Search RPD Archives
[AFRINIC-rpd] Academic IPv4 Allocation Policy Second Draft (AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-02)
owen at delong.com
Mon Jan 28 21:01:09 UTC 2013
On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:07 , Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Owen,
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Actually, anyone who has experience doing WiFi for meetings and conferences with a high geek factor
> can pretty quickly tell you that anything > about 50 users per AP tends to degrade pretty rapidly.
> Anything north of 100 users on 2.4Ghz is virtually unusable
> Actually not really for all APs...i have used APs that run on 2.4 and handles way over 400 concurrent
I bet that the users weren't doing very much per user, then.
> and anything north of about 200 is virtually unusable at 5Ghz.
> Who runs 200 users on 5ghz by the way ;)
I run lots of users on 5Ghz. Almost all Apple products (iPhone being the notable exception) have
> That is why if you go to any networking conference in most places, instead of seeing a few high power
> access points to cover the large area of the conference, you will see many low-power APs spread
> around. For example, to cover the main hall of a conference with ~500 attendees, you'll usually want
> somewhere between 12 and 20 APs in the room.
> Actually i wonder why that is the case...perhaps its related to cost? as i sure know APs that do way more than 400 users (although within a single AP exist a bonded set of APs)
I'm speaking actual AP, not box count. If you're using a sectorized AP, that counts as one AP per sector.
I'm talking available channel bandwidth, not pieces of plastic.
> However, with transient users, this becomes more problematic because your DHCP pool may have
> a lease time of several hours where users may only be active for ~30 minutes at a time. In such a
> case, the addresses are tied down for much longer than the AP channel space is in use and this
> can have a multiplicative effect on the address demand over the available channel space.
> This can be equally true for wired ports serving transient users in a library or other location offering
> network jacks for public transient use. As such, a 48 port switch may actually support a requirement
> for many more than 48 users. Similarly, an AP may also have a need to support a larger number.
> I think it is in the best interests of the region to remove barriers to deploying addresses to
> educational institutions.
> I'm not sure I agree with the idea of limiting the policy to higher education institutions, but I'm not sure whether it will matter in the remaining time available for IPv4.
> Hmm...the thing is HEIs are "arguably" closer to the not-for-profit arena, so extending this policy to say private sectors may not worth it as they are making money an should be able to afford as much. Also still in the HEI line...perhaps extending to Secondary schools may also be good (although i don't know of a secondary school having such a need in my region)
I admit I am sufficiently ignorant of the structure of lower levels of education within the region that I cannot comment authoritatively on this matter. In my part of the world, primary and secondary schools are mostly run by the government(s).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD