Re: [Aironet] Re: AP 350 distance limits?

[John F. <jf...@th...>]

At 11:56 PM 4/20/2002 -0400, ddl...@da... wrote:
>Even if you did this, what about the timeout on the device connecting
>to the bridge?  I think the idea is to force you to have bridges at
>both ends, not just in the middle.

You know, I typed a paragraph about that question in 
my previous message, and I deleted it as being too far 
afield of my knowledge and understanding.  I thought
that if you had to tweak it on the bridge-as-AP, that
you'd need to tell the remote radios, too - but that
setting wasn't there.

If I'd memorized the 500 pages of 801.11 spec, perhaps I'd know 
that only APs might need to adjust their listening window, and that
clients are in a different mindset that didn't require them to 
alter their listening window.  Or maybe the AP sends the time
window to the clients.  But this was all just a guess that
might explain why the remote radios don't need the tweak.

>The older Aironet access point
>manuals actually show APs being used to bridge wired networks, so the idea
>to stratify the product may have come a bit late in the game.  Did the Arlan
>APs have the no-bridge restriction?  Maybe it's time to start trying to
>uncompress the firmware. :)

My old BR-2000 bridges had an access point mode, if that helps.
I think I'd heard the rumor that it was just a flash difference,
too - but I probably heard that on this list or its archives.
I remember someone here telling me the AP and BR were interchangeable
for spare parts.

What I'm really looking for is more anecdotes about 350 APs
being used outdoors, and how far they reach, and which 
performance characteristics degrade (and how badly) over
distances up to five miles.

- John