2

I work at a corporation and we have engineer's who test "in home" settings which requires a wireless router. Such testing doesn't need to extend beyond the desk of the user.

Currently we keep track of what channels we assign using a wiki and table. However, I realized a few months ago that we never update the table beyond initial entries, so when people move (which is often) the list becomes outdated.

The goal of the table was to avoid saturating any specific channel. So I thought couldn't we just use uniform random numbers to assign channels?

I'm looking at the channels we use, 2.4G and 5.0G. After seeing that certain channels overlap on 2.4 (but not on 5.0G). I thought for 2.4G it would be best to either use the half overlap channels (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11)... or the non overlap channels of 1, 6, 11.

We work in multi storied buildings, so there might be bleed over from inbetween floors.

Because of the demand for multiple wireless routers on any given floor (due to testing) results in unavoidable channel overlap. To mitigate any one channel from becoming too overlapped/saturated, I thought random assignment would result in uniform distribution of channels with about equal saturation for each channel.

Thoughts?

1
  • Did any answer help you? If so, you should accept the answer so that the question doesn't keep popping up forever, looking for an answer. Alternatively, you could provide and accept your own answer.
    – Ron Maupin
    Aug 15 '17 at 1:48
2

What you really need to do is to get a wireless site survey completed. This will give you the required WAP quantity, placement, frequency, etc., and identify problems like radio shadows and outside interference. The survey can take into account the locations where you do testing (outside interference), and assign a particular frequency to use for the testing in a particular location. The survey is also three-dimensional.

Randomly assigning frequencies to your WAPs is never, ever a good idea.

4
  • someone proposed this. However, to do this would require tighter controls on the use of wireless routers (which would also include updating when people move). It would be nice if we could control the wireless channels remotely. However such features are implausible because we're using soho routers due to the requirement of mimicing home environments. My hope (even though it's not ideal) was to improve upon the old setup, which was a broken manual wiki page entry. I'm leaning towards uniform random assignment of half overlap channels (not sure if that really makes a difference). Sep 12 '16 at 15:36
  • Unfortunately, questions about consumer-grade devices are explicitly off-topic here. You should really be using WAPs with a WLC. Using home equipment in a business environment is never a good idea.
    – Ron Maupin
    Sep 12 '16 at 15:38
  • kind of in an ambiguos situation then. It's a corporate environment intended to test in home use cases (hence the in home routers). Not sure where else one would ask, but... it sounds like they should be using faraday cages and not be using this on a corporate floor where it's going to compete with corporate laptops and wireless. Sep 12 '16 at 20:34
  • Questions about consumer-grade equipment can be asked on Super User.
    – Ron Maupin
    Sep 12 '16 at 20:35

This site is temporarily in read only mode and not accepting new answers.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .