06-11-2009 12:26 AM - edited 11-18-2020 02:22 AM
The WLC Config Analyzer home has moved to Cisco DEVNET. See:
https://developer.cisco.com/docs/wireless-troubleshooting-tools/#wireless-config-analyzer
We also have a cloud version of the tool: https://cway.cisco.com/tools/WirelessAnalyzer/
(please use new forum for updates)
To request access, send an e-mail to wlc-conf-app-dev@cisco.com. Please include your Cisco.com username. Cisco employees do not need to request.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=17718
News
Enhancements
Fixes
Fixes
Fixes
Enhancements
Fixes
New experimental troubleshooting tool: “RF Health”
This is a modification of the RF index to change the format to a 0 to 100 metric, the higher the better, for a easier to use experience
it should work properly to isolate what areas/Aps of the deployment are having a bad RF state, affecting clients.
RF Health will try to calculate different metrics applicable to RF quality on the AP, and convert to a single 100 based scale. It takes into consideration things like low SNR client count, co-channel interference, channel utilization for nearby Aps, noise, etc.
It currently supports 20/40 channel width, and handles properly bonding scenarios.
You can open “RF problem finder” to get details on the metric per type, per AP, for in depth analysis
Please provide your feedback on the metric, for additional improvements, change on default values, etc.
General Usage: wlc-conf-app@external.cisco.com (you can subscribe)
Bug reports/issues/features: wlc-conf-app-dev@cisco.com
hi Mikel
you can use this mechanism, or write to wlc-conf-app-dev@cisco.com for feature or bug fixing requests
yes, yoour proposal makes sense and it is relatively easy to add, I marked this for inclusion on next release
Thanks for your feedback
Awesome, thank you.
When will WLC Config analyzer support 7.6 code? We are starting to deploye the 3700 series Access Points and require to run 7.6 code of the controller. This tool helps a lot with deployment.
thanks
Hello,
i can't install the tool, i get the message "System needs Microsoft Common Language Runtime 4.0.30319.0".
I tried XP and Win7 with all patches, .net 3.5 is also installed.
Any idea ?
Tool looks really great and i'd like to use it.
Regards
I believe that this is a component of .NET - note that WLCCA needs .NET 4.0 not 3.5.
For reference, my Win7 PC shows as having "Microsoft .NET Framework 4 Client Profile" and "
"Microsoft .NET Framework 4 Extended".
Aaron
Me too. I was force to upgrade to 7.6 because the bug fix didn't make the 7.4MR2. Really love this tool. Please please Javier.
Running into this error upon open a WLC 5760 configuration, I already check 4.0 net.
What should I do ?
great document.
I agree. Thanks for keeping it up to day, Javier.
Hi guys,
A question about the Channel Utilization number reported by the APs in the "show run-config" command (and shown in the WLCCA tool under the RF Summary tab). The numbers reported by the APs are routinely higher than the utilization percentages I see when walking the same area using Cisco Spectrum Expert/Cognio. I'd guess they are easily 20% higher than my "eyeball estimate" from CSE, but I've honestly never done a side-by-side comparison.
How is the reported Channel Utilization number derived on the APs? Is it a timed average (such as a 5-second or a 60-second average), or is it a high-level watermark over the last N seconds?
I'm working with a customer where we are relying on these numbers (collected from the WLCCA tool) to determine which changes are having a positive impact -- and by how much. More than 45% of their APs are reporting channel utilization over 50%, and at least 15% of the APs are reporting channel utilization higher than 70%. Compared to other customers I've worked with, those numbers are pretty bad (although they are a distant second to my worst customer, but they are a developer of consumer-based wireless products so that wasn't too much of a surprise with thousands of "rogue APs" being present).
Thanks in advance, as always!
Regards,
Steve
Some comments which may help Steve:
1) We have noticed the same thing with the Fluke Aircheck (vs CPI / WLCCA)
2) Make sure you are looking at both WiFi and non-WiFi channel utilization with the Spectrum tool (which you probably are using a spectrum tool as oppose to a 'WiFi analyzer')
3) APs are mounted on the ceiling will generally hear more than you walking on the ground with a laptop. (This would lead to higher channel utilization)
4) AP may or may not have higher antenna gain (This would lead to higher channel utilization)
5) RSSI threshold to consider the channel utilized could be different between tools. e.g. The AP says channel utilized if WiFi packets = -85dBm or stronger, or non-WiFi (& off channel WiFi) energy needs to be -65dBm or stronger (give or take a few dB) What thresholds does Cisco Spectrum Expert/Cognio use?
6) Technical differences in energy sampling methods. DFT vs FFT, filter shapes, etc. could mean you'll get differences in channel utilization between different devices.
7) There is a running averaging involved in the AP utilization number (likely ~60 seconds).
Bottom line is for any optimization, stick to the same sampling method to determine the affect of your changes. Shouldn't matter which one is technically more accurate, an improvement should be an improvement regardless.
I'd probably recommend sticking to the AP numbers as this is what the AP deems to be reality. If you make positive change as measured by CSE but the AP shows the same, then you probably didn't improve the WiFi performance.
If you wanted to discuss how to make changes to lower utilization that would be another discussion.
Hope this helps!
- Dale Hurshowy P.Eng
Dale, thanks for the feedback! You bring up a good point about the potential for an RSSI threshold difference between tools -- where one tool might use one value, while the Cisco APs use another to calculate the channel utilization.
I guess I'm still facing the same question as before though: How is the reported Channel Utilization number derived on the Cisco APs? Is it a timed average (such as a 5-second or a 60-second average), or is it a high-level watermark over the last N seconds?
I really want to know the answer to this, so if anyone knows for certain please let us know!
Regards,
Steve
Hi Javier,
Thanks for creating this great assessment tool.
Some wish list items:
1. Have the "Compensated Heard Power" in the TX Neighbors reflect the selected APs Transmit Power.
2. Include AP Power, Compensated Heard Power values in the exported AP Nearby/AP Seeme reports in Report Center.
3. A Third loudest Seeme neighbor report.
Thanks for your efforts,
--Bruce Johnson
hi Bruce
Thanks for your comments
on your wish list: yes, they are valid points, let me put them on the tracking list for future version 3.7
regards!
Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: