<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_06_0143212</id>
	<title>Best WAP For Dense Crowds?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1267887120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"A local community organization has asked me to help them set up Wi-Fi access for an upcoming event, with some unusual (to me) requirements.  All users (up to 500 people) will occupy a relatively small area and more-or-less have line-of-sight to the WAP, so issues like signal strength and wall penetration don't matter.  Security also does not matter, as we plan to open this to anyone wanting to connect.  Cost <em>always</em> matters, but we realize a $50 Linksys or three won't cut it here.
In the past, I have used Cisco AP1200s for a few dozen users to great satisfaction, but they only handle 50 connections at a time, and practically count as antiques at this point anyway.  My research on the matter tells me that 802.11n performs far better in this regard, but I want to support 802.11g as well.  I have no objection to using two APs to split those apart (with n limited to 5.8GHz, as per the suggestion of several comments in a recent Ask Slashdot), but physical constraints make it preferable to minimize the total number of APs needed &mdash; Ten WRT54s might cost about the same as one Aironet, but I only have three good places to mount these.
I welcome any suggestions and real-world experiences with similar situations, including the ever-popular Ask Slashdot refrain of 'What kind of idiot would do it like <em>that</em>, when you can just do <em>this</em>?'  Ideally, I would like to know model numbers and how well they held up under real-world loads comparable to my situation."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " A local community organization has asked me to help them set up Wi-Fi access for an upcoming event , with some unusual ( to me ) requirements .
All users ( up to 500 people ) will occupy a relatively small area and more-or-less have line-of-sight to the WAP , so issues like signal strength and wall penetration do n't matter .
Security also does not matter , as we plan to open this to anyone wanting to connect .
Cost always matters , but we realize a $ 50 Linksys or three wo n't cut it here .
In the past , I have used Cisco AP1200s for a few dozen users to great satisfaction , but they only handle 50 connections at a time , and practically count as antiques at this point anyway .
My research on the matter tells me that 802.11n performs far better in this regard , but I want to support 802.11g as well .
I have no objection to using two APs to split those apart ( with n limited to 5.8GHz , as per the suggestion of several comments in a recent Ask Slashdot ) , but physical constraints make it preferable to minimize the total number of APs needed    Ten WRT54s might cost about the same as one Aironet , but I only have three good places to mount these .
I welcome any suggestions and real-world experiences with similar situations , including the ever-popular Ask Slashdot refrain of 'What kind of idiot would do it like that , when you can just do this ?
' Ideally , I would like to know model numbers and how well they held up under real-world loads comparable to my situation .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "A local community organization has asked me to help them set up Wi-Fi access for an upcoming event, with some unusual (to me) requirements.
All users (up to 500 people) will occupy a relatively small area and more-or-less have line-of-sight to the WAP, so issues like signal strength and wall penetration don't matter.
Security also does not matter, as we plan to open this to anyone wanting to connect.
Cost always matters, but we realize a $50 Linksys or three won't cut it here.
In the past, I have used Cisco AP1200s for a few dozen users to great satisfaction, but they only handle 50 connections at a time, and practically count as antiques at this point anyway.
My research on the matter tells me that 802.11n performs far better in this regard, but I want to support 802.11g as well.
I have no objection to using two APs to split those apart (with n limited to 5.8GHz, as per the suggestion of several comments in a recent Ask Slashdot), but physical constraints make it preferable to minimize the total number of APs needed — Ten WRT54s might cost about the same as one Aironet, but I only have three good places to mount these.
I welcome any suggestions and real-world experiences with similar situations, including the ever-popular Ask Slashdot refrain of 'What kind of idiot would do it like that, when you can just do this?
'  Ideally, I would like to know model numbers and how well they held up under real-world loads comparable to my situation.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378170</id>
	<title>WAP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267804500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought WAP was dead with real mobile browsers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought WAP was dead with real mobile browsers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought WAP was dead with real mobile browsers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378944</id>
	<title>the best type of setup for that sort of thing...</title>
	<author>sxpert</author>
	<datestamp>1267812960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the best solution is to set up a lot of APs with very very low power and low gain antennas all over the room, in bridge mode, all with the same frequency and SSID, all connected to the same lan, and sprinkle them all around the room.</p><p>I've had very good results with Ubiquity picostation 2 attached to the chairs in a keynote style setup (one stage and plenty of chairs...</p><p>as for how it works, easy...<br>the "low power" part, takes care of there being a lot of people. laptop will connect to the closest ap (aka best received signal), so the lower the power the ap puts out, the less laptops it will attract (which will take care of the "I can't handle more than x people at a time part)<br>as for the bridging, frequency &amp; ssid setups, this will allow for complete transparent roaming around the covered area.</p><p>ps: can I enquire what the event is ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the best solution is to set up a lot of APs with very very low power and low gain antennas all over the room , in bridge mode , all with the same frequency and SSID , all connected to the same lan , and sprinkle them all around the room.I 've had very good results with Ubiquity picostation 2 attached to the chairs in a keynote style setup ( one stage and plenty of chairs...as for how it works , easy...the " low power " part , takes care of there being a lot of people .
laptop will connect to the closest ap ( aka best received signal ) , so the lower the power the ap puts out , the less laptops it will attract ( which will take care of the " I ca n't handle more than x people at a time part ) as for the bridging , frequency &amp; ssid setups , this will allow for complete transparent roaming around the covered area.ps : can I enquire what the event is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the best solution is to set up a lot of APs with very very low power and low gain antennas all over the room, in bridge mode, all with the same frequency and SSID, all connected to the same lan, and sprinkle them all around the room.I've had very good results with Ubiquity picostation 2 attached to the chairs in a keynote style setup (one stage and plenty of chairs...as for how it works, easy...the "low power" part, takes care of there being a lot of people.
laptop will connect to the closest ap (aka best received signal), so the lower the power the ap puts out, the less laptops it will attract (which will take care of the "I can't handle more than x people at a time part)as for the bridging, frequency &amp; ssid setups, this will allow for complete transparent roaming around the covered area.ps: can I enquire what the event is ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378588</id>
	<title>Meraki</title>
	<author>dotwaffle</author>
	<datestamp>1267808640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, try Meraki. Their software is pretty neat, and it'll auto configure to give you the best situation.</p><p>A case study: <a href="http://meraki.com/general/2009/12/09/does-it-scale" title="meraki.com">http://meraki.com/general/2009/12/09/does-it-scale</a> [meraki.com]-absolutely-blazing-fast-meraki-wireless-at-leweb-conference-in-paris/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , try Meraki .
Their software is pretty neat , and it 'll auto configure to give you the best situation.A case study : http : //meraki.com/general/2009/12/09/does-it-scale [ meraki.com ] -absolutely-blazing-fast-meraki-wireless-at-leweb-conference-in-paris/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, try Meraki.
Their software is pretty neat, and it'll auto configure to give you the best situation.A case study: http://meraki.com/general/2009/12/09/does-it-scale [meraki.com]-absolutely-blazing-fast-meraki-wireless-at-leweb-conference-in-paris/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378756</id>
	<title>Re:Not cheap, but...</title>
	<author>Manuka</author>
	<datestamp>1267810800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll second the Xirrus arrays. They're absolutely amazing for high-density wireless. If it's a one-time event, you may be able to get Xirrus to sponsor it by providing the gear, especially if it's a gathering of geeks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll second the Xirrus arrays .
They 're absolutely amazing for high-density wireless .
If it 's a one-time event , you may be able to get Xirrus to sponsor it by providing the gear , especially if it 's a gathering of geeks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll second the Xirrus arrays.
They're absolutely amazing for high-density wireless.
If it's a one-time event, you may be able to get Xirrus to sponsor it by providing the gear, especially if it's a gathering of geeks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380616</id>
	<title>Transmission power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267890000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing i haven't seen suggested is adjusting the transmission power.  It won't help if you are limited to 3 mount points though.  By decreasing the transmission power on each AP, you are able to limit the cell size.  This would allow you to pack more APs in a smaller area, without causing interference, and spread the load.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing i have n't seen suggested is adjusting the transmission power .
It wo n't help if you are limited to 3 mount points though .
By decreasing the transmission power on each AP , you are able to limit the cell size .
This would allow you to pack more APs in a smaller area , without causing interference , and spread the load .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing i haven't seen suggested is adjusting the transmission power.
It won't help if you are limited to 3 mount points though.
By decreasing the transmission power on each AP, you are able to limit the cell size.
This would allow you to pack more APs in a smaller area, without causing interference, and spread the load.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378564</id>
	<title>not that unusual</title>
	<author>so-logical</author>
	<datestamp>1267808520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you are describing is basically the situation faced by every conference with more than a few hundred people.  Everything is fine when you are in break-out rooms or smaller sessions, but put everyone together in a ballroom, add a boring keynote speaker (probability: high), and wireless becomes unusable.  Especially geek conferences when every person in the room has a laptop and a iPhone.  Or two.

The usual solution is large numbers of WAPs and let the proles self-regulate which WAP they connect to: if they can't get one one, they'll try, try again until the connect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you are describing is basically the situation faced by every conference with more than a few hundred people .
Everything is fine when you are in break-out rooms or smaller sessions , but put everyone together in a ballroom , add a boring keynote speaker ( probability : high ) , and wireless becomes unusable .
Especially geek conferences when every person in the room has a laptop and a iPhone .
Or two .
The usual solution is large numbers of WAPs and let the proles self-regulate which WAP they connect to : if they ca n't get one one , they 'll try , try again until the connect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you are describing is basically the situation faced by every conference with more than a few hundred people.
Everything is fine when you are in break-out rooms or smaller sessions, but put everyone together in a ballroom, add a boring keynote speaker (probability: high), and wireless becomes unusable.
Especially geek conferences when every person in the room has a laptop and a iPhone.
Or two.
The usual solution is large numbers of WAPs and let the proles self-regulate which WAP they connect to: if they can't get one one, they'll try, try again until the connect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379364</id>
	<title>Re:WAP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267907340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I thought WAP was dead with real mobile browsers?</p></div><p>I still use Palm OS 5, you insensitive clod!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought WAP was dead with real mobile browsers ? I still use Palm OS 5 , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought WAP was dead with real mobile browsers?I still use Palm OS 5, you insensitive clod!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380284</id>
	<title>Re:Best WAP For Dense Crowds?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267886400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"A local community organization has asked me to help them set up WiFi access for an upcoming event, with some unusual (to me) requirements. All users (up to 500 people) will occupy a relatively small area and more-or-less have line-of-sight to the WAP, so issues like signal strength and wall penetration don't matter. Security also does not matter, as we plan to open this to anyone wanting to connect."</p></div><p>Most large hotels offer conference facilities complete with WiFi access for attendees. This might be the easiest solution and the community organization might be able to negotiate a discount on a conference room. Plus the hotel will usually be able to offer catering service.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" A local community organization has asked me to help them set up WiFi access for an upcoming event , with some unusual ( to me ) requirements .
All users ( up to 500 people ) will occupy a relatively small area and more-or-less have line-of-sight to the WAP , so issues like signal strength and wall penetration do n't matter .
Security also does not matter , as we plan to open this to anyone wanting to connect .
" Most large hotels offer conference facilities complete with WiFi access for attendees .
This might be the easiest solution and the community organization might be able to negotiate a discount on a conference room .
Plus the hotel will usually be able to offer catering service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A local community organization has asked me to help them set up WiFi access for an upcoming event, with some unusual (to me) requirements.
All users (up to 500 people) will occupy a relatively small area and more-or-less have line-of-sight to the WAP, so issues like signal strength and wall penetration don't matter.
Security also does not matter, as we plan to open this to anyone wanting to connect.
"Most large hotels offer conference facilities complete with WiFi access for attendees.
This might be the easiest solution and the community organization might be able to negotiate a discount on a conference room.
Plus the hotel will usually be able to offer catering service.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31410156</id>
	<title>Re:consumer equipment is the wrong answer</title>
	<author>kebbuck</author>
	<datestamp>1268072400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As one of the very few engineers who's actually done this and still has it as my current primary responsibility (principal engineer for the largest wifi hotspot provider in the world) this comment is correct. It won't happen with consumer grade equipment and also won't happen with autonomous ap's or even open source systems as much as I'd love to promote them. We've found that typically even at high tech events you won't EVER have more than 50\% usage unless it's something like an ARIN conference or TED where everyone's getting on the wireless on purpose.

However, I'd guess if you have that many people they don't all have laptops in which case you're talking about cell phones or other handheld devices, probably iPhones, winmo, blackberry's, androids, etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so you're talking about things that will be quiet most of the time. That said, you can easily expect somewhere in the range of 100 associations per AP with most of them being inactive and the ones that are actually bothering to do something aren't doing a whole lot.  In this case you can dismiss a few of the APs and avoid the CCI (co-channel interference) you'll create by having that many AP's in a single location. Take roughly 7 AP's, maybe as few as 5 and make sure you pick something centralized (Aruba, meru though its lower performing, or Cisco) and read EVERYTHING about how to configure the auto-RF management, then ask an expert. It gets really tough but this is much easier an environment that most others where you're talking about not much more density per AP but you have 100k people as close as they can stand.

All of you who are talking about the whole four channel plan bit (1,4,8,11) please just stop. You make my life harder when I have to come into a network behind you and fix it. This idea is dumb and really needs to stop.

Lastly, the most important thing you can do is find low gain directional antennas and study up on the propagation shape, minimize the back lobe by placing it against something that absorbs but does not reflect RF, etc. Basically the perfect network for this would be the 2112 and 1252's (NOT 1142's, those have internal omni antennas and will make matters worse) and don't worry much about the 5ghz spectrum<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if you're talking about handhelds there are so few that have 11a or 5ghz 11n radios that you won't get anything from that.

