Showing posts with label spectrum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spectrum. Show all posts

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Quick Take: Wider Channel Widths Are Flashy but Not Efficient

I've been thinking of writing a well-articulated blog post on why the preference for high-density Wi-Fi networks is smaller channel width over larger channel width. This post is NOT that.

Instead, I was on Twitter articulating some of the logical points why smaller channel widths provide better aggregate capacity than larger channel widths (assuming you deploy enough radios and take advantage of all the spectrum at your disposal). Here is a quick recap of those points.

You might want to reference my SNR to MCS Index Mapping Table, which shows why larger channels result in a reduction in modulation rate that can often offset the gain from using the wider bandwidth in the first place. And my 802.11ac Receiver Sensitivity charts show that you have to have a really great signal strength for wider channels to even be considered, but watch out in your design because overcompensating to achieve higher signal strength will increase co-channel interference (CCI) which travels a LONG ways! Finally, my post on 802.11ac Adjacent Channel Interference (ACI) shows that wider channels create more ACI than smaller channels, and ACI is even more detrimental and unfriendly than CCI. Therefore, radio receivers require greater adjacent channel rejection (up to 8dB more), and with fewer channels for frequency re-use ACI is more likely.











Cheers,
Andrew

Monday, August 4, 2014

802.11ac Adjacent Channel Interference (ACI)

I was reading this article on development of 5G cellular technologies when this bit on OFDM deficiencies and the need for new waveforms to support higher capacities and user densities caught my attention (emphasis added by me):
4G and 4G+ networks employ a type of waveform called orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) as the fundamental element in the physical layer (PHY).  In fact, almost all modern communication networks are built on OFDM because OFDM improved data rates and network reliability significantly by taking advantage of multi-path a common artifact of wireless transmissions.  However as time and demands progress, OFDM technology suffers from out-of-band spectrum regrowth resulting in high side lobes that limit spectral efficiency.  In other words, network operators cannot efficiently use their available spectrum because two users on adjacent channels would interfere with one another.  OFDM also suffers from high peak-to-average ratio of the power amplifier, resulting in lower battery life of the mobile device.  To address OFDM deficiencies, researchers are investigating alternative methods including generalized frequency division multiplexing, filter bank multi-carrier, and universal filter multi-carrier.  Researchers speculate that using one of these approaches over OFDM may improve network capacity by 30 percent or more while improving the battery life for all mobile devices."


This aligns with most Wi-Fi professionals' recommendations to deploy 5 GHz radios on non-adjacent channels to avoid that dreaded adjacent channel interference (ACI). 

And if you look at an OFDM Wi-Fi transmit spectral mask, either the limits defined in the standard or using a spectrum analyzer, you will see rather significant side lobes that can impact adjacent channels (and channels even further away, depending on proximity and power levels). I have even considered including discussion of OFDM spectral masks within my 802.11ac presentations and writing due to the fact that as channel widths get wider, so to do their side lobes because the frequency distance from the main carrier signal at which the relative power level must be reduced to be in compliance increases as well. 

Here is an illustration that I put together over a year ago but never published and kept in the appendix of my 11ac presentation. It illustrates how ACI can increase due to the spectral mask differences as channel widths get larger. I have inlaid two 20 MHz spectral masks inside the 40 MHz mask, and two 40 MHz masks inside the 80 MHz mask. Essentially, the side lobe power level reduction requirements are based on the size of the main signal lobe; as the main signal lobe gets larger, so too does the allowed power in side band lobes.

Spectral Mask Comparison of 20, 40, and 80 MHz Wi-Fi Channels
And below is a capture from a spectrum analyzer approximately 10 feet away from an 802.11ac AP operating in 80 MHz mode with a large amount of traffic. Notice the high signal level in adjacent channels (52-64, and likely would impact the as-of-yet unapproved U-NII 2B band). 


Spectrum Analysis Capture of an 802.11ac 80 MHz Waveform

This is why you need a minimum of 10 feet of separation between radios operating in the same frequency band (unless other shielding mechanisms are used, which increase cost), as well as the recommendation to have adjacent 5 GHz radios operating on non-adjacent channels. This will start to become a bigger issue as we deploy more 5 GHz radios to handle capacity and user density demands. More manufacturers are considering developing software-defined radios (SDR) as well as multi-radio APs that have more than one radio operating in the 5 GHz band. You should carefully research and verify (through real-world testing) these solutions to ensure that interference within the AP is not an issue.

As always, the better you understand what's going on at the physical layer, the better wireless engineer and architect you will be. 

