[Battlemesh] 802.11ac improvements [was: What hardware still works?]
Juliusz Chroboczek
jch at pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Thu Feb 25 14:26:10 UTC 2016
>> .11ac doesn't bring any range improvements, and only marginal
>> improvements in spectral efficiency.
> Do you have any relevant data to back "only marginal improvements in
> spectral efficiency"?
Looking at the spec, the only feature I can see that improves spectral
efficiency is 256-QAM, which should give a 33% increase over 64-QAM. And
that's only used for perfect links (MCS 8 and 9). And it's optional.
> https://chiliproject.tetaneutral.net/projects/tetaneutral/wiki/NanoBeam
>
> On 40 MHz channels we do about x1.5+ in PC-radio-radio-PC measured TCP
> bandwidth between n and ac, both in lab and in real links with Ubiquity
> hardware.
Interesting. Perhaps the .11n driver doesn't implement the short guard
interval? SGI + 256-QAM as compared to SGI + 64-QAM would be a 48%
increase, which would fit your figures.
-- Juliusz
More information about the Battlemesh
mailing list