From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lang.hm (unknown [66.167.227.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EABBC3B29E for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2023 19:34:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dlang-mobile (unknown [10.2.2.69]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7744E19C8EC; Mon, 10 Jul 2023 16:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 16:34:52 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang To: Bob McMahon cc: David Lang , Aaron Wood , Make-Wifi-fast In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <29385648-o20s-nn8q-2p3s-900sn8606857@ynat.uz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] I used to dream of a single wifi cpu, memory, and I/O X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 23:34:54 -0000 First off, I am a Huge proponent of getting the RF layout clean before anything else. Directional signals sound like a fantastic idea, until you realize that the stations you are talking to are not using directional antennas, then the value drops significantly (under these conditions, directional antennas create more hidden transmitters) When I setup conference wifi, I take advantage of the fact that some walls block the wifi signals, so I can put the APs closer to the walls that block them without worrying about what's on the other side. I also place them on the ground (under the chairs) as the bodies of the attendees absorb the signal and let me use more APs in a room than I could get away with otherwise. I also stick to the standard 10MHz channels, as that lets me re-use a channel with more separation between APs using the same channel And yes, I agree that it makes no sense to run an AP at a higher power level than the stations talking to it, so I turn the power way down. I haven't knowingly run into the problem you describe of clients enumerating all available APs, but I may not have setup a high enough density of APs to run into the problem, can you give more info on that? > There is no reason to send energy more than 29' as that's the distance per > fire code that a human has to be from a working smoke detector. and in many > cities, one can't sell a house without a hard-wired, battery backed up, and > inter connected smoke detectors. As someone who has been looking at building a house, it's not that simple. Hard wired smoke detectors are only needed in some rooms, not in all, and only if the house is above a minimum size. Then you need different amounts of power to get through walls depending on how they are built. When I setup wifi in a conference center exibit hall that's 25,000 sq ft, I don't believe that there are 80 smoke detectors in that one room (not to mention the fact that the cealing is more than 29' away, even if I'm standing directly under it) Then there's the fact that not everything is inside. David Lang