Cisco Cisco Aironet 1572EAC Oudoor Access Point 白書
Copyright © 2015 Miercom Cisco Aironet 1570 Access Point
Page 2
The tests employed various real-world clients,
including Samsung Galaxy S4, S5, and Apple
iPhone 6 smartphones, along with iPads, Apple
MacBooks, and Dell laptops. This assorted mix
of client devices supported from one to three
spatial streams, supporting 802.11n and the
latest 802.11ac IEEE wireless standards.
including Samsung Galaxy S4, S5, and Apple
iPhone 6 smartphones, along with iPads, Apple
MacBooks, and Dell laptops. This assorted mix
of client devices supported from one to three
spatial streams, supporting 802.11n and the
latest 802.11ac IEEE wireless standards.
Cisco Aironet 1572 has built-in support for both
802.11ac and the predecessor 802.11n spec, as
well as earlier 802.11a/b/g. Models of the
Aironet 1570 Series come with internal
antennas or external antennas, and support
various AC, DC and cable/Power-over-Cable
(PoC) options.
802.11ac and the predecessor 802.11n spec, as
well as earlier 802.11a/b/g. Models of the
Aironet 1570 Series come with internal
antennas or external antennas, and support
various AC, DC and cable/Power-over-Cable
(PoC) options.
All 1570 models also support dual-band
operation
operation
– the ability to operate on both the
2.4-GHz
and
5-GHz
frequency
bands
concurrently. The Aironet 1570 Series supports
the maximum radiated RF power allowed by
law, which likely contributed to the Cisco AP's
superior performance over Aruba and Ruckus,
especially at longer distances
the maximum radiated RF power allowed by
law, which likely contributed to the Cisco AP's
superior performance over Aruba and Ruckus,
especially at longer distances
– we tested at up
to 1,000 feet (300 meters).
Aruba Networks' AP-275 and Ruckus Wireless'
T300 APs were each tested with the internal
antennas. Cisco 1572 models with internal and
external antennas were both employed in our
testing.
T300 APs were each tested with the internal
antennas. Cisco 1572 models with internal and
external antennas were both employed in our
testing.
Measuring Throughput
The best metric for comparing wireless
performance, which we applied throughout this
testing, is down-link throughput. That is the
amount of data that a user with a mobile device
actually realizes, and this is largely dependent
on the characteristics of the data and wireless
connection
performance, which we applied throughout this
testing, is down-link throughput. That is the
amount of data that a user with a mobile device
actually realizes, and this is largely dependent
on the characteristics of the data and wireless
connection
–
signal
strength,
distance,
frequency band, channel bandwidth, modulation,
protocol, application, and a host of other factors
including weather and interference.
protocol, application, and a host of other factors
including weather and interference.
Down-link throughput can be TCP-based
– the
connection-oriented transport protocol used for
Web browsing and FTP file downloads
Web browsing and FTP file downloads
– or
connectionless UDP, popularly used for audio,
VoIP and video streaming. Our testing for this
report used both but most of the results shown
are based on TCP.
VoIP and video streaming. Our testing for this
report used both but most of the results shown
are based on TCP.
The main tool that assured consistency of our
down-link throughput measurements was a
powerful tool from Ixia called IxChariot, which
simulates real-world applications to predict
device, system, and network performance.
down-link throughput measurements was a
powerful tool from Ixia called IxChariot, which
simulates real-world applications to predict
device, system, and network performance.
Every effort was made to ensure the same
conditions were applied with each Access Point.
conditions were applied with each Access Point.
But even during the same test with the same AP,
performance measurements varied. Subsequently
all tests were conducted multiple times and
averages were calculated. All the values shown in
this report are the average of multiple test runs.
performance measurements varied. Subsequently
all tests were conducted multiple times and
averages were calculated. All the values shown in
this report are the average of multiple test runs.
Test Cases
Four sets of tests were devised to exercise the
Access Points' comparative performance:
Access Points' comparative performance:
1. Outdoor Rate vs Range: Single and multiple
spatial streams 802.11ac devices
spatial streams 802.11ac devices
– Samsung
Galaxy S4s and S5s
– were tested at 300, 600 and
1,000 feet from the Access Points.
2. Outdoor Multi Client Performance and
Consistency: A total of 10 of Apple's 802.11ac
capable latest iPhone 6 smartphones were tested
simultaneously.
Consistency: A total of 10 of Apple's 802.11ac
capable latest iPhone 6 smartphones were tested
simultaneously.
3. Outdoor Mesh Backhaul Test: Wireless
throughput between two APs, linking two wired
networks that are 1,000 feet apart.
throughput between two APs, linking two wired
networks that are 1,000 feet apart.
4. High-Client Density Performance Test: The
average throughput per client, with a mix of
802.11n and 802.11ac devices, measured in
increments up to 100 clients.
average throughput per client, with a mix of
802.11n and 802.11ac devices, measured in
increments up to 100 clients.
Outdoor Rate vs Range Tests
A bird's-eye view of the outdoor test range is shown
on the next page. The four access points
on the next page. The four access points
– two
Cisco 1572 models, one with internal antenna and
one with external antenna, and the Aruba and
Ruckus APs
one with external antenna, and the Aruba and
Ruckus APs
– were mounted on the roof of the
building at the far right. The distance across two
parking lots was marked at 100-foot intervals.
parking lots was marked at 100-foot intervals.
In addition, for the backhaul test, a 30-foot tower at
the far left supported another Cisco AP, with local
wired subnet, 1,000 feet from the rooftop APs.
the far left supported another Cisco AP, with local
wired subnet, 1,000 feet from the rooftop APs.
The clients for these tests were placed on tables
that were positioned at the required distances, all
with a clear line of sight to the rooftop APs. See
that were positioned at the required distances, all
with a clear line of sight to the rooftop APs. See
How We Did It
on
page 8
for more details on the
test set-up.
For the rate-vs-range tests, two different clients
were employed, both supporting the latest IEEE
802.11ac wireless specification:
were employed, both supporting the latest IEEE
802.11ac wireless specification:
Samsung Galaxy S4, a widely deployed
Android
smartphone
that
employs
the
Broadcom WLAN chipset supporting a single
802.11ac spatial stream.
802.11ac spatial stream.
Samsung Galaxy S5, a newer Android smart-
phone model, supporting two spatial streams.