Prev: problem with HP Wireless printing upgrade Kit
Next: A public Wi-Fi enigma
From: JohnO on 5 May 2008 11:10
A while back I posted about using 802.11A and ad-hoc for use at trade shows,
where 2.4 was saturated and all but unusable. 802.11A is fine, but the
hardware is difficult to locate, and probably going to get worse. I did find
a ZyXEL AG-220 that seems to fit the bill, and its control software is easy
to use. But I need a long-term solution that I can keep buying into the
future.

So, why not just use 802.11n?? (I said to myself when I realized it also
used the 5 GHz channels.) Brilliant!

So I picked up a pair of D-Link DWA-140 USB adapters, but the control
software won't let me setup an ad-hoc LAN on any N (5 GHz) channels. WZC and
the adapter's driver don't take me there either, as far as I can tell. Drat.
So, here comes my question, finally:

Does the current version of the 802.11n standard provide for or allow for
ad-hoc on 5 GHz channels? Maybe I just need a different brand, one that
allows ad-hoc on 5 GHz.

-John O


From: smlunatick on 5 May 2008 12:57
On May 5, 11:10 am, "JohnO" <johno@!NOOSPAM!heathkit.com> wrote:
> A while back I posted about using 802.11A and ad-hoc for use at trade shows,
> where 2.4 was saturated and all but unusable. 802.11A is fine, but the
> hardware is difficult to locate, and probably going to get worse. I did find
> a ZyXEL AG-220 that seems to fit the bill, and its control software is easy
> to use. But I need a long-term solution that I can keep buying into the
> future.
>
> So, why not just use 802.11n?? (I said to myself when I realized it also
> used the 5 GHz channels.) Brilliant!
>
> So I picked up a pair of D-Link DWA-140 USB adapters, but the control
> software won't let me setup an ad-hoc LAN on any N (5 GHz) channels. WZC and
> the adapter's driver don't take me there either, as far as I can tell. Drat.
> So, here comes my question, finally:
>
> Does the current version of the 802.11n standard provide for or allow for
> ad-hoc on 5 GHz channels? Maybe I just need a different brand, one that
> allows ad-hoc on 5 GHz.
>
> -John O

I believe that the 802.11n would not be using the 802.11a signal
channels. N is supposed to be directly compatible with 802.11g and
802.11b. These seem to all use the 2.4GHz signals.
From: Pavel A. on 5 May 2008 14:54
"smlunatick" <yveslec(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7756c12-7396-4e4d-b9fa-794361d28aae(a)y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On May 5, 11:10 am, "JohnO" <johno@!NOOSPAM!heathkit.com> wrote:
>> A while back I posted about using 802.11A and ad-hoc for use at trade
>> shows,
>> where 2.4 was saturated and all but unusable. 802.11A is fine, but the
>> hardware is difficult to locate, and probably going to get worse. I did
>> find
>> a ZyXEL AG-220 that seems to fit the bill, and its control software is
>> easy
>> to use. But I need a long-term solution that I can keep buying into the
>> future.
>>
>> So, why not just use 802.11n?? (I said to myself when I realized it also
>> used the 5 GHz channels.) Brilliant!
>>
>> So I picked up a pair of D-Link DWA-140 USB adapters, but the control
>> software won't let me setup an ad-hoc LAN on any N (5 GHz) channels. WZC
>> and
>> the adapter's driver don't take me there either, as far as I can tell.
>> Drat.
>> So, here comes my question, finally:
>>
>> Does the current version of the 802.11n standard provide for or allow for
>> ad-hoc on 5 GHz channels? Maybe I just need a different brand, one that
>> allows ad-hoc on 5 GHz.
>>
>> -John O
>
> I believe that the 802.11n would not be using the 802.11a signal
> channels. N is supposed to be directly compatible with 802.11g and
> 802.11b. These seem to all use the 2.4GHz signals.

N works in both G and A bands, either in coexistense, or exclusive (so
called "greenfield") mode .

Mode of ad-hoc (for initiator side) is a proprietary driver parameter,
located for XP
drivers usually on the properties->advanced tab.

As always, infractructure mode is far more reliable and easier than ad-hoc,
so I'd
advise to use a router and save a lot of nerve cells (or hair... whatever
you value more).

Regards,
--PA


From: JohnO on 5 May 2008 15:21

"smlunatick" <yveslec(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7756c12-7396-4e4d-b9fa-794361d28aae(a)y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On May 5, 11:10 am, "JohnO" <johno@!NOOSPAM!heathkit.com> wrote:
> A while back I posted about using 802.11A and ad-hoc for use at trade
> shows,
> where 2.4 was saturated and all but unusable. 802.11A is fine, but the
> hardware is difficult to locate, and probably going to get worse. I did
> find
> a ZyXEL AG-220 that seems to fit the bill, and its control software is
> easy
> to use. But I need a long-term solution that I can keep buying into the
> future.
>
> So, why not just use 802.11n?? (I said to myself when I realized it also
> used the 5 GHz channels.) Brilliant!
>
> So I picked up a pair of D-Link DWA-140 USB adapters, but the control
> software won't let me setup an ad-hoc LAN on any N (5 GHz) channels. WZC
> and
> the adapter's driver don't take me there either, as far as I can tell.
> Drat.
> So, here comes my question, finally:
>
> Does the current version of the 802.11n standard provide for or allow for
> ad-hoc on 5 GHz channels? Maybe I just need a different brand, one that
> allows ad-hoc on 5 GHz.
>
> -John O

> I believe that the 802.11n would not be using the 802.11a signal
> channels. N is supposed to be directly compatible with 802.11g and
> 802.11b. These seem to all use the 2.4GHz signals.

This is an area that's not clear to me at all, and clarity is apparently
elusive...however the Cisco Whitepaper at the link below does say that N
uses A's channels, as well as G's channels. Page 15 discusses migration to N
from A.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/wireless/ps5678/ps6973/ps8382/prod_white_paper0900aecd806b8ce7.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/69k364

I'm guessing, but it seems that my inability to specify channel 52 (5 GHz)
is simply a limitation of the control software provided by the manufacturer.
Unless the committee tossed ad-hoc under the bus.

-John O
-John O


From: JohnO on 5 May 2008 15:42
> As always, infractructure mode is far more reliable and easier than
> ad-hoc, so I'd
> advise to use a router and save a lot of nerve cells (or hair... whatever
> you value more).

Yeah, I know it. The application is a Remote Desktop session between a
laptop and a mobile robot, and sales people doing presentations at random
places. Infrastructure is a non-starter, unfortunately. That's also why I'm
trying to get away from 2.4, you never know what's in the area, and the
sales staff can't perform a site survey. ;-) They can't switch channels
either, it's got to come out of the box and work wherever they may end up.
I've been somewhat lucky with 11G on channel 1 so far, but the total
available throughput on a single channel is so friggin low that any other
device on the channel just about kills the connection. "Three channels is
plenty" is right up there with 640k. LOL

The little ZyXEL USB plug has an "AP mode" which seems to work pretty well
in A. I can use that on the robot and the laptop can connect at full speed,
really no different than ad-hoc when making the connection, but maybe a bit
faster. I don't know if any other brands offer that mode.

Is there any A channel that's least likely used? How would I choose one over
the other?

-John O



 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: problem with HP Wireless printing upgrade Kit
Next: A public Wi-Fi enigma