Use this as a good learning experience, and if it goes well and you get everyone connected on the first try<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... by all means, look up the largest hotspot provider in the world and give me a call, we're looking for people interested in working in this environment =)</htmltext>
<tokenext>As one of the very few engineers who 's actually done this and still has it as my current primary responsibility ( principal engineer for the largest wifi hotspot provider in the world ) this comment is correct .
It wo n't happen with consumer grade equipment and also wo n't happen with autonomous ap 's or even open source systems as much as I 'd love to promote them .
We 've found that typically even at high tech events you wo n't EVER have more than 50 \ % usage unless it 's something like an ARIN conference or TED where everyone 's getting on the wireless on purpose .
However , I 'd guess if you have that many people they do n't all have laptops in which case you 're talking about cell phones or other handheld devices , probably iPhones , winmo , blackberry 's , androids , etc ... so you 're talking about things that will be quiet most of the time .
That said , you can easily expect somewhere in the range of 100 associations per AP with most of them being inactive and the ones that are actually bothering to do something are n't doing a whole lot .
In this case you can dismiss a few of the APs and avoid the CCI ( co-channel interference ) you 'll create by having that many AP 's in a single location .
Take roughly 7 AP 's , maybe as few as 5 and make sure you pick something centralized ( Aruba , meru though its lower performing , or Cisco ) and read EVERYTHING about how to configure the auto-RF management , then ask an expert .
It gets really tough but this is much easier an environment that most others where you 're talking about not much more density per AP but you have 100k people as close as they can stand .
All of you who are talking about the whole four channel plan bit ( 1,4,8,11 ) please just stop .
You make my life harder when I have to come into a network behind you and fix it .
This idea is dumb and really needs to stop .
Lastly , the most important thing you can do is find low gain directional antennas and study up on the propagation shape , minimize the back lobe by placing it against something that absorbs but does not reflect RF , etc .
Basically the perfect network for this would be the 2112 and 1252 's ( NOT 1142 's , those have internal omni antennas and will make matters worse ) and do n't worry much about the 5ghz spectrum ... if you 're talking about handhelds there are so few that have 11a or 5ghz 11n radios that you wo n't get anything from that .
Use this as a good learning experience , and if it goes well and you get everyone connected on the first try ... by all means , look up the largest hotspot provider in the world and give me a call , we 're looking for people interested in working in this environment = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As one of the very few engineers who's actually done this and still has it as my current primary responsibility (principal engineer for the largest wifi hotspot provider in the world) this comment is correct.
It won't happen with consumer grade equipment and also won't happen with autonomous ap's or even open source systems as much as I'd love to promote them.
We've found that typically even at high tech events you won't EVER have more than 50\% usage unless it's something like an ARIN conference or TED where everyone's getting on the wireless on purpose.
However, I'd guess if you have that many people they don't all have laptops in which case you're talking about cell phones or other handheld devices, probably iPhones, winmo, blackberry's, androids, etc ... so you're talking about things that will be quiet most of the time.
That said, you can easily expect somewhere in the range of 100 associations per AP with most of them being inactive and the ones that are actually bothering to do something aren't doing a whole lot.
In this case you can dismiss a few of the APs and avoid the CCI (co-channel interference) you'll create by having that many AP's in a single location.
Take roughly 7 AP's, maybe as few as 5 and make sure you pick something centralized (Aruba, meru though its lower performing, or Cisco) and read EVERYTHING about how to configure the auto-RF management, then ask an expert.
It gets really tough but this is much easier an environment that most others where you're talking about not much more density per AP but you have 100k people as close as they can stand.
All of you who are talking about the whole four channel plan bit (1,4,8,11) please just stop.
You make my life harder when I have to come into a network behind you and fix it.
This idea is dumb and really needs to stop.
Lastly, the most important thing you can do is find low gain directional antennas and study up on the propagation shape, minimize the back lobe by placing it against something that absorbs but does not reflect RF, etc.
Basically the perfect network for this would be the 2112 and 1252's (NOT 1142's, those have internal omni antennas and will make matters worse) and don't worry much about the 5ghz spectrum ... if you're talking about handhelds there are so few that have 11a or 5ghz 11n radios that you won't get anything from that.
Use this as a good learning experience, and if it goes well and you get everyone connected on the first try ... by all means, look up the largest hotspot provider in the world and give me a call, we're looking for people interested in working in this environment =)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379318</id>
	<title>Re:airport extreme</title>
	<author>gmthor</author>
	<datestamp>1267906380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>how many clients have ever connected to your airport extreme? This is definitely not the right device for the described setting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>how many clients have ever connected to your airport extreme ?
This is definitely not the right device for the described setting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how many clients have ever connected to your airport extreme?
This is definitely not the right device for the described setting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378526</id>
	<title>Ubiquiti Bullets</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267807860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubiquiti (ubnt.com), makers of WISP hardware, have a "Bullet AP" product that is extremely affordable and VERY easy to set up. It's great in dense environments and you BYO antenna so you could set up 2 or 3 with panel antennas at a central location to cover the entire area, effectively load-balancing your geography.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubiquiti ( ubnt.com ) , makers of WISP hardware , have a " Bullet AP " product that is extremely affordable and VERY easy to set up .
It 's great in dense environments and you BYO antenna so you could set up 2 or 3 with panel antennas at a central location to cover the entire area , effectively load-balancing your geography .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubiquiti (ubnt.com), makers of WISP hardware, have a "Bullet AP" product that is extremely affordable and VERY easy to set up.
It's great in dense environments and you BYO antenna so you could set up 2 or 3 with panel antennas at a central location to cover the entire area, effectively load-balancing your geography.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379866</id>
	<title>Since they are so densely packed....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267876260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...CAT-5 based internet connection is probably still the best option. Why are you discarding it ?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...CAT-5 based internet connection is probably still the best option .
Why are you discarding it ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...CAT-5 based internet connection is probably still the best option.
Why are you discarding it ?!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378952</id>
	<title>Re:Not cheap, but...</title>
	<author>Kizeh</author>
	<datestamp>1267813080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The parent means Xirrus will cause the event organizers to mortgage a house. Still, Xirrus can have tons of radios in one device, all with segmented antennas, and they really are a good fit for this kind of stuff. They even have a pole/tripod mounting option where you can set up more if need be. See about the sponsoring or maybe renting.<br>Alternatively, get external 60 degree segment antennas for something like Cisco 1250s and do hexagonal cells, like wireless carriers do. For dual band MIMO you need six antennas per AP, so it'll get out of control mighty fast.<br>Worst case, get a bunch of APs, have three of them use the three 2.4 GHz channels with MIMO (but no channel bonding!) and as many 5 GHz ones as you can, since you have many more non-overlapping channels to work with. Chances are that anyone stuck on 2.4 GHz is going to hate life. Plan power levels as well, and don't run radios hotter than they need to be, despite the temptation.<br>Also, very, very important: DISABLE LOW DATA RATES. Mandate 5 or 11 Mbps as the lowest supported rate at all the radios. Otherwise the 1 Mbps Nintendo DS's and phones will eat up all the airtime and starve everyone of access. If you can get away with turning off 802.11b support and only offering 802.11g on 2.4 GHz, do so.<br>Finally, ignore any comment suggesting consumer gear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The parent means Xirrus will cause the event organizers to mortgage a house .
Still , Xirrus can have tons of radios in one device , all with segmented antennas , and they really are a good fit for this kind of stuff .
They even have a pole/tripod mounting option where you can set up more if need be .
See about the sponsoring or maybe renting.Alternatively , get external 60 degree segment antennas for something like Cisco 1250s and do hexagonal cells , like wireless carriers do .
For dual band MIMO you need six antennas per AP , so it 'll get out of control mighty fast.Worst case , get a bunch of APs , have three of them use the three 2.4 GHz channels with MIMO ( but no channel bonding !
) and as many 5 GHz ones as you can , since you have many more non-overlapping channels to work with .
Chances are that anyone stuck on 2.4 GHz is going to hate life .
Plan power levels as well , and do n't run radios hotter than they need to be , despite the temptation.Also , very , very important : DISABLE LOW DATA RATES .
Mandate 5 or 11 Mbps as the lowest supported rate at all the radios .
Otherwise the 1 Mbps Nintendo DS 's and phones will eat up all the airtime and starve everyone of access .
If you can get away with turning off 802.11b support and only offering 802.11g on 2.4 GHz , do so.Finally , ignore any comment suggesting consumer gear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parent means Xirrus will cause the event organizers to mortgage a house.
Still, Xirrus can have tons of radios in one device, all with segmented antennas, and they really are a good fit for this kind of stuff.
They even have a pole/tripod mounting option where you can set up more if need be.
See about the sponsoring or maybe renting.Alternatively, get external 60 degree segment antennas for something like Cisco 1250s and do hexagonal cells, like wireless carriers do.
For dual band MIMO you need six antennas per AP, so it'll get out of control mighty fast.Worst case, get a bunch of APs, have three of them use the three 2.4 GHz channels with MIMO (but no channel bonding!
) and as many 5 GHz ones as you can, since you have many more non-overlapping channels to work with.
Chances are that anyone stuck on 2.4 GHz is going to hate life.
Plan power levels as well, and don't run radios hotter than they need to be, despite the temptation.Also, very, very important: DISABLE LOW DATA RATES.
Mandate 5 or 11 Mbps as the lowest supported rate at all the radios.
Otherwise the 1 Mbps Nintendo DS's and phones will eat up all the airtime and starve everyone of access.
If you can get away with turning off 802.11b support and only offering 802.11g on 2.4 GHz, do so.Finally, ignore any comment suggesting consumer gear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378830</id>
	<title>Best WAP? Easy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267811580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>2x4 upside their head...it's amazing what some incentivizing can do to improve collective intelligence</htmltext>
<tokenext>2x4 upside their head...it 's amazing what some incentivizing can do to improve collective intelligence</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2x4 upside their head...it's amazing what some incentivizing can do to improve collective intelligence</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379060</id>
	<title>Linksys routers with simultaneous dual band</title>
	<author>WarJolt</author>
	<datestamp>1267814940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/products/WRT610N" title="linksysbycisco.com">http://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/products/WRT610N</a> [linksysbycisco.com]</p><p>It should be less than $160 and will probably give you the best performance when using N. Never tried it though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/products/WRT610N [ linksysbycisco.com ] It should be less than $ 160 and will probably give you the best performance when using N. Never tried it though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/products/WRT610N [linksysbycisco.com]It should be less than $160 and will probably give you the best performance when using N. Never tried it though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378792</id>
	<title>Re:how cheap? pfsense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267811280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You reasoning is incorrect.  You are assuming 1ms per "hold message" unicast to each client before allowing one to transmit?  Every part of that assumption is incorrect.  1ms, unicast, all clients equal, 1 AP for all contention.</p><p>A little knowledge is very dangerous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You reasoning is incorrect .
You are assuming 1ms per " hold message " unicast to each client before allowing one to transmit ?
Every part of that assumption is incorrect .
1ms , unicast , all clients equal , 1 AP for all contention.A little knowledge is very dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You reasoning is incorrect.
You are assuming 1ms per "hold message" unicast to each client before allowing one to transmit?
Every part of that assumption is incorrect.
1ms, unicast, all clients equal, 1 AP for all contention.A little knowledge is very dangerous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379028</id>
	<title>Compatibility for all</title>
	<author>skudenfaugen</author>
	<datestamp>1267814400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>802.11n is compatible with all of the previous specs (a,b and g) even though they didn't all talk to each other. Mixed mode (2.4 and 5GHz to the rescue).

Here are a couple links that should help explain (yes I know these are older but these should help get the idea across).
<a href="http://features.techworld.com/mobile-wireless/2280/how-can-80211n-talk-to-all-worlds/" title="techworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://features.techworld.com/mobile-wireless/2280/how-can-80211n-talk-to-all-worlds/</a> [techworld.com]
 and
<a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/145098/new\_80211n\_routers\_the\_best\_wifi\_yet.html" title="pcworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcworld.com/article/145098/new\_80211n\_routers\_the\_best\_wifi\_yet.html</a> [pcworld.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>802.11n is compatible with all of the previous specs ( a,b and g ) even though they did n't all talk to each other .
Mixed mode ( 2.4 and 5GHz to the rescue ) .
Here are a couple links that should help explain ( yes I know these are older but these should help get the idea across ) .
http : //features.techworld.com/mobile-wireless/2280/how-can-80211n-talk-to-all-worlds/ [ techworld.com ] and http : //www.pcworld.com/article/145098/new \ _80211n \ _routers \ _the \ _best \ _wifi \ _yet.html [ pcworld.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>802.11n is compatible with all of the previous specs (a,b and g) even though they didn't all talk to each other.
Mixed mode (2.4 and 5GHz to the rescue).
Here are a couple links that should help explain (yes I know these are older but these should help get the idea across).
http://features.techworld.com/mobile-wireless/2280/how-can-80211n-talk-to-all-worlds/ [techworld.com]
 and
http://www.pcworld.com/article/145098/new\_80211n\_routers\_the\_best\_wifi\_yet.html [pcworld.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378482</id>
	<title>Xirrus XN8</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267807380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Xirrus XN8 not a cheap option, but it will work for over 500 simultaneous users with b,g,n using only the one device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Xirrus XN8 not a cheap option , but it will work for over 500 simultaneous users with b,g,n using only the one device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Xirrus XN8 not a cheap option, but it will work for over 500 simultaneous users with b,g,n using only the one device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31399546</id>
	<title>Check out the Xirrus Rapid Deployment Wi-Fi Kit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268056140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out the Xirrus Rapid Deployment Wi-Fi Kit. It includes all the elements needed to transport and deploy a high performance wireless network for hundreds of users. With a fully integrated design delivering a coverage range well beyond typical wireless access points, the Wi-Fi Array is the only solution of its kind for setting up a pervasive wireless network with such simplicity. Xirrus Rapid Deployment Wi-Fi Kits can be ordered online at the Xirrus Store at www.store.xirrus.com.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out the Xirrus Rapid Deployment Wi-Fi Kit .
It includes all the elements needed to transport and deploy a high performance wireless network for hundreds of users .
With a fully integrated design delivering a coverage range well beyond typical wireless access points , the Wi-Fi Array is the only solution of its kind for setting up a pervasive wireless network with such simplicity .
Xirrus Rapid Deployment Wi-Fi Kits can be ordered online at the Xirrus Store at www.store.xirrus.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out the Xirrus Rapid Deployment Wi-Fi Kit.
It includes all the elements needed to transport and deploy a high performance wireless network for hundreds of users.
With a fully integrated design delivering a coverage range well beyond typical wireless access points, the Wi-Fi Array is the only solution of its kind for setting up a pervasive wireless network with such simplicity.
Xirrus Rapid Deployment Wi-Fi Kits can be ordered online at the Xirrus Store at www.store.xirrus.com.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31382032</id>
	<title>look at how PyCon 2010 did it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267904160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a slashdot post two days ago describing how PyCon 2010 did it: <a href="http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/03/04/1315210/Why-PyCon-2010s-Conference-Wi-Fi-Didnt-Melt-Down" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/03/04/1315210/Why-PyCon-2010s-Conference-Wi-Fi-Didnt-Melt-Down</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a slashdot post two days ago describing how PyCon 2010 did it : http : //mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/03/04/1315210/Why-PyCon-2010s-Conference-Wi-Fi-Didnt-Melt-Down [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a slashdot post two days ago describing how PyCon 2010 did it: http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/03/04/1315210/Why-PyCon-2010s-Conference-Wi-Fi-Didnt-Melt-Down [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380556</id>
	<title>Re:Meru Networks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267889340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meru wont do it for you here. With the same channel used by all the APs, and the APs adjacent to each other, you will have about the same total bandwidth that you would have with a single AP. AP radios operating on the same channel cannot "talk" at the same time - whether you have 1 AP or 3+, only one AP can use the channel at a time. Meru's technology will ensure that the AP transmissions are coordinated so there are no collisions, but that does not create any additional bandwidth. Use a vendor who uses the industry standard of APs on different non-interfering channels and you will have *way* more bandwidth available</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meru wont do it for you here .
With the same channel used by all the APs , and the APs adjacent to each other , you will have about the same total bandwidth that you would have with a single AP .
AP radios operating on the same channel can not " talk " at the same time - whether you have 1 AP or 3 + , only one AP can use the channel at a time .
Meru 's technology will ensure that the AP transmissions are coordinated so there are no collisions , but that does not create any additional bandwidth .
Use a vendor who uses the industry standard of APs on different non-interfering channels and you will have * way * more bandwidth available</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meru wont do it for you here.
With the same channel used by all the APs, and the APs adjacent to each other, you will have about the same total bandwidth that you would have with a single AP.
AP radios operating on the same channel cannot "talk" at the same time - whether you have 1 AP or 3+, only one AP can use the channel at a time.
Meru's technology will ensure that the AP transmissions are coordinated so there are no collisions, but that does not create any additional bandwidth.
Use a vendor who uses the industry standard of APs on different non-interfering channels and you will have *way* more bandwidth available</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379056</id>
	<title>Ruckus Wireless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267814880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out Ruckus Wireless. The dual band APs can handle 200 users each, and cover a 5000 square foot area each. They can be installed with or without a controller. Extremely easy to set up and they come with a lifetime warranty.</p><p>They have 17 directional antennas inside them and we have yet to find an environment where they did not out preform the competition; very strong signal and cut through interference like it isn't there.</p><p>We've been replacing Aruba, Cisco, and Meru products with Ruckus for many clients that have become frustrated with how difficult their existing gear was to install and manage. All of our clients are very happy with the Ruckus gear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out Ruckus Wireless .
The dual band APs can handle 200 users each , and cover a 5000 square foot area each .
They can be installed with or without a controller .
Extremely easy to set up and they come with a lifetime warranty.They have 17 directional antennas inside them and we have yet to find an environment where they did not out preform the competition ; very strong signal and cut through interference like it is n't there.We 've been replacing Aruba , Cisco , and Meru products with Ruckus for many clients that have become frustrated with how difficult their existing gear was to install and manage .
All of our clients are very happy with the Ruckus gear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out Ruckus Wireless.
The dual band APs can handle 200 users each, and cover a 5000 square foot area each.
They can be installed with or without a controller.
Extremely easy to set up and they come with a lifetime warranty.They have 17 directional antennas inside them and we have yet to find an environment where they did not out preform the competition; very strong signal and cut through interference like it isn't there.We've been replacing Aruba, Cisco, and Meru products with Ruckus for many clients that have become frustrated with how difficult their existing gear was to install and manage.
All of our clients are very happy with the Ruckus gear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378398</id>
	<title>Re:Mikrotik a possible choice?</title>
	<author>tagno25</author>
	<datestamp>1267806480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>try Ubiquti instead for just an AP (or CPE)</htmltext>
<tokenext>try Ubiquti instead for just an AP ( or CPE )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>try Ubiquti instead for just an AP (or CPE)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378744</id>
	<title>HP/Colubris</title>
	<author>sigipickl</author>
	<datestamp>1267810620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HP ProCurve has dual radio products from their buyout of Colubris...   check out the MSM422.  You can run 2-3 of these @ low to mid power with one radio on N (@ 5ghz) and one on b/g (channelized).  That should split the traffic up a bit (most newer laptops have 802.11n cards)  You should be able to get 200+ users per AP as long as no one tries to connect from the parking lot (hence the low power).</p><p>You can also use some narrow-field sector antennas and "columnize" your signals across a room.</p><p>If it is a more permanent installation, consider a distributed/engineered antenna solution (DAS) that will limit the signal bleed outside the intended area (and in turn, increase the connected capacity of the AP.  DAS solutions get expensive though.  So unless you have other signals you want to inject (cell, licensed radio, etc...), this may be out of the cost range you are looking at.</p><p>And for the record, I work for an HP reseller (we sell/support other vendors as well).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HP ProCurve has dual radio products from their buyout of Colubris... check out the MSM422 .
You can run 2-3 of these @ low to mid power with one radio on N ( @ 5ghz ) and one on b/g ( channelized ) .
That should split the traffic up a bit ( most newer laptops have 802.11n cards ) You should be able to get 200 + users per AP as long as no one tries to connect from the parking lot ( hence the low power ) .You can also use some narrow-field sector antennas and " columnize " your signals across a room.If it is a more permanent installation , consider a distributed/engineered antenna solution ( DAS ) that will limit the signal bleed outside the intended area ( and in turn , increase the connected capacity of the AP .
DAS solutions get expensive though .
So unless you have other signals you want to inject ( cell , licensed radio , etc... ) , this may be out of the cost range you are looking at.And for the record , I work for an HP reseller ( we sell/support other vendors as well ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HP ProCurve has dual radio products from their buyout of Colubris...   check out the MSM422.
You can run 2-3 of these @ low to mid power with one radio on N (@ 5ghz) and one on b/g (channelized).
That should split the traffic up a bit (most newer laptops have 802.11n cards)  You should be able to get 200+ users per AP as long as no one tries to connect from the parking lot (hence the low power).You can also use some narrow-field sector antennas and "columnize" your signals across a room.If it is a more permanent installation, consider a distributed/engineered antenna solution (DAS) that will limit the signal bleed outside the intended area (and in turn, increase the connected capacity of the AP.
DAS solutions get expensive though.
So unless you have other signals you want to inject (cell, licensed radio, etc...), this may be out of the cost range you are looking at.And for the record, I work for an HP reseller (we sell/support other vendors as well).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31381542</id>
	<title>Re:consumer equipment is the wrong answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267899180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a network admin running a bit of the equipment Mr. Cisco Engineer suggests, and have been for about a year and a half over a campus of 16 buildings with over 300+ access points.</p><p>The biggest issue I see is that you're going to get whomped on the 2.4 ghz spectrum.  There isn't enough room, period.  Fortunately, without doing channel bonding, you have a lot more channels on the 5 ghz side.  Due to having to support 30+ clients per AP where I am at per room during peak usage, I have opted for N access points.  Typically the clients balance themselves well depending on channel.</p><p>What wasn't really mentioned was that tuning the radios will be quite a pain with that kind of density.  The Cisco wireless controllers (and I'm assuming other lightweight AP vendors do the same) tune the channels as well as radio strength so they aren't stepping on each other.  It has made my life a lot easier.</p><p>Listen to this man, you will be the hero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a network admin running a bit of the equipment Mr. Cisco Engineer suggests , and have been for about a year and a half over a campus of 16 buildings with over 300 + access points.The biggest issue I see is that you 're going to get whomped on the 2.4 ghz spectrum .
There is n't enough room , period .
Fortunately , without doing channel bonding , you have a lot more channels on the 5 ghz side .
Due to having to support 30 + clients per AP where I am at per room during peak usage , I have opted for N access points .
Typically the clients balance themselves well depending on channel.What was n't really mentioned was that tuning the radios will be quite a pain with that kind of density .
The Cisco wireless controllers ( and I 'm assuming other lightweight AP vendors do the same ) tune the channels as well as radio strength so they are n't stepping on each other .
It has made my life a lot easier.Listen to this man , you will be the hero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a network admin running a bit of the equipment Mr. Cisco Engineer suggests, and have been for about a year and a half over a campus of 16 buildings with over 300+ access points.The biggest issue I see is that you're going to get whomped on the 2.4 ghz spectrum.
There isn't enough room, period.
Fortunately, without doing channel bonding, you have a lot more channels on the 5 ghz side.
Due to having to support 30+ clients per AP where I am at per room during peak usage, I have opted for N access points.
Typically the clients balance themselves well depending on channel.What wasn't really mentioned was that tuning the radios will be quite a pain with that kind of density.
The Cisco wireless controllers (and I'm assuming other lightweight AP vendors do the same) tune the channels as well as radio strength so they aren't stepping on each other.
It has made my life a lot easier.Listen to this man, you will be the hero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378780</id>
	<title>Trapeze!!!</title>
	<author>awrz</author>
	<datestamp>1267811160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My firm loves and adores Trapeze WAPs. You can get MIMO units that are PoE powered for far less than the competition *cough* *cough* Cisco.</p><p>We have one prominent client (an IT admin who runs a large school campus) who swears by Trapeze WAPs.</p><p>Check them out: <a href="http://www.trapezenetworks.com/" title="trapezenetworks.com" rel="nofollow">link</a> [trapezenetworks.com] </p><p>Keep in mind that only the best WAPs can only handle so many clients at once! You're going to need to have multiple WAPs on multiple channels in your area to make this work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My firm loves and adores Trapeze WAPs .
You can get MIMO units that are PoE powered for far less than the competition * cough * * cough * Cisco.We have one prominent client ( an IT admin who runs a large school campus ) who swears by Trapeze WAPs.Check them out : link [ trapezenetworks.com ] Keep in mind that only the best WAPs can only handle so many clients at once !
You 're going to need to have multiple WAPs on multiple channels in your area to make this work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My firm loves and adores Trapeze WAPs.
You can get MIMO units that are PoE powered for far less than the competition *cough* *cough* Cisco.We have one prominent client (an IT admin who runs a large school campus) who swears by Trapeze WAPs.Check them out: link [trapezenetworks.com] Keep in mind that only the best WAPs can only handle so many clients at once!
You're going to need to have multiple WAPs on multiple channels in your area to make this work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378342</id>
	<title>Easy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267805940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Setup some inexpensive ipfire (ipfire.org) boxes with wlan cards. Can be used, older hardware and the distro is free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Setup some inexpensive ipfire ( ipfire.org ) boxes with wlan cards .
Can be used , older hardware and the distro is free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Setup some inexpensive ipfire (ipfire.org) boxes with wlan cards.
Can be used, older hardware and the distro is free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31385282</id>
	<title>Re:Use ALL 14 WIFI channels !</title>
	<author>Technician</author>
	<datestamp>1267884840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Due to the bandwidth, narrow beam antennas will go a long way in partioning the space into sectors for frequency re-use, much like cell phones. See if you can partition your space into cells.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Due to the bandwidth , narrow beam antennas will go a long way in partioning the space into sectors for frequency re-use , much like cell phones .
See if you can partition your space into cells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Due to the bandwidth, narrow beam antennas will go a long way in partioning the space into sectors for frequency re-use, much like cell phones.
See if you can partition your space into cells.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31382814</id>
	<title>Only one vendor can do this right...</title>
	<author>kidMike</author>
	<datestamp>1267908840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, that's a string of misguided replies, with the occasional person that actually knows what they're talking about. Full disclosure: I'm an engineer for Aruba Networks, and this is exactly the kind of thing I/we do regularly. I've personally done the Interop shows in Javitts Center in NYC, the All-Star Game at Yankee Stadium, and various other conferences with 1,000 or more people. As a company, we've done the wireless network at Black Hat for years (without one failure or hack), the HoPe conference, as well as most of the hotels and conference centers in Vegas. Oh yeah, and every US Air Force base in the world. If you want this to work, here are the unique features that ONLY Aruba Networks provides for high density deployments (all without needing software on the clients or CCX extensions in the NIC card)...<br>
<br>
<br>
- Band Steering: Use dual-radio access points. The Aruba gear detects if a client supports both 2.4g and 5g, and moves the client automatically to the 5g band, which is cleaner and has more channels available.<br>
- Spectrum Load Balancing: Every vendor offers load balancing: there are 10 users on AP-1/Channel 1, and 20 on AP-2/Channel 6, so put the next user on AP-1. This ignores the fact that the only resource you're really constrained by is the amount of spectrum in use, not the number of users on an AP. If those 10 users are using most of the spectrum of Channel 1, while Channel 6 isn't being used as heavily by the 20 users, you'll get better performance by balancing the user to the less-utilized spectrum, rather than the lowest user-count AP.<br>
- Co-Channel Interference: The Aruba architecture knows when a client is within range of two APs on the same channel, and schedules transmissions out of the APs so they don't collide in the air.<br>
- Adjacent channel interference: Aruba ecognizes that there *will* be some bleed between transmissions on adjacent channels, and manages transmissions to avoid that.<br>
- Airtime Fairness: Aruba recognizes the different client phy types (802.11a, b, g, and n-2.4/n-5) and allocates certain amounts of airtime to each client, so those old 11b clients don't drag your 11n clients to a screeching halt.<br>
- Channel Reuse: modifying the collision threshold on the channel to allow you to reuse channels in much closer proximity to one another than normally possible.<br>
- Dynamic Multicast Optimization: The APs can detect a multicast stream and determine if it's better to send the stream to all multicast clients at one, but at the normal lowest data rate, or convert the stream to a series of unicast transmissions that can be sent to each client at a much higher rate.<br>
- Mode-aware Adaptive Radio Management: Deploy as many APs as you want. The Aruba architecture will automatically turn on (or off!) individual radios based upon RF needs; too much RF is worse than not enough, in most cases.<br>
- Client bandwidth contracts: Set a rate limit for each user, so one person can't use half your bandwidth.<br>
- Policy Enforcement Firewall: Allow your users to only do what protocols you want (http, https, dhcp, dns), and block all the others. iTunes/Bonjour/MulticastDNS from Apple products will KILL your network otherwise.<br>
<br>
<br>
If you want more information on the physics of these methods, check out this white paper which has more info than you'll want to read:<br>
<a href="http://www.arubanetworks.com/pdf/technology/whitepapers/wp\_ARM\_EnterpriseWLAN.pdf" title="arubanetworks.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.arubanetworks.com/pdf/technology/whitepapers/wp\_ARM\_EnterpriseWLAN.pdf</a> [arubanetworks.com] <br>
<br>
Now, all of that said, here are some BAD ideas that people have suggested:<br>
<br>
- Use all 14 channels!<br>
------ Not only is this illegal almost everywhere, but most clients will use the operating system's country code and only use the channels that are supposed to be available. In the U.S. for example, only channels 1-11 are valid; client devices won't try to use channels 12-14.<br>
<br>
- Use channels 1, 4, 7, 10 on one group of APs, then 2, 5, 8, 11 on the next set.... <br>
------ TERRIBLE idea. Because 802.11a</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that 's a string of misguided replies , with the occasional person that actually knows what they 're talking about .
Full disclosure : I 'm an engineer for Aruba Networks , and this is exactly the kind of thing I/we do regularly .
I 've personally done the Interop shows in Javitts Center in NYC , the All-Star Game at Yankee Stadium , and various other conferences with 1,000 or more people .
As a company , we 've done the wireless network at Black Hat for years ( without one failure or hack ) , the HoPe conference , as well as most of the hotels and conference centers in Vegas .
Oh yeah , and every US Air Force base in the world .
If you want this to work , here are the unique features that ONLY Aruba Networks provides for high density deployments ( all without needing software on the clients or CCX extensions in the NIC card ) .. . - Band Steering : Use dual-radio access points .
The Aruba gear detects if a client supports both 2.4g and 5g , and moves the client automatically to the 5g band , which is cleaner and has more channels available .
- Spectrum Load Balancing : Every vendor offers load balancing : there are 10 users on AP-1/Channel 1 , and 20 on AP-2/Channel 6 , so put the next user on AP-1 .
This ignores the fact that the only resource you 're really constrained by is the amount of spectrum in use , not the number of users on an AP .
If those 10 users are using most of the spectrum of Channel 1 , while Channel 6 is n't being used as heavily by the 20 users , you 'll get better performance by balancing the user to the less-utilized spectrum , rather than the lowest user-count AP .
- Co-Channel Interference : The Aruba architecture knows when a client is within range of two APs on the same channel , and schedules transmissions out of the APs so they do n't collide in the air .
- Adjacent channel interference : Aruba ecognizes that there * will * be some bleed between transmissions on adjacent channels , and manages transmissions to avoid that .
- Airtime Fairness : Aruba recognizes the different client phy types ( 802.11a , b , g , and n-2.4/n-5 ) and allocates certain amounts of airtime to each client , so those old 11b clients do n't drag your 11n clients to a screeching halt .
- Channel Reuse : modifying the collision threshold on the channel to allow you to reuse channels in much closer proximity to one another than normally possible .
- Dynamic Multicast Optimization : The APs can detect a multicast stream and determine if it 's better to send the stream to all multicast clients at one , but at the normal lowest data rate , or convert the stream to a series of unicast transmissions that can be sent to each client at a much higher rate .
- Mode-aware Adaptive Radio Management : Deploy as many APs as you want .
The Aruba architecture will automatically turn on ( or off !
) individual radios based upon RF needs ; too much RF is worse than not enough , in most cases .
- Client bandwidth contracts : Set a rate limit for each user , so one person ca n't use half your bandwidth .
- Policy Enforcement Firewall : Allow your users to only do what protocols you want ( http , https , dhcp , dns ) , and block all the others .
iTunes/Bonjour/MulticastDNS from Apple products will KILL your network otherwise .
If you want more information on the physics of these methods , check out this white paper which has more info than you 'll want to read : http : //www.arubanetworks.com/pdf/technology/whitepapers/wp \ _ARM \ _EnterpriseWLAN.pdf [ arubanetworks.com ] Now , all of that said , here are some BAD ideas that people have suggested : - Use all 14 channels !
------ Not only is this illegal almost everywhere , but most clients will use the operating system 's country code and only use the channels that are supposed to be available .
In the U.S. for example , only channels 1-11 are valid ; client devices wo n't try to use channels 12-14 .
- Use channels 1 , 4 , 7 , 10 on one group of APs , then 2 , 5 , 8 , 11 on the next set... . ------ TERRIBLE idea .
Because 802.11a</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that's a string of misguided replies, with the occasional person that actually knows what they're talking about.
Full disclosure: I'm an engineer for Aruba Networks, and this is exactly the kind of thing I/we do regularly.
I've personally done the Interop shows in Javitts Center in NYC, the All-Star Game at Yankee Stadium, and various other conferences with 1,000 or more people.
As a company, we've done the wireless network at Black Hat for years (without one failure or hack), the HoPe conference, as well as most of the hotels and conference centers in Vegas.
Oh yeah, and every US Air Force base in the world.
If you want this to work, here are the unique features that ONLY Aruba Networks provides for high density deployments (all without needing software on the clients or CCX extensions in the NIC card)...


