
>
>
>
>> I want to make sure the users are spread out over all the APs, I
> understand
>> that windows clients will "lock on" to the strongest signal, but
> will they
>> also shift to an AP with more available capacity even if the signal
> might be
>> a little weaker? I think the APs I'm looking at have varialbe output
> power.
>> Would it help or hurt if I turned down the power of the APs?
>
> Help......... in a room of that size
>>
>> I had a second thought entirely....overlay a second SSID to try to
> get users
>> balanced. Using the same layout above, but with every second AP
> using a
>> different SSID.
>
> The client adapter is going to try to connect to the strongest signal
> regardless
> of the SSID so this wont help in balancing.
>
>>
>> Can someone tell me if I'm anywhere near the ballpark, and offer any
> advice
>> with respect to capacity requirements/layouts/tips tricks etc and
> offer
>> answers to my questions?
>>
>> I also have a few generic questions.
>>
>> Is there a generic way to filter out specific types of traffic (ie
> VoIP) at
>> the AP level, or does it depend on the Access Point itself?
>
> If you have an AP that supports QoS and it is configurable for various
> traffic types you could assign VoIP to the lowest priority.
>
>
>>
>> If I manually limit the bandwidth of the APs (to 2 or 5.5 Mbps),
> would that
>> help capacity, or are the automatic adjustments of the devices
> sufficient?
>
> Not sure what your budget is, but it sounds like a wireless switch
> with
> thin APs is what you need, they self configure, are bandwidth
> controllable,
> auto power adjust to the least interference etc... but for a temporary
> situation where are you going to get all this equipment for a
> temporary
> situation?
>
>
>
>>
>> I'm hoping to be given a block of IP addresses to give to my APs so
> I can
>> manage them quickly, but if I don't and they are assigned IPs
> through DHCP,
>> how can I (using WinXP) find them and log on quickly? (i intend to
> use a web
>> interface to administer them, I don't have time to really learn the
> command
>> line interface)
>
> You really need static IPs or it could be a nightmare
>
>
>>
>> thanks for any advice in advance, even if it's simply pointing to
> another
>> forum or a good book. The books I've read have been helpful, but not
> really
>> on point for what I need.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:21:20 -0400, "visitor"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>...I located the power control numbers. The APs can be set to 12.5% (10
>dBm), 25% (12 dBm), 50% (15 dBm) and 100% (17 dBm). They also allow the
>transmit rate to be fixed at 11 Mbps (or any of the other levels) - that's
>supposed to limit the footprint as well, right?

You don't want to limit the data rate to 11Mbits/sec or slower. That
will IMPROVE the range:
| http://www.intel.com/business/bss/in...nt/hotspot.pdf
Rate Approximate Max Indoor Range
1 Mbps 350 ft.
2 Mbps 250 ft.
5.5 Mbps 180 ft.
6 Mbps 300 ft.
9 Mbps 250 ft.
11 Mbps 150 ft.
12 Mbps 200 ft.
18 Mbps 170 ft.
24 Mbps 140 ft.
36 Mbps 100 ft.
48 Mbps 95 ft.
54 Mbps 90 ft.

but also use more air time for the same amount of data moved. If a
client wants to move XX Gigabloats of data, then the less air time he
uses means more air time for others to use.

>Budget is one of my problems...

Diminishing returns will also be a problem. You can spend 10 times as
much, and only improve the performance slightly. There is a point
where you create your own interference. Anything beyond that causes a
decrease in performance, not an increase.

>I've got a couple more questions so I can confirm I'm thinking about things
>the right way. The nominal speed of an access point (i.e. 11 Mbps) is the
>throughput PER CHANNEL, so that all the users connected to the AP share that
>total amount bandwidth.

