<?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 Can a/g/n and a/g only AP's co-exist? in Wireless</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/can-a-g-n-and-a-g-only-ap-s-co-exist/m-p/1714287#M61157</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;Should we stick w/ 1130's (if they can still be purchased), or can we install the newer 1040/1140's w/ 802.11n radio?&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;Depends on your fundings.&amp;nbsp; 1040 is the "econo" version of the 1140.&amp;nbsp; This model will support 2 X 2 MIMO as compared to 2 X 3 MIMO with the rest.&amp;nbsp; If you don't want Cisco CleanAir feature then sticking to 1140 makes sense. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE __jive_macro_name="quote" class="jive_text_macro jive_macro_quote"&gt;&lt;P&gt;How well does having a mixture of a/g/n and a/g only AP's work?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt; Works well.&amp;nbsp; Just disable the data rates for 802.11b.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE __jive_macro_name="quote" class="jive_text_macro jive_macro_quote"&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do we really gain anything by adding a few more 11n AP's?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;Depends on the size and shape of the land.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE __jive_macro_name="quote" class="jive_text_macro jive_macro_quote"&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also how well do the 11n AP's work when connected to 100M switchports?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;It'll work but remember that the 100mbps switchports will be the bottleneck.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:15:09 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Leo Laohoo</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-06-13T22:15:09Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Can a/g/n and a/g only AP's co-exist?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/can-a-g-n-and-a-g-only-ap-s-co-exist/m-p/1714286#M61156</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We deployed a few 1130 AP's during the initial wireless rollout, and are looking into installing more AP's to support more mobile devices and users.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Should we stick w/ 1130's (if they can still be purchased), or can we install the newer 1040/1140's w/ 802.11n radio?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;How well does having a mixture of a/g/n and a/g only AP's work?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do we really gain anything by adding a few more 11n AP's?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also how well do the 11n AP's work when connected to 100M switchports?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2021 03:18:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/can-a-g-n-and-a-g-only-ap-s-co-exist/m-p/1714286#M61156</guid>
      <dc:creator>huangedmc</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-07-04T03:18:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Can a/g/n and a/g only AP's co-exist?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/can-a-g-n-and-a-g-only-ap-s-co-exist/m-p/1714287#M61157</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;Should we stick w/ 1130's (if they can still be purchased), or can we install the newer 1040/1140's w/ 802.11n radio?&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;Depends on your fundings.&amp;nbsp; 1040 is the "econo" version of the 1140.&amp;nbsp; This model will support 2 X 2 MIMO as compared to 2 X 3 MIMO with the rest.&amp;nbsp; If you don't want Cisco CleanAir feature then sticking to 1140 makes sense. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE __jive_macro_name="quote" class="jive_text_macro jive_macro_quote"&gt;&lt;P&gt;How well does having a mixture of a/g/n and a/g only AP's work?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt; Works well.&amp;nbsp; Just disable the data rates for 802.11b.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE __jive_macro_name="quote" class="jive_text_macro jive_macro_quote"&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do we really gain anything by adding a few more 11n AP's?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;Depends on the size and shape of the land.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE __jive_macro_name="quote" class="jive_text_macro jive_macro_quote"&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also how well do the 11n AP's work when connected to 100M switchports?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;It'll work but remember that the 100mbps switchports will be the bottleneck.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:15:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/can-a-g-n-and-a-g-only-ap-s-co-exist/m-p/1714287#M61157</guid>
      <dc:creator>Leo Laohoo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-06-13T22:15:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