- Band Steering: Use dual-radio access points.
The Aruba gear detects if a client supports both 2.4g and 5g, and moves the client automatically to the 5g band, which is cleaner and has more channels available.
- Spectrum Load Balancing: Every vendor offers load balancing: there are 10 users on AP-1/Channel 1, and 20 on AP-2/Channel 6, so put the next user on AP-1.
This ignores the fact that the only resource you're really constrained by is the amount of spectrum in use, not the number of users on an AP.
If those 10 users are using most of the spectrum of Channel 1, while Channel 6 isn't being used as heavily by the 20 users, you'll get better performance by balancing the user to the less-utilized spectrum, rather than the lowest user-count AP.
- Co-Channel Interference: The Aruba architecture knows when a client is within range of two APs on the same channel, and schedules transmissions out of the APs so they don't collide in the air.
- Adjacent channel interference: Aruba ecognizes that there *will* be some bleed between transmissions on adjacent channels, and manages transmissions to avoid that.
- Airtime Fairness: Aruba recognizes the different client phy types (802.11a, b, g, and n-2.4/n-5) and allocates certain amounts of airtime to each client, so those old 11b clients don't drag your 11n clients to a screeching halt.
- Channel Reuse: modifying the collision threshold on the channel to allow you to reuse channels in much closer proximity to one another than normally possible.
- Dynamic Multicast Optimization: The APs can detect a multicast stream and determine if it's better to send the stream to all multicast clients at one, but at the normal lowest data rate, or convert the stream to a series of unicast transmissions that can be sent to each client at a much higher rate.
- Mode-aware Adaptive Radio Management: Deploy as many APs as you want.
The Aruba architecture will automatically turn on (or off!
) individual radios based upon RF needs; too much RF is worse than not enough, in most cases.
- Client bandwidth contracts: Set a rate limit for each user, so one person can't use half your bandwidth.
- Policy Enforcement Firewall: Allow your users to only do what protocols you want (http, https, dhcp, dns), and block all the others.
iTunes/Bonjour/MulticastDNS from Apple products will KILL your network otherwise.
If you want more information on the physics of these methods, check out this white paper which has more info than you'll want to read:
http://www.arubanetworks.com/pdf/technology/whitepapers/wp\_ARM\_EnterpriseWLAN.pdf [arubanetworks.com] 

Now, all of that said, here are some BAD ideas that people have suggested:

- Use all 14 channels!
------ Not only is this illegal almost everywhere, but most clients will use the operating system's country code and only use the channels that are supposed to be available.
In the U.S. for example, only channels 1-11 are valid; client devices won't try to use channels 12-14.
- Use channels 1, 4, 7, 10 on one group of APs, then 2, 5, 8, 11 on the next set.... 
------ TERRIBLE idea.
Because 802.11a</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378436</id>
	<title>What about Ubiquity?</title>
	<author>az1324</author>
	<datestamp>1267806900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubiquity Rocket M2 and M5</p><p>Scalability: 300+ subs per sectored base station</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubiquity Rocket M2 and M5Scalability : 300 + subs per sectored base station</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubiquity Rocket M2 and M5Scalability: 300+ subs per sectored base station</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380802</id>
	<title>Good/Fast/Cheap:  Pick Two (or maybe just one)</title>
	<author>TMFUberman</author>
	<datestamp>1267891620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You will not be able to accomplish your goals with consumer-grade equipment, simply because consumer-grade equipment is neither designed, nor priced, for this type of performance.</p><p>As a few others have suggested, Aruba Networks is a great solution, but it is neither inexpensive, nor simple/fast to set up if you don't know what you are doing.  I've set up Aruba gear for a WAN spanning 30+ countries and supporting over 2000 users, and it is absolutely rock solid, with no performance problems whatsoever.  The controllers intelligently move users to the least-utilized AP without packet loss, and load balance not just user count but by activity, signal strength/interference, etc.</p><p>You could pick up an 800-series controller for around $3000, but your user count  might justify a 3000-series.  The AP125 model supports a/b/g/n, and runs somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 each.  Yes, it is expensive.  The problem you are going to run into is that pretty much any AP is not going to support more than about 50 simultaneous connections, and really you are going to want to get that number closer to 25 users/AP.</p><p>Having separate SSIDs per frequency band is not a bad idea, but isn't necessary if you have a system like Aruba that does intelligent balancing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You will not be able to accomplish your goals with consumer-grade equipment , simply because consumer-grade equipment is neither designed , nor priced , for this type of performance.As a few others have suggested , Aruba Networks is a great solution , but it is neither inexpensive , nor simple/fast to set up if you do n't know what you are doing .
I 've set up Aruba gear for a WAN spanning 30 + countries and supporting over 2000 users , and it is absolutely rock solid , with no performance problems whatsoever .
The controllers intelligently move users to the least-utilized AP without packet loss , and load balance not just user count but by activity , signal strength/interference , etc.You could pick up an 800-series controller for around $ 3000 , but your user count might justify a 3000-series .
The AP125 model supports a/b/g/n , and runs somewhere in the neighborhood of $ 800 each .
Yes , it is expensive .
The problem you are going to run into is that pretty much any AP is not going to support more than about 50 simultaneous connections , and really you are going to want to get that number closer to 25 users/AP.Having separate SSIDs per frequency band is not a bad idea , but is n't necessary if you have a system like Aruba that does intelligent balancing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You will not be able to accomplish your goals with consumer-grade equipment, simply because consumer-grade equipment is neither designed, nor priced, for this type of performance.As a few others have suggested, Aruba Networks is a great solution, but it is neither inexpensive, nor simple/fast to set up if you don't know what you are doing.
I've set up Aruba gear for a WAN spanning 30+ countries and supporting over 2000 users, and it is absolutely rock solid, with no performance problems whatsoever.
The controllers intelligently move users to the least-utilized AP without packet loss, and load balance not just user count but by activity, signal strength/interference, etc.You could pick up an 800-series controller for around $3000, but your user count  might justify a 3000-series.
The AP125 model supports a/b/g/n, and runs somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 each.
Yes, it is expensive.
The problem you are going to run into is that pretty much any AP is not going to support more than about 50 simultaneous connections, and really you are going to want to get that number closer to 25 users/AP.Having separate SSIDs per frequency band is not a bad idea, but isn't necessary if you have a system like Aruba that does intelligent balancing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378776</id>
	<title>My Pick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267810980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Setup 12 Airport Extremes

Each one supports 2 different antennas plus a guest network.

You can setup a group of them as N Only on 5Ghz, N Only on 2.5Ghz, G Only, B Only and maybe even setup one of them as A Only.

Reasons I picked this
1, if you set WAPs up in N on 2.4Ghz with backwards compatibility it only takes one user on B to nock every one down to B.

2, There is a 50 User limit on WAPs

3, you get 24 networks with 12 devices, and you can space out the B,G and N 2.4Ghz networks over a few channels and have true 5ghz N and A there too.

4, They are high performance devices and reliable and easy to manage as a group.

The other problem you will face is IP addresses. You will need to set that up to since you can only have 253 IPs on a class C subnetwork.

