On Dec 29, 2010, at 8:38 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/29/10 8:03 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: >> I'm curious what the largest *successful* deployment has been >> (measured in number of participants in a single >> room/hall/stadium/...) that anybody has seen, within the IETF or >> beyond. The NYC article hints at the fact that the limit may be hotel >> fiber, rather than wireless, in some cases. We seem to have more >> experience with dimensioning those than other organizations. Our network requirements doc at http://iaoc.ietf.org/network_requirements.html is somewhat relevant. > hotel facilities range from acceptable to godawful... The IETF has the luxury of getting donations of high speed connectivity to many of our meetings. > The biggest problem by far is cochannel interference, and the best way > to solve that is more channels. The ability to use 802.11a's 11 > non-overlapping bands is the move effective method by far. It's doesn't > work if you have to serve 8000 iphones but in a environment full of > business class laptops, more that half your customers will move over > there by default. I strongly agree here. Encourage .11a (5ghz) usage, disable .11n for the .11b/g 2.4ghz spectrum. We also have the luxury of a large number of repeat attendees, and many of you have learned the benefits of using .11a and will go out of your way to use it. We facilitate that through advertising .11a-only SSID's. So, yes, some of what we've learned would apply to other events, but some is very tailored to the IETF's needs. Chris. > joel > >> On Dec 29, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote: >> >>> >>> Dave, >>> >>> I think you will find that our NOC people have a great deal of >>> experience and perhaps even a list of do's and don'ts for this type >>> of design. In the end, this technology will not scale without bonds >>> if we're talking about n-thousand people sitting in a plenary hall, >>> but there are obviously a lot that can be done with a distribution >>> of multiple lower-powered (configured as such) units that don't use >>> overlapping channels, use of various 802.11 flavors (a, n, etc) >>> and more SSIDs, all in the name of load sharing. >>> >>> While there may not be a document, and I agree that it would be >>> useful to have one, there is certainly a collective body of >>> knowledge on this topic (including a "never again use base stations >>> from xxxx.."). >>> >>> Ole >>> >>> Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol >>> Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 >>> 415-370-4628 E-mail: ole@xxxxxxxxx URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2010, Dave CROCKER wrote: >>> >>>> Time for a BCP? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/technology/29wifi.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25> >>>> >>>>> >>>> > The problem is that Wi-Fi was never intended for large halls and >>>>> thousands of people, many of them bristling with an arsenal of >>>>> laptops, >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't recall seeing a document on this and the IETF track >>>> record has been quite good. >>>> >>>> We should share the joy. >>>> >>>> d/ -- >>>> >>>> Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net >>>> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing >>>> list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list >>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf