Network load of idle systems

In my neighbourhood, I see about 10 access-points being
active. About 40% on channel 1, 20 % percent on channel 6
and 40 % on channel 11. So I take channel 4 and 13 for
my two access-points. I thinks thats the best I can do.

In general, performance is very good, so I think most
of my neighbours are not the kind of heavy users.

What I like to know is the "network load" of an idle access-point
and/or laptop.
I assume there are some regular "pings" to show that you
are alive, but I was not able to find more
detail about that.

Anyone knows?

Wim

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:05:34 +0200, in
<4c616abf$0$22945$(E-Mail Removed)>, Wim J <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In my neighbourhood, I see about 10 access-points being
>active. About 40% on channel 1, 20 % percent on channel 6
>and 40 % on channel 11. So I take channel 4 and 13 for
>my two access-points. I thinks thats the best I can do.

Your best bet is probably to avoid the channels with the strongest
signals (for both access point and client radios), not necessarily the
most access points.

>In general, performance is very good, so I think most
>of my neighbours are not the kind of heavy users.

Wi-Fi is designed to coexist, and has enough capacity that even degraded
performance tends to be faster than broadband Internet and thus not a
bottleneck.

>What I like to know is the "network load" of an idle access-point
>and/or laptop.

Near zero.

>I assume there are some regular "pings" to show that you
>are alive, but I was not able to find more
>detail about that.

SSID broadcast from access points, but the load is minor.

--
John FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:05:34 +0200, in
> <4c616abf$0$22945$(E-Mail Removed)>, Wim J <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> In my neighbourhood, I see about 10 access-points being
>> active. About 40% on channel 1, 20 % percent on channel 6
>> and 40 % on channel 11. So I take channel 4 and 13 for
>> my two access-points. I thinks thats the best I can do.
>
> Your best bet is probably to avoid the channels with the strongest
> signals (for both access point and client radios), not necessarily the
> most access points.
>

I did some check with netstumbler. All other AP are 20-30Db weaker then
my AP.

Wim

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:27:28 -0700, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:05:34 +0200, in
><4c616abf$0$22945$(E-Mail Removed)>, Wim J <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>In my neighbourhood, I see about 10 access-points being
>>active. About 40% on channel 1, 20 % percent on channel 6
>>and 40 % on channel 11. So I take channel 4 and 13 for
>>my two access-points. I thinks thats the best I can do.

To the OP, hopefully you live in an area where using channel 13 is
allowed, i.e., not in the US.

>Your best bet is probably to avoid the channels with the strongest
>signals (for both access point and client radios), not necessarily the
>most access points.
>
>>In general, performance is very good, so I think most
>>of my neighbours are not the kind of heavy users.
>
>Wi-Fi is designed to coexist, and has enough capacity that even degraded
>performance tends to be faster than broadband Internet and thus not a
>bottleneck.

802.11g is probably still dominant, with a max throughput of about 24
Mbps. It doesn't take much interference or congestion to cut that in
half or even less. Meanwhile, many ISP's are selling service at the
8-16 Mbps level, with some plans being higher, (such as 22 Mbps with
bursting to 30 Mbps in my case), not to mention the new DOCSIS 3
service tiers that are beginning to roll out with 50 Mbps service, and
announcements/rumors of doubling and quadrupling that.

Be careful when saying, with a broad stroke, that wireless is faster
than broadband Internet.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:36:19 -0500, in
<(E-Mail Removed)>, Char Jackson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:27:28 -0700, John Navas
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:05:34 +0200, in
>><4c616abf$0$22945$(E-Mail Removed)>, Wim J <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In my neighbourhood, I see about 10 access-points being
>>>active. About 40% on channel 1, 20 % percent on channel 6
>>>and 40 % on channel 11. So I take channel 4 and 13 for
>>>my two access-points. I thinks thats the best I can do.
>
>To the OP, hopefully you live in an area where using channel 13 is
>allowed, i.e., not in the US.
>
>>Your best bet is probably to avoid the channels with the strongest
>>signals (for both access point and client radios), not necessarily the
>>most access points.
>>
>>>In general, performance is very good, so I think most
>>>of my neighbours are not the kind of heavy users.
>>
>>Wi-Fi is designed to coexist, and has enough capacity that even degraded
>>performance tends to be faster than broadband Internet and thus not a
>>bottleneck.
>
>802.11g is probably still dominant, with a max throughput of about 24
>Mbps. It doesn't take much interference or congestion to cut that in
>half or even less. Meanwhile, many ISP's are selling service at the
>8-16 Mbps level, with some plans being higher, (such as 22 Mbps with
>bursting to 30 Mbps in my case), not to mention the new DOCSIS 3
>service tiers that are beginning to roll out with 50 Mbps service, and
>announcements/rumors of doubling and quadrupling that.
>
>Be careful when saying, with a broad stroke, that wireless is faster
>than broadband Internet.