Wrong. 11Mbits/sec is the connection speed. There's lots of overhead
involved. Dragging out the chart from an earlier posting:
http://www.atheros.com/pt/atheros_range_whitepaper.pdf
Non-overlapping Modulation Max Max Max
Channels ------- | Link TCP UDP
| | | | |
802.11b 3 CCK 11 5.9 7.1
802.11g (with
802.11b) 3 OFDM/CCK 54 14.4 19.5
802.11g only 3 OFDM 54 24.4 30.5
802.11g turbo 1 OFDM 108 42.9 54.8
802.11a 13 OFDM 54 24.4 30.5
802.11a turbo 6 OFDM 108 42.9 54.8

If you lock the connection rate at 11Mbits/sec, you'll effectively
lock the maximum thruput to about 5.5Mbits/sec (or less). Try to
think in terms of gigabloats downloaded instead of dividing bandwidth.
How much data are these users expected to download?

>a) plugging a single access point into a 10baseT lan connection shouldn't
>hurt the performance of the AP because the throughputs are about the same,
>but if I plugged more than one AP into a segment running at 10 Mbps, there
>would be an impact on performance of each AP because they would be sharing a
>smaller bandwidth connection.

I don't understand where you're going. If you plug 100 access points
into a single 10barfT connection, the aggregate bandwidth will still
be 10Mbits/sec. Ignoring interference and different connection speed
issues, the bandwidth will divide equally among the access points.
However, the usage pattern will determine how many gigabloats an
individual user can download. Some lunatic running Bitorrent can
monopolize all your available bandwidth. You will need some form of
bandwidth management, traffic control, user exclusion, and clueless
user admin. You cannot deploy such a large network and not expect
someone to show up with a virus, worm, brand new XP laptop requiring
100MBytes of updates, or other idiocy. Two weeks ago, I had to
temporarily block the windowsupdate site for a convention in progress
because about 150 laptops simultaneously decided that this would be a
great time to do updates. An acquaintance spends his spare time
maintaining a rather large convention center network. By necessity,
it's an open (non-encrypted) network. Keeping the neighbors out of
the system has been a running battle as they seem to think it's their
personal alternative to DSL or cable modems. Think in terms of
administration and control.

>b) the formula for calculating how much bandwidth each user would have
>(simultaneously) would look like ((actual AP throughput) x (number of APs))
>/ (number of users). *This requires the assumption that the users are evenly
>distributed between the APs.
>
>*** users is known at 250

No way. Unless this is Defcon revisited, you are not going to have
250 users simultaneously using the system to its limits. You may have
250 users associated and connected to the various access points, but
you are not going to have all of them simultaneously downloading the
latest Victoria's Secret fashion show during the event. If this is a
convention, the usual litany from the podium is "kindly turn off your
laptops and pay attention".

Incidentally, watch out for DHCP server problems. 253 is the maximum
number of clients on a Class C (CIDR /24 or 255.255.255.0) network.
If you really have over 250 laptops in the area, you're going to run
out of DHCP addresses. Make sure your single DHCP server has a backup
and is running a larger number of available IP's.

>*** 9 access points
>*** 5 Mbps actual throughput per access point
>==== 184.3 kbps per user (which is the same as the Internet connection)

>Is this a reasonable way to calculate things?

No. The first number is a bad guess. You may have 250 connections,
but if they're not moving data, they're not eating bandwidth. A good
rule of thumb for user loading on a single access point is:
100 casual users checking email and light surfing
10 business users
1 file sharing user
This doesn't strictly apply to your situation, but the idea is the
same. It's *WHAT* the users are doing that determines available
bandwidth. One user doing something disgusting will eat all your
bandwidth unless you do something about it (i.e. exclusions and
bandwidth management).

>Is the estimated actual
>throughput reasonable considering the level of interference I will get?

No. Interference is on an exponential curve with a fairly difficult
to calculate threshold. Place one access point in a room, on a given
channel, and measure thruput. Add another access point, on the same
channel, but with a different SSID, and again measure thruput with
both going at the same time. There will only be about a 10-20% loss
from airtime collisions. 802.11 is designed to work like that, so
that no system can monopolize the public airspace. However, as the
number of access points and clients increases in a given airspace, the
collision rate increases exponentially. My guess(tm) is about 5
access points and clients running in the same airspace, downloading
furiously, will cause the system to be next to useless because all the
packets transmitted will be re-transmissions.

