THE BLOG ★ Ramblings on WiFi & stuff.

♻︎ Today’s Quality Linkage

Bigger ain't always better.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes, 31 seconds. Contains 904 words

 

I was asked to come and troubleshoot a WLAN that was experiencing connectivity issues. All we knew was this was a brand-new installation and that it was the latest hardware available from this particular vendor.

The first thing I did upon arriving on site was scan the area as we walked around. Immediately I saw something that was troubling. All of the brand-new 802.11ac access points were broadcasting on 80MHz channels, and there were no DFS (Dynamic Frequency Selection) channels being used thus limiting their channel re-use options even more.

As you can see in the chart below there are only TWO 80MHz channels available for use without DFS channels (the entire UNII-2) :

5GHz Channels in the US

Even in a deployment as small as this one (they only had eight APs) using 80MHz channel is a non-starter. The WLAN was literally interfering with itself. Even enabling DFS channels would have been a difficult thing to make work, even then (theoretically) we could have 5-6 channels. However, channel 144 is ONLY usable by 802.11ac devices. So, typically, we don't use channel 144. Also, if TDWR (Terminal Doppler Weather Radar)  is within hearing range of the WLAN, those channels are not used. Now we're down to FOUR 80MHz channels. Four channels may work in a small environment, but then you have to consider WLANs other than yours.

Unless you are in a secluded area there will probably be other WLANs within earshot of your network. So, if any of the secondary-channels that make up the 80MHz channel that you are on are also in use by other clients, you will experience issues. In this case, the WLAN was in an office building that had other tenants with their own WLANs. So, using 80MHz channels in the scenario was the main cause of their problems. (Even if they were secluded usage of 80MHz channels would not be practical.)

The fix was simple. I enabled DFS on their controller and disabled 80MHz channel usage. This immediately dropped all APs (access points) to using 40MHz channels. And, with the use of the now available DFS channels, we had NINE channels to use among 8 APs. The point here is DFS gives A LOT more channels to work with - so it's worth using them.

I can't blame the customer for this. The installer should have known that 80MHz channels in an enterprise environment is not practical, or in this case, even viable. It was clear what had happened. The system defaults were left as-is, and there was little to no customization of the WLAN.

By default, 80MHz channels were enabled. 

By default, DFS was disabled. 

By default, all APs were set to transmit at maximum power.

This just shows the importance of knowledgable and experienced when deploying wireless networks. It's more than mounting APs and creating a few SSIDs. It's understanding how RF (radio frequencies) work, what its limitations are, and how to design around them.

One last note on using DFS channels. I have seen great success using them, but the reason DFS channels are not enabled by default is because they share spectrum with radar systems:

 

DFS is a mechanism to allow unlicensed devices to use the 5GHz frequency bands already allocated to radar systems without causing interference to those radars. The concept of DFS is to have the unlicensed device detect the presence of a radar system on the channel they are using and, if the level of the radar is above a certain threshold, vacate that channel and select an alternate channel.
 
- Aruba, an HP Enterprise Company

 

For this reason DFS is disabled by default on Aruba controllers (the system I was working on). If near an airport, a marina, or military installation, you should consider the possibility of radar events. A radar event occurs when an AP hears (or, thinks it hears) radar on the channel it's on. When this occurs the AP immediately switches to another channel (as per FCC regulation). This will cause all the clients on that AP to be disconnected. They will then probe for a new AP and reconnect. With a few events per month this may not be a big issue. But, if you have mission-critical applications (a hospital perhaps) radar events may not allow DFS to be an option. You may even need to go down to 20MHz channels so you can have more spatial re-use with non-DFS channels.

I recommend enabling and using DFS whenever possible. Then monitor your network for events. If they never occur, or are very infrequent then continue using DFS. If you see events that seem to be centered on certain frequencies disable just those DFS channels. 

Enabling DFS channels

Disabling 80MHz support

The easiest way to monitor for DFS events on an Aruba controller is from the CLI. SSH into your controller and use the following command:

(controller) # show log all | include Radar

Do this every few weeks. Then if all seems good - once a month, or so. If you're lucky enough to have an NMS (Network Management System) perhaps you could setup alerts for these events.

