Nikon D600 a compromise but ok

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

It's been several years since I've been heavily involved in setting up Wi-Fi
networks, but my recollection is that the client rarely gets to choose.
If the access point is broadcasting on Channel n, that's what gets used.

The access point chooses. That can be automatic or set to a specific
channel.

The AP is not "automatic".

some are.

Define "automatic"...

are you going to play word games in an attempt to avoid admitting that
your statement is false?

it's very obvious what is meant.

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

It's been several years since I've been heavily involved in setting up Wi-Fi
networks, but my recollection is that the client rarely gets to choose.
If the access point is broadcasting on Channel n, that's what gets used.

The access point chooses. That can be automatic or set to a specific
channel.

The AP is not "automatic".

some are.

Define "automatic"...

are you going to play word games in an attempt to avoid admitting that
your statement is false?

it's very obvious what is meant.

My statement, as far as I know, was very correct. I
cannot figure out how an Access Point could have
"automatic" channel assignment in any way that I'm aware
of. My understanding of the meaning we were originally
using was that the client will look for a specific AP by
name, and will automatically switch to the channel on
which that AP is avaiable. I no of no case where that
can be reversed and have an AP automatically associate
itself with the channel that a client wishes to use.
Keep in mind that AP's service multiple clients...

The fact is that clients scan for AP's, but AP's do not
scan for clients.

If you are thinking of something else, please explain
what "automatic" means to you.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The access point chooses. That can be automatic or set to a specific
channel.

The AP is not "automatic".

some are.

Define "automatic"...

are you going to play word games in an attempt to avoid admitting that
your statement is false?

it's very obvious what is meant.

My statement, as far as I know, was very correct.

well, now you know it's wrong.

I cannot figure out how an Access Point could have
"automatic" channel assignment in any way that I'm aware
of.

it's very easy. scan the channels and see which ones are in use. pick
one that isn't.

in other words, pick the channel with the least interference.

it works most of the time, but obviously, there are situations in which
it will not work so well and others where it works very well. nothing
is perfect.

most of the time it's better than manual, particularly where
neighboring base stations come and go, such as in an apartment
building. if a new tenant moves in and picks say, channel 6, then the
base station can automatically switch to something else rather than
after someone notices there's a problem or does a survey.

My understanding of the meaning we were originally
using was that the client will look for a specific AP by
name, and will automatically switch to the channel on
which that AP is avaiable.

that part is true.

I no of no case where that
can be reversed and have an AP automatically associate
itself with the channel that a client wishes to use.
Keep in mind that AP's service multiple clients...

it's not that the base station picks a channel dictated by the client,
but rather that the base station picks a channel that will be subject
to the least interference.

once the base station picks a channel, the client then does what you
describe above and uses the selected channel.

The fact is that clients scan for AP's, but AP's do not
scan for clients.

they scan for sources of interference.

If you are thinking of something else, please explain
what "automatic" means to you.

see above.

here are a few screenshots:
http://cloud.tech-recipes.com/wp-con...wireless-tab.p
ng
http://documentation.netgear.com/wnr.../images/Wirele
ssSettings_T.jpg
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/image...nksys_wrt320n/
linksys_wrt320n_basic_wireless.jpg

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The access point chooses. That can be automatic or set to a specific
channel.

The AP is not "automatic".

some are.

Define "automatic"...

are you going to play word games in an attempt to avoid admitting that
your statement is false?

it's very obvious what is meant.

My statement, as far as I know, was very correct.

well, now you know it's wrong.

Sounds reasonable. Why didn't you just define what you
meant when asked politely instead of being a butthead?

Whatever, if it does not allow restricting the AP to
*only* channels 1, 6 and one more greater than 9, it's
dumb.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

It's something that works just fine if there are only
one or two being used. But just imagine a PJ showing up
at a press conference expecting rapid transfer of
images... and discovering that there are 47 other PJ's
with wireless enabled. Oppps.

Only 3 of the channels in the 2.4Ghz band can be used at
the same time, and all it takes is one fool choosing a
channel 3, as an example, to wipe out the entire lower
half and limit it to only two channels at a time. With
30 or 40 users standing in line for packet time, data
transfers will be just exceedingly slow! A dialup modem
from a laptop would be way faster!