Another reason I selected the Airport Extremes is you can build a wireless Network backbone so you dont have to string up cables between all of them. You can use the spare antenna on a few of them to connect to each other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Setup 12 Airport Extremes Each one supports 2 different antennas plus a guest network .
You can setup a group of them as N Only on 5Ghz , N Only on 2.5Ghz , G Only , B Only and maybe even setup one of them as A Only .
Reasons I picked this 1 , if you set WAPs up in N on 2.4Ghz with backwards compatibility it only takes one user on B to nock every one down to B .
2 , There is a 50 User limit on WAPs 3 , you get 24 networks with 12 devices , and you can space out the B,G and N 2.4Ghz networks over a few channels and have true 5ghz N and A there too .
4 , They are high performance devices and reliable and easy to manage as a group .
The other problem you will face is IP addresses .
You will need to set that up to since you can only have 253 IPs on a class C subnetwork .
Another reason I selected the Airport Extremes is you can build a wireless Network backbone so you dont have to string up cables between all of them .
You can use the spare antenna on a few of them to connect to each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Setup 12 Airport Extremes

Each one supports 2 different antennas plus a guest network.
You can setup a group of them as N Only on 5Ghz, N Only on 2.5Ghz, G Only, B Only and maybe even setup one of them as A Only.
Reasons I picked this
1, if you set WAPs up in N on 2.4Ghz with backwards compatibility it only takes one user on B to nock every one down to B.
2, There is a 50 User limit on WAPs

3, you get 24 networks with 12 devices, and you can space out the B,G and N 2.4Ghz networks over a few channels and have true 5ghz N and A there too.
4, They are high performance devices and reliable and easy to manage as a group.
The other problem you will face is IP addresses.
You will need to set that up to since you can only have 253 IPs on a class C subnetwork.
Another reason I selected the Airport Extremes is you can build a wireless Network backbone so you dont have to string up cables between all of them.
You can use the spare antenna on a few of them to connect to each other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378716</id>
	<title>consumer equipment is the wrong answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267810380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Background on me to qualify my comments: I am a cisco engineer specialising in wireless and security.  My product recommendations later come from this experience but there are other products capable of the same performance such as the aruba equipment which would be my close second recommendation but i have no specific product knowledge.</p><p>I think you need to refine your requirements.  It is highly unlikey that a crowd of 500 people will create 500 connections.  You will probably end up serving 100-150 clients simultaneously but not all of them requesting data at the same time unless there is something specific that all users need to connect to at the same time throughout the event.</p><p>Without much better information everyone is just throwing out a product, not a design.  And as you clearly are not a wireless expert (as you asked for 802.11n "as well as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.11g) i would recommend finding someone who is to consult properly.</p><p>And for those suggesting consumer products, your dreaming.  Without some form of spectrum management in this situation the asker is doomed to provide a very poor service with no roaming and massive 2.4ghz congestion.  In addition, those people recommending wired access, WTF?  You very clearly do not understand what you are talking about.  Are you expecting 500 desks with RJ45 ports, or multiple 48 switches places around the room for people to huddle around with their laptops (and only laptops as no mobile device even has an RJ45 port).  This is clearly a fallacious argument.</p><p>Answer the following questions and we can all get very specific.</p><p>3 points to place APs.  Is this to physically mount or a cabling limitation?  Can you mount more but have no cabling?  Un-manged switches can help with this for less than $50 each.  If only to mount then you are stuffed,  There is nothing out there that will handle 500 clients with any useful service.  It's not a limitation of the products it's the contention of the medium as mentioned earlier.</p><p>What services are they accessing?  Are they local or is it just the internet?  If the internet, what is the upstream bandwidth available?  If local access at high speed (100Mb/s +) then you will end up with contention issues.  If it is the internet and the pipe isn't fat you are not looking at contention issues you are looking at number of users connected.  Most modern APs do not have practical limits of associated clients but most recommend around 25 per AP.</p><p>What is the nature of the event?  Basically, are you providing a service that is required constantly throughout the event leading to 100\% of attendees connecting all the time.   Also, are users accessing a high bandwidth service (streaming video for example) all the time or things like static web pages delivered via http?  The later will deliver small amounts of data to each person but will then take time to read by the attendees al will also be cached locally meaning subsequent connections will require even less bandwidth.  If streaming video, someone should have though of this earlier and you will need a consultant/engineer 100\% or expect to fail.</p><p>An off the cuff answer without the above knowledge assuming http type data required, cabling limitation not mounting, the more realistic 150 simultaneous users and internet link at less than 30Mb/s:</p><p>1x Cisco 2112 Controller (100Mb ports not important as limited upstream)<br>5-9x Cisco 1142 APs (very nice 802.11n dual band with the ability to force people to move to 5Ghz if they have it 6.0+ code)<br>3x gigabit unmanaged switches (something like dlink DGS-1005D)</p><p>It would not be far fetched to contact decent size Cisco/Aruba/VendorX partner and get loan equipment for a price + a consultant as part of the deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Background on me to qualify my comments : I am a cisco engineer specialising in wireless and security .
My product recommendations later come from this experience but there are other products capable of the same performance such as the aruba equipment which would be my close second recommendation but i have no specific product knowledge.I think you need to refine your requirements .
It is highly unlikey that a crowd of 500 people will create 500 connections .
You will probably end up serving 100-150 clients simultaneously but not all of them requesting data at the same time unless there is something specific that all users need to connect to at the same time throughout the event.Without much better information everyone is just throwing out a product , not a design .
And as you clearly are not a wireless expert ( as you asked for 802.11n " as well as .11g ) i would recommend finding someone who is to consult properly.And for those suggesting consumer products , your dreaming .
Without some form of spectrum management in this situation the asker is doomed to provide a very poor service with no roaming and massive 2.4ghz congestion .
In addition , those people recommending wired access , WTF ?
You very clearly do not understand what you are talking about .
Are you expecting 500 desks with RJ45 ports , or multiple 48 switches places around the room for people to huddle around with their laptops ( and only laptops as no mobile device even has an RJ45 port ) .
This is clearly a fallacious argument.Answer the following questions and we can all get very specific.3 points to place APs .
Is this to physically mount or a cabling limitation ?
Can you mount more but have no cabling ?
Un-manged switches can help with this for less than $ 50 each .
If only to mount then you are stuffed , There is nothing out there that will handle 500 clients with any useful service .
It 's not a limitation of the products it 's the contention of the medium as mentioned earlier.What services are they accessing ?
Are they local or is it just the internet ?
If the internet , what is the upstream bandwidth available ?
If local access at high speed ( 100Mb/s + ) then you will end up with contention issues .
If it is the internet and the pipe is n't fat you are not looking at contention issues you are looking at number of users connected .
Most modern APs do not have practical limits of associated clients but most recommend around 25 per AP.What is the nature of the event ?
Basically , are you providing a service that is required constantly throughout the event leading to 100 \ % of attendees connecting all the time .
Also , are users accessing a high bandwidth service ( streaming video for example ) all the time or things like static web pages delivered via http ?
The later will deliver small amounts of data to each person but will then take time to read by the attendees al will also be cached locally meaning subsequent connections will require even less bandwidth .
If streaming video , someone should have though of this earlier and you will need a consultant/engineer 100 \ % or expect to fail.An off the cuff answer without the above knowledge assuming http type data required , cabling limitation not mounting , the more realistic 150 simultaneous users and internet link at less than 30Mb/s : 1x Cisco 2112 Controller ( 100Mb ports not important as limited upstream ) 5-9x Cisco 1142 APs ( very nice 802.11n dual band with the ability to force people to move to 5Ghz if they have it 6.0 + code ) 3x gigabit unmanaged switches ( something like dlink DGS-1005D ) It would not be far fetched to contact decent size Cisco/Aruba/VendorX partner and get loan equipment for a price + a consultant as part of the deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Background on me to qualify my comments: I am a cisco engineer specialising in wireless and security.
My product recommendations later come from this experience but there are other products capable of the same performance such as the aruba equipment which would be my close second recommendation but i have no specific product knowledge.I think you need to refine your requirements.
It is highly unlikey that a crowd of 500 people will create 500 connections.
You will probably end up serving 100-150 clients simultaneously but not all of them requesting data at the same time unless there is something specific that all users need to connect to at the same time throughout the event.Without much better information everyone is just throwing out a product, not a design.
And as you clearly are not a wireless expert (as you asked for 802.11n "as well as .11g) i would recommend finding someone who is to consult properly.And for those suggesting consumer products, your dreaming.
Without some form of spectrum management in this situation the asker is doomed to provide a very poor service with no roaming and massive 2.4ghz congestion.
In addition, those people recommending wired access, WTF?
You very clearly do not understand what you are talking about.
Are you expecting 500 desks with RJ45 ports, or multiple 48 switches places around the room for people to huddle around with their laptops (and only laptops as no mobile device even has an RJ45 port).
This is clearly a fallacious argument.Answer the following questions and we can all get very specific.3 points to place APs.
Is this to physically mount or a cabling limitation?
Can you mount more but have no cabling?
Un-manged switches can help with this for less than $50 each.
If only to mount then you are stuffed,  There is nothing out there that will handle 500 clients with any useful service.
It's not a limitation of the products it's the contention of the medium as mentioned earlier.What services are they accessing?
Are they local or is it just the internet?
If the internet, what is the upstream bandwidth available?
If local access at high speed (100Mb/s +) then you will end up with contention issues.
If it is the internet and the pipe isn't fat you are not looking at contention issues you are looking at number of users connected.
Most modern APs do not have practical limits of associated clients but most recommend around 25 per AP.What is the nature of the event?
Basically, are you providing a service that is required constantly throughout the event leading to 100\% of attendees connecting all the time.
Also, are users accessing a high bandwidth service (streaming video for example) all the time or things like static web pages delivered via http?
The later will deliver small amounts of data to each person but will then take time to read by the attendees al will also be cached locally meaning subsequent connections will require even less bandwidth.
If streaming video, someone should have though of this earlier and you will need a consultant/engineer 100\% or expect to fail.An off the cuff answer without the above knowledge assuming http type data required, cabling limitation not mounting, the more realistic 150 simultaneous users and internet link at less than 30Mb/s:1x Cisco 2112 Controller (100Mb ports not important as limited upstream)5-9x Cisco 1142 APs (very nice 802.11n dual band with the ability to force people to move to 5Ghz if they have it 6.0+ code)3x gigabit unmanaged switches (something like dlink DGS-1005D)It would not be far fetched to contact decent size Cisco/Aruba/VendorX partner and get loan equipment for a price + a consultant as part of the deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379324</id>
	<title>Meru Networks... or cisco/Juniper/foundry/Extreme</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267906500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> http://www.merunetworks.com/ps/security/index.php</p><p>I would do a controller/WAP and possibly a router for everyone to authenticate too. But then again, 500 users on wifi is like beating a dead horse... Nothing beats hard wiring to every user. I would say if this is something like a large business, large RV park, Apartment complex, etc, I say bite the bullet and invest in the right hardware to do the job. Consumer grade products are not going to get you anywhere. So enterprise grade or bust here. You can probably run fiber optic to each corner and a few in the middle, connect to a small switch and hard wire where ever or attach your WAP and run them 100M in what ever direction.Shielded cat6 comes to mind for this task.</p><p>Good luck setting up 500 users on Stable wifi in the same community, because if you can do it, patent the method...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.merunetworks.com/ps/security/index.phpI would do a controller/WAP and possibly a router for everyone to authenticate too .
But then again , 500 users on wifi is like beating a dead horse... Nothing beats hard wiring to every user .
I would say if this is something like a large business , large RV park , Apartment complex , etc , I say bite the bullet and invest in the right hardware to do the job .
Consumer grade products are not going to get you anywhere .
So enterprise grade or bust here .
You can probably run fiber optic to each corner and a few in the middle , connect to a small switch and hard wire where ever or attach your WAP and run them 100M in what ever direction.Shielded cat6 comes to mind for this task.Good luck setting up 500 users on Stable wifi in the same community , because if you can do it , patent the method.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> http://www.merunetworks.com/ps/security/index.phpI would do a controller/WAP and possibly a router for everyone to authenticate too.
But then again, 500 users on wifi is like beating a dead horse... Nothing beats hard wiring to every user.
I would say if this is something like a large business, large RV park, Apartment complex, etc, I say bite the bullet and invest in the right hardware to do the job.
Consumer grade products are not going to get you anywhere.
So enterprise grade or bust here.
You can probably run fiber optic to each corner and a few in the middle, connect to a small switch and hard wire where ever or attach your WAP and run them 100M in what ever direction.Shielded cat6 comes to mind for this task.Good luck setting up 500 users on Stable wifi in the same community, because if you can do it, patent the method...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31384942</id>
	<title>p.s. if running cables is a problem...</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1267882200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm so glad I'm not the only one who had this thought.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm so glad I 'm not the only one who had this thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm so glad I'm not the only one who had this thought.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380704</id>
	<title>I've had 32,000 connections to ONE AP ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267890720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no seriously, I started with a few dozen, built up a lab of 11,000 then did many tests with 32,000</p><p>this was all with Ad-Hoc, on 802.11 B, yes "B". on one channel!</p><p>it's all in how you do it.</p><p>yes, I wrote the protocol myself, it was called "L2R" and no you wont find mine with google,<br>that one isn't it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no seriously , I started with a few dozen , built up a lab of 11,000 then did many tests with 32,000this was all with Ad-Hoc , on 802.11 B , yes " B " .
on one channel ! it 's all in how you do it.yes , I wrote the protocol myself , it was called " L2R " and no you wont find mine with google,that one is n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no seriously, I started with a few dozen, built up a lab of 11,000 then did many tests with 32,000this was all with Ad-Hoc, on 802.11 B, yes "B".
on one channel!it's all in how you do it.yes, I wrote the protocol myself, it was called "L2R" and no you wont find mine with google,that one isn't it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379288</id>
	<title>Aruba</title>
	<author>mixmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1267905840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Saw a presentation of the new Aruba 3 OS last week, and also got a demo of the AirWave used in the Aruba headquarter. This is a very good solution if you want to have full control and it's an event that you want to have control over and maybe have them on a regular basis. Could be that it's an overkill for this kind of event, but take a look here <a href="http://www.airwave.com/resources/demos/" title="airwave.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.airwave.com/resources/demos/</a> [airwave.com] to get a some new thoughts. It can also give you a heatmap of the coverage of all your AP's around in the event area.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saw a presentation of the new Aruba 3 OS last week , and also got a demo of the AirWave used in the Aruba headquarter .
This is a very good solution if you want to have full control and it 's an event that you want to have control over and maybe have them on a regular basis .
Could be that it 's an overkill for this kind of event , but take a look here http : //www.airwave.com/resources/demos/ [ airwave.com ] to get a some new thoughts .
It can also give you a heatmap of the coverage of all your AP 's around in the event area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saw a presentation of the new Aruba 3 OS last week, and also got a demo of the AirWave used in the Aruba headquarter.
This is a very good solution if you want to have full control and it's an event that you want to have control over and maybe have them on a regular basis.
Could be that it's an overkill for this kind of event, but take a look here http://www.airwave.com/resources/demos/ [airwave.com] to get a some new thoughts.
It can also give you a heatmap of the coverage of all your AP's around in the event area.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378742</id>
	<title>Baseball bat</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1267810620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Baseball bats work quite well against one or two. Any more waps than that, you'll need to look for an alternative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Baseball bats work quite well against one or two .
Any more waps than that , you 'll need to look for an alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Baseball bats work quite well against one or two.
Any more waps than that, you'll need to look for an alternative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378678</id>
	<title>Re:Best WAP For Dense Crowds?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267809720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking a wireless access point wouldn't be that great a melee weapon in a dense crowd of zombies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking a wireless access point would n't be that great a melee weapon in a dense crowd of zombies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking a wireless access point wouldn't be that great a melee weapon in a dense crowd of zombies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380384</id>
	<title>Re:Mikrotik a possible choice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267887480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the guy who posted said 500 persons packed in a small environment. That does not sound to me like a rural area<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the guy who posted said 500 persons packed in a small environment .
That does not sound to me like a rural area .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the guy who posted said 500 persons packed in a small environment.
That does not sound to me like a rural area ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31381006</id>
	<title>Wrong kind of hardware</title>
	<author>RobertLTux</author>
	<datestamp>1267893780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in your situation i would suggest getting a Bulk reel of Cat6, fittings, PROPER CRIMPERS and then a bunch of that wire channel stuff and then some rack type routers</p><p>(hint folks i did say crimpers as in more than one)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in your situation i would suggest getting a Bulk reel of Cat6 , fittings , PROPER CRIMPERS and then a bunch of that wire channel stuff and then some rack type routers ( hint folks i did say crimpers as in more than one )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in your situation i would suggest getting a Bulk reel of Cat6, fittings, PROPER CRIMPERS and then a bunch of that wire channel stuff and then some rack type routers(hint folks i did say crimpers as in more than one)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379454</id>
	<title>You will need lot of APs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267866840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you need 500 simultaneous users, you should consider that 1 ap will not handle more than about 50 simultaneous well, if so many at all. So, you need arround 10 APs. I suggest proxim AP-4000M, which is about 600$ per AP...sorry not realy cheap, but neither are your requirements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you need 500 simultaneous users , you should consider that 1 ap will not handle more than about 50 simultaneous well , if so many at all .
So , you need arround 10 APs .
I suggest proxim AP-4000M , which is about 600 $ per AP...sorry not realy cheap , but neither are your requirements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you need 500 simultaneous users, you should consider that 1 ap will not handle more than about 50 simultaneous well, if so many at all.
So, you need arround 10 APs.
I suggest proxim AP-4000M, which is about 600$ per AP...sorry not realy cheap, but neither are your requirements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379508</id>
	<title>Re:how cheap? pfsense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267868280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this modded up? 802.11 is an obsolete technology that nobody uses. 802.11b and g use CDMA. Wikipedia is your friend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this modded up ?
802.11 is an obsolete technology that nobody uses .
802.11b and g use CDMA .
Wikipedia is your friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this modded up?
802.11 is an obsolete technology that nobody uses.
802.11b and g use CDMA.
Wikipedia is your friend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378928</id>
	<title>Xirrus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267812660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a look at Xirrus access points... they're designed for high density applications.</p><p>However, they are expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at Xirrus access points... they 're designed for high density applications.However , they are expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at Xirrus access points... they're designed for high density applications.However, they are expensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378362</id>
	<title>Xirrus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267806180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would suggest http://www.xirrus.com/products/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would suggest http : //www.xirrus.com/products/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would suggest http://www.xirrus.com/products/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378602</id>
	<title>Ruckus AP's</title>
	<author>TrouserMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1267808940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You will have to email them to get the Prices, but you could get all 500 of them by just using three of these. I can tell you from my own experience these will definatlly do the trick each once can handle 200 concurrent connections and have enough speed to run HD IPTV's off them if you wanted.
<a href="http://www.ruckuswireless.com/products/zoneflex-high-end/7962" title="ruckuswireless.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ruckuswireless.com/products/zoneflex-high-end/7962</a> [ruckuswireless.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You will have to email them to get the Prices , but you could get all 500 of them by just using three of these .
I can tell you from my own experience these will definatlly do the trick each once can handle 200 concurrent connections and have enough speed to run HD IPTV 's off them if you wanted .
http : //www.ruckuswireless.com/products/zoneflex-high-end/7962 [ ruckuswireless.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You will have to email them to get the Prices, but you could get all 500 of them by just using three of these.
I can tell you from my own experience these will definatlly do the trick each once can handle 200 concurrent connections and have enough speed to run HD IPTV's off them if you wanted.
http://www.ruckuswireless.com/products/zoneflex-high-end/7962 [ruckuswireless.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378434</id>
	<title>Re:how cheap? pfsense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267806900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did a little googling because I was worried about the number of clients.  802.11 uses CSMA which means that every client must wait for every other client to go silent before transmitting.</p><p>That means that you would have to take the minimum latency and multiply it by 500 since all clients will be equals.  That puts you into 500ms of theoretical latency per packet.</p><p>What this means practically is that with 500 clients using all roughly the same bandwidth at 54Mb (unrealistic BTW) you would have just 110Kb per second available to each with 500ms+ latencies, which will compound exponentially.</p><p>Though on paper you might be able to show that ability to connect this many clients but realistically, on HIGH end hardware your are going to have a 50 client MAX simply because of CSMA requiring everyone to take turns but less any bandwidth sharing.</p><p>To make things worse, the amount of data having to be moved just to keep everyone connected and to communicate who is 1st,2nd,3rd, etc in line to speak is going to cut your bandwidth to a tiny fraction of the link speed.</p><p>I highly suggest that you take one of the early poster's advice and drag some cat5e around.  You might have some lucky with 'CELLS' of WRT54g type routers with a carefully selected channel scheme where a set of 4 routers would have channels 1,4,7,10 and the next closest 2,5,8,11 and the next 3,6,9 and then start over.  The channels will overlap somewhat but having 11 SSIDs for 500 people even with some channel interference would get you to somewhere around 50.</p><p>you could extend that to put some 5Ghz band routers in each router bunch and hope that people are fairly evenly split between G and 5Ghz N</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did a little googling because I was worried about the number of clients .
802.11 uses CSMA which means that every client must wait for every other client to go silent before transmitting.That means that you would have to take the minimum latency and multiply it by 500 since all clients will be equals .
That puts you into 500ms of theoretical latency per packet.What this means practically is that with 500 clients using all roughly the same bandwidth at 54Mb ( unrealistic BTW ) you would have just 110Kb per second available to each with 500ms + latencies , which will compound exponentially.Though on paper you might be able to show that ability to connect this many clients but realistically , on HIGH end hardware your are going to have a 50 client MAX simply because of CSMA requiring everyone to take turns but less any bandwidth sharing.To make things worse , the amount of data having to be moved just to keep everyone connected and to communicate who is 1st,2nd,3rd , etc in line to speak is going to cut your bandwidth to a tiny fraction of the link speed.I highly suggest that you take one of the early poster 's advice and drag some cat5e around .
You might have some lucky with 'CELLS ' of WRT54g type routers with a carefully selected channel scheme where a set of 4 routers would have channels 1,4,7,10 and the next closest 2,5,8,11 and the next 3,6,9 and then start over .
The channels will overlap somewhat but having 11 SSIDs for 500 people even with some channel interference would get you to somewhere around 50.you could extend that to put some 5Ghz band routers in each router bunch and hope that people are fairly evenly split between G and 5Ghz N</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did a little googling because I was worried about the number of clients.
802.11 uses CSMA which means that every client must wait for every other client to go silent before transmitting.That means that you would have to take the minimum latency and multiply it by 500 since all clients will be equals.
That puts you into 500ms of theoretical latency per packet.What this means practically is that with 500 clients using all roughly the same bandwidth at 54Mb (unrealistic BTW) you would have just 110Kb per second available to each with 500ms+ latencies, which will compound exponentially.Though on paper you might be able to show that ability to connect this many clients but realistically, on HIGH end hardware your are going to have a 50 client MAX simply because of CSMA requiring everyone to take turns but less any bandwidth sharing.To make things worse, the amount of data having to be moved just to keep everyone connected and to communicate who is 1st,2nd,3rd, etc in line to speak is going to cut your bandwidth to a tiny fraction of the link speed.I highly suggest that you take one of the early poster's advice and drag some cat5e around.
You might have some lucky with 'CELLS' of WRT54g type routers with a carefully selected channel scheme where a set of 4 routers would have channels 1,4,7,10 and the next closest 2,5,8,11 and the next 3,6,9 and then start over.
The channels will overlap somewhat but having 11 SSIDs for 500 people even with some channel interference would get you to somewhere around 50.you could extend that to put some 5Ghz band routers in each router bunch and hope that people are fairly evenly split between G and 5Ghz N</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31381426</id>
	<title>Re:Use ALL 14 WIFI channels !</title>
	<author>punka</author>
	<datestamp>1267898160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is only so much spectrum. Either force everyone to N-only or tell them the WiFi might not support everyone. You can only use channels 1, 6 and 11 in 2.4GHz due to overlap of the other frequencies. Look at figure 10 in <a href="https://upcommons.upc.edu/e-prints/bitstream/2117/1234/1/CrownCom07\_CReady.pdf" title="upc.edu" rel="nofollow">this paper that studied throughput vs. channel overlap.</a> [upc.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is only so much spectrum .
Either force everyone to N-only or tell them the WiFi might not support everyone .
You can only use channels 1 , 6 and 11 in 2.4GHz due to overlap of the other frequencies .
Look at figure 10 in this paper that studied throughput vs. channel overlap .
[ upc.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is only so much spectrum.
Either force everyone to N-only or tell them the WiFi might not support everyone.
You can only use channels 1, 6 and 11 in 2.4GHz due to overlap of the other frequencies.
Look at figure 10 in this paper that studied throughput vs. channel overlap.
[upc.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379346</id>
	<title>Re:you will need more than 2 APs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267906980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or buy two Xirrus units which are all in one turn-key arrays of access points all that will auto-tune for you. They have a 16 access point and an 8 access point versions that would handle this setup without any problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or buy two Xirrus units which are all in one turn-key arrays of access points all that will auto-tune for you .
They have a 16 access point and an 8 access point versions that would handle this setup without any problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or buy two Xirrus units which are all in one turn-key arrays of access points all that will auto-tune for you.
They have a 16 access point and an 8 access point versions that would handle this setup without any problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380252</id>
	<title>Vendors</title>
	<author>hackwrench</author>
	<datestamp>1267885740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Call the vendors of the type of product you are looking for and ask them what they recommend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Call the vendors of the type of product you are looking for and ask them what they recommend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call the vendors of the type of product you are looking for and ask them what they recommend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378582</id>
	<title>Stop using infrastructure mode, moron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267808640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>use Adhoc. no problems then. eesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>use Adhoc .
no problems then .
eesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>use Adhoc.
no problems then.
eesh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378204</id>
	<title>you will need more than 2 APs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267804800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there was a slashdot the other day about the wifi at a python conference.</p><p>any AP is only going to handle 50 users or so because 802.11x is contention based.</p><p>So go ahead and get yourself 10 APs, spread them out, and make sure the ones near eachother are on different channels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there was a slashdot the other day about the wifi at a python conference.any AP is only going to handle 50 users or so because 802.11x is contention based.So go ahead and get yourself 10 APs , spread them out , and make sure the ones near eachother are on different channels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there was a slashdot the other day about the wifi at a python conference.any AP is only going to handle 50 users or so because 802.11x is contention based.So go ahead and get yourself 10 APs, spread them out, and make sure the ones near eachother are on different channels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379286</id>
	<title>half-duplex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267905840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>check out prior art how to cater wireless to hundreds of network users, and consumer grade hardware isn't what you want</p><p>The Two-Tier Internet, Delivered    by Anton Kapela<br>http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog38/presentations/kapela.pdf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>check out prior art how to cater wireless to hundreds of network users , and consumer grade hardware is n't what you wantThe Two-Tier Internet , Delivered by Anton Kapelahttp : //www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog38/presentations/kapela.pdf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>check out prior art how to cater wireless to hundreds of network users, and consumer grade hardware isn't what you wantThe Two-Tier Internet, Delivered    by Anton Kapelahttp://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog38/presentations/kapela.pdf</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378380</id>
	<title>Asus RT-n16</title>
	<author>Ron Harwood</author>
	<datestamp>1267806300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Run your favourite 3rd party firmware on it (openwrt, dd-wrt, tomato, whatever) - it's specs are pretty awesome for the bucks.  128M Ram, 32M flash, two usb ports, N wireless, 480Mhz Broadcom/MIPS cpu (~twice as fast as most others).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Run your favourite 3rd party firmware on it ( openwrt , dd-wrt , tomato , whatever ) - it 's specs are pretty awesome for the bucks .
128M Ram , 32M flash , two usb ports , N wireless , 480Mhz Broadcom/MIPS cpu ( ~ twice as fast as most others ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Run your favourite 3rd party firmware on it (openwrt, dd-wrt, tomato, whatever) - it's specs are pretty awesome for the bucks.
128M Ram, 32M flash, two usb ports, N wireless, 480Mhz Broadcom/MIPS cpu (~twice as fast as most others).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378226</id>
	<title>Mikrotik a possible choice?</title>
	<author>lordsilence</author>
	<datestamp>1267804980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even though they're suspected GPL offenders (opinions differ) I still have to put in my word for mikrotik.
These guys know how to build wifi in rural areas with plenty of subscribers, stable hardware and good software at low cost.

