Cisco Cisco Aironet 3500e Access Point 백서
Copyright © 2010 Miercom
Cisco CleanAir Competitive
Page 6
Test Bed Diagram
How We Did It
Classification test:
For Cisco, an environment was created which utilized three AP3500 series access points, the
5508 Wireless Controller, Cisco Wireless Control System (WCS), and Cisco Mobility Services
Engine (MSE). For Motorola, we used two M520 sensors, one AP7131N access point, a
Motorola AirDefense 1250 server, and Motorola RFS7000 WLAN controller. Sensor locations for
both vendors were the same. Two sensors were placed at a distance of 50 feet apart, with the
interference source located equidistant between them. The third sensor was located
approximately 70 feet away. For interference sources, we used a standard countertop
microwave oven, set for 2:00 minutes on HIGH during the test. We also used 2.4GHz and 5GHz
cordless phone handset and base stations, 2.4GHZ and 5GHz wireless video surveillance
cameras, a Bluetooth headset and charging base station, as well as an RF jamming device.
5508 Wireless Controller, Cisco Wireless Control System (WCS), and Cisco Mobility Services
Engine (MSE). For Motorola, we used two M520 sensors, one AP7131N access point, a
Motorola AirDefense 1250 server, and Motorola RFS7000 WLAN controller. Sensor locations for
both vendors were the same. Two sensors were placed at a distance of 50 feet apart, with the
interference source located equidistant between them. The third sensor was located
approximately 70 feet away. For interference sources, we used a standard countertop
microwave oven, set for 2:00 minutes on HIGH during the test. We also used 2.4GHz and 5GHz
cordless phone handset and base stations, 2.4GHZ and 5GHz wireless video surveillance
cameras, a Bluetooth headset and charging base station, as well as an RF jamming device.
Self-Healing test:
Five clients were placed at locations ranging from 10 to 100 feet from the access point. Each client
was continuously receiving a looped low bandwidth video stream. Since the video player application
performed buffering of the stream, we had a command prompt window continuously pinging the
access point to determine the moment when communication was interrupted. Timing was performed
with a stopwatch. We selected three locations for the interference source: Location A at 10 feet from
the access point; Location B at 50 feet; and Location C at 100 feet. We expected each client to be
affected at different levels based on their proximity to the interference source, and the interference
source proximity to the access point. At location C, we expected that the client 100 feet away from the
AP and closest to the interferer would be dropped, but others would continue to communicate in an
unimpaired state. The interference source we chose was the 2.4GHz video surveillance camera, as it
had the most negative impact, and the first AP we tested was the Cisco 3500 series.
was continuously receiving a looped low bandwidth video stream. Since the video player application
performed buffering of the stream, we had a command prompt window continuously pinging the
access point to determine the moment when communication was interrupted. Timing was performed
with a stopwatch. We selected three locations for the interference source: Location A at 10 feet from
the access point; Location B at 50 feet; and Location C at 100 feet. We expected each client to be
affected at different levels based on their proximity to the interference source, and the interference
source proximity to the access point. At location C, we expected that the client 100 feet away from the
AP and closest to the interferer would be dropped, but others would continue to communicate in an
unimpaired state. The interference source we chose was the 2.4GHz video surveillance camera, as it
had the most negative impact, and the first AP we tested was the Cisco 3500 series.