Mailing List Archive

Access point proximity
Hi,
I recall someone mentioning an issue when co-locating APs too close together
even when they're broadcasting on difference channels (1,6 or 11). We use
Cisco gear but I suspect this is a 'radio' issue and therefore vendor-neutral?
If this is the case, is there a rule-of-thumb minimum distance for 802.11b?
Any chance this distance would increase when upgrading to G?

.......thanks in advance........Jamie


James Savage York University
Senior Com. Tech. 108 Steacie Bldg.
jsavage@yorku.ca 4700 Keele Street
phone: 416-736-2100 ext.22605 Toronto, Ontario
fax: 416-736-5701 M3J 1P3, CANADA
/\ /\ /\ /\
/ \ / \ / \ / \
\ / \ / \ /
\/ \/ \/
Re: Access point proximity [ In reply to ]
> Hi,
> I recall someone mentioning an issue when co-locating APs too close together
> even when they're broadcasting on difference channels (1,6 or 11). We use
> Cisco gear but I suspect this is a 'radio' issue and therefore vendor-neutral?
> If this is the case, is there a rule-of-thumb minimum distance for 802.11b?
> Any chance this distance would increase when upgrading to G?

> .......thanks in advance........Jamie

There should be zero problems with 802.11B/G transmissions
on channels 1, 6, and 11 geographically overlapping. The
energy transmitted in those channels should be completely
discrete. Where did you hear this?

(Should we make a new discussion list for Cisco WLAN products?
If so, what should we call it? cisco-wlan? cisco-wifi?
cisco-802.11?)

Cheers,

Aaron