Even their cheaper products are very well up to the task and can be expanded upon with different wireless-transmitters and antennas.
If that is not enough you can always look at their more "enterprise:ish" products. I've only good things to say about them, and we used their products for well over 5 years when we still ran a WISP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though they 're suspected GPL offenders ( opinions differ ) I still have to put in my word for mikrotik .
These guys know how to build wifi in rural areas with plenty of subscribers , stable hardware and good software at low cost .
Even their cheaper products are very well up to the task and can be expanded upon with different wireless-transmitters and antennas .
If that is not enough you can always look at their more " enterprise : ish " products .
I 've only good things to say about them , and we used their products for well over 5 years when we still ran a WISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though they're suspected GPL offenders (opinions differ) I still have to put in my word for mikrotik.
These guys know how to build wifi in rural areas with plenty of subscribers, stable hardware and good software at low cost.
Even their cheaper products are very well up to the task and can be expanded upon with different wireless-transmitters and antennas.
If that is not enough you can always look at their more "enterprise:ish" products.
I've only good things to say about them, and we used their products for well over 5 years when we still ran a WISP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378676</id>
	<title>airport extreme</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267809660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It won't have anywhere near the granularity in configurations, but I will say apple airport extreme's tend to "just work".  They support both g and n operating at the same time since they have multiple antenna's, and they also have a sort of sandbox guest environment you can set.
<br> <br>
If you want fall-down easy to setup and manage, they'll get the job done.  If you want granular control, don't waste your time.  I got sick of trying to make dd-wrt work with WAP, wireless-n and g at the same time a year ago, and just bit the bullet on the apple units.  I can say it's been one purchase I don't regret.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't have anywhere near the granularity in configurations , but I will say apple airport extreme 's tend to " just work " .
They support both g and n operating at the same time since they have multiple antenna 's , and they also have a sort of sandbox guest environment you can set .
If you want fall-down easy to setup and manage , they 'll get the job done .
If you want granular control , do n't waste your time .
I got sick of trying to make dd-wrt work with WAP , wireless-n and g at the same time a year ago , and just bit the bullet on the apple units .
I can say it 's been one purchase I do n't regret .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't have anywhere near the granularity in configurations, but I will say apple airport extreme's tend to "just work".
They support both g and n operating at the same time since they have multiple antenna's, and they also have a sort of sandbox guest environment you can set.
If you want fall-down easy to setup and manage, they'll get the job done.
If you want granular control, don't waste your time.
I got sick of trying to make dd-wrt work with WAP, wireless-n and g at the same time a year ago, and just bit the bullet on the apple units.
I can say it's been one purchase I don't regret.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378466</id>
	<title>Anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267807260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Xirrus is the way to go... I've done this before and nothing else has worked, especially Cisco. We have standard Xirrus conference kits at work ready to be quickly deployed for this kind of thing. Reasonably priced too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Xirrus is the way to go... I 've done this before and nothing else has worked , especially Cisco .
We have standard Xirrus conference kits at work ready to be quickly deployed for this kind of thing .
Reasonably priced too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Xirrus is the way to go... I've done this before and nothing else has worked, especially Cisco.
We have standard Xirrus conference kits at work ready to be quickly deployed for this kind of thing.
Reasonably priced too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380978</id>
	<title>auto.bakery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267893480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>only room for 3 APs?<br>500 people?<br>WOW! sounds like a BIG microwave oven.<br>i guess one can surf the net by just<br>closing ones eyes in that environment</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>only room for 3 APs ? 500 people ? WOW !
sounds like a BIG microwave oven.i guess one can surf the net by justclosing ones eyes in that environment</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only room for 3 APs?500 people?WOW!
sounds like a BIG microwave oven.i guess one can surf the net by justclosing ones eyes in that environment</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380722</id>
	<title>Re:how cheap? pfsense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267890900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont think wired connections is realistic for this kind of setup, the cabling would be horrendous.</p><p>As far as some pointers:<br>- consumer gear, anyones, will not cut it. They are designed in a cost savings fashion and do not have the memory to support hundreds of simultaneous connections.<br>- as suggested, make sure you use APs with both 2.4Ghz and 5GHz radios, which has the potential to double your available bandwidth.<br>- try to get users to connect at 5GHz. There are 10 plus clean channels, each one supporting capable of supporting probably 200mb of user traffic for 802.1n users, or ~25mb for 802.11g/a users.  APs from enterprise class vendors have the ability to "herd" users to the 5GHz spectrum so both radios are being used as much as possible.<br>- APs are shared spectrum (think old style Ethernet hubs). The key is get as many channels in operation as possible since each represents a pool of bandwidth for users.<br>- clients sending at higher data rates get off the air quicker, and make it possible for more traffic to be supported on an AP. To achieve this turn off the lower data rates, certainly 1, 2, 5.5mb. This will force users to connect at highest rate possible.<br>- Cisco 802.11n APs have a nice feature called "client link" which is beamforming, and is particularly suited to your situation. By using beamforming every non-802.11n client gets a stronger signal and will therefore connect at a higher data rate (it thinks its closer to the AP than it really is). Again, when clients connect at higher data rates they take less time to send a given amount of data and that frees up the channel for more data from other clients. You don't need a controller to get this feature, so you could support this with just 3 standalone APs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont think wired connections is realistic for this kind of setup , the cabling would be horrendous.As far as some pointers : - consumer gear , anyones , will not cut it .
They are designed in a cost savings fashion and do not have the memory to support hundreds of simultaneous connections.- as suggested , make sure you use APs with both 2.4Ghz and 5GHz radios , which has the potential to double your available bandwidth.- try to get users to connect at 5GHz .
There are 10 plus clean channels , each one supporting capable of supporting probably 200mb of user traffic for 802.1n users , or ~ 25mb for 802.11g/a users .
APs from enterprise class vendors have the ability to " herd " users to the 5GHz spectrum so both radios are being used as much as possible.- APs are shared spectrum ( think old style Ethernet hubs ) .
The key is get as many channels in operation as possible since each represents a pool of bandwidth for users.- clients sending at higher data rates get off the air quicker , and make it possible for more traffic to be supported on an AP .
To achieve this turn off the lower data rates , certainly 1 , 2 , 5.5mb .
This will force users to connect at highest rate possible.- Cisco 802.11n APs have a nice feature called " client link " which is beamforming , and is particularly suited to your situation .
By using beamforming every non-802.11n client gets a stronger signal and will therefore connect at a higher data rate ( it thinks its closer to the AP than it really is ) .
Again , when clients connect at higher data rates they take less time to send a given amount of data and that frees up the channel for more data from other clients .
You do n't need a controller to get this feature , so you could support this with just 3 standalone APs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont think wired connections is realistic for this kind of setup, the cabling would be horrendous.As far as some pointers:- consumer gear, anyones, will not cut it.
They are designed in a cost savings fashion and do not have the memory to support hundreds of simultaneous connections.- as suggested, make sure you use APs with both 2.4Ghz and 5GHz radios, which has the potential to double your available bandwidth.- try to get users to connect at 5GHz.
There are 10 plus clean channels, each one supporting capable of supporting probably 200mb of user traffic for 802.1n users, or ~25mb for 802.11g/a users.
APs from enterprise class vendors have the ability to "herd" users to the 5GHz spectrum so both radios are being used as much as possible.- APs are shared spectrum (think old style Ethernet hubs).
The key is get as many channels in operation as possible since each represents a pool of bandwidth for users.- clients sending at higher data rates get off the air quicker, and make it possible for more traffic to be supported on an AP.
To achieve this turn off the lower data rates, certainly 1, 2, 5.5mb.
This will force users to connect at highest rate possible.- Cisco 802.11n APs have a nice feature called "client link" which is beamforming, and is particularly suited to your situation.
By using beamforming every non-802.11n client gets a stronger signal and will therefore connect at a higher data rate (it thinks its closer to the AP than it really is).
Again, when clients connect at higher data rates they take less time to send a given amount of data and that frees up the channel for more data from other clients.
You don't need a controller to get this feature, so you could support this with just 3 standalone APs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378910</id>
	<title>Dense Crowds</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1267812540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to give us the following to help you:</p><p>1) db Antenna specs on the AP's<br>2) Area you would like to cover in cubic meters.<br>3) Are the sender and receivers using the same 802.11 spec or do you plan on mixing the environment?<br>4) Is this line of site for all of the receivers or are there obstructions?</p><p>Personally I have had excellent results with the WRT600.  Nice big processor and decent antennas 802.11N, DD-WRT.<br>(You can modify the case to make better interfaces for Antennas...just google for it.)</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to give us the following to help you : 1 ) db Antenna specs on the AP's2 ) Area you would like to cover in cubic meters.3 ) Are the sender and receivers using the same 802.11 spec or do you plan on mixing the environment ? 4 ) Is this line of site for all of the receivers or are there obstructions ? Personally I have had excellent results with the WRT600 .
Nice big processor and decent antennas 802.11N , DD-WRT .
( You can modify the case to make better interfaces for Antennas...just google for it .
) -Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to give us the following to help you:1) db Antenna specs on the AP's2) Area you would like to cover in cubic meters.3) Are the sender and receivers using the same 802.11 spec or do you plan on mixing the environment?4) Is this line of site for all of the receivers or are there obstructions?Personally I have had excellent results with the WRT600.
Nice big processor and decent antennas 802.11N, DD-WRT.
(You can modify the case to make better interfaces for Antennas...just google for it.
)-Hack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379466</id>
	<title>Why not offer some Ethernet too?</title>
	<author>Leemeng</author>
	<datestamp>1267867080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What kind of gathering would require a pure wi-fi solution? Is everyone using smartphones or tablet PCs? Do they need to move around?

If this is your typical conference/meeting where people are rooted to one spot with their notebooks, you may want to consider wired connections, in addition to wi-fi.

WAPs are cheap these days, but Ethernet switches are also cheap, and possibly cheaper. For e.g. you can buy well-known brand 16-port switches for about $60 ea. Plus you don't need to buy "enterprise-grade" switches either - any ole switch should be able to outperform an 802.11g WAP.

