Upcoming Events

Cloud Connect
Santa Clara
Feb 13-16, 2012

Cloud Connect brings together the entire cloud eco-system to better understand the transformation we're experiencing and promises to be the defining event of the cloud computing industry. Learn about the latest cloud technologies and platforms from thought leaders in Cloud Connect’s comprehensive conference.

Register Now!

More Events »

Subscribe to Newsletter

  • Keep up with all of the latest news and analysis on the fast-moving IT industry with Network Computing newsletters.
Sign Up
Digital Convergence Mobile + Wireless
R E V I E W  
Navigating the Shifting 802.11 Sands

  February 6, 2003
  By Jesse Lindeman & Julio Caraballo


>> continued from previous page

How We Tested

TOC Issue TOC
Printer Print full article
Printer Print this page
Printer Download as PDF
E-Mail E-Mail this URL
Discuss Discuss this article
flame author Flame the author
 
  In this article
arrow
Introduction
arrow
Cisco Systems Aironet 1200 Series Dual AP
arrow
Other Products Reviewed
arrow
Executive Summary
arrow
How We Tested
arrow
802.11g Adds to the Mix
arrow
Report Card

We conducted feature, functionality, range and performance tests with each product in our Syracuse University Real-World Labs®. For throughput tests we used NetIQ's Chariot 4.3 network-performance application, using 1.2-GHz Toshiba Satellite notebook computers with 256 MB of RAM running Microsoft Windows XP as our mobile clients. For our base throughput tests, the laptops were located 5 feet from the AP, and the AP was connected to an isolated 100-Mbps Cisco switch in our lab. We used 100 iterations of 1-MB, TCP-based, unidirectional long-file receive transfers, our standard throughput test for wireless LANs.

We began by testing each mode, 11a and 11b, with one and two clients connected to the AP, and then both modes working concurrently with one client each. In each case we tested with and without 128-bit WEP (Wired Equivalent Privacy) enabled. Although testing with a limited number of stations does tend to provide best-case performance, it has the advantage of allowing comparisons to previous lab tests.

For our range tests, the APs were placed in a typical ceiling-level location in a large walled classroom/office building constructed in the mid-1980s (most walls are Sheetrock over metal studs, and most doors are metal). We ran a continuous ping from the laptops to the static IP address set up on the APs to measure range based on packet loss from various locations. Since we did not have physical access to all offices, our maps do not show all areas of coverage, but they do provide an accurate representation of product differences and maximum range that would be achieved in a typical building.


start top   Executive Summary 802.11g Adds to the Mix 

Research and Reports

Hypervisor Derby
August 2011

Network Computing: August 2011

TechWeb Careers