On 01/30/2011 05:46 PM, Alan Peery wrote:
With respect, you have failed to prove his argument incorrect, even if he was missing the speculative flag. Care to disprove his speculation?
Alan
These are my opinions:
1) "overlapping AP coverage"
They are on different frequencies - so there is no overlap.
2) recommending a high power AP is not really appropriate (in fact 300 mW may well be illegal in some places) - this more avoids the problem than addressees the issue.
The discussion is about setting up multiple AP's on same SSID (roaming) - this is quite common and in broad use in many enterprise arenas.
gene
On 01/30/2011 09:51 PM, Genes MailLists wrote: They are on different frequencies - so there is no overlap.
- recommending a high power AP is not really appropriate (Ubiquiti)
I take it back - this could well be a good alternate solution ...
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Genes MailLists lists@sapience.com wrote:
1) "overlapping AP coverage"
They are on different frequencies - so there is no overlap.
2) recommending a high power AP is not really appropriate (in fact 300 mW may well be illegal in some places) - this more avoids the problem than addressees the issue.
The discussion is about setting up multiple AP's on same SSID (roaming) - this is quite common and in broad use in many enterprise arenas.
Precisely. Although putting in place a unit with higher output power may force a decent signal into previously poor reception areas there is a limit as to how far this approach could go (especially in a really big building) - and in any event where I am at work there are at least 8 APs in my own building all with the same ssid and encryption (in that case it is enterprise of course) and so far the discussion has avoided tackling the roaming issue head on. Of course I should be able to take my own wireless enabled laptop to work and be able to roam the building and have seamless wireless if I need to - the clear and unambiguous issue is that the way NetworkManager currently works with its present connection priority logic roaming would not happen seamlessly if I was running F14 - and in fact this problem has persisted through earlier versions of Fedora as far back as I can remember (probably from the inception of NM as the principle connection manager in Gnome.)
It is possible that this is a design fault upstream in NetworkManager, and I can understand that Fedora developers may wash their hands of this issue citing this as an upstream design problem and saying file a BZ upstream and it will get into Fedora when the problem is fixed in a later version.
In fact I put this to the NetworkManager list a few weeks ago without much progress - http://mail.gnome.org/archives/networkmanager-list/2011-January/msg00028.htm...
It would be nice if this could be taken up and worked to a good solution.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:09 AM, mike cloaked mike.cloaked@gmail.com wrote:
It is possible that this is a design fault upstream in NetworkManager, and I can understand that Fedora developers may wash their hands of this issue citing this as an upstream design problem and saying file a BZ upstream and it will get into Fedora when the problem is fixed in a later version.
In fact there are a few upstream reports at: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=639323 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=638435
but there has been no response from developers at all!
I have filed a new report at: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=641006
It will be interesting to see if there is any reply particularly by developers.
-
Genes MailLists -
mike cloaked