It's nonetheless rare for wi-Fi to be an actual bottleneck:
* Super-speed broadband is still relatively rare.
* Wi-Fi usually runs fast enough for even super-speed broadband.
* Speed tends to be limited by remote servers to less than
super-speed (something ISPs probably count on).

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:36:19 -0500, in
> <(E-Mail Removed)>, Char Jackson
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:27:28 -0700, John Navas
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:05:34 +0200, in
>>> <4c616abf$0$22945$(E-Mail Removed)>, Wim J <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In my neighbourhood, I see about 10 access-points being
>>>> active. About 40% on channel 1, 20 % percent on channel 6
>>>> and 40 % on channel 11. So I take channel 4 and 13 for
>>>> my two access-points. I thinks thats the best I can do.
>> To the OP, hopefully you live in an area where using channel 13 is
>> allowed, i.e., not in the US.

Thanks for the warning, but channel 13 is allowed here (Netherlands).

>>
>> Be careful when saying, with a broad stroke, that wireless is faster
>> than broadband Internet.
>
> It's nonetheless rare for wi-Fi to be an actual bottleneck:
> * Super-speed broadband is still relatively rare.
> * Wi-Fi usually runs fast enough for even super-speed broadband.
> * Speed tends to be limited by remote servers to less than
> super-speed (something ISPs probably count on).
>

I agree with that. My line is 10Mbit ADSL, but there
are some cable companies offering 80Mbit here. And VDSL2
is starting its roll-out (but slowly).

Wim

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:03:22 -0700, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:36:19 -0500, in
><(E-Mail Removed)>, Char Jackson
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:27:28 -0700, John Navas
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:05:34 +0200, in
>>><4c616abf$0$22945$(E-Mail Removed)>, Wim J <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In my neighbourhood, I see about 10 access-points being
>>>>active. About 40% on channel 1, 20 % percent on channel 6
>>>>and 40 % on channel 11. So I take channel 4 and 13 for
>>>>my two access-points. I thinks thats the best I can do.
>>
>>To the OP, hopefully you live in an area where using channel 13 is
>>allowed, i.e., not in the US.
>>
>>>Your best bet is probably to avoid the channels with the strongest
>>>signals (for both access point and client radios), not necessarily the
>>>most access points.
>>>
>>>>In general, performance is very good, so I think most
>>>>of my neighbours are not the kind of heavy users.
>>>
>>>Wi-Fi is designed to coexist, and has enough capacity that even degraded
>>>performance tends to be faster than broadband Internet and thus not a
>>>bottleneck.
>>
>>802.11g is probably still dominant, with a max throughput of about 24
>>Mbps. It doesn't take much interference or congestion to cut that in
>>half or even less. Meanwhile, many ISP's are selling service at the
>>8-16 Mbps level, with some plans being higher, (such as 22 Mbps with
>>bursting to 30 Mbps in my case), not to mention the new DOCSIS 3
>>service tiers that are beginning to roll out with 50 Mbps service, and
>>announcements/rumors of doubling and quadrupling that.
>>
>>Be careful when saying, with a broad stroke, that wireless is faster
>>than broadband Internet.
>
>It's nonetheless rare for wi-Fi to be an actual bottleneck:

Only if you stretch the definition of rare so that it has a bit of
overlap with common.

> * Super-speed broadband is still relatively rare.
> * Wi-Fi usually runs fast enough for even super-speed broadband.

I don't know what Super-speed broadband means to you, but Comcast's
basic service, to use a large ISP as an example, is 12 Mbps. Time
Warner's Roadrunner is similar, if not identical. It's not at all rare
for a WiFi connection to drop below that rate in the face of
congestion and interference. The ironic thing is that you'd be arguing
my side, and have in the past, if you had brought it up instead of me.

> * Speed tends to be limited by remote servers to less than
> super-speed (something ISPs probably count on).

I run into that less and less as the weeks go by. These days, it seems
to be limited to a few of the open source repositories. All of the
more mainstream sites allow full speed downloads, at least in my
experience.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:32:26 -0700, in
<(E-Mail Removed)>, Jeff Liebermann
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Finding a blank channel is going to be difficult. Landing between two
>channels is a bad idea because you'll get some interference from both
>channels.

In general, but I have seen high interference cases where it produced
better results than being on the standard channels (1, 6, 11).

>Also, the strongest signal is not the best criteria. A
>stong nearby signal, but which doesn't pass much traffic, doesn't
>create anywhere near as much interference as a weaker signal, that's
>on all the time. The problem is that few utilities show how much
>traffic is moving by SSID. Fortunately, Kismet does (Pkts column).
>Run it all day and the channel with the fewest packets would be a good
>start.

The important part there is "all day" (including all night) because you
might otherwise miss periods of heavy traffic, and even that might not
be enough if (say) someone is simply out of town, which is why I
generally recommend going for the standard channel with the weakest
signals, and only investigating further if performance proves to be a
problem.

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]