Header Only - DO NOT REMOVE - Extreme Networks

Different power range on same rf-domain

  • 25 September 2019
  • 9 replies

Hello community,

I would like to know if it was possible to assign a different smart-rf policy for APs from the same site.

For example, I have a big high-school with amphitheaters with lots of connections and classrooms where the number of APs is very dense with a high propagation verticality between my floors but also an administrative part which is a classic office area.

I would like to create a kind of smart-rf microcell policy with reduced power for coverage of high density areas and another in normal power mode.
Problem the smart-rf-policy only applies for one rf-domain and all my APs are in the same rf-domain.

Is there a way to do that to help my smart-rf policy and reduce the channel overlapp?

Strangely enough the command area tells us that we can assign a list of Channel and power but in fact only a list of channels is definable... a pity it corresponded to my need.

Smart RF Mode commands:
area Specify channel list/ power for an area

Vx-9000-1(config-smart-rf-policy-test)#area test ?
channel-list Select channel list for area

Thank you for your help 🙂

9 replies

Userlevel 3
You can group those by area or floor

#smart-rf-policy yourSMART-RF
area floor
Yes thank you Daniel,
But how can i assign different power-range to these area ?
Userlevel 6
The short answer to your question is - No.
You can assign only a single SmartRF Policy to an RF-Domain.
You can obviously configure the APs with the different static power levels - but that's not SmartRF of course.

What it sounds like you might be able to use though is the "Areas" and "Floors" functionality that is part of SmartRF.
This function allows you to essentially assign APs to an Area or a Floor such that SmartRF treats it differently from APs is other Areas or Floors or non-Areas/Floors. The easiest example to give for having this functionality is for buildings with multiple floors and having undesired signal bleed-through between Floors. The bleed-through can cause SmartRF to adjust the power downwards because it's seeing too much signal from adjacent floors. But if you assign the APs from each floor to their own 'Floor', then SmartRF functions such that it treats those APs on the floor as if they were their own separate SmartRF 'group'.
Now...this still doesn't let you create a different power range for these different groupings, but it will then let SmartRF possible RAISE or LOWER the power to levels that it previously would not have w/o using this functionality.

Check out THIS article on configuring it.
Hello Chris, thank you for your answer.
I have indeed already check the functionalities of floor and area but it is not the functions I am looking for.

I think I will create AP profiles with a static reduced power to limit interference.

Don't you think this feature could be interesting in some cases?

In addition, the descirption of the functionality area is includes the folowing :

area : Specify channel list and power for an area :

The description is therefore false..

Thank you 🙂
Userlevel 6
I'll say this - SmartRF is designed to limit CCC (co-channel contention) between the APs. Therefore, if you have a high density AP situation, SmartRF will drop the Tx power on the APs if needed to a low enough level to deal with things as best as possible (given that the lower limit Tx power level is configured in the SmartRF Policy). Therefore, the idea of having multiple SmartRF Policies, each having their own power range, would not normally be needed. There are always going to be corner-cases though and that's where static power/channel assignments usually come into play. So, just in case it's not already obvious, you CAN have a hybrid/mixture of APs in the same RFDomain where some are using the SmartRF Policy while others are assigned statically.
all right, thank you Chris for your reactivity !
have a nice day
Userlevel 2
Hello guys,

I would create an additional RF domain/smart RF and work with L3 roaming.
Hello Aviv,

Could you tell me a little more about that?

Doesn't L3 roaming only concern wlan in tunnel mode? In my case all my SSIDs are in bridge mode, I'm not a fan of tunnel mode architecture that relies on WAN links to send traffic to the remote controller.

Have you already implemented this type of features?

thank you
Userlevel 2

You should tunnel.
Since tunneling with VX9000 is not supported by extreme support team, You can test it by yourself in your lab.
Suggest it only if you don't have to meet a bandwidth requirements, because you don't have a dataplane with the VM.
Do it only if you well experienced with WING/networking.