Happy signal hunting,
Andrew 

Friday, March 22, 2013

Safely Using 80 MHz Channels with 802.11ac

The big appeal of 802.11ac is higher bandwidth, which will be accomplished in first generation 11ac products primarily through the use of wider 80 MHz channels. Channel planning in 802.11ac also involves assigning primary channels to allow for dynamic per-frame channel width adjustments to reduce co-channel interference (CCI). In my last post, I recommended that you select only one primary 20 MHz channel at the channel width you can likely "guarantee" is free from CCI. This means that most enterprises should design around 20 MHz or 40 MHz channels since they provide more non-overlapping channels to reduce CCI.

Why shouldn't you plan around 80 MHz channels? There likely aren't enough non-overlapping channels at 80 MHz to reduce co-channel interference, so you are better off planning around non-overlapping 40 MHz channels. 

But many organizations will still want to benefit from the higher peak performance gains that 802.11ac can provide. That's the big appeal, right?! The answer is to take advantage of the per-frame channel width capabilities of 802.11ac to dynamically allow wider channel use when the entire 80 MHz channel is clear (not busy).

Let's demonstrate by using two examples...

Example 1 - Planning around 40 MHz channels
You design your enterprise WLAN around non-overlapping 40 MHz channels because there are a sufficient number of channels for you to safely re-use channels across your environment without creating co-channel interference. You also enable 80 MHz channel width on your WLAN, which will be used on a "best-effort" basis if the entire 80 MHz channel is clear.

Note - One big assumption with this example is that DFS channels are supported by your clients. If not, then you're still best off planning around non-overlapping 20 MHz channels and using both 40 MHz and 80 MHz on a best-effort basis.

You designate primary 20 MHz channels so that it results in non-overlapping 40 MHz channels. If you're in the U.S. you can't use 40 MHz channels 118 and 126 (due to TDWR restrictions), so this results in 10 non-overlapping channels. If you're in the UK/EU you can't use 40 MHz channels 151 and 159 (due to Band C licensing), so this also results in 10 non-overlapping channels.

802.11ac Non-Overlapping 40 MHz Channels
Remember that administrators only configure the primary 20 MHz channel, and the primary 40 MHz and 80 MHz channels are dynamically assigned by the AP. I provide a deeper explanation in my post on 802.11ac Channel Planning. In this graphic, primary channels at various channel widths are denoted with gray and dotted-gray shading.

You'll also need to consider AP channel assignment based on physical AP locations in order to maximize the likelihood that 80 MHz channel widths can be used without co-channel interference. You can accomplish this by skipping one primary 20 MHz channel when assigning channels to neighboring APs. For example, if AP1 and AP2 are neighbors, assign AP1 primary channel 36 and AP2 primary channel 52, skipping channel 44. In this manner, neighboring APs result with different 80 MHz channels which are less likely to interfere with one another.

Here you can see that the greater number of 40 MHz channels reduces CCI when compared to 80 MHz channels. 80 MHz channel width can still be on a best-effort basis, if enabled, but remember that two adjacent 40 MHz channels will still use the same 80 MHz channel width. In this example, channels 38 and 46 would share the same 80 MHz channel 42. We have staggered them in our RF design to decrease the signal strength between the two and maximize the possibility of 80 MHz use, even though we can't guarantee it.

40 MHz Co-Channel Interference is Less Likely
In this manner, we have enabled 80 MHz channel use, but have assured ourselves that we can safely fallback to 40 MHz channel width on a per-frame basis if the larger channel width is busy. This allows us to take advantage of the higher performance that 802.11ac wide channels offer without creating large collision domains and high levels of co-channel interference.

Example 2 - Planning around 80 MHz channels is a recipe for disaster!
You design your enterprise WLAN around non-overlapping 80 MHz channels, even though there is greater AP density than non-overlapping channels. You've decided to take a gamble and see if you can get the higher performance that wider channels bring all the time, at the risk of creating more co-channel interference.

You designate primary 20 MHz channels that result in non-overlapping 80 MHz channels (36, 52, 100, 116, 132, 149). If you're in the U.S. you won't be able to use channel 122 (due to TDWR restrictions), so you're left with 5 non-overlapping 80 MHz channels. If you're in the UK/EU you won't be able to use channel 155 (due to Band C licensing), so you're left with 5 non-overlapping 80 MHz channels as well.

