<?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: Access Point Channel Deployment in Wireless</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891605#M52472</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Haha... It's just one option.  These days RRM is better, but for those with older equipment and older code, it might not be. It was the domino affect that put a bad taste to RRM. Again it varies on the install, but we all did channel assignments back in the days:)  its like having the WLC adjusting power... Some times you just have to set things if the norm doesn't work for you.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Scott Fella&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sent from my iPhone&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2012 01:10:19 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Scott Fella</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2012-04-14T01:10:19Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Access Point Channel Deployment</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891600#M52467</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We are starting to greatly increase our access point density throughout our floors and I am wondering if we are using the correct channel assignments. We are using LAP 1140's and 3500's. We have some locations that have have anywhere from 4 to 9 floors in one location. These are consecutive floors that have 8 to 11 APs per floor. There are also other businesses in these buildings that use wireless as well. We use 802.11a/n and 802.11b/g/n. Right now the channels are set to the default, (36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 149, 153, 157, 161 for 802.11a) and (1, 6, 11 for 802.11b/g/n). I was wondering that since we are increasing our density whether we should enable other 802.11b/g/n channels outside of 1,6,11. I know the other channels can overlap but with correct placement I am wondering if it would improve our wireless coverage since we wouldn't have 8 to 11 APs fighting for only 3 channels. Has anyone experimented with enabling other 802.11b/g/n channels? If yes, please share your experience. I have attached one of our heat maps for one of the floors I described above. Also, send me a link to any articles you think may be helpful. Thank you!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2021 04:59:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891600#M52467</guid>
      <dc:creator>jason crockett</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-07-04T04:59:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Access Point Channel Deployment</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891601#M52468</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would have to say no.  On the 2.4ghz you should keep using channel 1, 6, and 11.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Scott Fella&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sent from my iPhone&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:14:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891601#M52468</guid>
      <dc:creator>Scott Fella</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-04-13T15:14:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Access Point Channel Deployment</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891602#M52469</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Scott, what are your thoughts on sticking with channels 1,6,11 but manually assigning them rather than letting the controller choose the channel?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:25:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891602#M52469</guid>
      <dc:creator>jason crockett</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-04-13T15:25:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Access Point Channel Deployment</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891603#M52470</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;That is okay, as long as you know that the spectrum is okay when using a particular channel. If you are using 3500's or 3600's using CleanAir, then you need to leave RRM on an enable EDRRM. So it depends on your implementation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Scott Fella&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sent from my iPhone&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:31:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891603#M52470</guid>
      <dc:creator>Scott Fella</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-04-13T15:31:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Access Point Channel Deployment</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891604#M52471</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;PRE __jive_macro_name="quote" class="jive_text_macro jive_macro_quote"&gt;Scott, what are your thoughts on sticking with channels 1,6,11 but manually assigning them rather than letting the controller choose the channel?&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;Then why bother putting a WLC?&amp;nbsp; One of the features with the WLC is the ability to regularly change the channel when the noise of the nearby wifi neighbor gets in the way.&amp;nbsp; So if you disable DCA then how often will you review your channel assignment?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:27:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891604#M52471</guid>
      <dc:creator>Leo Laohoo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-04-14T00:27:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Access Point Channel Deployment</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891605#M52472</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Haha... It's just one option.  These days RRM is better, but for those with older equipment and older code, it might not be. It was the domino affect that put a bad taste to RRM. Again it varies on the install, but we all did channel assignments back in the days:)  its like having the WLC adjusting power... Some times you just have to set things if the norm doesn't work for you.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Scott Fella&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sent from my iPhone&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2012 01:10:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891605#M52472</guid>
      <dc:creator>Scott Fella</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-04-14T01:10:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Access Point Channel Deployment</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891606#M52473</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Believe me, one of the selling points that made us go with the controller was RRM. But I have noticed when having a very high AP density that channels and power levels don't adjust accordingly. So consecutive APs can be on the same channel or at high power levels. We have a 5508 running 7.0.220.0 code so we are running one of the latest codes.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:35:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891606#M52473</guid>
      <dc:creator>jason crockett</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-04-16T13:35:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Access Point Channel Deployment</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891607#M52474</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;PRE __jive_macro_name="quote" class="jive_text_macro jive_macro_quote"&gt;We have a 5508 running 7.0.220.0 code so we are running one of the latest codes.&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Jason,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Latest code for the 7.0.X is the 7.0.230.0. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you want the latest-and-the-greatest then it's the 7.2.X.&amp;nbsp; Because you have the 5508, I'd recommend you go to the 7.2.X as it has more features than the 7.0.230.0. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;One more thing, the new 7.2.X has a new TPC version, however Cisco is recommending people stay with the current version as the new version is still in a "beta" state.&amp;nbsp; Future releases will allow the TPC (and maybe the DCA) to be fully operational. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:36:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891607#M52474</guid>
      <dc:creator>Leo Laohoo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-04-16T22:36:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Access Point Channel Deployment</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891608#M52475</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the info. I may try upgrading to 7.0.230. I am going to wait on the 7.2.X code since it was recently released and may have some bugs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:48:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891608#M52475</guid>
      <dc:creator>jason crockett</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-04-17T13:48:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Access Point Channel Deployment</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891609#M52476</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I do not see any open caveats in the 7.2.103.0 version that would affect me. Has anyone tried this IOS version yet? If yes, can you share your successes or failures?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:19:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891609#M52476</guid>
      <dc:creator>jason crockett</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-04-17T14:19:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Access Point Channel Deployment</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891610#M52477</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Jason,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The thing is, its okay if the ap's at times have the same channel as one of its neighbors.&amp;nbsp; You really cant prevent that especially if you have aps above and below.&amp;nbsp; I would just leave RRM decide the channels unless your users are complaining.&amp;nbsp; I have huge installs with that code and also 7.0.230.0 and of couse I see AP's next to each other on the same channel.&amp;nbsp; I don't think 7.2.103.0 will help, but you can try.&amp;nbsp; I ran 7.2.103.0 but had some issues with anchoring and managing anchored WLC's, that i reverted back to 7.0.230.0.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:34:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891610#M52477</guid>
      <dc:creator>Scott Fella</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-04-17T14:34:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Access Point Channel Deployment</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891611#M52478</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;One thing I have not heard mentioned is that your rf design really needs to be consider for rrm will run optimally. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you have sparse deployment rrm may power everything very high. Or if you have aps to close they could power them very low leaving gaps. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Once it's up and running you would hope to see they balance between power levels at 2 - 4.  &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just my 2 penny's worth .. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:32:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/access-point-channel-deployment/m-p/1891611#M52478</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Stefanick</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-04-17T15:32:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