What you'll probably find is that most of your interference does not
come from access points. These can be engineered and power controlled
to produce the least amount of interference. It's the client radios
that will be trashing each other. There's no tx power control, no
synchronization, usually no flow control, and often some very
aggressive retry algorithms. If you will have perhaps 10 clients on a
single access point, all watching the same streaming media content,
the thruput will be so bad that the clients will timeout.

>(I
>don't intend to use any security on the wireless link, and I've read using a
>short preamble can help - is that worth it?)

Sorta. You'll gain nothing in thruput. The long preamble is only
required with ancient 802.11 (1-2Mbits/sec) cards, which are
essentially extinct. You can leave it on "auto" because the access
point will automagically use a short preamble for everything other
than 1-2 Mbit/sec associations, which will hopefully not happen.

Incidentally, my acquaintance told me about a convention network that
was working at a tolerable level, but received a few connectivity
complaints. So, they more than doubled the number of access points in
the building. Of course, they interfered with each other and then
everybody had connection problems. Biggah ain't always bettah. In my
never humble opinion and very limited experience with such things, a
small number of isolated access points, with carefully located sector
antennas, is much better than an oversized tangle of overlapping
access points with omni antennas.

http://www.symbol.com/products/wirel...ss_switch.html
http://www.arubanetworks.com
(etc...)

Good luck.


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:21:20 -0400, "visitor"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>...I located the power control numbers. The APs can be set to 12.5% (10
>>dBm), 25% (12 dBm), 50% (15 dBm) and 100% (17 dBm). They also allow the
>>transmit rate to be fixed at 11 Mbps (or any of the other levels) - that's
>>supposed to limit the footprint as well, right?
>
> You don't want to limit the data rate to 11Mbits/sec or slower. That
> will IMPROVE the range:
> Rate Approximate Max Indoor Range
> 1 Mbps 350 ft.
> 2 Mbps 250 ft.
> 5.5 Mbps 180 ft.
> 6 Mbps 300 ft.
> 9 Mbps 250 ft.
> 11 Mbps 150 ft.


But if I fix the data rate to 11 Mbps, will it go below that?


>
> but also use more air time for the same amount of data moved. If a
> client wants to move XX Gigabloats of data, then the less air time he
> uses means more air time for others to use.
>
>>Budget is one of my problems...
>
> Diminishing returns will also be a problem. You can spend 10 times as
> much, and only improve the performance slightly. There is a point
> where you create your own interference. Anything beyond that causes a
> decrease in performance, not an increase.
>
>>I've got a couple more questions so I can confirm I'm thinking about
>>things
>>the right way. The nominal speed of an access point (i.e. 11 Mbps) is the
>>throughput PER CHANNEL, so that all the users connected to the AP share
>>that
>>total amount bandwidth.
>
> Wrong. 11Mbits/sec is the connection speed. There's lots of overhead
> involved. Dragging out the chart from an earlier posting:
> >chart posted>

I had hoped to understand it conceptually before dealing with numbers

> If you lock the connection rate at 11Mbits/sec, you'll effectively
> lock the maximum thruput to about 5.5Mbits/sec (or less). Try to
> think in terms of gigabloats downloaded instead of dividing bandwidth.
> How much data are these users expected to download?

lots (see your point about administration)


>
>>a) plugging a single access point into a 10baseT lan connection shouldn't
>>hurt the performance of the AP because the throughputs are about the same,
>>but if I plugged more than one AP into a segment running at 10 Mbps, there
>>would be an impact on performance of each AP because they would be sharing
>>a
>>smaller bandwidth connection.
>
> I don't understand where you're going. If you plug 100 access points
> into a single 10barfT connection, the aggregate bandwidth will still
> be 10Mbits/sec. Ignoring interference and different connection speed
> issues, the bandwidth will divide equally among the access points.

I think that's what I was trying to say....if i plugged x access points
capable of 97 Mbps into a 10barfT connection, they (the x) would have to
share 10 Mbps (which might be a bottleneck), but there wouldn't be a
narrowing of the bandwidth -at that point- if the x access points were
plugged into a 100baseT connection.