802.11ac Non-Overlapping 80 MHz Channels

However, you have a fairly dense AP deployment, resulting in some co-channel interference between APs. Let's say two APs, both using 80 MHz channel 42 can hear one another and sense that the air is busy. Using the per-frame channel width capabilities of 802.11ac, they attempt to back-down to smaller channel widths. However, there is a problem... since you've designed your primary channels based on an 80 MHz channel width, both APs attempt to back-down to the same primary 40 MHz channel (ch38) and primary 20 MHz channel (ch36). They can't avoid the co-channel interference! This results in both APs sharing airtime and reducing network performance and capacity.

80 MHz Co-Channel Interference is Likely

This happens because when you plan around the larger 80 MHz channel width, the primary channels that are assigned at the smaller channel widths are more likely to result in co-channel interference as well. Therefore, if co-channel interference does occur, the neighboring APs will be unable to back-down to smaller channel widths to avoid the interference.

It would be better to allow them to back-down to non-overlapping 40 MHz channels, breaking apart their collision domains so they can both transmit at the same time and avoid co-channel interference. This is exactly what happens when you plan around smaller channel widths instead!

Final Thoughts
With 802.11ac it may be tempting to use 80 MHz channel widths for peak performance. However, in order to reduce co-channel interference it is recommended that you derive your channel plan using non-overlapping 20 MHz or 40 MHz channels instead, allowing 80 MHz channel width on a best-effort basis. This allows APs to back-down to smaller channel widths that are non-overlapping when 80 MHz CCI is present using per-frame channel width capabilities available with 802.11ac. This allows APs to use the higher peak performance when possible, while maintaining separate collision domains at smaller channel widths when 80 MHz transmissions are not possible.

Cheers,
Andrew


802.11ac Gigabit Wi-Fi Series:

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

802.11ac Channel Planning

The forthcoming 802.11ac Gigabit Wi-Fi amendment will bring with it support for larger channels at 80 MHz and 160 MHz widths. This is one of the primary drivers behind the increased peak performance and bandwidth of wireless APs and clients. Therefore, careful consideration of channel widths allowed on APs and the channel plan for WLAN deployments must be made prior to an enterprise deployment.

Channel Numbering
First, let's tackle how channels are numbered and referenced in 802.11ac. The standard method to denote 5 GHz channels has been to always use the 20 MHz center channel frequencies for both 20 MHz and 40 MHz wide channels. Starting with 802.11n, 40 MHz channels were referenced as the primary 20 MHz channel plus an extension channel either above or below the primary channel. An example would be a 40 MHz channel consisting of channel 36 (primary) + 40 (extension above).

802.11ac changes how we reference larger channel widths. Instead of continuing to reference the 20 MHz extension channel(s), we will now reference the center channel frequency for the entire 20, 40, 80 or 160 MHz wide channel.

The valid channel numbers for various channel widths are:

Channel Width Valid Channel Numbers
20 MHz 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 60, 64, 100, 104, 108, 112, 116,
120, 124, 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 149, 153, 161, 165, 169
40 MHz 38, 46, 54, 62, 102, 110, 118, 126, 134, 142, 151, 159
80 MHz 42, 58, 106, 122, 138, 155
160 MHz 50, 114

This results in channel numbers that may look unfamiliar to most WLAN administrators. Simply remember that channel numbers increment by one for every 5 MHz increase in frequency. This will probably be easier to reference through a graphic for most people. In the graphic below, identify the center of each 80 MHz and 160 MHz channel block, follow it up to the 20 MHz IEEE channel numbers, then split the difference between the two 20 MHz channel numbers that it falls between. For example, the 80 MHz channel block in UNII-1 is centered between channels 40 and 44; splitting the difference gives us channel 42.

5 GHz Channels, with DFS and TDWR Restrictions
Non-Overlapping Channels
As I previously detailed in my post on the impact of 802.11ac on enterprise networks, these wide channel widths may not be realistic to use in an enterprise environment where multiple access points are deployed on non-overlapping channels and co-channel interference must be minimized. To recap:
  • 80 MHz wide channels allow for five (5) non-overlapping channels in the U.S. and five (5) in the UK/EU (channels 149 and higher require light licensing for outdoor use only) when DFS is used, but only two (2) channels in the U.S. and one (1) in UK/EU without DFS.
  • 160 MHz wide channels allow for one (1) non-overlapping channel in the U.S. and two (2) in the UK/EU, with DFS being mandatory for their use in all circumstances.
Note - In the U.S. channels 120-128 are prohibited due to TDWR restrictions, and in the UK/EU channels in Band C (equivalent to UNII-3) require "light" licensing an are restricted to outdoor use.

I'm purposely going to skip the 160 MHz wide channels that are possible using 80+80 MHz discontiguous channels for simplicity at this point.

