Wi-Fi Design Strategies in a Converged World Webinar: Your Questions Answered.

We had an amazing webinar on “Wi-Fi Design Strategies in a Converged World”. Our guest speaker Ronald van Kleunen, CEO of Globeron did a great job discussing why it’s important to understand the impact of convergence while designing high‑performing Wi‑Fi networks and how different wireless technologies can work together.

As promised Ronald, along with iBwave’s Vladan Jevremovic and Ali Jemmali took some time to answer most of the questions that were asked by our enthusiastic audience. This is the first in a series of blog posts where we will share these answer with you. So read on and feel free to comment and share your feedback.

And in case you missed this webinar or simply need a refresher, here is a link to the recording: Wi-Fi Design Strategies Webinar.

This week’s topic: Wi-Fi Design

1- How do you verify the design after implementation?

[Ronald]

RF Coverage validation can be done in iBwave Wi-Fi with the Site Survey tool (there is a Passive and an Active Survey option).

Passive means the Wi-Fi adapter is not connected to a network and visualizes RF coverage areas of different SSIDs (Service Set Identifiers) called an “RF Heatmap”
Active means, the adapter is connected to an AP (“BSSID – Basic Service Set IDentifier”, like a Single AP) or to an SSID (which can exist out of multiple APs covering an RF network)

To validate RF Capacity is a bit more difficult, there are some “Wi-Fi client simulators” creating multiple clients to connect to the AP (to test the capacity of the clients associating, throughput tests, etc.). Alternatively, real clients can be used, but this is very costly.

2- What are the expected trends of Wi-Fi design in the context of future 5G?

[Ronald]

Currently 5G is a hot topic for both outdoor and indoor “small cells” architectures for cellular and mobile devices, but one of the difficulties in many countries is the availability of the 5G Spectrum (700 MHz) and the auction model’s governments will implement for operators to bid-on. As an example, Singapore is one of the first countries that gave spectrum to do trials for 5G. Note that Spectrum management does not mandate the technology used in the assigned spectrum.

Both technologies will co-exist for several reasons:

Price (Wi-Fi / unlicensed spectrum = cheap vs 5G / licensed is expensive)
Adoption/Developers, more developers with Wi-Fi enabled equipment vs 5G (think about IoT over Wi-Fi, versus IoT over 5G)
Public wireless networks might be preferred by 5G, because of better roaming / coverage (e.g. over a country) vs Wi-Fi being limited in RF coverage and roaming options
Enterprises probably will stick to Wi-Fi for their own production network and operations, because of confidentiality of data to remain within the facility and not going via the DataCenters of the Telco providers

3- I want to know the weak, strong areas of the AP ‘s coverage

[Ronald]

Vladan of iBwave did an excellent presentation how to use iBwave Wi-Fi from an RF Design perspective (Ref: overcoming the capacity challenge available via this webinar link) , but also the survey tool will help to find the weak areas.

4- Capacity Planning & Channel/frequency Planning

[Ronald]

Yes this is covered for Wi-Fi and can be automated in the iBwave Wi-Fi tool for areas/zones, number of active devices and applications (e.g. e-mail and data requirements,voice requirements, etc.) it is very detailed.

5- How do I design for capacity instead of coverage of Wi-Fi? How do 2×2:2, 3×3:3 or 4×4:4 APs differ in designing for capacity?

[Ronald]

Capacity – see Vladan’s webinar as he covered the RF capacity planning ((Ref: overcoming the capacity challenge available via this webinar link)

[Vladan / Ali]

2×2:2, 3×3:3 and 4×4:4 are different focusing on the spatial streams and Tx and Rx radios for max. DATARATES only (thus not throughput as many factors impact the throughput). Streams to be used depends on the client as well what their capabilities are. To design, these APs need to be in the iBwave Wi-Fi tool which takes into account the Antenna RF propagation.

6- How accurate/ feasible is it to design networks without being physically present in the site?