> However, the usage pattern will determine how many gigabloats an
> individual user can download. Some lunatic running Bitorrent can
> monopolize all your available bandwidth. You will need some form of
> bandwidth management, traffic control, user exclusion, and clueless
> user admin. You cannot deploy such a large network and not expect
> someone to show up with a virus, worm, brand new XP laptop requiring
> 100MBytes of updates, or other idiocy. Two weeks ago, I had to
> temporarily block the windowsupdate site for a convention in progress
> because about 150 laptops simultaneously decided that this would be a
> great time to do updates. An acquaintance spends his spare time
> maintaining a rather large convention center network. By necessity,
> it's an open (non-encrypted) network. Keeping the neighbors out of
> the system has been a running battle as they seem to think it's their
> personal alternative to DSL or cable modems. Think in terms of
> administration and control.

i figured that (administration and watching for crazy people) would be a big
part of it.......

>
>>b) the formula for calculating how much bandwidth each user would have
>>(simultaneously) would look like ((actual AP throughput) x (number of
>>APs))
>>/ (number of users). *This requires the assumption that the users are
>>evenly
>>distributed between the APs.
>>
>>*** users is known at 250
>
> No way. Unless this is Defcon revisited, you are not going to have
> 250 users simultaneously using the system to its limits. You may have
> 250 users associated and connected to the various access points, but
> you are not going to have all of them simultaneously downloading the
> latest Victoria's Secret fashion show during the event. If this is a
> convention, the usual litany from the podium is "kindly turn off your
> laptops and pay attention".
>
> Incidentally, watch out for DHCP server problems. 253 is the maximum
> number of clients on a Class C (CIDR /24 or 255.255.255.0) network.
> If you really have over 250 laptops in the area, you're going to run
> out of DHCP addresses. Make sure your single DHCP server has a backup
> and is running a larger number of available IP's.

crap.....i'm not going to have to worry about subnets, am I? - or worse, is
that going to max out the whole dog gamned thing?


>
>>*** 9 access points
>>*** 5 Mbps actual throughput per access point
>>==== 184.3 kbps per user (which is the same as the Internet connection)
>
>>Is this a reasonable way to calculate things?
>
> No. The first number is a bad guess. You may have 250 connections,
> but if they're not moving data, they're not eating bandwidth. A good
> rule of thumb for user loading on a single access point is:

Well I guess it depends on your definitions of "business user" and "casual
user". It's not a conference, it's a working meeting, and there will be
somewhere up to 250 (closer to 200) heavy surfing/email checking clients in
a single room the first and last day. They'll be more spread out
(physically) the other days.

> 100 casual users checking email and light surfing
> 10 business users
> 1 file sharing user
> This doesn't strictly apply to your situation, but the idea is the
> same. It's *WHAT* the users are doing that determines available
> bandwidth. One user doing something disgusting will eat all your
> bandwidth unless you do something about it (i.e. exclusions and
> bandwidth management).

i figured that (administration and watching for crazy people) would be a big
part of it.......

while I've got you, can you suggest some good tools for that?

>
>>Is the estimated actual
>>throughput reasonable considering the level of interference I will get?
>
> No. Interference is on an exponential curve with a fairly difficult
> to calculate threshold. Place one access point in a room, on a given
> channel, and measure thruput. Add another access point, on the same
> channel, but with a different SSID, and again measure thruput with
> both going at the same time. There will only be about a 10-20% loss
> from airtime collisions. 802.11 is designed to work like that, so
> that no system can monopolize the public airspace. However, as the
> number of access points and clients increases in a given airspace, the
> collision rate increases exponentially. My guess(tm) is about 5
> access points and clients running in the same airspace, downloading
> furiously, will cause the system to be next to useless because all the
> packets transmitted will be re-transmissions.