There might be a bit of problem with providing Ethernet cables, but you could always ask everyone to BYOC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of gathering would require a pure wi-fi solution ?
Is everyone using smartphones or tablet PCs ?
Do they need to move around ?
If this is your typical conference/meeting where people are rooted to one spot with their notebooks , you may want to consider wired connections , in addition to wi-fi .
WAPs are cheap these days , but Ethernet switches are also cheap , and possibly cheaper .
For e.g .
you can buy well-known brand 16-port switches for about $ 60 ea .
Plus you do n't need to buy " enterprise-grade " switches either - any ole switch should be able to outperform an 802.11g WAP .
There might be a bit of problem with providing Ethernet cables , but you could always ask everyone to BYOC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of gathering would require a pure wi-fi solution?
Is everyone using smartphones or tablet PCs?
Do they need to move around?
If this is your typical conference/meeting where people are rooted to one spot with their notebooks, you may want to consider wired connections, in addition to wi-fi.
WAPs are cheap these days, but Ethernet switches are also cheap, and possibly cheaper.
For e.g.
you can buy well-known brand 16-port switches for about $60 ea.
Plus you don't need to buy "enterprise-grade" switches either - any ole switch should be able to outperform an 802.11g WAP.
There might be a bit of problem with providing Ethernet cables, but you could always ask everyone to BYOC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379232</id>
	<title>Re:how cheap? pfsense?</title>
	<author>besalope</author>
	<datestamp>1267818300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hence why the OP was looking into multiple WAPs.  If he has 3 WAPs with clients ideally spread between them it would drop to ~166 clients/WAP and which would lower latency and improve potential speeds.

Unless this is a very tech-heavy crowd 'N' might not be overly prevalent in people's notebooks/netbooks/pdas.  And if the N routers are performing in mixed mode performance would be hindered.  1 centralized MIMO N with peripheral G (mimo if possible) would segment a bit better while allowing each technology to run in its native specification for best performance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hence why the OP was looking into multiple WAPs .
If he has 3 WAPs with clients ideally spread between them it would drop to ~ 166 clients/WAP and which would lower latency and improve potential speeds .
Unless this is a very tech-heavy crowd 'N ' might not be overly prevalent in people 's notebooks/netbooks/pdas .
And if the N routers are performing in mixed mode performance would be hindered .
1 centralized MIMO N with peripheral G ( mimo if possible ) would segment a bit better while allowing each technology to run in its native specification for best performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hence why the OP was looking into multiple WAPs.
If he has 3 WAPs with clients ideally spread between them it would drop to ~166 clients/WAP and which would lower latency and improve potential speeds.
Unless this is a very tech-heavy crowd 'N' might not be overly prevalent in people's notebooks/netbooks/pdas.
And if the N routers are performing in mixed mode performance would be hindered.
1 centralized MIMO N with peripheral G (mimo if possible) would segment a bit better while allowing each technology to run in its native specification for best performance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31383488</id>
	<title>Re:you will need more than 2 APs</title>
	<author>lucian1900</author>
	<datestamp>1267870320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/03/04/1315210/Why-PyCon-2010s-Conference-Wi-Fi-Didnt-Melt-Down?from=rss" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/03/04/1315210/Why-PyCon-2010s-Conference-Wi-Fi-Didnt-Melt-Down?from=rss</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/03/04/1315210/Why-PyCon-2010s-Conference-Wi-Fi-Didnt-Melt-Down ? from = rss [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/10/03/04/1315210/Why-PyCon-2010s-Conference-Wi-Fi-Didnt-Melt-Down?from=rss [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378432</id>
	<title>Not cheap, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267806900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Xirrus 'Arrays' are designed for what you're doing.


I've used 2 4-radio Xirrus arrays to serve 240 users in a single ballroom.


<a href="http://store.xirrus.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=4" title="xirrus.com" rel="nofollow">http://store.xirrus.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=4</a> [xirrus.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Xirrus 'Arrays ' are designed for what you 're doing .
I 've used 2 4-radio Xirrus arrays to serve 240 users in a single ballroom .
http : //store.xirrus.com/SearchResults.asp ? Cat = 4 [ xirrus.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Xirrus 'Arrays' are designed for what you're doing.
I've used 2 4-radio Xirrus arrays to serve 240 users in a single ballroom.
http://store.xirrus.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=4 [xirrus.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379378</id>
	<title>Use ALL 14 WIFI channels !</title>
	<author>Taco Cowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1267907520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have read very good recommendations of having cells of WIFI routers giving 1,4,7,11 in one, 2,5,8,12 in another and 3,6,9 in the third, why lock yourself in?</p><p>In Japan, you can use all the 14 WIFI channels, and if your event is the ONE TIME thingy, use all 14 channels !</p><p>Do a 1,5,9,13 on router A, then 2,6,10,14 on router B, then 3,7,11 on router C and 4,8,12 on router D on group them into one cell.</p><p>Try push all the users of router C and D to 5 GHz band, router B to 3.6 GHz band and router A to 2.4 GHz band.</p><p>Use directional antennas, aim router A to North, router B to East, router C to South and router D to West.</p><p>Then set up cells within the premise.</p><p>In that way the signals that overlaps are not of the same channel, and not in the same frequency band either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have read very good recommendations of having cells of WIFI routers giving 1,4,7,11 in one , 2,5,8,12 in another and 3,6,9 in the third , why lock yourself in ? In Japan , you can use all the 14 WIFI channels , and if your event is the ONE TIME thingy , use all 14 channels ! Do a 1,5,9,13 on router A , then 2,6,10,14 on router B , then 3,7,11 on router C and 4,8,12 on router D on group them into one cell.Try push all the users of router C and D to 5 GHz band , router B to 3.6 GHz band and router A to 2.4 GHz band.Use directional antennas , aim router A to North , router B to East , router C to South and router D to West.Then set up cells within the premise.In that way the signals that overlaps are not of the same channel , and not in the same frequency band either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have read very good recommendations of having cells of WIFI routers giving 1,4,7,11 in one, 2,5,8,12 in another and 3,6,9 in the third, why lock yourself in?In Japan, you can use all the 14 WIFI channels, and if your event is the ONE TIME thingy, use all 14 channels !Do a 1,5,9,13 on router A, then 2,6,10,14 on router B, then 3,7,11 on router C and 4,8,12 on router D on group them into one cell.Try push all the users of router C and D to 5 GHz band, router B to 3.6 GHz band and router A to 2.4 GHz band.Use directional antennas, aim router A to North, router B to East, router C to South and router D to West.Then set up cells within the premise.In that way the signals that overlaps are not of the same channel, and not in the same frequency band either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380684</id>
	<title>other ideas</title>
	<author>satsuke</author>
	<datestamp>1267890540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.  Push everything into 5.8 range you can.  Whereas 2.4 (b/g/cheap N) only has 3-4 non-contiguous channels, 5.8 (A/N) has dozens of fully non-shared channels available which should make spectrum contention less of an issue in this band.</p><p>2.  depending on the geographical area required, back the power levels down using either commercial gear that allows it by default or using one of the freeware (DDWRT/Tomato) firmwares so that it doesn't exacerbate cross AP contention in B/G ranges</p><p>3.  Directional antennas</p><p>4.  Disable the DHCP servers in your APs and setup 2 or more subnets with their own physically separate DHCP servers.</p><p>5.  If there is any AP placement flexibility, it is generally better to setup an "edges in" approach with say directional APs antenna at the perimeter and at least 4 quadrants in the central area, though if this is in the US your going to be limited to 3 non-overlapping B/G bands.</p><p>There is a diagram in the Cisco CCNA wifi study materials that has a frequency reuse map defined for maximum spectral efficiency and minimum overlap, though with only 3 mount points you won't be able to use much of that.</p><p>As far as the per user available bandwidth being small and latency going up exponentially with more users<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. on paper that's true, but I find it extraordinarily unlikely that ALL users will be powering up and attempting to access all at the same time.  If this were really the case than I'd say scrap the AP plan and go scounge up some 10/100 switches and go wired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Push everything into 5.8 range you can .
Whereas 2.4 ( b/g/cheap N ) only has 3-4 non-contiguous channels , 5.8 ( A/N ) has dozens of fully non-shared channels available which should make spectrum contention less of an issue in this band.2 .
depending on the geographical area required , back the power levels down using either commercial gear that allows it by default or using one of the freeware ( DDWRT/Tomato ) firmwares so that it does n't exacerbate cross AP contention in B/G ranges3 .
Directional antennas4 .
Disable the DHCP servers in your APs and setup 2 or more subnets with their own physically separate DHCP servers.5 .
If there is any AP placement flexibility , it is generally better to setup an " edges in " approach with say directional APs antenna at the perimeter and at least 4 quadrants in the central area , though if this is in the US your going to be limited to 3 non-overlapping B/G bands.There is a diagram in the Cisco CCNA wifi study materials that has a frequency reuse map defined for maximum spectral efficiency and minimum overlap , though with only 3 mount points you wo n't be able to use much of that.As far as the per user available bandwidth being small and latency going up exponentially with more users .. on paper that 's true , but I find it extraordinarily unlikely that ALL users will be powering up and attempting to access all at the same time .
If this were really the case than I 'd say scrap the AP plan and go scounge up some 10/100 switches and go wired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Push everything into 5.8 range you can.
Whereas 2.4 (b/g/cheap N) only has 3-4 non-contiguous channels, 5.8 (A/N) has dozens of fully non-shared channels available which should make spectrum contention less of an issue in this band.2.
depending on the geographical area required, back the power levels down using either commercial gear that allows it by default or using one of the freeware (DDWRT/Tomato) firmwares so that it doesn't exacerbate cross AP contention in B/G ranges3.
Directional antennas4.
Disable the DHCP servers in your APs and setup 2 or more subnets with their own physically separate DHCP servers.5.
If there is any AP placement flexibility, it is generally better to setup an "edges in" approach with say directional APs antenna at the perimeter and at least 4 quadrants in the central area, though if this is in the US your going to be limited to 3 non-overlapping B/G bands.There is a diagram in the Cisco CCNA wifi study materials that has a frequency reuse map defined for maximum spectral efficiency and minimum overlap, though with only 3 mount points you won't be able to use much of that.As far as the per user available bandwidth being small and latency going up exponentially with more users .. on paper that's true, but I find it extraordinarily unlikely that ALL users will be powering up and attempting to access all at the same time.
If this were really the case than I'd say scrap the AP plan and go scounge up some 10/100 switches and go wired.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31381334</id>
	<title>Re:consumer equipment is the wrong answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267897380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also am a wireless engineer and this is the only post in this whole thread where the person knows what he's talking about for this situation. Any person who mentions using more than channels 1,6 &amp; 11 in 2.4GHz gets an automatic fail as they have no clue how wireless works (you can't use \_all\_ channels as they interfere with each other). Any poster who mentions consumer level equipment also gets an automatic fail.<br>You need to find someone with CWNA certification (http://www.cwnp.com) at least to help you plan this. Its not something you can just throw out there, it requires planning or you will fail, from someone who knows wireless. I won't repeat the above posters suggestions, but I work every day on Aruba systems and would recommend something very similar. The major problem you have is lack of non-interfering spectrum in such a small area for such a large number of people. To get around this problem you should start with a site survey to find out what, if any, other wireless AP's are there that could interfere with your setup, plan a correct number of AP's based on the expected usage patterns and then plan how to efficiently use your spectrum. Most enterprise level manufacturers have some type of automatic power and channel selection to help but due to the large number of people in this small space you still need to figure out how to make best use of the spectrum you have.<br>Good luck you are going to need it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also am a wireless engineer and this is the only post in this whole thread where the person knows what he 's talking about for this situation .
Any person who mentions using more than channels 1,6 &amp; 11 in 2.4GHz gets an automatic fail as they have no clue how wireless works ( you ca n't use \ _all \ _ channels as they interfere with each other ) .
Any poster who mentions consumer level equipment also gets an automatic fail.You need to find someone with CWNA certification ( http : //www.cwnp.com ) at least to help you plan this .
Its not something you can just throw out there , it requires planning or you will fail , from someone who knows wireless .
I wo n't repeat the above posters suggestions , but I work every day on Aruba systems and would recommend something very similar .
The major problem you have is lack of non-interfering spectrum in such a small area for such a large number of people .
To get around this problem you should start with a site survey to find out what , if any , other wireless AP 's are there that could interfere with your setup , plan a correct number of AP 's based on the expected usage patterns and then plan how to efficiently use your spectrum .
Most enterprise level manufacturers have some type of automatic power and channel selection to help but due to the large number of people in this small space you still need to figure out how to make best use of the spectrum you have.Good luck you are going to need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also am a wireless engineer and this is the only post in this whole thread where the person knows what he's talking about for this situation.
Any person who mentions using more than channels 1,6 &amp; 11 in 2.4GHz gets an automatic fail as they have no clue how wireless works (you can't use \_all\_ channels as they interfere with each other).
Any poster who mentions consumer level equipment also gets an automatic fail.You need to find someone with CWNA certification (http://www.cwnp.com) at least to help you plan this.
Its not something you can just throw out there, it requires planning or you will fail, from someone who knows wireless.
I won't repeat the above posters suggestions, but I work every day on Aruba systems and would recommend something very similar.
The major problem you have is lack of non-interfering spectrum in such a small area for such a large number of people.
To get around this problem you should start with a site survey to find out what, if any, other wireless AP's are there that could interfere with your setup, plan a correct number of AP's based on the expected usage patterns and then plan how to efficiently use your spectrum.
Most enterprise level manufacturers have some type of automatic power and channel selection to help but due to the large number of people in this small space you still need to figure out how to make best use of the spectrum you have.Good luck you are going to need it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378736</id>
	<title>Aruba Networks = Wireless Win</title>
	<author>Redlazer</author>
	<datestamp>1267810560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work for a wireless network company in Vancouver. We use Aruba extensively, as it's extremely flexible, powerful, and easy to use.
<p>
The chains of Cisco are removed, and an extraordinarily simple setup process - which will help you figure out AP placement and type, after uploading a site map, including all sorts of calculations that I'd really have a computer do.
</p><p>
I seriously recommend you take a serious look at Aruba Networks offerings.
</p><p>
Seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a wireless network company in Vancouver .
We use Aruba extensively , as it 's extremely flexible , powerful , and easy to use .
The chains of Cisco are removed , and an extraordinarily simple setup process - which will help you figure out AP placement and type , after uploading a site map , including all sorts of calculations that I 'd really have a computer do .
I seriously recommend you take a serious look at Aruba Networks offerings .
Seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a wireless network company in Vancouver.
We use Aruba extensively, as it's extremely flexible, powerful, and easy to use.
The chains of Cisco are removed, and an extraordinarily simple setup process - which will help you figure out AP placement and type, after uploading a site map, including all sorts of calculations that I'd really have a computer do.
I seriously recommend you take a serious look at Aruba Networks offerings.
Seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380102</id>
	<title>Nichol Draper</title>
	<author>nicholdraper</author>
	<datestamp>1267883100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't really that hard, even the old 802.11b service can handle this, a few years ago I worked for an ISP that serviced hotels and we setup these networks all the time.  I even have a couple of patents on wireless security.  The suggestions to use all 14 channels, lowering the power output with the same SSID works.  You do want to physically separate the access points.  Some people erroneously think that more power gets more connections.  What you really are concerned with is that everyone on the same channel has to listen to all the other traffic from the other computers on the same channel.  People also think that since channels 1, 6 and 11 don't overlap in frequency, that they are the only channels to use.  The channels that overlap cause noise, but normally don't cause the clients to drop off.

Get yourself a spectrum analyzer.  I use Wi-spi from Metageeks which only costs about $200, you may want a couple.    Next position your access points so that the close frequencies are furthest away from each other.  Your goal is to create 14 overlapping circles of wireless activity that will cause the least interference with each other.  In a single big ballroom you can draw a plan on paper in a box and figure it out.  If it is a really big space there are usually support beams that you can also use.  Walls, depending on the building material can cause your signal to do things you don't expect, so you need to get into the space and take some readings.  I've seen some reenforced concrete walls kill most of the signal so that we could reuse channels right outside the room, while other walls allow most of the power to pass right through.  We've also seen where we could actually place an access point outside on a light post and get great connectivity through windows.