[Ronald]

The RF planning tools can plan till a certain extent (including wall attenuation levels, etc.), but what cannot be planned in advance are:

Neighboring buildings with Wi-Fi and non-Wi-Fi devices operating in the same spectrum
Other devices in the building (e.g. Microwave ovens in 2.4GHz)
Other equipment in the building (e.g. metal cabinets, racks in a warehouse, storing different products at shelves in a supermarket)
People walking around the facility.

7- How does RF mapping gets affected by different flavors of Wi-Fi (802.11n, ac , ah etc…).

[Ronald]

In the RF mapping / planning tool, the way the technology works (like number of spatial streams, bandwidth 20 MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, Transmit Output power settings of the AP, etc., protocol used) are all kind of variables impacting the RF propagation and RF Heatmap visualization (but there are more factors affecting it, like number of APs on the same channel, building materials like concrete walls, etc.).

8- How to remove Co-Channel Interference and how to measure it?

[Ronald]

Proper channel planning is important, but eventually multiple APs will be on the same channel (Co-Channel interference). SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio) is one of the factors for client devices to decide to which AP to connect to, but there are more factors (4x conditions: Physical Carrier Sense, Virtual Carrier Sense, IFS completed and Random Back-off Timer / Slots completed).

Adjacent Channel interference (overlapping channels is worse) as the APs cannot hear each other and therefor Co-Channel interface is a bit better as the Wi-Fi frame can be interpreted by the other devices on the channel. Furthermore, take into account Client Induced Interference as these are also radio transmitters and can affect the communication of other APs / devices on the same channel.

To measure Co-Channel interference:

Spectrum Analyzers
Reconnaissance tools
Protocol Analyzers
Integrated Site survey tools

9- During the recorded demo, you went from your predictive plan straight to installation, then conducted a verification survey afterwards. Would you not do a pre-deployment survey as well to collect surrounding passive data and confirm your predictive AP locations are correct within a live environment? (in case live propagation differs to your prediction).

[Ronald]

Correct (the demo was a bit focusing on key aspects), but you are right, that need to be added to video. The RF planning is done, but you always need to go on-site to understand the environment as it is always different than expected. Also, measurements need to be done to check the wall types and attenuation levels, leakage of neighboring buildings Wi-Fi networks, furniture in the office (like metal cabinets), other equipment operating in the same frequencies (like microwave ovens).

10- What are the main criteria to design a Wi-Fi network, is there a specific standard or a table showing different Service Levels?

[Ronald]

No there is not, as covered in the presentation there are several organizations involved in standardization and in progress for Wi-Fi networks by the WLAN Association (WLA)

In general, the approach works for any wireless network

Get the requirements (end-users, # devices, roaming, costs, etc.) “Red book”
Design the network “Blue book”
Install “White book”
Validate “Green book”
And in addition, there should be also one covering
Operate and Monitor

It is hard to give Service Availability Levels for wireless networks.

Here are some videos:

WSMS (Wireless Service Management System)

Need for Wireless Service & Security Standardization

11- Key parameter for design and planning requirement, Site Survey requirement, Planning guideline.

[Ronald]

Focusing on the Wi-Fi industry that is something that does not exist. There are books (like the Sybex version of the Certified Wireless Design Professional, but these are checklists of “what need to be done” and not “how it needs to be done”. The Wireless LAN Association (WLA) is in an initial progress looking into this (the 4x books, Requirement phase, Design phase, Implementation Phase and Validation Phase). Some vendors have a kind of wizard built-in and like iBwave parameters have been set already for different type of applications (like e-mail, voice, video traffic) and it can be customized as it depends also on the vertical market segment.

12- How should I consider APs that are on adjacent floors to provide Wi-Fi coverage and capacity? Or do I not consider those and design each floor independently?

[Ronald]

Correct. You typically design per floor level to have good RF coverage and Capacity for clients for different areas. If you have open spaces (like Atriums, you need to take that into account, maybe AP Transmit Radio Powers need to be reduced to avoid RF leakage through those Atriums, which means that suddenly clients see too many APs)

In the design tool (between the floors) you also need to see the attenuation levels (e.g. a very thick concrete floor or not), but if the APs can hear each other in 3D, then you also need to look at the Channel allocation that they do not interfere on the same channels (e.g. APs “stacked” on Channel 1).

