Anyone want to share some insight as to what this might indicate in Radio Stats???
Everything worked great for 2 yrs…
Everything is Hardware Sched with 8.1.5.1 and have tried all sorts of combinations (8.1.5.1 on all, 7.3.6 on all, and even mixed the combo…)
3- 900MHz APs
(1 w/ 67 Clients, 1 w/ 17 clients, 1 w/ 49 clients)
1- 2.4 20 meg BHS
1- 5.7 20 meg BHS
1- 1 5.7 60 meg BHS
1- CMM Micro
Not a problem for 2 yrs and then all of the sudden Wrong Frequency Beacon Received*
Causing a lot of session re-regs and links dropping off even though the link says it is 100/100 %
Can’t find any information on this and was wondering if someone has dealt with this and come up with a solution?
Any suggestions welcome!!!
Thanks
Have the same problem. Everybody seems to think it is interference but I can not see it. Another rare problem is that at some point the APs decide to stop taking new SMs. A reboot takes care of that problem. This happens in more than one site and I get the same errors you are talking about. APs do not have more than 30 SMs on each one.
What if you set the SM to only the scan frequency of the assigned AP?
In very few cases that worked, but for the most, it didn’t. we are planning to set different color codes for each AP as the definite solution
Different color codes is a great idea. It may be that initially you got away with it with less SM’s.
We use differnet color codes for everything. AP’s all have difference CC’s on the same tower unless we are using 2 different Freq’s then we re-use the same CC’s for those AP’s as well.
I have never heard of technical difficulties from using the same color code on the same tower? All of our 900Mhz towers use the same color code, this shouldn’t cause any connection issues should it? If we need to we usually just turn off the all frequencies on the SM except the one with the best signal.
You should ALWAYS have different color code for colocated APs, then you set the same color code in the SM and it will only try to register with a single AP. On an SM that is close to being midway between two APs, chech the AP Eval page to see which it sees a stronger signal and set the color code to that one.
Make it easy on yourself if you have multiple sites:
Site one - AP color codes 11, 12, 13 etc
AP 1 ip address 169.254.11.1, AP 2 ip address 169.254.12.1 etc
SM talking to AP 1 ip address 169.254.11.2, 169.254.11.3 etc
Site two - AP color codes 21, 22, 23 etc
AP 1 ip address 169.254.21.1
…
and so on
All my BH use 169.254.0.XXX addresses
If you have more than 10 APs at a site make the tenth 110 and above (and please send me your marketing plan so I can get there too)
If you do this on an existing network, do it during a maintenance window and change all the SMs first and AP last. Check to make sure you do not have customers that have turned their radio off or you will strand them without an AP to connect to once they power up their radio.
pcpolo wrote: I have never heard of technical difficulties from using the same color code on the same tower? All of our 900Mhz towers use the same color code, this shouldn't cause any connection issues should it? If we need to we usually just turn off the all frequencies on the SM except the one with the best signal.
Just wait until you expand and you can hear multiple sites off the same color code.......
You'll be grateful that you went with cc per AP.
:D
I’m just wondering the problems that would occur from having the same color code on all your APs. We’ve been running like this for over a year and half with our 900Mhz equipment. It’s not like changing the color code will lessen the radio interference, we’ve found that the SM will end up connecting to the strongest signal anyway. As long as all the APs in the area have their timing in sync, same mileage settings, downlink %, and control slots, it shouldn’t matter then should it?
From a performance standpoint, the only issue I can think of would be on the customer side whenever the SM reregisters with a different AP. from their side they are seeing an interruption of service for a brief period and not bothered enough to call you and complain. As your customer base grows it will probably agravate the situation, so now might be the time to do a little housekeeping before you start getting those calls.
Jerry Richardson wrote: What if you set the SM to only the scan frequency of the assigned AP?
I have tried that as well... and YES... I have had the AP stop accepting new SMs until I reboot the AP.
I have duplicated settings on all the APs in the clusters (900s) and everything is on CMM Micro except the slaves that are receiving sync from another site... I looked into the other 900 POPs I have adjacent to this North 11 miles and south 14 mi. Everything is as it "should be' and how it has been for the last 2 years and I have found NO interference from anything else outside of my network I am seeing this on all 6 of my 900 POPs now with the exception of a brand new site that has been up for less than 2 months... this is driving me nuts... LOL
I would be pulling my hair out but I am bald!!! LOL
And, thanks for the replies guys… thought I wasn’t going to get anything on this… I AM NOT ALONE!!!
I will keep you updated if I find the cure.
Wiz
I have always used different CCs on every AP. It just didn’t make sense to use the same CC on all the APs in a cluster… doesn’t that defeat the purpose… and… my techs can identify each AP when in alignment on a customer site…
Just my take on it!!!
I have read that all APs in a cluster can have the same CC…
We use one colour code per POP. It’s working great. If some SM changes the AP the real question is why it change it. Canopy is solid when has good signal and low jitter.
I think that one CC for all APs is too much. One SM can hop between different POPs and that is potential trouble.
One CC per AP is complicated in my opinion. With one colour code some problems with interference can be compensated by the number of APs.
We’ve found one color code for all of our APs not to be a real issue. If an SM is connected and then all of a sudden a stronger AP is within range, the SM will not drop it’s signal so there will be no loss of service. We find it night to be able to have to option to switch to troubleshoot the SM remotely by having the SM connect to another AP that it sees. We have never had a problem of an SM jumping between APs and we have over 1200 SMs currently.
The recommendation from Motorola, Moto Training, and experienced WISP’s is a unique color code per AP. However if what you are doing is working, by all means don’t change it!
I’m a bit of a control freak so having SM’s randomly jumping around makes me nervous.
With unique color codes there is better control over AP loading. If an AP starts to get overloaded, simply change the color code on some of the SM’s to move to another AP that is less loaded. You could also do this by only checking the scan frequency in the SM of the desired however it’s easier to change one color code than uncheck multiple scan frequencies.
Unique color codes give you better control over the RF levels. By forcing the SM to a specific AP, you can control the Tx power on the SM to the minimum required to maintain a link. With a combination using high/low power, stingers, reflectors, and antennas you can get alot of combinations. Proper RF power management is essential to a well tuned WISP.
Allowing SM’s to randomly jump from one AP to another cause temporary interruption of service. This is probably not even noticed by residential users. Gamers and business users will notice it in dropped client-server connections.
I can see a couple of scenarios where one color code is useful.
- A primarily residential system in a noisy environment. Allowing the SM’s to find the best connection will reduce support calls.
- Reduce the need for a laptop during the install. If the SM is configured to just jump on the best AP, all an installer would need most of the time is a headset. Find the best tone and lock it down.
Well put Jerry… my feelings exactly… and I understand the control freak thing… Thanks for your input!!
Wiz
I hope that comment was directed at you Craig and not me. HA! HA!
attitude0330 wrote: I hope that comment was directed at you Craig and not me. HA! HA!
????????????????????????????????????????????????