We've done this with multiple brands of access points, with good success.  One other thing, don't forget the connection to the outside.  A single T1 will not cut it for 500 users.  Most services now don't care about being NATted, but its good to know if your presenter wants a dedicated IP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't really that hard , even the old 802.11b service can handle this , a few years ago I worked for an ISP that serviced hotels and we setup these networks all the time .
I even have a couple of patents on wireless security .
The suggestions to use all 14 channels , lowering the power output with the same SSID works .
You do want to physically separate the access points .
Some people erroneously think that more power gets more connections .
What you really are concerned with is that everyone on the same channel has to listen to all the other traffic from the other computers on the same channel .
People also think that since channels 1 , 6 and 11 do n't overlap in frequency , that they are the only channels to use .
The channels that overlap cause noise , but normally do n't cause the clients to drop off .
Get yourself a spectrum analyzer .
I use Wi-spi from Metageeks which only costs about $ 200 , you may want a couple .
Next position your access points so that the close frequencies are furthest away from each other .
Your goal is to create 14 overlapping circles of wireless activity that will cause the least interference with each other .
In a single big ballroom you can draw a plan on paper in a box and figure it out .
If it is a really big space there are usually support beams that you can also use .
Walls , depending on the building material can cause your signal to do things you do n't expect , so you need to get into the space and take some readings .
I 've seen some reenforced concrete walls kill most of the signal so that we could reuse channels right outside the room , while other walls allow most of the power to pass right through .
We 've also seen where we could actually place an access point outside on a light post and get great connectivity through windows .
We 've done this with multiple brands of access points , with good success .
One other thing , do n't forget the connection to the outside .
A single T1 will not cut it for 500 users .
Most services now do n't care about being NATted , but its good to know if your presenter wants a dedicated IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't really that hard, even the old 802.11b service can handle this, a few years ago I worked for an ISP that serviced hotels and we setup these networks all the time.
I even have a couple of patents on wireless security.
The suggestions to use all 14 channels, lowering the power output with the same SSID works.
You do want to physically separate the access points.
Some people erroneously think that more power gets more connections.
What you really are concerned with is that everyone on the same channel has to listen to all the other traffic from the other computers on the same channel.
People also think that since channels 1, 6 and 11 don't overlap in frequency, that they are the only channels to use.
The channels that overlap cause noise, but normally don't cause the clients to drop off.
Get yourself a spectrum analyzer.
I use Wi-spi from Metageeks which only costs about $200, you may want a couple.
Next position your access points so that the close frequencies are furthest away from each other.
Your goal is to create 14 overlapping circles of wireless activity that will cause the least interference with each other.
In a single big ballroom you can draw a plan on paper in a box and figure it out.
If it is a really big space there are usually support beams that you can also use.
Walls, depending on the building material can cause your signal to do things you don't expect, so you need to get into the space and take some readings.
I've seen some reenforced concrete walls kill most of the signal so that we could reuse channels right outside the room, while other walls allow most of the power to pass right through.
We've also seen where we could actually place an access point outside on a light post and get great connectivity through windows.
We've done this with multiple brands of access points, with good success.
One other thing, don't forget the connection to the outside.
A single T1 will not cut it for 500 users.
Most services now don't care about being NATted, but its good to know if your presenter wants a dedicated IP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380050</id>
	<title>offer good old Ethernet as well?</title>
	<author>Lazy Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1267882020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With 500 people in a small area, why not offer Ethernet as an alternative, together with access points for e.g. 300 users, if the room allows for it (e.g. if you have tables, not just rows of chairs)? It will be faster for many users (if not all, considering the limited spectrum you have available), easier to set up, more secure and it's also possibly healthier (some of your users might be worried about emissions?). Of course, it is also much, much cheaper. For the first 2 reasons I'd always prefer Ethernet myself if both were available (could be just me though).</htmltext>
<tokenext>With 500 people in a small area , why not offer Ethernet as an alternative , together with access points for e.g .
300 users , if the room allows for it ( e.g .
if you have tables , not just rows of chairs ) ?
It will be faster for many users ( if not all , considering the limited spectrum you have available ) , easier to set up , more secure and it 's also possibly healthier ( some of your users might be worried about emissions ? ) .
Of course , it is also much , much cheaper .
For the first 2 reasons I 'd always prefer Ethernet myself if both were available ( could be just me though ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With 500 people in a small area, why not offer Ethernet as an alternative, together with access points for e.g.
300 users, if the room allows for it (e.g.
if you have tables, not just rows of chairs)?
It will be faster for many users (if not all, considering the limited spectrum you have available), easier to set up, more secure and it's also possibly healthier (some of your users might be worried about emissions?).
Of course, it is also much, much cheaper.
For the first 2 reasons I'd always prefer Ethernet myself if both were available (could be just me though).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378202</id>
	<title>how cheap? pfsense?</title>
	<author>itzdandy</author>
	<datestamp>1267804740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>consider running a small pfsense box with a number of wifi adapters.  You could pick up some cheap directional antennas to help limit connections to any one radio somewhat.  Alternatively you could just run 4 sids and do a script to hide a sid when the user count got so high so the next users would only see the less loaded ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>consider running a small pfsense box with a number of wifi adapters .
You could pick up some cheap directional antennas to help limit connections to any one radio somewhat .
Alternatively you could just run 4 sids and do a script to hide a sid when the user count got so high so the next users would only see the less loaded ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>consider running a small pfsense box with a number of wifi adapters.
You could pick up some cheap directional antennas to help limit connections to any one radio somewhat.
Alternatively you could just run 4 sids and do a script to hide a sid when the user count got so high so the next users would only see the less loaded ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378820</id>
	<title>Re:Not cheap, but...</title>
	<author>bidule</author>
	<datestamp>1267811520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read bathroom and started to wonder...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read bathroom and started to wonder.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read bathroom and started to wonder...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378216</id>
	<title>Re:WAP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267804920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>WAP = Wireless Access Point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>WAP = Wireless Access Point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WAP = Wireless Access Point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380950</id>
	<title>One Product that may work</title>
	<author>dayton967</author>
	<datestamp>1267893300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One product that should possibly be used would be the <a href="http://www.extricom.com/" title="extricom.com" rel="nofollow">Extricom</a> [extricom.com]. Their product line should be capable of doing this, but one must remember the recommended number of users/AP is about 10 to 20.

The requirement for extricom, would be that you  must purchase their switch with the AP, as the Switch manages the AP's to provide continuous coverage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One product that should possibly be used would be the Extricom [ extricom.com ] .
Their product line should be capable of doing this , but one must remember the recommended number of users/AP is about 10 to 20 .
The requirement for extricom , would be that you must purchase their switch with the AP , as the Switch manages the AP 's to provide continuous coverage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One product that should possibly be used would be the Extricom [extricom.com].
Their product line should be capable of doing this, but one must remember the recommended number of users/AP is about 10 to 20.
The requirement for extricom, would be that you  must purchase their switch with the AP, as the Switch manages the AP's to provide continuous coverage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379528</id>
	<title>Re:how cheap? pfsense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267868700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll second the advice that you should use directional antennas.  If you can, put the antennas on the ceiling facing down to give them a very narrow coverage range.</p><p>Apart from directional antennas, the best you can do is try to limit the number of people using WiFi by rolling out some copper to as many people as is feasible.  WiFi was never designed to scale to large crowds and it doesn't matter how good of a router you have: the WiFi protocol is going to be the biggest bottleneck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll second the advice that you should use directional antennas .
If you can , put the antennas on the ceiling facing down to give them a very narrow coverage range.Apart from directional antennas , the best you can do is try to limit the number of people using WiFi by rolling out some copper to as many people as is feasible .
WiFi was never designed to scale to large crowds and it does n't matter how good of a router you have : the WiFi protocol is going to be the biggest bottleneck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll second the advice that you should use directional antennas.
If you can, put the antennas on the ceiling facing down to give them a very narrow coverage range.Apart from directional antennas, the best you can do is try to limit the number of people using WiFi by rolling out some copper to as many people as is feasible.
WiFi was never designed to scale to large crowds and it doesn't matter how good of a router you have: the WiFi protocol is going to be the biggest bottleneck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378182</id>
	<title>Best WAP For Dense Crowds?</title>
	<author>theolein</author>
	<datestamp>1267804560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't have to hit 'em, mate. Just find another crowd that's brighter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to hit 'em , mate .
Just find another crowd that 's brighter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to hit 'em, mate.
Just find another crowd that's brighter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31408676</id>
	<title>How about OpenMesh ?</title>
	<author>Rory McMahon</author>
	<datestamp>1268058300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could place a few OpenMesh units around the area.

<a href="http://www.open-mesh.com/store/" title="open-mesh.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.open-mesh.com/store/</a> [open-mesh.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could place a few OpenMesh units around the area .
http : //www.open-mesh.com/store/ [ open-mesh.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could place a few OpenMesh units around the area.
http://www.open-mesh.com/store/ [open-mesh.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31455770</id>
	<title>Meraki and dense deployments</title>
	<author>batobin</author>
	<datestamp>1268385180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey everyone. I'm a software engineer at Meraki (mentioned earlier in the thread by dotwaffle) and wanted to chime in and offer what I can. Our gear is commonly used at conferences, including the most recent LeWeb, a conference in Paris with about 2,000 attendees and VERY heavy WiFi use (social media types that are tweeting, blogging, posting photos and accessing WiFi from their cell phones and laptops). We covered a 12,000 square foot room and other areas without any downtime or customer complaints. This was a huge improvement over the 2008 conference, when poor WiFi topped the list of attendee complaints.</p><p>Dotwaffle posted a link to <a href="http://meraki.com/general/2009/12/09/does-it-scale\%E2\%80\%A6-absolutely-blazing-fast-meraki-wireless-at-leweb-conference-in-paris/" title="meraki.com">our blog post about LeWeb</a> [meraki.com] which is worth re-linking. That photo was taken when the speaker asked everyone to hold up their iPhone.</p><p>We used MR14 access points with channel spreading and band steering enabled. This allowed us to use the entire wireless spectrum and avoid congestion on a single frequency (both of these are 1-click options when configuring your network). I'm happy to answer any technical questions you might have, or you can visit <a href="http://meraki.com/" title="meraki.com">our website</a> [meraki.com] to learn more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey everyone .
I 'm a software engineer at Meraki ( mentioned earlier in the thread by dotwaffle ) and wanted to chime in and offer what I can .
Our gear is commonly used at conferences , including the most recent LeWeb , a conference in Paris with about 2,000 attendees and VERY heavy WiFi use ( social media types that are tweeting , blogging , posting photos and accessing WiFi from their cell phones and laptops ) .
We covered a 12,000 square foot room and other areas without any downtime or customer complaints .
This was a huge improvement over the 2008 conference , when poor WiFi topped the list of attendee complaints.Dotwaffle posted a link to our blog post about LeWeb [ meraki.com ] which is worth re-linking .
That photo was taken when the speaker asked everyone to hold up their iPhone.We used MR14 access points with channel spreading and band steering enabled .
This allowed us to use the entire wireless spectrum and avoid congestion on a single frequency ( both of these are 1-click options when configuring your network ) .
I 'm happy to answer any technical questions you might have , or you can visit our website [ meraki.com ] to learn more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey everyone.
I'm a software engineer at Meraki (mentioned earlier in the thread by dotwaffle) and wanted to chime in and offer what I can.
Our gear is commonly used at conferences, including the most recent LeWeb, a conference in Paris with about 2,000 attendees and VERY heavy WiFi use (social media types that are tweeting, blogging, posting photos and accessing WiFi from their cell phones and laptops).
We covered a 12,000 square foot room and other areas without any downtime or customer complaints.
This was a huge improvement over the 2008 conference, when poor WiFi topped the list of attendee complaints.Dotwaffle posted a link to our blog post about LeWeb [meraki.com] which is worth re-linking.
That photo was taken when the speaker asked everyone to hold up their iPhone.We used MR14 access points with channel spreading and band steering enabled.
This allowed us to use the entire wireless spectrum and avoid congestion on a single frequency (both of these are 1-click options when configuring your network).
I'm happy to answer any technical questions you might have, or you can visit our website [meraki.com] to learn more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379450</id>
	<title>Re:Not cheap, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267866720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We (citylink.co.nz) provided the wireless (the AP's, not the DHCP and routing) for the recent LinuxConf AU conference in Wellington, NZ. There were something like 700 attendees, and you can guarantee every one of them had at least one wireless device.</p><p>We used the Xirrus devices and apart from a couple initial teething issues I believe they coped well with the load.</p><p>I think we were using the big 8 radios in a single flying saucer like device, and we used multiple units.</p><p>We have used the Mikrotik AP's in the past and I'd agree with comments made by others, they top out at around 50 users.</p><p>I wasn't personally involved with the conference, but if you hit the "contact us" link on our web page we'd be happy to provide you with the exact models used, code revisions, and answer your questions (as best we can).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We ( citylink.co.nz ) provided the wireless ( the AP 's , not the DHCP and routing ) for the recent LinuxConf AU conference in Wellington , NZ .
There were something like 700 attendees , and you can guarantee every one of them had at least one wireless device.We used the Xirrus devices and apart from a couple initial teething issues I believe they coped well with the load.I think we were using the big 8 radios in a single flying saucer like device , and we used multiple units.We have used the Mikrotik AP 's in the past and I 'd agree with comments made by others , they top out at around 50 users.I was n't personally involved with the conference , but if you hit the " contact us " link on our web page we 'd be happy to provide you with the exact models used , code revisions , and answer your questions ( as best we can ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We (citylink.co.nz) provided the wireless (the AP's, not the DHCP and routing) for the recent LinuxConf AU conference in Wellington, NZ.
There were something like 700 attendees, and you can guarantee every one of them had at least one wireless device.We used the Xirrus devices and apart from a couple initial teething issues I believe they coped well with the load.I think we were using the big 8 radios in a single flying saucer like device, and we used multiple units.We have used the Mikrotik AP's in the past and I'd agree with comments made by others, they top out at around 50 users.I wasn't personally involved with the conference, but if you hit the "contact us" link on our web page we'd be happy to provide you with the exact models used, code revisions, and answer your questions (as best we can).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31382148</id>
	<title>Re:Not cheap, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267904820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Xirrus 'Arrays' are designed for what you're doing</p><p>From the link you provided:<br>XN8 802.11n Wi-Fi Array<br>Our Price: $6,899.00<br>8 radio 802.11abgn Wi-Fi Array</p><p>1000 dollars per radio when a linksys WRT54G runs 50 bucks? and once the event is over you can even ebay them away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Xirrus 'Arrays ' are designed for what you 're doingFrom the link you provided : XN8 802.11n Wi-Fi ArrayOur Price : $ 6,899.008 radio 802.11abgn Wi-Fi Array1000 dollars per radio when a linksys WRT54G runs 50 bucks ?
and once the event is over you can even ebay them away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Xirrus 'Arrays' are designed for what you're doingFrom the link you provided:XN8 802.11n Wi-Fi ArrayOur Price: $6,899.008 radio 802.11abgn Wi-Fi Array1000 dollars per radio when a linksys WRT54G runs 50 bucks?
and once the event is over you can even ebay them away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378946</id>
	<title>turn of 802.11b!!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267813020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I addition to my other comments...</p><p>Turn off 802.11b.  Very few devices still use it but if you enable it the backwards compatibility mechanisms will slow the network to a crawl.  It is usually done by disabling the speeds 1, 2, 5.5 and 11Mb/s.</p><p>In such close proximity and no signal strength issues i would also recommend making sure you add higher basic rates ( i have no idea what vendors other than cisco call it) as if everyone is connecting faster (whether or not there is more throughput is irrelevant) then this will up the management and control traffic to a higher rate freeing up even more spectrum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I addition to my other comments...Turn off 802.11b .
Very few devices still use it but if you enable it the backwards compatibility mechanisms will slow the network to a crawl .
It is usually done by disabling the speeds 1 , 2 , 5.5 and 11Mb/s.In such close proximity and no signal strength issues i would also recommend making sure you add higher basic rates ( i have no idea what vendors other than cisco call it ) as if everyone is connecting faster ( whether or not there is more throughput is irrelevant ) then this will up the management and control traffic to a higher rate freeing up even more spectrum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I addition to my other comments...Turn off 802.11b.
Very few devices still use it but if you enable it the backwards compatibility mechanisms will slow the network to a crawl.
It is usually done by disabling the speeds 1, 2, 5.5 and 11Mb/s.In such close proximity and no signal strength issues i would also recommend making sure you add higher basic rates ( i have no idea what vendors other than cisco call it) as if everyone is connecting faster (whether or not there is more throughput is irrelevant) then this will up the management and control traffic to a higher rate freeing up even more spectrum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378418</id>
	<title>Aerohive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267806720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may want to look into Aerohive.  If you are interested in pricing or more technical information let me know http://www.aerohive.com/products/overview/hiveAP300.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may want to look into Aerohive .
If you are interested in pricing or more technical information let me know http : //www.aerohive.com/products/overview/hiveAP300.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may want to look into Aerohive.
If you are interested in pricing or more technical information let me know http://www.aerohive.com/products/overview/hiveAP300.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380500</id>
	<title>Ruckus</title>
	<author>kainai</author>
	<datestamp>1267888800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We've been testing some Ruckus 7962 APs and they are putting our existing Cisco 1242s to shame.  We've also been happy with the controller and overall system config (our eval is with a ZD1000, but we'd be purchasing a ZD3000).  We will most likely be dumping our current Cisco wifi infrastructure and going with Ruckus.  Pricing is also excellent, especially when you consider what you get with the 7962s and the deals (sales) they run.  We considered other wireless vendors, but after looking at all the technologies, we found they all pretty much do RF the same, except Ruckus.  This is starting to sound like a commercial, but I'm just a happy end-user, and I've only had the eval equipment about a week.  Here's their web site: <a href="http://www.ruckuswireless.com/" title="ruckuswireless.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ruckuswireless.com/</a> [ruckuswireless.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been testing some Ruckus 7962 APs and they are putting our existing Cisco 1242s to shame .
We 've also been happy with the controller and overall system config ( our eval is with a ZD1000 , but we 'd be purchasing a ZD3000 ) .
We will most likely be dumping our current Cisco wifi infrastructure and going with Ruckus .
Pricing is also excellent , especially when you consider what you get with the 7962s and the deals ( sales ) they run .
We considered other wireless vendors , but after looking at all the technologies , we found they all pretty much do RF the same , except Ruckus .
This is starting to sound like a commercial , but I 'm just a happy end-user , and I 've only had the eval equipment about a week .
Here 's their web site : http : //www.ruckuswireless.com/ [ ruckuswireless.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've been testing some Ruckus 7962 APs and they are putting our existing Cisco 1242s to shame.
We've also been happy with the controller and overall system config (our eval is with a ZD1000, but we'd be purchasing a ZD3000).
We will most likely be dumping our current Cisco wifi infrastructure and going with Ruckus.
Pricing is also excellent, especially when you consider what you get with the 7962s and the deals (sales) they run.
We considered other wireless vendors, but after looking at all the technologies, we found they all pretty much do RF the same, except Ruckus.
This is starting to sound like a commercial, but I'm just a happy end-user, and I've only had the eval equipment about a week.
Here's their web site: http://www.ruckuswireless.com/ [ruckuswireless.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379784</id>
	<title>Re:how cheap? pfsense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267874520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It turns out that it's a bad idea to use adjacent channels near 2.4GHz in the way that you suggest. Say you are using 1, 3, 6 in range of each other: the middle channel interferes (in the CSMA sense and in the raw noise sense) with the outer channels. It's best to take 1, 6, 11 and stick with that over all the cells (I think the band in the USA goes from 1-11 - it varies between countries).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It turns out that it 's a bad idea to use adjacent channels near 2.4GHz in the way that you suggest .
Say you are using 1 , 3 , 6 in range of each other : the middle channel interferes ( in the CSMA sense and in the raw noise sense ) with the outer channels .
It 's best to take 1 , 6 , 11 and stick with that over all the cells ( I think the band in the USA goes from 1-11 - it varies between countries ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It turns out that it's a bad idea to use adjacent channels near 2.4GHz in the way that you suggest.
Say you are using 1, 3, 6 in range of each other: the middle channel interferes (in the CSMA sense and in the raw noise sense) with the outer channels.
It's best to take 1, 6, 11 and stick with that over all the cells (I think the band in the USA goes from 1-11 - it varies between countries).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379440</id>
	<title>Re:how cheap? pfsense?</title>
	<author>zappepcs</author>
	<datestamp>1267866480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the thing, more than one problem to deal with in the same physical space. Cheap AP equipment may give you issues under load. With just a couple connections a cheap Linksys will work fine, push the load on it and I find that performance degrades exponentially with traffic increase. Home routers are not built/designed for business loads, or 500 user environments.</p><p>The problems: limited mounting space, limited frequencies, limited to mix mode, client movement, (re)registration issues and so on.</p><p>Since none of us know the exact physical construct of your problem, suggestions of directional antenna systems, alternating channels etc. have to be used. Cellular systems work in similar ways. 11g mode pointing north/south on chan 2 and 8, 11g mode east/west on chans 5 and 11, ne corner with chan 3 etc etc etc. The low tech testing/wardriving to find the right power levels is a solid suggestion, though this might limit your choices of AP equipment. Pick AP gear that can give you flexibility with antenna systems, power levels, op mode and channel settings.</p><p>You will also have to adjust your planning to account for movement of clients. If they are likely to move from ne to se physically, will they need to re-register? Is that a problem? It takes a lot of thinking to get this job done. Enterprise gear will take you toward meshing, and on the pricier end of things move the control out of the AP to allow better performance independent of physical movement.</p><p>All of this can get a bit trickier if you have multiple floors with large signal loss between floors. At that  point, antenna systems become a stronger tool. At some physical point you'll find clients seeing enough sig strength to end up bouncing on/off one ap and off to another, then back again, never really staying registered long enough to do any good. There you have to fine tune signal strength. Some of the higher end meshing gear gives you options to deal with that,  but that becomes a budget issue.</p><p>Start with your fixed constraints, evaluate how fixed they are. With some antenna systems, you might find that you have room in more than three places to use APs which would dramatically change your overall problems. The actual AP gear you choose will help discern what you can do about the remaining problems. Don't be afraid to call a sales/marketing engineer for advice, it's usually given free at some level of interest. That's not even to mention this: <a href="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+set+up+mesh+mode+wireless+networking" title="lmgtfy.com">http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+set+up+mesh+mode+wireless+networking</a> [lmgtfy.com]</p><p>I think that the process of trying more to understand what the real problems you will have is going to help you further figure out what you need to do.</p><p>One last thought, an extra 1500 bucks on the limo now is a lot less than you would spend to find one ready to go on prom night, so to speak. Read to see what the equipment on your short list does under load, how it works in high volume situations etc. that lmgtfy link might show you some good examples to read about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the thing , more than one problem to deal with in the same physical space .
Cheap AP equipment may give you issues under load .
With just a couple connections a cheap Linksys will work fine , push the load on it and I find that performance degrades exponentially with traffic increase .
Home routers are not built/designed for business loads , or 500 user environments.The problems : limited mounting space , limited frequencies , limited to mix mode , client movement , ( re ) registration issues and so on.Since none of us know the exact physical construct of your problem , suggestions of directional antenna systems , alternating channels etc .
have to be used .
Cellular systems work in similar ways .
11g mode pointing north/south on chan 2 and 8 , 11g mode east/west on chans 5 and 11 , ne corner with chan 3 etc etc etc .
The low tech testing/wardriving to find the right power levels is a solid suggestion , though this might limit your choices of AP equipment .
Pick AP gear that can give you flexibility with antenna systems , power levels , op mode and channel settings.You will also have to adjust your planning to account for movement of clients .
If they are likely to move from ne to se physically , will they need to re-register ?
Is that a problem ?
It takes a lot of thinking to get this job done .
Enterprise gear will take you toward meshing , and on the pricier end of things move the control out of the AP to allow better performance independent of physical movement.All of this can get a bit trickier if you have multiple floors with large signal loss between floors .
At that point , antenna systems become a stronger tool .
At some physical point you 'll find clients seeing enough sig strength to end up bouncing on/off one ap and off to another , then back again , never really staying registered long enough to do any good .
There you have to fine tune signal strength .
Some of the higher end meshing gear gives you options to deal with that , but that becomes a budget issue.Start with your fixed constraints , evaluate how fixed they are .
With some antenna systems , you might find that you have room in more than three places to use APs which would dramatically change your overall problems .
The actual AP gear you choose will help discern what you can do about the remaining problems .
Do n't be afraid to call a sales/marketing engineer for advice , it 's usually given free at some level of interest .
That 's not even to mention this : http : //lmgtfy.com/ ? q = how + to + set + up + mesh + mode + wireless + networking [ lmgtfy.com ] I think that the process of trying more to understand what the real problems you will have is going to help you further figure out what you need to do.One last thought , an extra 1500 bucks on the limo now is a lot less than you would spend to find one ready to go on prom night , so to speak .
Read to see what the equipment on your short list does under load , how it works in high volume situations etc .
that lmgtfy link might show you some good examples to read about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the thing, more than one problem to deal with in the same physical space.
Cheap AP equipment may give you issues under load.
With just a couple connections a cheap Linksys will work fine, push the load on it and I find that performance degrades exponentially with traffic increase.
Home routers are not built/designed for business loads, or 500 user environments.The problems: limited mounting space, limited frequencies, limited to mix mode, client movement, (re)registration issues and so on.Since none of us know the exact physical construct of your problem, suggestions of directional antenna systems, alternating channels etc.
have to be used.
Cellular systems work in similar ways.
11g mode pointing north/south on chan 2 and 8, 11g mode east/west on chans 5 and 11, ne corner with chan 3 etc etc etc.
The low tech testing/wardriving to find the right power levels is a solid suggestion, though this might limit your choices of AP equipment.
Pick AP gear that can give you flexibility with antenna systems, power levels, op mode and channel settings.You will also have to adjust your planning to account for movement of clients.
If they are likely to move from ne to se physically, will they need to re-register?
Is that a problem?
It takes a lot of thinking to get this job done.
Enterprise gear will take you toward meshing, and on the pricier end of things move the control out of the AP to allow better performance independent of physical movement.All of this can get a bit trickier if you have multiple floors with large signal loss between floors.
At that  point, antenna systems become a stronger tool.
At some physical point you'll find clients seeing enough sig strength to end up bouncing on/off one ap and off to another, then back again, never really staying registered long enough to do any good.
There you have to fine tune signal strength.
Some of the higher end meshing gear gives you options to deal with that,  but that becomes a budget issue.Start with your fixed constraints, evaluate how fixed they are.
With some antenna systems, you might find that you have room in more than three places to use APs which would dramatically change your overall problems.
The actual AP gear you choose will help discern what you can do about the remaining problems.
Don't be afraid to call a sales/marketing engineer for advice, it's usually given free at some level of interest.
That's not even to mention this: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+set+up+mesh+mode+wireless+networking [lmgtfy.com]I think that the process of trying more to understand what the real problems you will have is going to help you further figure out what you need to do.One last thought, an extra 1500 bucks on the limo now is a lot less than you would spend to find one ready to go on prom night, so to speak.
Read to see what the equipment on your short list does under load, how it works in high volume situations etc.
that lmgtfy link might show you some good examples to read about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378612</id>
	<title>Security DOES matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267809000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>remember that they will all be able to listen to each other's traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>remember that they will all be able to listen to each other 's traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>remember that they will all be able to listen to each other's traffic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378758</id>
	<title>pycon conference example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267810800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Checkout the recent pycon conference setup. They had luck with 5.2GHz wireless A+N using netgear hardware. 600 clients. http://www.tummy.com/Community/Articles/pycon2010-network/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Checkout the recent pycon conference setup .
They had luck with 5.2GHz wireless A + N using netgear hardware .
600 clients .
http : //www.tummy.com/Community/Articles/pycon2010-network/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Checkout the recent pycon conference setup.
They had luck with 5.2GHz wireless A+N using netgear hardware.
600 clients.
http://www.tummy.com/Community/Articles/pycon2010-network/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380514</id>
	<title>Re:consumer equipment is the wrong answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267888920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>anonymous cowards can be a pain too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>anonymous cowards can be a pain too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anonymous cowards can be a pain too!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378430</id>
	<title>Meru Networks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267806840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not the cheapest stuff, but Meru's access points and controllers will allow you to run all the APs on one channel, and the controller "load balances" the users across the available access points within reach of the client.</p><p>We use them at my place of employment (6 APs scattered throughout the building servicing around 200 laptops), and the performance is quite good.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not the cheapest stuff , but Meru 's access points and controllers will allow you to run all the APs on one channel , and the controller " load balances " the users across the available access points within reach of the client.We use them at my place of employment ( 6 APs scattered throughout the building servicing around 200 laptops ) , and the performance is quite good.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not the cheapest stuff, but Meru's access points and controllers will allow you to run all the APs on one channel, and the controller "load balances" the users across the available access points within reach of the client.We use them at my place of employment (6 APs scattered throughout the building servicing around 200 laptops), and the performance is quite good.-ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378566</id>
	<title>Re:What about Ubiquity?</title>
	<author>ProfessionalCookie</author>
	<datestamp>1267808520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention a company that will test your setup in their lab if you have a problem and live on OSS principles.  Great people!  It's also cheap reliable hardware.