The four things I hope you get from this post are:

1. 80MHz channels are impractical for enterprise use.
2. Use DFS channels whenever you can (which should be most of the time).
3. NEVER take the default settings from manufacturer at face value.
4. When in doubt hire a professional.

 

* Originally posted on my company blog at CommunicaONE.com


UPDATE:

Thanks to my buddy, @tritterbush for pointing out that "disable "VHT." was incorrect. The better way to disable 80MHz is just to disable it in the ARM profile for that AP group.

 

 

♻︎ Today's Quality Linkage

LinkNYC's free gigabit Wi-Fi is here, and it is glorious

After connecting to one of LinkNYC’s gigabit wireless hotspots, the futuristic payphone replacements that went live for beta testing this morning, I’m seeing download speeds of 280 Mbps and upload speeds of 317 Mbps (based on Speedtest’s benchmark).

I'm eager to see how this looks when hundreds of people are connected to each of these APs. This was a speed test taken right when the Wi-Fi went live, not when it was in full use by the NYC metropoli.

I've some concerns about this due to stuff I've read and some pictures I saw on how the APs were installed - indoor Ruckus APs mounted upside-down. Regardless, I think this is awesome - getting free, FAST, wireless to the masses. Hope this works out.

Fierce Wireless: Work on LTE-U testing regime ongoing, but it's unclear when it will be finished

A top executive from the Wi-Fi Alliance said the group is making progress in its efforts to create a testing regime for LTE-U technologies, with the goal of creating some common ground between the Wi-Fi industry and the cellular industry over the controversial technology.

Looks like there may be some hope in the LTE-U Wars. Testing & validation of WiFi and LTE-U is important, but who knows how far this will go? The LTE-U stakeholders formed their own standards body, but working with the WiFi Alliance would help to validate, or in-validate the concerns of many of us in the wireless industry.

 

ZDNet: "These were the worst passwords of 2015, and they're only getting worse"

The most common password of last year is “123456,” which sadly probably isn’t a surprise considering statistically there’s a good chance that’s your password.

Following that, it’s “password” and “12345678,” which just shows that you aren’t even trying anymore.

And it gets stupider:

Perhaps the most telling detail is how far some of the previously most-common passwords are rising up the ranks year-over-year.

If you're using a password like this you get want you deserve.

I suppose the only thing worse is posting your passwords on a sticky note on your monitor? You could get the of these like my Mee-Maw uses!

I mean, Geez, we have PASSWORD MANAGERS now!


♻︎ Today's Quality Linkage

REVIEW: MEE Audio M6 PRO In-Ear Monitors. The $40 Earphones I can't Believe Exist

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes, 12 seconds. Contains 641 words

Yes, I am aware this has nothing to do with Wi-Fi, BAD, or otherwise, but we Wi-Fi guys (and gals) like to have nice things, don't we? Also, it's good to have some decent "buds" (earbuds) when studying, or working from say, a coffee shop. :-)

A few months back I lost my beloved Shure SE525-CL In-Ear Monitors (IEMs) due to carelessness on my part (for which I have imparted unending flagellation upon myself). I have since been using my Apple EarPods, or my wife's Beats Solo headphones, while I bide my time replacing my lost Shures.

Every now and then I'll do a search on the InterWebs ™ for "best earphones under $100". I've tried a few with poor results. I don't remember exactly how I got around to finding the MEEs, but I'm glad I did.

The first review I found for them was overly effusive, which to me is a dead give-away for not believing it, so I kept looking. After the 4th, or 5th review I was thinking there must be something to these things. So, I checked on Amazon and there they were for $40, in Clear no less (just like my Shures)! I figured for $40 bucks I'd take a chance on these.

Two days later a lovely, smiling, Amazon Prime box arrive with the acquired loot. I promptly opened it and was surprised by the quality of the packaging - it felt very high-end.

I opened the box and was surprised again by the quality of the included items:

  • A very nice carrying case
  • Earbuds (of course)
  • Detachable cables (1 with Mic & volume controls for phone use, and 1 without)
  • A bag of 6 pair of ear tips
  • 1 set of Comply ear tips (that's what I'm using)
  • And a 1/4" headphone adapter for use with stereos and what not.