It's clear that 80 MHz channels will be hard to implement in an enterprise setting that requires high capacity due to issues with channel re-use and minimizing co-channel interference. Even when DFS is used, only 4 or 5 non-overlapping channels will be available. And forget about using 160 MHz channels in the enterprise... leave those for home use where only one AP will be deployed (and hopefully you're neighbors don't live too close to cause interference)!

However, it's not quite as dire a situation as that. There is a saving grace that will allow enterprises to take advantage of these wider channels on a "best-effort" basis. Let's step back for a moment - with 802.11n, 40 MHz channels were an all-or-nothing proposition. The APs channel width was statically set at 20 or 40 MHz.  On the other hand, 802.11ac allows per-frame channel width and bandwidth signaling. Practically, this means that WLAN administrators can allow the use of wider channels by APs and clients when all of the constituent smaller channels are clear. If a portion of the large channel is busy at the point in time when a frame needs to be transmitted, for instance a neighboring AP or WLAN is actively using a 20 or 40 MHz portion, then the AP or client can simply back down and use the primary 20 or 40 MHz portion of the larger channel that is clear. For the next frame transmission, if the entire 80/160 MHz channel is clear then the AP or client can ramp back up and use the full channel width.

Critical to this dynamic per-frame channel width procedure is the notion of the primary and secondary channels. The WLAN administrator must designate which 20 MHz segment within a 40, 80, or 160 MHz wide channel is the primary 20 MHz channel. This channel forms the core frequency segment that the BSS (basic service set) or AP radio operates on. Based on the channel blocks depicted in the table above, the BSS will then automatically designate the primary 40 MHz and primary 80 MHz channels by extending the primary 20 MHz channel (moving downward through the table). Only the 40 MHz and 80 MHz channels pictured in the table are allowed. For example primary 20 MHz channel 56 can only be expanded into 40 MHz channel 54 (combining channel 56 and 52); combination with channel 60 is not allowed. For easy reference, just use the channels as depicted :)

802.11ac Primary and Secondary Channels
(Image from 802.11ac: A Survival Guide)

For example, consider a 160 MHz channel in UNII-1 / UNII-2 where the WLAN admin has selected channel 60 as the primary 20 MHz channel. The primary 40 MHz channel will be 62, and the primary 80 MHz channel will be 58. If any portion of the secondary 80 MHz channel (ch42) is busy then the frame can use the primary 80 MHz channel (ch58). If any portion of the secondary 40 MHz channel (ch54) is busy then the frame can use the primary 40 MHz channel (ch62). And if any portion of the secondary 20 MHz channel (ch64) is busy then the frame can use the primary 20 MHz channel (ch60). This allows an AP or client to dynamically fallback to narrower channel widths in the presence of co-channel interference or noise that only affects a portion of the larger channel.

This has some interesting implications for channel planning!

Developing a Channel Plan
Since eliminating co-channel interference is one of the main objectives in designing a WLAN channel plan, you'll want to carefully consider how you select the operating channel width and primary 20 MHz channels for APs in order to avoid co-channel interference.

First, determine if DFS channels can be used in your environment based on proximity to radar systems and client device support. DFS client support with 802.11a/n has been spotty at best. Hopefully 802.11ac clients will support DFS channels since 5 GHz support is mandated by the amendment and the FCC has eased DFS band adoption by clients since they no longer have to implement radar detection if they passively scan (listen-only) for an AP before transmitting any frames. In essence, they are relying on the AP to perform the radar detection and begin operating on a DFS channel if allowed. But until the time comes when a majority of clients support DFS channels, administrators must verify what channels the client devices on their network support so they don't cause coverage holes by having APs operate on channels that clients can't use.

Second, determine the channel width that you want to attempt to "guarantee" to client devices, which needs to be free of co-channel interference as much as possible. This needs to be based on the density of your AP deployment as well as client device capabilities. Remember - 802.11ac certified clients must support 80 MHz channel width, while 160 MHz channel width is optional. The key is to ensure that every AP has fewer neighboring APs within radio range than non-overlapping channels available.
  • In high-density areas, this should be 20 MHz (stadiums, large event centers, urban areas with many neighboring WLANs, etc.).
  • In normal-density areas, this is likely to be 40 MHz channels (large building office space). 
  • In low-density areas this could be 80 MHz channels (small buildings, few neighbors, etc.).  
  • In single-AP areas, this could be 160 MHz channels (such as homes or very small offices).

