RJ Atkinson wrote:
At 16:15 29/06/00 , Joe Touch wrote:
DS appears to be better for large, flat spaces (largely 2-dimensional,
under 3 stories tall, since transcievers on the middle floor largely
cover the upper and lower).
FH is better for more spherical spaces (largely 3-dimensional).
These optimisations do not appear to matter significantly in practice
in the locations that IETFs have been held or in other places where
I have experience with DS/FH being overlaid (a work campus environment).
That is interesting - it was the deciding factor in the deployment here.
DS was not capable of covering the 3-D space sufficiently, due the the
number of overlapping cells required, and the number of "channels"
available.
And DS and FH do not play well together, i.e., it's much better to stay
away from concurrent overlapping installations. I had earlier measured a
BW penalty of between 1/2 to 3/4 (transferring data over only one of the
two technologies at a time, in a concurrent deployment).
IETF/DC is a fine counter-example of why the above might theoretically
be true,
See "measured" above. Theory was not involved. :-)
but is not really true in deployed networks. IETF/DC had both
overlaid on the same 3D spaces and both worked OK. Obviously one
must be thoughtful about the channel/frequency plan and such like
(which is true regardless of overlaid networks).
Agreed.
Joe