13- I would like to know more about in-building design, Wi-Fi Design and DAS Design

[Ronald]

www.globeron.com/onlinetraining (Wi-Fi Training Certified Wireless Design Professional and also look into Certified Wireless Network Administrator as it covers RF, Spectrum, Protocols, Site Survey, Design, Analysis and Security)

BICSI 006-2015 Distributed Antenna System (DAS) Design and Implementation Best Practices https://www.bicsi.org/book_details.aspx?Book=BICSI-006-CM-15-v5

Go to the USA Conferences there are several presentations about DAS https://www.bicsi.org/single.aspx?l=1712

Winter Conference: https://www.bicsi.org/winter/2017/attendee.aspx?id=8734

14- How is Wi-Fi monitored i.e. capacity limits, interference, etc. just like other technologies?

[Ronald]
There are several product vendors that have Wi-Fi Management systems where they get the information from the Wireless infrastructure components (like APs, Controllers, etc.). Some do only dedicated Wi-Fi Performance Management utilizing a centralized server and so called “Sensors” being deployed to monitor the Wi-Fi traffic and similar systems exist to monitor the Wi-Fi Security (Wireless Intrusion Detection / Prevention Systems) using Sensors. The advanced systems can do a combination and utilizing dual-band or tri-band APs were 1 or 2 radios provide Wi-Fi services (2.4 GHz and 5 GHz) and another radio provides Senso services

15- Is there anything on Wi-Fi SON (distributed or mesh) ?

[Ronald]

Self Organizing Networks (SON): https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2016/01/05/qualcomm-launches-wi-fi-son-self-organizing-network-solutions-simplify-wi

I do not have experience with this “SON” technology and how it operates. It looks proprietary to certain vendors. Other vendors also have kind of “self-healing” type of technology, like Radio Resource Management (RRM), Adaptive Radio Management (ARM), Smart RF, Channel Fly, looking and optimizing the RF aspects, but the other key features mentioned in SON are also supported by most vendors:

SON – Key features include:

Self-configuring that enables plug-and-play deployment (most vendors support adaptive AP adoption to controllers/cloud and management)
Self-managing that offers autonomous performance optimization
Self-healing actively detects and resolves connectivity bottlenecks (as mentioned above)
Self-defending that secures the network from unauthorized access (integrated WIPS systems).

16- Do you have High Density WLAN examples?

[Ronald]

Here are more details related to High Density WLAN

[Ronald]

High Density at Airports
https://www.globeron.com/freedownload/services/Globeron-Wi-Fly-or-We-Cry-7-Aug-2016.pdf

Next week’s topic: Convergence, Stay tuned!

Cheytec Telecommunications Brings Better Indoor Coverage to the Enterprise using iBwave

Given our ever-growing need for data in today’s world of smart cities, smart buildings and the Internet of Things, the need for fast, reliable connectivity indoors has never been greater. Especially when it comes to the Enterprise.

Traditionally, wireless operators have been the main drivers for deploying indoor wireless networks to Enterprise venues and real estate properties. But with tenant and user demand out-pacing the carrier’s ability to -fund systems, building owners and Enterprise customers are now seeing the value of making capital investments in their properties and meet the demands of their network users.

Meet Cheytec Telecommunications, an iBwave customer whodelivers multi-operator turnkey in-buildng LTE solutions. Cheytec is helping to make an economic shift away from the carrier by expanding the addressable market to include building owners and enterprises. Cheytec does this by working with the wireless operators to bring their spectrum into buildings and leverage a highly developed partner network for both technology and service delivery. Capital investments in LTE coverage made by the building owner enables not just great indoor wireless service, but the opportunity for increased cash flows, higher valuations for property portfolios and new revenue sources. For wireless operators, the in-building system helps extend indoor coverage, densify networks, offer new services to current customers and gain net-new subscribers.