Third, make a list of the acceptable primary 20 MHz channels that results in non-overlapping channels at the "guaranteed" channel width. This will maximize the likelihood of transmitting at the wider channel width without causing interference with other APs. For example, if attempting to guarantee non-overlapping 80 MHz channels, limit the allowed subset of primary 20 MHz channels to 36, 52, 100, 116, 132, and 149. The specific 20 MHz channels could be different than I have listed in this example, but the key point is that only ONE primary 20 MHz channel be allowed within each "guaranteed" wider channel width.

Finally, channels will be configured by WLAN administrators in two steps:
  1. Select a channel width (20, 40, 80, 160 MHz) for AP or WLAN operation
    This should be the "guaranteed" channel width, at minimum. It could be larger than the "guaranteed" channel width if you want to allow APs and clients to achieve higher peak performance when the network is fairly idle. Since this can be done on a per-frame basis and clear-channel assessment is performed prior to transmission, allowing dynamic use of wider bandwidth shouldn't result in significantly more collisions. But it will result in more co-channel interference (sharing of bandwidth) between neighboring APs. The exact impact of per-frame channel width and co-channel interference in a multi-AP environment will require more in-depth testing once 802.11ac equipment is released. I would stick with using the "guaranteed" channel width until you are able to test in your own environment.

  2. Assign the primary 20 MHz channel to each AP (or allow auto-assignment)
    The primary 40 MHz and 80 MHz channels will be determined automatically based on the primary 20 MHz channel selected. If "Auto" channel planning is used, which is common in enterprise WLAN equipment, ensure the subset of primary 20 MHz channels allowed to be assigned to APs is limited to those in your list.
Final Thoughts
802.11ac offers exciting prospects for "Gigabit" Wi-Fi. However, most of the benefit of the first wave of products centers around the use of ever-wider channels. Two barriers to the use of these wider channels exist for enterprise WLANs:
  1. Limited spectrum, resulting in insufficient channels to facilitate a re-use plan that effectively allows wider channels without excessive co-channel interference.
  2. Greater reliance on DFS channels to provide more spectrum and channels, which many Wi-Fi clients do not support today.
Luckily, the engineers designing 802.11ac learned from 802.11n's shortcomings and devised a clever method to minimize co-channel interference through per-frame channel width adaptation and the designation of primary channels. This presents a fundamental shift in how administrators should approach WLAN channel planning. Administrators should be careful in selecting primary 20 MHz channels that result in non-overlapping channels at the larger channel widths that they wish to use in their environments. Also, a heavier reliance on DFS channels is required to realize the benefits that 802.11ac has to offer in an enterprise environment. Enterprises will need to evaluate what devices are in use on their WLANs to determine if 5 GHz DFS channel use is feasible. This can be especially problematic with personal devices where the organization has little control over the devices being used. However, consumer device lifecycles are typically shorter than enterprise lifecycles, so the adoption of 802.11ac capable client devices should occur relatively quickly (~2 years).

From an implementation perspective, most enterprises should plan around non-overlapping 40 MHz channels, or even 20 MHz channels in high-density areas. If the FCC frees up an additional 195 MHz of shared spectrum in late 2014 or early 2015 then designing around non-overlapping 80 MHz channels (or possibly even 160 MHz channels) in the U.S. will become much more practical.

Cheers,
Andrew


802.11ac Gigabit Wi-Fi Series:

Monday, March 18, 2013

Video Blog: High-Density Wi-Fi Design Part 1 - Forecasting AP Capacity

In my previous post, Design your WLAN for High Capacity, I outlined the increasing demands being placed on modern enterprise WLANs caused by the growth in the number of Wi-Fi connected devices, the proliferation of mobile devices and BYOD, and the increasing reliance on the WLAN as the primary network for users in the enterprise. As described in the Aerohive High-Density Wi-Fi Design and Configuration Guide, the key to supporting this increased demand is to design the WLAN for capacity rather than simply coverage.

The first step in designing a WLAN to meet capacity demands is to perform adequate requirements gathering. This starts with a proper understanding of client device capabilities. Because RF is a shared environment, the capacity is determined by the capabilities of the AP infrastructure and the client devices, application bandwidth requirements, and the resulting airtime utilization that results from their unique combination.

In this first of three videos on high-density Wi-Fi design, I describe how these variables interact and can be used to derive a preliminary forecast of the required AP capacity to support the intended network load. I also walk through a few examples to highlight how to apply this method to both homogenous and heterogeneous client environments.

The resulting AP capacity forecast is a starting point to aid the RF design and site survey process. The value in deriving the AP capacity forecast is to ensure that capacity needs are properly accounted for in the site survey process. For example, even though one AP may provide adequate coverage in a university lecture hall, several more APs may be required for capacity. Historically, RF site surveys have only focused on providing adequate RF coverage for the physical area, which may provide sufficient signal in all desired locations but lack AP and channel capacity to successfully support the client and application load.