when you say "airspace" are you talking about geography or spectrum? because
even my thoughts of 9 access points only ever had three operating on the
same channel (and 20 users per)....it's odd there's no power control built
into the client hardware, although I guess that would just make the access
points more expensive.
>
> What you'll probably find is that most of your interference does not
> come from access points. These can be engineered and power controlled
> to produce the least amount of interference. It's the client radios
> that will be trashing each other. There's no tx power control, no
> synchronization, usually no flow control, and often some very
> aggressive retry algorithms. If you will have perhaps 10 clients on a
> single access point, all watching the same streaming media content,
> the thruput will be so bad that the clients will timeout.
>
>>(I
>>don't intend to use any security on the wireless link, and I've read using
>>a
>>short preamble can help - is that worth it?)
>
> Sorta. You'll gain nothing in thruput. The long preamble is only
> required with ancient 802.11 (1-2Mbits/sec) cards, which are
> essentially extinct. You can leave it on "auto" because the access
> point will automagically use a short preamble for everything other
> than 1-2 Mbit/sec associations, which will hopefully not happen.
>
> Incidentally, my acquaintance told me about a convention network that
> was working at a tolerable level, but received a few connectivity
> complaints. So, they more than doubled the number of access points in
> the building. Of course, they interfered with each other and then
> everybody had connection problems. Biggah ain't always bettah. In my
> never humble opinion and very limited experience with such things, a
> small number of isolated access points, with carefully located sector
> antennas, is much better than an oversized tangle of overlapping
> access points with omni antennas.


>
> http://www.symbol.com/products/wirel...ss_switch.html
> http://www.arubanetworks.com
> (etc...)
>

yeah, i know........

> Good luck.
>
>

thanks, I'll need it

> --
> Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:21:17 -0400, "visitor"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>But if I fix the data rate to 11 Mbps, will it go below that?

Probably not. It really depends on the access point and how the
configuration is scribbled. If there is a setting such as "802.11b
only", it will work from 1-11Mbits/sec. If there is an "802.11g only"
setting, it will only use the more efficient OFDM modulation and go
from 6Mbits/sec to 54Mbits/sec. Some firmware has a table of
acceptable speeds, where you can prevent the access point from going
below 5.5Mbits/sec. However the greatest majority simply give you the
choice of picking exactly one speed.

>I had hoped to understand it conceptually before dealing with numbers

That's fine and what I also like to do. However, eventually, you'll
need to deal with reality as expressed in numbers. For me, numbers
are everything.

>lots (see your point about administration)

I don't wanna play voice of doom (no matter how much fun it is).
However, methinks it would be a good idea to give you a feeling of
what might be involved. I forgot to mention that you'll probably have
a dilemma dealing with client to client traffic. For the most part,
you don't want any client to client traffic. That's the way worms and
virus's propagate. Same with hackers attacking other users. However,
there's *ALWAYS" some irate user demanding to be able to use the
convention network to move data from one laptop to another. The right
way it to tell them to setup a peer-to-peer network and not bother the
convention network, but that doesn't fly with corporate types used to
having IT do everything for them.

>I think that's what I was trying to say....if i plugged x access points
>capable of 97 Mbps into a 10barfT connection, they (the x) would have to
>share 10 Mbps (which might be a bottleneck), but there wouldn't be a
>narrowing of the bandwidth -at that point- if the x access points were
>plugged into a 100baseT connection.

That's correct. Simply having more wireless bandwidth than backhaul
doesn't improve anyone download speed. Now, allow me to screw things
up a bit. Pretend you have two users. One connects with an 802.11b
radio at 11Mbits/sec, the other with an 802.11g radio at 54Mbits/sec.
You have a 10barfT backhaul and are therefore limited to about
6Mbits/sec (surprise, you're probably not full duplex on the access
point). Quiz time:
1. Duz the bandwidth divide equally between the two users at perhaps
3Mbits/sec each?
2. Or duz the airtime divide equally between the two users allowing
the faster user to download more megabytes than the 11Mbit/sec user.
3. Or duz the presence of 802.11b cause the 802.11g connection to
slow down to the speed of the 802.11b connection resulting in primate
equal bandwidth?

>i figured that (administration and watching for crazy people) would be a big
>part of it.......

I hope you enjoy playing policeman. Part of the fun is answering the
inevitable question: Where is all the traffic coming from and how do
I kill it? Be prepared to use Ethereal or something similar to
identify abusers and infected machines.

>crap.....i'm not going to have to worry about subnets, am I? - or worse, is
>that going to max out the whole dog gamned thing?

