Ruckus ZoneFlex R500 Dual-Band 802.11abgn/ac AP query
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
09-30-2015 07:18 AM
I'm led to believe the Ruckus ZoneFlex R500 Dual-Band 802.11abgn/ac access points is only able push out 40MHz when 3 access points are in place.
Can anyone confirm this?
7 REPLIES 7
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
09-30-2015 08:30 AM
Not sure if this is what you're referring to, but there are only two (non-DFS) 80Mhz 5Ghz channels available, so if you had THREE APs in close-enough proximity to each other than you need a discreet channel for each, you wouldn't be able to do it with 80Mhz channels (because you only have two) and would have to use 40Mhz (where you have four available non-DFS channels.)
But this is an issue with ALL 5Ghz ac APs, not specific to Ruckus R500 (or any other Ruckus AP), so not sure if that's what you were getting at... I'm not aware that the R500 has any special limitations regarding channel width that the other Rxx series don't, other than performance and antenna patterns.
But this is an issue with ALL 5Ghz ac APs, not specific to Ruckus R500 (or any other Ruckus AP), so not sure if that's what you were getting at... I'm not aware that the R500 has any special limitations regarding channel width that the other Rxx series don't, other than performance and antenna patterns.
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
09-30-2015 09:30 AM
Interesting, however, if i understand correctly, the UK would not have this 'issue' due to us having DFS channels available to use?
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
09-30-2015 09:45 AM
The issue with DFS channels exists everywhere... we here in the states are "allowed" to use them, as well, but they come with some pretty ugly consequences... First, not all clients can understand and use the DFS channels, so if you have an AP on one, you could be preventing a sizeable chunk of your user base (particularly mobile) from even seeing said AP. Second, DFS is a radar-avoidance system, so IF the AP is using a "clear" DFS channel THEN does another scan and discovers the channel is no longer useable (because it detected radar now in use), it will get off that frequency and choose another one... but depending on the system/AP, this process can last anywhere from 30 seconds to 30 minutes... during which the AP cannot service clients.
All that said, there are only 8 (20Mhz), 4 (40Mhz), 2 (80 Mhz), or one (160Mhz wave 2 ac) that are "guaranteed" to be available for use outside of DFS here in the US. I personally wouldn't let my system use the DFS channels unless density was the #1 driving factor (think stadium) AND the wifi was not mission-critical.
I'm not really informed on how wifi works in the UK, but here's a good paper on it http://bowdennetworks.co.uk/downloads/5GHz%20in%20the%20UK%20White%20Paper%20v2.pdf
All that said, there are only 8 (20Mhz), 4 (40Mhz), 2 (80 Mhz), or one (160Mhz wave 2 ac) that are "guaranteed" to be available for use outside of DFS here in the US. I personally wouldn't let my system use the DFS channels unless density was the #1 driving factor (think stadium) AND the wifi was not mission-critical.
I'm not really informed on how wifi works in the UK, but here's a good paper on it http://bowdennetworks.co.uk/downloads/5GHz%20in%20the%20UK%20White%20Paper%20v2.pdf
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
09-30-2015 10:05 AM
Thanks Jim, quite a good read, although i did skim through it a bit.
Strange thing is, i am currently connected to Ch128 on my Macbook, but the paper says this channel shouldn't be available, so i'm assuming things have changed a little since it was written.
Strange thing is, i am currently connected to Ch128 on my Macbook, but the paper says this channel shouldn't be available, so i'm assuming things have changed a little since it was written.