Once you’ve watched the examples in the video, walk through a few of your own scenarios using the requirements gathering worksheets in the appendix of the Aerohive High-Density Wi-Fi Design and Configuration Guide.

Stay tuned for the remaining two videos in this series, where I’ll cover key RF design and network configuration principles for high-density networks.


Read the Entire High-Density Wi-Fi Design Series:


Cheers,
Andrew



Full Disclosure - This video was created in cooperation with Aerohive Networks, my current employer. 

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Wi-Fi May Get A Capacity Boost, Thanks to the FCC

Have you heard the news? Wi-Fi stands to be the glorious recipient of much more capacity. However, this is not set in stone; far from it. It depends on spectrum policy decisions the FCC is weighing right now, with the help of Congress and the NTIA (a federal agency that advises the President on telecommunications and information policy issues) .

If Wi-Fi is the lucky recipient of more unlicensed spectrum, what would it look like?

Proposed New 5 GHz Wi-Fi Channels
What does this mean for Wi-Fi networks?
  1. More channels, and MUCH more capacity! When we exclude channels 120, 124, and 128 which can't be used due to TDWR restrictions, we get:
    • 20 MHz - 12 additional channels, 54% more than we have today (22 channels) = 34 total channels!
    • 40 MHz - 6 additional channels, 60% more than we have today (10 channels) = 16 total channels!
    • 80 MHz - 3 additional channels, 60% more than we have today (5 channels) = 8 total channels!
    • 160 MHz - 2 additional channels, 200% more than we have today (1 channel) = 3 total channels!
  2. Realistic use of 80 MHz and 160 MHz channel width in multi-AP enterprise environments. As I previously stated, the sparse amount of channels available at 80 MHz and 160 MHz channel widths make them impractical for use in enterprise environments due to inadequate channel spacing and co-channel interference. With this additional spectral capacity, sufficient channels will be available to allow the use of 80 MHz channels in most environments, and 160 MHz channel use in many office environments. The only likely holdout where these larger channel widths would not be appropriate are in very high density deployments. (Further reading: The Impact of 802.11ac Gigabit Wi-Fi on Enterprise WLANs).
Here's a breakdown of how this U.S. spectrum policy initiative got started and what remains to be done (Further reading: The Need for a Balanced U.S. Spectrum Policy):
  • Feb 2012 - Congress passed the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2012, which includes stipulations to investigate the use of 195 MHz of additional 5 GHz spectrum for unlicensed use, among other frequency bands.
  • Jul 2012 - The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a report supporting immediate methods to begin realizing the full potential of federal held spectrum to spur economic growth, largely through spectrum sharing techniques.
  • Jan 2013 - FCC Chairman Genachowski announced the effort to open more spectrum for unlicensed use at CES. (Further reading: Spectrum: The Gift that Gives You Faster 802.11ac).
  • Jan 2013 - NTIA released their initial study on spectrum sharing in these 5 GHz bands with existing primary users, mostly federal radar systems, and the risk of interference. (Further reading: NTIA weighs in on FCC's 195 MHz spectrum announcement).
  • Feb 2013 - The FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is due on 20-Feb and will outline the proposed spectrum policy. It will detail what bands are allowed for unlicensed use and what spectrum sharing and interference mitigation techniques are required to protect existing primary users. This NPRM will be crucial to understanding how much capacity Wi-Fi will gain, whether or not existing equipment will be compatible with a firmware upgrade, if new hardware is required, and the technical requirements that will dictate the feasible timeline for implementation and use.
Update - The FCC released the 5 GHz NPRM as expected on Feb 20th. Matthew Gast over at Aerohive Networks provided a good analysis of the NPRM. It looks like further in-depth study on the spectrum sharing and interference mitigation techniques will take until late 2014, and we could possibly get approval to use the new spectrum by early 2015.

It's worth noting that the European Commission is considering a similar course of promoting unlicensed spectrum policy [Full PDF, EESC Opinion Feb 2013].

This rulemaking is no small matter. The FCC spectrum policy defined over the course of 2013 will influence Wi-Fi network design and performance for the next decade (or more)! Just take a look at how the initial FCC rulemaking allowing unlicensed spectrum use in 1985 has influenced wireless networks to date, over a quarter-century later.

Here's to hoping 2013 brings a new infusion of unlicensed spectrum for the masses!