How should I know? You haven't defined the hardware. One reason to
use a central switch is that all the admin is centrally controlled.
That includes the DHCP server. There are no roaming issues. You can
enable and disable access points on the fly without much effort. It's
totally ideal from the management point of view. Want more DHCP
scope? No problem, it's one setting. You won't have any subnets
because it will be one big network. Don't worry about subnets.
However, you should worry about running out of DHCP leases. The
sloppy way to solve that is to limit the DHCP lease time and rapidly
expire stale leases. About 30 mins is all that's needed. When
someone turns off their laptop, their IP address is available for
someone else in 30 minutes. That will help, but really solves another
problem caused by excessively huge MAC address to port tables and ARP
tables. If you expect 250 users, then plan for about twice that
number of MAC addresses.

>Well I guess it depends on your definitions of "business user" and "casual
>user". It's not a conference, it's a working meeting, and there will be
>somewhere up to 250 (closer to 200) heavy surfing/email checking clients in
>a single room the first and last day. They'll be more spread out
>(physically) the other days.

I've never attended one of those but I've helped set them up. The
weak link is the number of 117VAC outlets. Everyone turns on their
laptops, sleeps through the opening speech while playing Solitaire,
and then looks for a way to recharge their laptops. Have some big
power strips ready.

I'm not sure what they'll actually be doing. If they're looking at an
online version of the (yawn) PowerPoint presentation, it doesn't take
hardly any bandwidth. Same with email. What burns bandwidth is
streaming content and massive downloads. Someone shows up with a file
sharing program active and eats all your outgoing bandwidth. Someone
downloads something with Bitorrent and eats all your incoming
bandwidth. Again, it's not the number of users or connections, but
what they're doing.

I almost forgot. There are an awful large number of VoIP users. I
use Skype whenever possible. They're gonna want a low latency
connection with will be impossible if you're dealing with large
amounts of traffic. However, if VoIP is important, you might wanna
look into QoS (Quality of Service) features in various bandwidth
management schemes. (I'll be you though this was gonna be easy).

>i figured that (administration and watching for crazy people) would be a big
>part of it.......

It really depends on the audience. I play wireless policeman for a
few local coffee shops. I can go for weeks without any problems.
Then, some chronic abuser drifts in and I have to deal with their
crap. Usually, it's some spammer sitting in the back of a vehicle in
the parking lot, using the wireless to spew his junk, and make a quick
getaway if there's any sign of problems.

>while I've got you, can you suggest some good tools for that?

For what? Crazy people? A large baseball bat usually works.

If you mean wireless, Snort works well for intrusion and abuse
detection.
http://snort-wireless.org
http://www.snort.org
I've only setup Snort on one corporate system so I'm not the expert on
using or setting it up. You can grab pre-configured rules and get
running immediately.

>when you say "airspace" are you talking about geography or spectrum?

Geography. However, it also applies to spectrum in terms of channel
selection. Basically, airspace is any area that is covered by
wireless that might be a localized source of co-channel interference.

>because
>even my thoughts of 9 access points only ever had three operating on the
>same channel (and 20 users per)....it's odd there's no power control built
>into the client hardware, although I guess that would just make the access
>points more expensive.

I'll spare you the politics. Every technology adopted since 802.11
has required adaptive tx power control.

Also, 3Scum has a line of wireless switches:
| http://www.3com.com/products/en_US/p...&family=201805
I don't know anything about it but it looks interesting (and
expensive).

Note: If it were easy, it would be no fun.



--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# (E-Mail Removed)
# (E-Mail Removed) AE6KS

"Jeff Liebermann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:21:17 -0400, "visitor"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>But if I fix the data rate to 11 Mbps, will it go below that?

I should have mentioned, all the gear is "b" only, and according to the
documentation, it does allow the transmit rate to be fixed rather than a
cap/floor setting
>
> Probably not. It really depends on the access point and how the
> configuration is scribbled <snipped>........
>
> I don't wanna play voice of doom (no matter how much fun it is).
> However, methinks it would be a good idea to give you a feeling of
> what might be involved. <snipped>........

Much better to hear it now than on the hotel floor....much, much better.....