How has iBwave helped?

Designing a multi-carrier indoor wireless networks certainly comes with its fair share of challenges, especially when you are designing for multiple technologies – Small Cells, DAS, and Neutral Host D-RAN(C-RAN), and multiple different venue types.

Previously, Cheytec typically used iBwave to design sports stadiums and transportation hubs – but now they are focusing more on the Enterprise verticals, and with that comes different challenges to overcome. For example, the image on the right shows a heatmap generated in iBwave Design for a 4 story office building which Cheytec used to help select the right solution for this particular venue, accurately assess coverage and capacity requirements and estimate the cost of the entire system.

When using iBwave Design Enterprise, our multi-technology indoor wireless network planning and design platform, Cheytec’s engineers work more productively and can focus simultaneously on multiple projects. The result? Cheytec has reduced their network design process time by an estimated 30%.

Additionally, iBwave expedites the customer approval process significantly as customers recognize that they only use top quality tools and technologies within their designs – and that they have the ability to offer a wide range of in-building technology solutions with multiple design options.

These benefits also lead to reduced time spent on project coordination internally. Because of the speed and flexibility of iBwave Design, it allows Cheytec to accomodate design changes without necessarily altering the project timeline.

“By using iBwave we shorten our response time in terms of delivering a proposal enabling our team to close more deals and generate more revenue.”

José Sangiuliano – Chief Technology Officer, Cheytec Telecommunications

Cheytec’s Favorite iBwave Features

When asked what their favorite features are in iBwave Design, here is what Cheytec said (and why):

Automation of Design Enterprise Networks

With the powerful and intelligent design automation that iBwave provides, design errors are reduced and the time to produce and change designs is accelerated – iBwave also provides them with an efficient way to provide alternative design options for comparative purposes.

3D Predictive Modeling

3D predictive modeling has also been very helpful to Cheytecby providing their customers with a powerful way to visually show the benefits of the proposed solutions and the network performance prediction results, similar to the image on the right showing the 3D model for 40+ story hotel DAS project.

Design and Simulation of Most Cost-Efficient Designs

Also, with the capability to design the entire network using the iBwave database of over 25,000 network components for all wireless technologies, Cheytec is always able to generate a full BOM with Cost Details. This means always being sure they are simulating the most cost-efficient designs, and that their customers have the best design possible for their specific building.

Cheytec’s mission is to deploy the right solution into the right building every time. Using iBwavehas helped them to achieve this consistently.

Conclusion

iBwave has been a key partner for Cheytec by providing a powerful, flexible and comprehensive software solution to provide Enterprise customers and property owners with turnkey LTE solutions that drive value.

Thanks for being such a great customer Cheytec Telecommunications!

Are you an iBwave customer that wants to be featured in our Customer Spotlight series? Send us an email at marketing@ibwave.com

How Poor Modeling Can Impact RF Performance and Cost

Intro

In May 2017 we went on a whirl wind of a User Group tour that took us to three different cities across the United States: New York, Dallas, and Newport Beach. In each user group we always like to hear from our users – what they are up to, the challenges they see out there in the field, and of course to share any stories and insights they have from all of that.

One such presentation done at the Newport Beach user group was done by Shane Rubin, Vice President – National Wireless services at Communication Technology Services (CTS). CTS has been a long-time customer of iBwave’s; in fact, they were one of our first customers about 14 years ago (thanks for sticking with us!). With the presence throughout the United States, CTS provides turnkey mobility design and deployment solutions across the entire wireless gamut: Indoor DAS, Outdoor DAS, Small Cells, Public Safety, and WiFi. They have a lot of experience, and thankfully for us, a lot of insights to share with us and the rest of the wireless community.

Shane’s presentation was entitled ‘iBwave Accuracy: The Impact on RF Performance and Cost’. And this was such a compelling presentation because it really showed how what can be perceived as small modeling errors done at the beginning of a project can lead to very large costs at the end of the project – both in terms of RF performance, and in terms of revenue and troubleshooting costs.