Cheers,
Andrew

Friday, March 25, 2011

Wireless Tech Field Day - MetaGeek Spectrum Analysis

MetaGeek was the first presenter at Wireless Tech Field Day and kicked off the event with a superb presentation and demonstration of their flagship products, the Wi-Spy DBx and Chanalyzer Pro.

The MetaGeek Wi-Spy family of wireless spectrum analysis adapters offers Wi-Fi engineers a workstation-based wireless physical layer analysis solution at a much lower cost than competitive products such as Cisco Spectrum Expert or AirMagnet Spectrum XT.

A Culture of Innovation
Ryan and Trent started off the presentation describing MetaGeek's roots as a company. Back in 2005, Ryan worked as a wireless protocol developer for semi-conductor company that manufactured parts for wireless mice. The company began experiencing problems with 2.4GHz mice not working properly, and narrowed the problem down to times when large amounts of Wi-Fi transfers were occurring. Ryan was dispatched to Japan to work with partners to resolve the issue.

As any IT engineers is well aware, the first step in troubleshooting is to accurately replicate the issue on-demand. At first, an intern was assigned the task of repetitively drawing circles with the mouse for data collection (poor schmuck!). And the cost of an industrial automated mouse tester proved prohibitive. However, Ryan developed a more elegant solution to automate the process using an unconventional technique that geeks will especially enjoy: Legos!
Lego Mouse Tester
The Lego mouse tester (it's official name) was controlled by a Lego RCX unit to provide variable speed and timed tests. The mouse tester allowed the company to accurately replicate the issue and provide a volume of data necessary to identify the interference issue, quantify impact, and develop a resolution. What's more important, is the experience got Ryan thinking about how to create an effective spectrum analyzer to observe and quantify the source of the problem, the RF environment. Thus, the first Wi-Spy adapter was born from the modification of a wireless mouse dongle!

MetaGeek still provides employees with 20% time to work on side-projects and keep innovation alive (as they have time and time again over the last 5 years)!

Product Features
The Wi-Spy adapter family and Chanalyzer software have evolved over time to provide a feature-rich spectrum analysis solution for inexperienced and "multi-hat" administrators, as well as professional wireless engineers. The Chanalyzer software's main display provides core RF information in the density and waterfall graphs, with additional relevant information such as duty cycle, networks, and channel data in tables in the lower pane.

Chanalyzer Density Graph
The best feature of the product, without a doubt, is the density graph (displayed above). This density graph shows similar data to the real-time fast fourier transmission (FFT) of other products by displaying RF data in an amplitude over frequency format. However, the RF energy is color-coded either by density (the collective amount of energy at specific points over time) or by amplitude (the energy intensity). This really make RF signal patterns "pop" as data is collected over time, allowing much easier pattern recognition by the user. This is what makes the tool simple and intuitive for users inexperienced in RF spectrum analysis. MetaGeek pioneered the use of the density view in 2007, and has since been adopted by AirMagnet (but not Cisco/Cognio). I still find MetaGeek's implementation the best.

Chanalyzer Pro
Timescale
Another great feature of the product is time segment analysis using the waterfall timescale panel on the left in Chanalyzer Pro (shown left). This allows the user to capture, pause, and rewind spectrum data to isolate and review potential issues. Additionally, the configurable time span being viewed allows the user to focus in as narrowly or broadly as required to pinpoint the pattern requiring further analysis. Spectral anomalies can easily be identified in the timescale, and hovering over a section presents a preview of the density graph at that point in time. Time segment analysis unifies the data in all other graphs and tables for complete replay capability. The feature is invaluable when performing spectrum surveys or for remote analysis by an expert after the issue has occurred. Competitive products also offer time segment analysis, but not as intuitively or comprehensively as Chanalzyer Pro in my opinion, offering recording and playback but not timescale previews that allow the user to quickly navigate to the point in time of most interest.


Chanalyzer Pro includes numerous other features, such as a report builder, device signature overlays, Wi-Fi network identification and overlays, and channel statistics.

Product Previews
To wrap up their presentation, MetaGeek showed us advanced previews of a few products and features they are actively working on. This provided the delegates opportunity to provide insights into how they use spectrum analysis products and desired features.

Ryan showed a live prototype of an iPad application for playback of recorded spectrum captures, which was a hit with the delegates to be sure! The need for portable Wi-Fi tools is always top of mind for wireless engineers, and MetaGeek has their sights on targeting that need in their products.

