<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Request for Help:  802.11A Wireless Bridge Interference</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.networkblog.net/archives/2007/04/request-for-help-80211a-wireless-bridge-interference/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.networkblog.net/archives/2007/04/request-for-help-80211a-wireless-bridge-interference/</link>
	<description>The Thoughts and Musings of Jeffrey Randow about Networking</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:51:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Black</title>
		<link>http://www.networkblog.net/archives/2007/04/request-for-help-80211a-wireless-bridge-interference/comment-page-1/#comment-3711</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Black</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:51:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.networkblog.net/archives/2007/04/request-for-help-80211a-wireless-bridge-interference/#comment-3711</guid>
		<description>Thanks man!
I did it!
Thanks a lot!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks man!<br />
I did it!<br />
Thanks a lot!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jeffreycentex</title>
		<link>http://www.networkblog.net/archives/2007/04/request-for-help-80211a-wireless-bridge-interference/comment-page-1/#comment-3710</link>
		<dc:creator>jeffreycentex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:43:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.networkblog.net/archives/2007/04/request-for-help-80211a-wireless-bridge-interference/#comment-3710</guid>
		<description>I solved the problem.  It took two steps to do so:

1.  Reduce the power to the lowest level.

- and -

2.  Build a shelter for the unit to protect it from the afternoon heat of the sun.

The shelter was the last thing I have done and it has worked flawless since then.  I built a cube from the &quot;wire&quot; furniture available at a local Target or Lowes and covered it with patio screen wire from Lowes.  This allows air to flow in and around the unit and keeps the sun from heating the unit.  

Before we placed the shelter on the branch, we did a surface temp scan and saw that the temperature was between 160~180 deg F during a reasonably hot day (ambient temp ~ 93 deg F).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I solved the problem.  It took two steps to do so:</p>
<p>1.  Reduce the power to the lowest level.</p>
<p>- and -</p>
<p>2.  Build a shelter for the unit to protect it from the afternoon heat of the sun.</p>
<p>The shelter was the last thing I have done and it has worked flawless since then.  I built a cube from the &#8220;wire&#8221; furniture available at a local Target or Lowes and covered it with patio screen wire from Lowes.  This allows air to flow in and around the unit and keeps the sun from heating the unit.  </p>
<p>Before we placed the shelter on the branch, we did a surface temp scan and saw that the temperature was between 160~180 deg F during a reasonably hot day (ambient temp ~ 93 deg F).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Black</title>
		<link>http://www.networkblog.net/archives/2007/04/request-for-help-80211a-wireless-bridge-interference/comment-page-1/#comment-3708</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Black</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:23:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.networkblog.net/archives/2007/04/request-for-help-80211a-wireless-bridge-interference/#comment-3708</guid>
		<description>I have the same problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have the same problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stuart Clark</title>
		<link>http://www.networkblog.net/archives/2007/04/request-for-help-80211a-wireless-bridge-interference/comment-page-1/#comment-2970</link>
		<dc:creator>Stuart Clark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 13:44:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.networkblog.net/archives/2007/04/request-for-help-80211a-wireless-bridge-interference/#comment-2970</guid>
		<description>From what you are reporting it certainly looks like an RF issue of some kind, especially given the degredation in signal strength  -53 to -90  during the glitch.  If your noise level stays constant though, that is puzzling.  

Unfortunantly tranzeo does not have a &quot;carrier busy&quot; feature like Cisco gear that would enable you to sniff the 5a spectrum and get a sense of what the radio is seeing.  This would be of limited use in this scenario anyway since it would take down the link while it ran. 

My other thought would be whether or not you have done any load testing to try to simulate what high traffic volume looks like in a controlled setting?

We run tranzeo 5a gear to connect 4 locations back to an operations center, and our overall experience with Tranzeo has been positive.  I&#039;ve never seen such a wide variation in -dbm though. We have noticed that due to Tranzeo&#039;s lack of any true QoS ability, when a link experiences high utilization performance degrades rather abruptly and noticably for users.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From what you are reporting it certainly looks like an RF issue of some kind, especially given the degredation in signal strength  -53 to -90  during the glitch.  If your noise level stays constant though, that is puzzling.  </p>
<p>Unfortunantly tranzeo does not have a &#8220;carrier busy&#8221; feature like Cisco gear that would enable you to sniff the 5a spectrum and get a sense of what the radio is seeing.  This would be of limited use in this scenario anyway since it would take down the link while it ran. </p>
<p>My other thought would be whether or not you have done any load testing to try to simulate what high traffic volume looks like in a controlled setting?</p>
<p>We run tranzeo 5a gear to connect 4 locations back to an operations center, and our overall experience with Tranzeo has been positive.  I&#8217;ve never seen such a wide variation in -dbm though. We have noticed that due to Tranzeo&#8217;s lack of any true QoS ability, when a link experiences high utilization performance degrades rather abruptly and noticably for users.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