<a href="http://ubnt.com/" title="ubnt.com">http://ubnt.com/</a> [ubnt.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention a company that will test your setup in their lab if you have a problem and live on OSS principles .
Great people !
It 's also cheap reliable hardware .
http : //ubnt.com/ [ ubnt.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention a company that will test your setup in their lab if you have a problem and live on OSS principles.
Great people!
It's also cheap reliable hardware.
http://ubnt.com/ [ubnt.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378734</id>
	<title>Aerohive</title>
	<author>macintard</author>
	<datestamp>1267810560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Check out Aerohive (http://www.aerohive.com).  These guys use to work at Juniper/Netscreen.  It's a controller based solution that runs CentOS with a MySQL backend.  The APs themselves run Linux too.  If the APs lose connectivity to the controller, they can still function.  You can do 802.11x auth.  Good stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out Aerohive ( http : //www.aerohive.com ) .
These guys use to work at Juniper/Netscreen .
It 's a controller based solution that runs CentOS with a MySQL backend .
The APs themselves run Linux too .
If the APs lose connectivity to the controller , they can still function .
You can do 802.11x auth .
Good stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out Aerohive (http://www.aerohive.com).
These guys use to work at Juniper/Netscreen.
It's a controller based solution that runs CentOS with a MySQL backend.
The APs themselves run Linux too.
If the APs lose connectivity to the controller, they can still function.
You can do 802.11x auth.
Good stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380150</id>
	<title>Re:consumer equipment is the wrong answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267884240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If i went back one year, i'd be praising juniper with pretty much the same kind of idea behind it... Get some juniper AX's and an SRX (or two).. But a year ago it would have been b/g running on their SSG series..</p><p>I've not played with the AX or the SRX (and the AX looks horribly consumer-grade), but i have heard good things about them.</p><p>A year ago though, i really liked what juniper was doing and would generally choose them for many things... Then they messed with their product line and started changing their licensing model (i really despise per-user licenses) so now im back to being a more equal fan of cisco again.</p><p>Also, renting is always preferable in these kind of situations... however, i think getting a consultant in is a waste of money (I work for an IT consultancy, hence why im posting as anonymous - from our perspective, consultants are wondeful cause they often come with a 300\% markup unlike hardware's 15\% if we're lucky - though its more complex than that). Plonking down a WAPs and wiring them up is simple for even basic technical network knowledge (if you know the the AP1200's, other cisco kit is not going to be a huge leap). There are configuration diff's in terms of scale but the cisco TAC can tell you everything you need to know and if you do buy cisco hardware you can get someone on the phone to give you a few pointers.</p><p>Consultants are useful if your doing something spectacular network wise, but this is not an example of it. However, where a company that likely provides this type of thing becomes useful is if you throw the entire workload at them, say to them "i need wireless access for x days for x people, do it for me and here are my requirements" i.e. offload the problem. Be specific though cause anything you dont tell them they assume, like who's going to run cables for data and power. Dont care too much about what hardware and software they use so long as they can show it all works the way you want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If i went back one year , i 'd be praising juniper with pretty much the same kind of idea behind it... Get some juniper AX 's and an SRX ( or two ) .. But a year ago it would have been b/g running on their SSG series..I 've not played with the AX or the SRX ( and the AX looks horribly consumer-grade ) , but i have heard good things about them.A year ago though , i really liked what juniper was doing and would generally choose them for many things... Then they messed with their product line and started changing their licensing model ( i really despise per-user licenses ) so now im back to being a more equal fan of cisco again.Also , renting is always preferable in these kind of situations... however , i think getting a consultant in is a waste of money ( I work for an IT consultancy , hence why im posting as anonymous - from our perspective , consultants are wondeful cause they often come with a 300 \ % markup unlike hardware 's 15 \ % if we 're lucky - though its more complex than that ) .
Plonking down a WAPs and wiring them up is simple for even basic technical network knowledge ( if you know the the AP1200 's , other cisco kit is not going to be a huge leap ) .
There are configuration diff 's in terms of scale but the cisco TAC can tell you everything you need to know and if you do buy cisco hardware you can get someone on the phone to give you a few pointers.Consultants are useful if your doing something spectacular network wise , but this is not an example of it .
However , where a company that likely provides this type of thing becomes useful is if you throw the entire workload at them , say to them " i need wireless access for x days for x people , do it for me and here are my requirements " i.e .
offload the problem .
Be specific though cause anything you dont tell them they assume , like who 's going to run cables for data and power .
Dont care too much about what hardware and software they use so long as they can show it all works the way you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If i went back one year, i'd be praising juniper with pretty much the same kind of idea behind it... Get some juniper AX's and an SRX (or two).. But a year ago it would have been b/g running on their SSG series..I've not played with the AX or the SRX (and the AX looks horribly consumer-grade), but i have heard good things about them.A year ago though, i really liked what juniper was doing and would generally choose them for many things... Then they messed with their product line and started changing their licensing model (i really despise per-user licenses) so now im back to being a more equal fan of cisco again.Also, renting is always preferable in these kind of situations... however, i think getting a consultant in is a waste of money (I work for an IT consultancy, hence why im posting as anonymous - from our perspective, consultants are wondeful cause they often come with a 300\% markup unlike hardware's 15\% if we're lucky - though its more complex than that).
Plonking down a WAPs and wiring them up is simple for even basic technical network knowledge (if you know the the AP1200's, other cisco kit is not going to be a huge leap).
There are configuration diff's in terms of scale but the cisco TAC can tell you everything you need to know and if you do buy cisco hardware you can get someone on the phone to give you a few pointers.Consultants are useful if your doing something spectacular network wise, but this is not an example of it.
However, where a company that likely provides this type of thing becomes useful is if you throw the entire workload at them, say to them "i need wireless access for x days for x people, do it for me and here are my requirements" i.e.
offload the problem.
Be specific though cause anything you dont tell them they assume, like who's going to run cables for data and power.
Dont care too much about what hardware and software they use so long as they can show it all works the way you want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378760</id>
	<title>Why are you buying?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267810800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope you're not planning on buying anything when a better way to do things would be to rent/lease/hire some equipment for the job.  Which is hard to place, since you gave so few details.   500 people, but what, if any networking connection will they need?   What is the real intent here?  I can understand being a little vague, but there's a point where it's hard to help, and it really seems like you're expecting a magic solution to waft you way.</p><p>Won't happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you 're not planning on buying anything when a better way to do things would be to rent/lease/hire some equipment for the job .
Which is hard to place , since you gave so few details .
500 people , but what , if any networking connection will they need ?
What is the real intent here ?
I can understand being a little vague , but there 's a point where it 's hard to help , and it really seems like you 're expecting a magic solution to waft you way.Wo n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you're not planning on buying anything when a better way to do things would be to rent/lease/hire some equipment for the job.
Which is hard to place, since you gave so few details.
500 people, but what, if any networking connection will they need?
What is the real intent here?
I can understand being a little vague, but there's a point where it's hard to help, and it really seems like you're expecting a magic solution to waft you way.Won't happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378190</id>
	<title>What's the event?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267804620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will all 500 users connect at the same time and continuously (like some type of LAN party w/o the LAN) or is this much more haphazard and random with far less users at any one time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will all 500 users connect at the same time and continuously ( like some type of LAN party w/o the LAN ) or is this much more haphazard and random with far less users at any one time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will all 500 users connect at the same time and continuously (like some type of LAN party w/o the LAN) or is this much more haphazard and random with far less users at any one time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378696</id>
	<title>Hey, move your elbow!</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1267810080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're going to use laptops in the mosh pit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're going to use laptops in the mosh pit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're going to use laptops in the mosh pit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378864</id>
	<title>Re:consumer equipment is the wrong answer</title>
	<author>Panaflex</author>
	<datestamp>1267812000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say this is the best answer so far.  To be a bit more precise - it really depends on how many people and how reliable you want to be.</p><p>A professional event (well paid) should definitely consider getting a real setup - you can rent the equipment and get a setup as part of the deal.</p><p>However, if this is a less formal event (e.g. free or near free), then you could probably get by with 3-4 good AP's, some directional antennas, turn the power down, and spread the channels out.  Good luck!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say this is the best answer so far .
To be a bit more precise - it really depends on how many people and how reliable you want to be.A professional event ( well paid ) should definitely consider getting a real setup - you can rent the equipment and get a setup as part of the deal.However , if this is a less formal event ( e.g .
free or near free ) , then you could probably get by with 3-4 good AP 's , some directional antennas , turn the power down , and spread the channels out .
Good luck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say this is the best answer so far.
To be a bit more precise - it really depends on how many people and how reliable you want to be.A professional event (well paid) should definitely consider getting a real setup - you can rent the equipment and get a setup as part of the deal.However, if this is a less formal event (e.g.
free or near free), then you could probably get by with 3-4 good AP's, some directional antennas, turn the power down, and spread the channels out.
Good luck!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378322</id>
	<title>Choices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267805820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a Netgear WNDR3700 that I use as an access point. It has a lot of good features including two independent radios (2.4 and 5 GHz), gigabit switch and a pretty fast processor. It is about as good as it gets for hardware of its type.</p><p>The firmware based on OpenWRT. Some of the features like the attached storage are dodgy, but that doesn't matter for this application.</p><p>For your application though - high density, lots of users why don't you take some of the load off the airwaves by offering wired connections too? People who aren't actually physically roaming will appreciate the choice and better performance of wired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Netgear WNDR3700 that I use as an access point .
It has a lot of good features including two independent radios ( 2.4 and 5 GHz ) , gigabit switch and a pretty fast processor .
It is about as good as it gets for hardware of its type.The firmware based on OpenWRT .
Some of the features like the attached storage are dodgy , but that does n't matter for this application.For your application though - high density , lots of users why do n't you take some of the load off the airwaves by offering wired connections too ?
People who are n't actually physically roaming will appreciate the choice and better performance of wired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Netgear WNDR3700 that I use as an access point.
It has a lot of good features including two independent radios (2.4 and 5 GHz), gigabit switch and a pretty fast processor.
It is about as good as it gets for hardware of its type.The firmware based on OpenWRT.
Some of the features like the attached storage are dodgy, but that doesn't matter for this application.For your application though - high density, lots of users why don't you take some of the load off the airwaves by offering wired connections too?
People who aren't actually physically roaming will appreciate the choice and better performance of wired.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31381542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31381426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31382148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31410156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31381334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31385282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31383488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_06_0143212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31383488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31381426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31385282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31382148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31410156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31381334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31381542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31379508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31380384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_06_0143212.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_06_0143212.31378566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