Ryan (right) and Trent (left) preview iPad integration

Other previews included work being performed on directional antenna prototypes for device locationing (similar to the current Device Finder antenna they offer), and remote spectrum sensors embedded in Pogoplug units. This will allow remote monitoring of spectrum at distributed offices, or on-demand shipment of a spectrum analysis solution to sites and installation by on-site personnel with minimal training involved. This reduces travel expenses for organizations to resolve wireless interference issues when expert staff is centrally located. Coupled with on-board storage and a remote access to the unit, this solution could be a killer feature for medium and large organizations.

Revolution or Evolution? - Andrew's Take
MetaGeek is a clear innovator in spectrum analysis. The company is focused on product differentiation and aggressively developing features to meet customer needs. What's more, the product provides comparable capabilities, and even better in many instances, than higher priced alternatives. The Wi-Spy is a great tool for both the inexperienced as well as the professional wireless engineer.

What also excites me about MetaGeek as a company is their solid grasp of customer requirements and a simple yet powerful user experience. Ryan, Trent, and team really listen to customer feedback and use it to drive product direction that makes sense for the company and remains relevant for users.

The Chanalyzer software does have a few gaps that should be noted. MetaGeek does not provide an in-house wireless site survey solution, but partner to integrate Wi-Spy into the VisiWave tool to map interference. Also, device identification has been a feature in flux for the company. They have created a large community forum for users to upload and share device signatures, and have integrated a few verified signatures into the Chanalyzer software. However, automatic device identification is not available; users must manually correlate observed RF patterns to the signatures.

MetaGeek also offers InSSIDer for Wi-Fi network discovery, Device Finder for interferer location via a directional antenna, and GPS integration with Google Earth maps.

Cheers,
Andrew

Other Posts You Might Like:

Monday, November 15, 2010

Nuts About Nets AirHORN Overview

AirHORN is an RF signal generator capable of transmitting standard Wi-Fi modulated signals on the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz ISM and UNII bands.

*Note – AirHORN does not support signal transmission in the 5GHz UNII-3 and ISM band (5.725 – 5.875 MHz).

The dual-band version of the product comprises a single USB adapter with internal antenna and a USB mount with cable extender for optimal device orientation and polarization. The single-band version comes with an external RP-SMA connector and 5dBi omni-directional antenna, offering the flexibility to use alternate external antennas. Installation of the product requires an available USB 2.0 port and Microsoft .NET 2.0 Framework. Older laptops and workstations with USB 1.1 ports will not work properly and the software will not initialize.


AirHORN is useful for RF antenna engineers when researching and developing wireless antenna propagation, amplifier performance, and receiver operation to ensure accurate signal transmission and reception according to desired specifications. It can also be used post-manufacture by wireless LAN engineers when designing and installing Wi-Fi networks, and is especially useful for directional and semi-directional antenna alignment. It can also be used in the absence of a Wi-Fi access point during pre-installation site surveys to identify optimal AP placement for complete RF coverage assessment as well as to avoid RF dead spots.

The signal generated by AirHORN is viewable with any spectrum analysis tool, such as the Cisco Spectrum Expert as shown in this demonstration.


Another good use for AirHORN is to combine its use with other network performance evaluation tools, such as NetStress, IxChariot, or Iperf to determine the negative impact that co-channel interference (CCI) and adjacent channel interference (ACI) can have on a Wi-Fi network from other RF sources. When combined, these tools can be used as a valuable training classroom lab aid to demonstrate these concepts to inexperienced wireless LAN engineers, to identify and measure the effects of neighboring RF impact to a Wi-Fi network, to generate impact assessment reports for management, and develop internal best practices around AP placement and channel overlap to minimize negative impact.

The product can also function as a denial of service (DoS) tool to cause severe disruption to a wireless LAN network since it utilizes 100% of available airtime (duty cycle). The signal generated by AirHORN is capable of completely wiping out a Wi-Fi network. However, the product is specifically designed to comply with all FCC regulations and IEEE standards for power output and transmission power is limited to 17dBm (50 mW). Also, AirHORN causes performance degradation in part because the signal transmission does not adhere to IEEE 802.11 medium contention rules and acts as a continuous transmitter.

Wireless LAN engineers should know that the tool is not automatically classified by Cisco CleanAir spectrum analysis access points. This is due to the CleanAir system architecture which splits RF signal processing between the Wi-Fi chipset and the SAgE spectrum chipset, with the focus of the SAgE chipset on non-Wi-Fi interference classification. The Wi-Fi modulated AirHORN RF signal is sent to the Wi-Fi chipset and are not processed by the SAgE chipset, with the resulting energy being interpreted as Wi-Fi adjacent channel interference and contributing to overall channel utilization. Therefore, the SAgE chipset and CleanAir system cannot classify the signal.

Product Link:

Cheers,
Andrew