A dialup modem manages an upload of at most 33.6 kBit/s (for a
56k modem).
A WiFi (SOTA 2003) manages between 6 and 54 MBit/s on a
channel.
6 MBit/s = 6144 kBit/s
6144 kBit/s / 48 PJs = 128 kBit/s
(assuming there is only one single channel available and
it's at it's slowest speed because the modem is far away
behind thick walls. I.e. worst case)
128 kBit/s = 3.8 * 33.6 kBit/s

= A dialup modem at it's best would be about 4 times slower than
WiFi at it's very worst --- even worse than the scenario
Floyd painted.

Not true.

In which case you would be able to show us the math and the
circumstances, under which that would not be true.

But you're just handwaving ... very wildly.

Not that the truth or reality would have any chance against
a pointless Floyd rant filled with speculation and missing
basic knowledge.

Apparently I hit it just about on the head with the 48
PJs.

So ... which press conference was that?
Or did you pull that number from your ass?

If the bit rate works out to 4x, then it's
probably just about the right number. There is *never*
going to be a smooth transition between any two of the
48 clients.

Obvious. None of the cameras are interested in talking with
another camera. And that being true there will never be any
kind of transaction, smooth or otherwise, between any 2 of the
48 clients.

Nobody said "transaction"... it's the *transition* from
one client to the next that will never be smooth. There
will never be a time when at least 10 or so clients are
not trying to get access. Unless one of them has a
received signal strength that is more than 6 dB greater
than the sum of the others, the AP cannot detect a
single client. So none of them get a connect, they all
time out and take a random sleep. Of course by that
time another group is ready (after waiting for a random
period), and the story repeats itself. Eventually luck
might allow one client to connect. That is going to work
to some degree up to 4 clients per channel, but with more
than that the chances of any client actually getting a
connection start to be very slim.

Instead there will virtually always be
contention, and instead of being 4 times faster than a
dialup, it would probably be about 10 times slower... at
best!

So 3 channels at 54 MBit/s can't keep up with 48 clients which
sporadically try to pass data through them to the outside.

Correct.

I see.

Probably not, because you don't seem to know how it works or why
and have no interest in learning eitehr.

I wonder how they managed with 10 MBit ethernet and a bunch
of computers on the same cable ...

Ever wonder why they developed routers and switches?

Since the press conference will have enough base stations at close
distances to the PJs, we can assume 2-3 channels at 54 MBit/s,
giving 48 PJs (wow, must be a huge press conference!) 3,3 MBit/s.
(which is quite more upload per PJ than most households have,
even on fast connections). A 22 MPix JPEG will take ~15 seconds,
but you'll probably reduce the size anyway, and get 3 or 4
seconds/JPEG.

Never tried any of this stuff, have you! :-)

No, I've never been to your mythical press conference with 48
PJs all using WiFi, as one of the PJs, with a network set up as
incompetently as you describe --- probably because *you* don't
get to set up wireless networks at something more important than
a cleaning brigade for washing the walls behind the mirrors.
....
PS: Unless you can provide proof, it's EOD.

Poor kid.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The access point chooses. That can be automatic or set to a
specific channel.

The AP is not "automatic".

some are.

Define "automatic"...

are you going to play word games in an attempt to avoid admitting that
your statement is false?

it's very obvious what is meant.

My statement, as far as I know, was very correct.

well, now you know it's wrong.

Sounds reasonable. Why didn't you just define what you
meant when asked politely instead of being a butthead?

i didn't think it needed explanation. it's obvious what automatic
means. with all the networking experience you say you have, i'm
surprised you even asked, and given your propensity to nitpick and
argue, i assumed you were playing word games.

Whatever, if it does not allow restricting the AP to
*only* channels 1, 6 and one more greater than 9, it's
dumb.

wrong again.

you can't control what neighbors do. sometimes picking something other
than 1, 6 or 11 is the only option.

On 2012.09.25 15:09 , nospam wrote:



you can't control what neighbors do. sometimes picking something other
than 1, 6 or 11 is the only option.

It really is. Since everyone seems to allow their wifi station to pick
the channel (based possibly on the traffic at that time and then no
longer changing) I'm better off alone at 8 or 9. I get splashed to be
sure, but not near as bad as if I stay on 1, 6 or 11.

