I think everyone knows by now that I am not a big fan of site surveys for wireless LANs - in fact, I think they are almost always a bad idea, exchanging cheap hardware for expensive labor of doubtful value. Sure, in pathological buildings, a cursory site survey might be useful. And I like doing RF sweeps (with a spectrum analyzer) if interference is suspected. But in the vast majority of open-office installations, site surveys are a waste of time and especially money. One can always compensate for errors in coverage or capacity by simply adding a few more APs - indeed, one should always count on needing to do this whether a site survey is performed or not, because site surveys only take coverage, and not capacity, into account. Yes, I know the installer community makes a lot of money doing site surveys and for them the issue is practically cultural. But think about ROI - do site surveys deliver? Usually not. And please note here I'm taking just about the install-an-AP-and-walk-around site survey, not the overall WLAN installation planning process. The latter remains essential and must consider not just coverage, but also and especially capacity.
But VoFi may be another matter altogether. Because whereas data communications usually has a pretty good tolerance for latency (even if users themselves do not), voice, and, indeed, any time-bounded communications will fail unless the capacity and coverage required are there. No retries - it works, or it doesn't. And it may be desirable to light up areas where users might be only briefly - stairwells, for example. These can be very tough from an RF perspective.
This implies that some form of site survey may be important in the case of VoFi. I've often noted that coverage near the edges of a given structure can be a bit sparse, as there's no point in illuminating the parking lot, and, indeed, lots of good reasons not to. But this sparseness might adversely affect voice coverage, and, as any cell phone user knows, an out-of-range condition is cause for bad language.
So, as voice becomes more often than not a driver of enterprise Wi-Fi installations, the site survey may make a comeback. Note, however, that they're still not essential in my book. After all, adding another AP for voice is no more complex than adding another AP for any other application. But a little more labor (just a little) up front at the edges of the intended coverage area can help keep the environment civil and everyone productive.
Mathias is a principal at Farpoint Group, a wireless advisory firm in Ashland, Mass.
|
|
Site Survey and VoFi
I know Site survey are time consuming but how would you do micro cell deployment for VoFi without site survey ?
Alain
Re: Site Survey and VoFi
That's kind of the point of this posting. I don't think a full site survey will be required in most cases, but the edges and difficult spots might benefit from a site survey procedure. It's important regardless to monitor user statisfaction and check the network management logs to determine if the solution is really working as intended.
Thank you for the note.
Craig.
What??
As someone who regularly designs and installs networks in excess of 100APs I can say that the physical RF survey is absolutely essential as part of the overall process, usually following a careful Ekahau (or other) desktop survey. To think you can turn up to site with a van full of APs and just deploy them as you like without a thought for the biggest single problem with WiFi - cell planning - is living in a dreamworld. Cell planning is the biggest technical headache, and despite what vendors say it's not solved by having centralised control, in fact it can be made worse. The problem is compounded when adding voice as the APs must be closer together to support the less sensitive devices that are WiFi phones. The goal is to achieve a balance between coverage and capacity and you can't do this without a live survey. Once this is achieved the work can be instantly undone by simply "adding another AP" which completely screws your cell plan. To suggest that adding an AP, especially to a large network, shows a complete lack of understanding of the basic issues associated with designing a network!
First of all, sorry for the
First of all, sorry for the late reply. I was actually ready to post a response last week, but actually lost the post when Windows decided to reboot at the most inopportune time. I just love Windows!
Anyway, I never said that it's a good idea to simply show up with truckload of APs and just throw them up. My typical recommendations are a bit more complex than that. And I did say that some form of site survey could be desirable in the case of voice - that was the point of this post, after all.
I know the installer community isn't fond of my general advice on site surveys (skip them) because installers generate a lot of revenue from site surveys and customers are conditioned to purchase them. But site surveys are an activity that usually trades low-cost hardware for high-cost services that focus on coverage but ignore capacity. You've never had to go back and add an AP? Never? And do you really configure channel and power manually? That's just not the way to do it. Adding an AP is usually a snap - and a cheap solution to coverage and capacity problems that inevitably creep in no matter what kind of site survey you do - or don't.
Site surveys are a low-ROI activity in most installations. I stand by what I wrote.
Regardless - thank you for the note!
Craig.
Surveys
Craig,
Thanks for the reply, we'll have to agree to disagree here but I do have an exception to my own rule - Extricom. I've been deploying some large Extricom networks, including their new 11n solution and for this vendor at least, a survey is less important!
Interesting...
Meru Networks, who also use the horizontal-channel allocation technique, makes a similar claim about site surveys on their Web site. While I don't think the avoidance of site surveys need be limited to these two vendors, it's interesting that you note your experience with Extricom. Thanks!
Craig.
Post new comment