All this for $40? Yup. So, we have some nice packaging, but how do they sound? Well, they sound like the best $40 earphones I've ever heard. Yeah, that's not much of an assessment, I know, but I'm just passing time here until I can pull the trigger on another set of $500 earphones. Until then, these fit the bill just fine.

If you're like me - not ready to be spending several hundred dollars on Pro IEMs, but still want something that sounds good, then these are a no-brainer. The build quality is better than it should be, and the sound is not only good, but "Sound-Isolating". Yeah, for $40 you get a good set of earphones that block out sound really well.  Not by any fancy noise-cancelling technology, but just good, foamy isolation, from the tips that come in the box.

If I were to describe the sound I would say their bassier than I would like, and the highs are not nearly as smooth as my Shures were. They're more "shrill" in that regard. But, with a little EQ adjustment they sound, for lack of a better word, good.

I primarily use earphones when I am trying to get stuff done, or traveling on an airplane, to block out the noise. Anyone who follows me on Twitter knows I spend a lot of time in coffee shops. I have an office, but for me, getting out, finding a secluded corner, putting on my earphones, turning on my Noizio app (for the appropriate amount of thunder & rain), my Film Score and Mozart playlists, helps me focus, and keeps me from being distracted. These earbuds fit the bill for me. Good isolation and good sound.

Look, these WILL NOT be competing with high-end IEMs. They're not gonna beat Shure, Etymotic, or Westone. But, if you're looking for a good pair of earphones for under $100, heck under $50, you can't go wrong with the MEE Audio M6 PRO In-Ear Monitors. 

 

LINKS:

MEE Audio M6 on Amazon $40

Shure SE535-CL Earphones $449

“Gigabit” Wi-Fi Hits the Big Apple?

Estimated reading time: 1 minute, 47 seconds. Contains 359 words

Recently, I’ve been intrigued by the LinkNYC Project. It sounds like a pretty fantastic thing: Free, high-speed, Internet for everyone in New York City. They are also rolling out Hotspot 2.0 with this as well, so this peeks my interest even more. Of course, being a wireless professional, and nit-picky, there are things that beg questioning.

The first is the use of the term “Gigabit Wi-Fi”, which is brought up a multiple times in this article and interview with Engadget. Of course, the first thing to happen, when they go live, is Twitter will blow up with, “I’m using the LinkNYC Wi-Fi and I'm not getting a Gigabit! What a bunch of liars!!!”, or something to that affect. Because, no one is ever going to see those speeds, regardless of how awesome it's purported to be. 

It’s not that they don’t have the backhaul for it - they do. Fiber is being run to all the kiosk locations - with some exceptions for areas where it's not an option. But, this is the same message we get from wireless vendors that market their "Gigabit" Wi-Fi products, and as we all know - that’s not the reality for many reasons:

  • Half-Duplex requiring CSMA/CA which adds overhead and thus reduces actual throughput to ~60% of the link rate.
  • The massive number of users that will be connecting to each AP. Remember, this is a SHARED medium. "One ping, Vasili. One ping only."
  • The various device capabilities
  • Link rate for clients that vary on their distance, etc.

The other thing that concerns me is this:

I don’t get this image. That’s cleary a Ruckus AP. But, it’s upside down - isn't it? And, it’s surrounded by metal. Maybe they weren’t finished with the install? But, it looks like it’s pretty well mounted, and won't be moving anywhere.

Don't get me wrong - I'm loving this whole concept. I think it's fantastic, and would love to see this spread to other communities. I'm just wondering if there were any wireless engineers involved in the design and deployment of this endeavor. It SEEMS like that's not optimal placement for that AP - which I assume is a down-tilt omni. Is that just some meI, or am I COMPLETELY wrong?

Seriously, I'm asking!


Large and in Charge ⇥

One big BAD-FI "Faux Pas" is the use of 80MHz channels in use in an enterprise environment. But, what makes it worse is that manufacturers aren't helping the matter:

via CommunicaONE Blog:

I don't blame the end-user here for this issue. The installer should have known that an 80MHz in an enterprise environment is not practical, or viable. It was clear what had happened was  the defaults were left as it, and there was little to no customization of the WLAN.
 
     By default, 80MHz channels were enabled. 
     By default, DFS was disabled. 
     By default, all APs were set to transmit at maximum power.
 

I agree with @WiFiTodd's assessment: