<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: 802.11b and 802.11g in Wireless</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/802-11b-and-802-11g/m-p/350148#M192816</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;The protection mechanism exists because 802.11b and 802.11g use different modulation types, and cannot "see" each other without it. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Actually, they can never see each other; the protection mechanism is initiated by the AP when it sees the mixed client types.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The AP is the only device in the system that can see both client types.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Basically, the system produces management and control traffic to the clients saying "Do not talk unless I give you permission, and I will give you permission during a specific poll slot".&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The polling cycle, and the control and management traffic are one reason that having even one associated 802.11b client in a 802.11G system can cause the entire system to slow somewhat, generally ~20% or so, I believe.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you are seeing significant slowdowns, it's a better chance that you have some other interference, or the APs are interfering with each other .... are the APs set to chnnels 1, 6, and 11? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;How many APs are in the area? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Have you tried dropping the power level on some of the APs to reduce the chance of interference?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Have you done an area scan with something like NetStumbler (www.netstumbler.com  - it's free) to see if you have neighbors that are using the same channels?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;802.11g has a better modulation / encoding scheme, a weaker 802.11g may be a better quality link than the stronger 802.11b signal. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do a good scan of the area and let us know what you find.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Good Luck&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Scott&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:21:46 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>scottmac</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2006-08-10T11:21:46Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>802.11b and 802.11g</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/802-11b-and-802-11g/m-p/350144#M192812</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;These two standards are said to be compatible.Though may have performance issues. Can anybody tell me exactly what the performance issues are.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And how about romaing with 802.11b and 802.11g deployed in the same area ? Can 802.11g client roam to 802.11b AP only ? Any problems ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Tks!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2021 17:41:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/802-11b-and-802-11g/m-p/350144#M192812</guid>
      <dc:creator>zywvip</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-07-04T17:41:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 802.11b and 802.11g</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/802-11b-and-802-11g/m-p/350145#M192813</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Read this thread.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-custom" href="http://forum.cisco.com/eforum/servlet/NetProf?page=netprof&amp;amp;forum=Wireless%20-%20Mobility&amp;amp;topic=General&amp;amp;CommCmd=MB%3Fcmd%3Dpass_through%26location%3Doutline%40%5E1%40%40.1dd747dc/2#selected_message" target="_blank"&gt;http://forum.cisco.com/eforum/servlet/NetProf?page=netprof&amp;amp;forum=Wireless%20-%20Mobility&amp;amp;topic=General&amp;amp;CommCmd=MB%3Fcmd%3Dpass_through%26location%3Doutline%40%5E1%40%40.1dd747dc/2#selected_message&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;802.11g client cannot roam to a 802.11b onlyAP. 802.11g is backwards compatible with b. not vice versa.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:41:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/802-11b-and-802-11g/m-p/350145#M192813</guid>
      <dc:creator>thisisshanky</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2005-04-16T03:41:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 802.11b and 802.11g</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/802-11b-and-802-11g/m-p/350146#M192814</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;The 802.11g include the 802.11b modulation types. So they are compatibles in both ways!!!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Please Look this extract from the IEEE 802.11g-2003 spec.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;19. Extended Rate PHY specification&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;19.1 Overview&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This clause specifies further rate extension of the PHY for the Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;system of Clause 15 and the extensions of Clause 18. Hereinafter the PHY defined in this clause will be&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;known as the Extended Rate PHY (ERP). This PHY operates in the 2.4 GHz ISM band.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;19.1.1 Introduction&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The ERP builds on the payload data rates of 1 and 2 Mbit/s, as described in Clause 15, that use DSSS modulation and builds on the payload data rates of 1, 2, 5.5, and 11 Mbit/s, as described in Clause 18, that use DSSS, CCK, and optional PBCC modulations. The ERP draws from Clause 17 to provide additional&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;payload data rates of 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 54 Mbit/s. Of these rates, transmission and reception&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;capability for 1, 2, 5.5, 11, 6, 12, and 24 Mbit/s data rates is mandatory.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Two additional optional ERP-PBCC modulation modes with payload data rates of 22 and 33 Mbit/s are&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;defined. An ERP-PBCC station may implement 22 Mbit/s alone or 22 and 33 Mbit/s. An optional&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;modulation mode known as DSSS-OFDM is also incorporated with payload data rates of 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 54 Mbit/s.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Enjoy,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Chris&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:48:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/802-11b-and-802-11g/m-p/350146#M192814</guid>
      <dc:creator>carrascox</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-06-06T17:48:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 802.11b and 802.11g</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/802-11b-and-802-11g/m-p/350147#M192815</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are suffering some issues in ou network with 802.11b/g Ap's in the same area.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When a 802.11g client has to choose between a b and g AP, it always goes to the 802.11g AP, even if it has a worst signal.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm reading in some documents out there that there is a protection mechanism that obliges tha client to select the g protocol because it understands that 54 MB is always better that 11 MB. Not sure though. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 05:56:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/802-11b-and-802-11g/m-p/350147#M192815</guid>
      <dc:creator>beckerola</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-08-10T05:56:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 802.11b and 802.11g</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/802-11b-and-802-11g/m-p/350148#M192816</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;The protection mechanism exists because 802.11b and 802.11g use different modulation types, and cannot "see" each other without it. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Actually, they can never see each other; the protection mechanism is initiated by the AP when it sees the mixed client types.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The AP is the only device in the system that can see both client types.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Basically, the system produces management and control traffic to the clients saying "Do not talk unless I give you permission, and I will give you permission during a specific poll slot".&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The polling cycle, and the control and management traffic are one reason that having even one associated 802.11b client in a 802.11G system can cause the entire system to slow somewhat, generally ~20% or so, I believe.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you are seeing significant slowdowns, it's a better chance that you have some other interference, or the APs are interfering with each other .... are the APs set to chnnels 1, 6, and 11? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;How many APs are in the area? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Have you tried dropping the power level on some of the APs to reduce the chance of interference?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Have you done an area scan with something like NetStumbler (www.netstumbler.com  - it's free) to see if you have neighbors that are using the same channels?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;802.11g has a better modulation / encoding scheme, a weaker 802.11g may be a better quality link than the stronger 802.11b signal. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do a good scan of the area and let us know what you find.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Good Luck&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Scott&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:21:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/802-11b-and-802-11g/m-p/350148#M192816</guid>
      <dc:creator>scottmac</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-08-10T11:21:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 802.11b and 802.11g</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/802-11b-and-802-11g/m-p/350149#M192817</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;The APs are well configured with channels 1, 6 and 11. They are indeed overlapping but i think they are doing it in the expected way to allow a good roaming of people with laptops.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Unfortunely i'm not actually in the building where the AP's are. I'll try to drop there and make some tests.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In the worst case, what could be a good solution. I thought that maybe we could separate both AP's (b and g) from each other. Another way could be upgrade all devices to 802.11g.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the response.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:01:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/802-11b-and-802-11g/m-p/350149#M192817</guid>
      <dc:creator>beckerola</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-08-10T12:01:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