>
>
> <snipped>........
Quiz time:
> 1. Duz the bandwidth divide equally between the two users at perhaps
> 3Mbits/sec each?
> 2. Or duz the airtime divide equally between the two users allowing
> the faster user to download more megabytes than the 11Mbit/sec user.
> 3. Or duz the presence of 802.11b cause the 802.11g connection to
> slow down to the speed of the 802.11b connection resulting in primate
> equal bandwidth?

Thankfully I'm limited to b equipment , so i won't have to think of these
things on the ground, but doesn't g equipment revert to b for everything if
a b device is detected? In a mixed group of users with a mix of b and g
devices, is there actually a benefit to using g if you only ever get b
performance?


>
>><snipped>........>

>>crap.....i'm not going to have to worry about subnets, am I? - or worse,
>>is
>>that going to max out the whole dog gamned thing?
>
> How should I know? You haven't defined the hardware. One reason to
> use a central switch is that all the admin is centrally controlled.

sorry, more exclamation than question......but thanks for the answer. I was
was already going to have the lease times reduced. And I will be working
with a network admin (a real one, presumably) who belongs to the wired
network. My worries are mostly related to getting the wireless to work while
not killing with (wired) network.

> That includes the DHCP server. There are no roaming issues. You can
> enable and disable access points on the fly without much effort. It's
> totally ideal from the management point of view. Want more DHCP
> scope? No problem, it's one setting. <snipped>........

>
> I've never attended one of those but I've helped set them up. The
> weak link is the number of 117VAC outlets. Everyone turns on their
> laptops, sleeps through the opening speech while playing Solitaire,
> and then looks for a way to recharge their laptops. Have some big
> power strips ready.

Power is taken care of, it will be at the tables. It is something that gets
overlooked, and then as you said,m people start running around for a place
to recharge.
>
> I'm not sure what they'll actually be doing. If they're looking at an
> online version of the (yawn) PowerPoint presentation, it doesn't take
> hardly any bandwidth. Same with email. What burns bandwidth is
> streaming content and massive downloads. Someone shows up with a file
> sharing program active and eats all your outgoing bandwidth. Someone
> downloads something with Bitorrent and eats all your incoming
> bandwidth. Again, it's not the number of users or connections, but
> what they're doing.
>
> I almost forgot. There are an awful large number of VoIP users. I
> use Skype whenever possible. They're gonna want a low latency
> connection with will be impossible if you're dealing with large
> amounts of traffic. However, if VoIP is important, you might wanna
> look into QoS (Quality of Service) features in various bandwidth
> management schemes. (I'll be you though this was gonna be easy).


>
>>i figured that (administration and watching for crazy people) would be a
>>big
>>part of it.......
>
> It really depends on the audience. I play wireless policeman for a
> few local coffee shops. I can go for weeks without any problems.
> Then, some chronic abuser drifts in and I have to deal with their
> crap. <snipped>........

>
> Geography. However, it also applies to spectrum in terms of channel
> selection. Basically, airspace is any area that is covered by
> wireless that might be a localized source of co-channel interference.
>
>>because
>>even my thoughts of 9 access points only ever had three operating on the
>>same channel (and 20 users per)....it's odd there's no power control built
>>into the client hardware, although I guess that would just make the access
>>points more expensive.

Actually, that rasies a question I had about channel re-use. This again goes
to the "big room" days. Using the 3 non overlapping channels with 9 APs,
there are 3 APs on each of the channels. Using four channels that overlap a
little bit, and 8 APs, there are only two APs on each channel, but the
channels casue some interference. I guess the question is "which is worse".
Now that I'm actually writing it down, it would seem to require an actual
interference study to anser that. I guess I'm looking not for "which is
worse" but which actually works better in the field (ususally).

>
> I'll spare you the politics. Every technology adopted since 802.11
> has required adaptive tx power control.
>
> Also, 3Scum has a line of wireless switches:
> |
> http://www.3com.com/products/en_US/p...&family=201805
> I don't know anything about it but it looks interesting (and
> expensive).
>
> Note: If it were easy, it would be no fun.

Thanks again. As I said, it's better to think of these things now than on
the floor of the meeting.

>
>
>
> --
> # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
> # 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> # (E-Mail Removed)
> # (E-Mail Removed) AE6KS