When there's little other traffic I can xfer at a steady 48 to 64 Mbps.
When there's a lot of other stations up, it drops to less than 8 for
50% of the time and no better than 24 for the rest. (And often the rate
is in the handful of kB/s range).

It also depends a lot on one or 2 neighbors and whether they've got the
whole house on WiFI. From here I can see 8 other WiFi stations using
2.4 GHz WiFi - that translates to how many clients... 10, 20? More?


--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The access point chooses. That can be automatic or set to a
specific channel.

The AP is not "automatic".

some are.

Define "automatic"...

are you going to play word games in an attempt to avoid admitting that
your statement is false?

it's very obvious what is meant.

My statement, as far as I know, was very correct.

well, now you know it's wrong.

Sounds reasonable. Why didn't you just define what you
meant when asked politely instead of being a butthead?

i didn't think it needed explanation. it's obvious what automatic
means. with all the networking experience you say you have, i'm
surprised you even asked, and given your propensity to nitpick and
argue, i assumed you were playing word games.

Because such an "automatic" is not normally used in commercial
setups. It may sound good to home owners, but it's not a good
idea at all.

Whatever, if it does not allow restricting the AP to
*only* channels 1, 6 and one more greater than 9, it's
dumb.

wrong again.

you can't control what neighbors do. sometimes picking something other
than 1, 6 or 11 is the only option.

You clearly haven't understood the significance of the bandwidth used
by a WIFI unit. Any other choices simply *increase* the interference.

It makes no difference what your neighbors do, choosing Channel 3 is
*never* a reasonable choice. Never!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012.09.25 15:09 , nospam wrote:
you can't control what neighbors do. sometimes picking something other
than 1, 6 or 11 is the only option.

It really is. Since everyone seems to allow their wifi station to pick
the channel (based possibly on the traffic at that time and then no
longer changing) I'm better off alone at 8 or 9. I get splashed to be
sure, but not near as bad as if I stay on 1, 6 or 11.

You get interference, if you choose Channel 8, from anyone that chooses
any channel from 4 to 12. If you choose Channel 11 the only other choices
that will affect you are those from 7 on up. All you have done by choosing
Channel 8 is perhaps double the amount of interference.

When there's little other traffic I can xfer at a steady 48 to 64 Mbps.
When there's a lot of other stations up, it drops to less than 8 for
50% of the time and no better than 24 for the rest. (And often the rate
is in the handful of kB/s range).

It also depends a lot on one or 2 neighbors and whether they've got the
whole house on WiFI. From here I can see 8 other WiFi stations using
2.4 GHz WiFi - that translates to how many clients... 10, 20? More?

Not really. Compare the signal strengths and simply ignore anything that is
10 dB lower than what your own signals are. Generally you'll find that most
of the other stations you see on a scan are actually too weak to be of any
significance.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

i didn't think it needed explanation. it's obvious what automatic
means. with all the networking experience you say you have, i'm
surprised you even asked, and given your propensity to nitpick and
argue, i assumed you were playing word games.

Because such an "automatic" is not normally used in commercial
setups.

that means your knowledge about networks is limited.

It may sound good to home owners, but it's not a good
idea at all.

it's actually a very good idea because most people have no idea what
channel to pick and will probably leave it at the default, which means
everyone will be on the same default channel and cause more problems
for each other.

having the selection be automatic spreads it out, without the user
having to figure out what to do. not everyone is a geek. most aren't.
even many of those who are geeks probably don't know what to pick.

Whatever, if it does not allow restricting the AP to
*only* channels 1, 6 and one more greater than 9, it's
dumb.

wrong again.

you can't control what neighbors do. sometimes picking something other
than 1, 6 or 11 is the only option.

You clearly haven't understood the significance of the bandwidth used
by a WIFI unit. Any other choices simply *increase* the interference.

nonsense.

anything 5 channels or more apart will not cause interference (actually
less in the real world but i'm sure you'll disagree). it certainly
won't increase it if you pick something other than the magic 3
channels.

It makes no difference what your neighbors do,

it most certainly does.

choosing Channel 3 is
*never* a reasonable choice. Never!

absolutes always have exceptions.