How to increase Bandwith using Cisco Radios.

Unanswered Question

We currently have Aironet 1310's that link two buildings together. We recently bought two Aironet 1142's with the hope to use them to increase bandwith between buildings.

We realize a Controller is needed too, to implement the 1142's which we haven't bought yet... and the 1142's are more for indoor than out.

First, can the 1142's be used to link the buildings together if we aim them via windows, or put them in a weather proof enclosure? Everywhere we looked we didn't see any 802.11n devices for outside...

Second: or is it better to buy more 1310's...and somehow multilink them together adding bandwidth?

The goal here is to increase bandwidth, of course.

Thanks,

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (1 ratings)
Loading.
Nicolas Darchis Sun, 10/17/2010 - 00:35

First, I think this question was better in the wireless subsection rathen than switching :-)

The 1250 is a better choice than 1140, because it has external antennas and that's what you want for a bridge. 1140 doesnt' support bridge setup.

Moreover both 1250 and 1140 can work as standalone. Check on cisco.com, you will see IOS software for both those APs.

1250 is indeed a good way of increasing bandwitdh. If you go the 1310 way you can only have 3 of them (using all 3 available channels : 1,6,11) and I discourage building them in eterchannel as people are tempted to.

Hope this helps,

Nicolas

--

If     this helps you and/or answers your question please mark the question    as  "answered" and/or rate it, so other users can easily find it.

Michael Klick Mon, 10/18/2010 - 08:08

Well guys, I am confused. The 1142's were recommended by a Cisco Rep. I never even heard of the 1250's. Anyway, we loaded the 1142's with an IOS that doesn't need a controller, we configured a Root Bridge and Non-Root Bridge setup and so far it looks good.

How can "n" not support Bridge mode, when we just configured it for it??? (With help of Cisco Wireless team in Richardson Texas.)

We have tested them across the street.

The company is going to enclose them in a protective enclosure but not them cover completely.

Leo Laohoo Mon, 10/18/2010 - 14:19

How can "n" not support Bridge mode, when we just configured it for it?

Are you saying that your wireless link is running on "n"?  If this is so, can you please post your config.  I've created TAC cases and they all say it's not possible.
Michael Klick Mon, 10/18/2010 - 14:31

I can't until Thursday or later. However, you can talk to: Mark W Crader (macrader) [[email protected]]

He had my case AND is the one that told me to configure it as a Root Bridge - Non Root Bridge. They are in "n" mode only, running at the upper 5 Ghz band only too.

Mark should remember me. He is from North Texas, and I am from the Austin, Texas, area.

P.S. I with my reseller, called Cisco asking about n radios for outside. The rep told me to get the 1142's.

Nicolas Darchis Mon, 10/18/2010 - 23:09

Hi,

I didn't say it was not working, I'm saying that for an outdoor usage for bridges, it just makes more sense to use the AP that supports external antennas (the 1260 also now does the trick).

It was mentionned at some point in the release notes that the 1250 became supported for outdoor 11n bridges (due to the lack of "real" outdoor bridge like a 1310 for 11n) because it got tested.

the 1140 was never tested for an outdoor usage (since it is an obvious "to be placed on ceiling" with internal antenna).

But if it works fine for you, that's good :-)

The problem with the enclosure you are mentioning is the internal antenna. I'm not sure how you plan to enclose it without creating an obstacle for the signal ...

Regards,

Nicolas

Michael Klick Tue, 10/19/2010 - 06:24

We didn't know at the time there was one with an antenna. If we did know, we would have gotten it.

We plan on protecting the back and just exposing the face to the outside. Aiming the two at one another.

What is confusing, is I was told by Cisco and CDW there wasn't any "n" for outside. But the 1250 with antenna is.

Somehow this info has to get out better.

Nicolas Darchis Tue, 10/19/2010 - 06:32

I cannot comment on the people to whom you talked to.

But I think if you go back to them now, a "swap" would be negotiable as it's their mistake and not yours.

anyway, not much Ican do for you unfortunately.

Nicolas

===

Please rate answers that you find useful

Leo Laohoo Tue, 10/19/2010 - 15:14

I'd go for the 1250 vs the 1260 because there are some high-gain antennaes that the 1260 won't support.  FYI:  The 1260 will only support antennaes with 6dBi or LESS.

Nicolas Darchis Tue, 10/19/2010 - 22:42

But the 1250 doesn't run with both radios on normal PoE (15watts), so it's a more complex decision to take that requires to know all the business needs :-)

Leo Laohoo Wed, 10/20/2010 - 13:41

But the 1250 doesn't run with both radios on normal PoE (15watts),

C'mon Nicolas.  This is a trick question, right?  Someone from Cisco TAC (I don't remember who) posted here confirming that you can use 15.4w to power up BOTH 1250 radio modules IF you run IOS version 12.4(10b)JDA3 and later (and for controller-based it's 5.2.X and later).

HOWEVER, with this scenario, it comes with a COST of the upper two MCS rates are disabled.

I've been running some of my 1250 with 15.4w since June 2009 (much to the chagrin of some of the TAC).

By the way, can someone confirm that the 1250 (with 20.0 watts of power) has a higher "footprint" compare to a 1260?

Nicolas Darchis Wed, 10/20/2010 - 22:50

Sure, but as you said, you don't have the full 11n speed and if I'm correct, the transmit power is limited too (could be wrong on that one). So anyway, the 1250 doesn't run at full capacity on 15 watts :-D

Nicolas

Leo Laohoo Thu, 10/21/2010 - 14:59

the transmit power is limited too (could be wrong on that one).

You're right on that one.  Transmit power is lower and two of the top MCS rates are disabled.

You win on this one! 

Actions

This Discussion

Related Content