In Shane’s presentation he really hit the nail on the head when he started out by saying “accuracy starts with the proper foundation”, a sentiment I have heard many different times in talking to those in the industry and a sentiment we integrate into the best practices we teach around in-building wireless design in our iBwave certification program.

Without a good model to base your wireless network design on, the performance and cost of your project become significantly more at risk. That can come in the form of additional technical trips that need to be done to the site, the increased costs during implementation, delays in the project timeline, and of course the cost that comes when users of the network are not getting the experience they expect.

It’s for this reason so many of our customers take advantage of the advanced 3D Modeling capabilities in our iBwave Wi-Fi and Cellular network design software and take their time during the initial phase of the project to get the modeling absolutely right. To give you an idea of the level our customers are going with their modeling in order to ensure design accuracy, here are a few really impressive models from the CTS design team that Shane shared during his user group presentation.

So what are some modeling issues that can lead to poor RF performance and increased costs?

In Shane’s presentation he highlighted the following:

Scale
Body Loss and Fade
Power Sharing
Wall Types

And while each of these design factors can impact the performance of a network, in this post I’m going to focus on the two factors we hear most about in the field: scale and wall types.

Scale

One of the first things you do on any project is set the scale of the floor plan. Easy enough right? The problem is, even being off by just a little bit when setting the scale can cause large design issues and expenses later on in the project.

As you can see in the following image, Shane used the example of setting the scale of a door incorrectly by at 0.44 FT: 3.00 FT (incorrect) vs. 3.44 (correct).

The result of this? At an overall scale level, the difference became 160,500 SF space (correct) vs. 122,000 SF space.

What was the impact of this difference?

To get a better idea of the impact, let’s first take a look at the design of the network Shane and his team completed under both conditions: 160,000 SF scale and 122,000 SF scale.

A) CORRECT SCALE: 160,600 SF DESIGN

Looking at this heat map, you can see that with the scale correctly set at 160,500 SF the design requires 2 X 20W remotes and 25 Antennas in order to achieve the 95.1% KPI

B) INCORRECT SCALE: 122,000 SF DESIGN

Looking at this heat map, you can see that with the scale incorrectly set at 122,000 SF the design requires 2 X 20W remotes and only 18 Antennas in order to achieve the 95.1% KPI

Why does this matter? Because while you are likely to please the customer with a lower design cost (18 antennas vs. 25), once the network is actually implemented in the 160,500 SF space, it will not perform as predicted – in other words, you will not really meet the required KPI, which will result in a not-so-happy customer anymore, and significant troubleshooting and re-design costs.

To make this point even clearer, Shane and the CTS team showed how the network design done with the scale of 122,000 SF would perform in reality with the 160,500 SF of space:

As you can see, when the network that was designed incorrectly for the 122,000 SF space is implemented in the real space of 160,000 SF with only 18 antennas, the performance fails to meet the KPI – and results in an 8% in additional costs. Interesting to see how being off by just 0.44FT when setting the scale can lead to such large performance and cost impacts later on in the project cycle.

Wall Types

If you currently use iBwave Design or iBwave Wi-Fi or have had a chance to try out a free trial, then you know that we have a very large database of materials available to use when designing. To be specific, we currently have over 70 default wall types in iBwave Design and iBwave Wi-Fi (plus you can always add your own custom wall types yourself by editing the database). And the reason is, we know the value of using the right wall materials when designing – and the impact that can happen when the right materials are not used. But what happens when the right wall type is not selected?

This was also a key topic that Shane from CTS talked about in his presentation at the user group – just how critical it can be to model using the right wall material.

To expand on this further, I’m going to use the example Shane used in his presentation.

In this example, we’ll take a look at two similar wall types – Dry Wall vs. Sheet Rock – Light – and the impact that wall materials can have on the network performance and project costs.

Example signal loss config for Drywall (2.4 GHz band)

Example signal loss config for Sheetrock-Light (2.4GHz band)

WALL TYPE: DRYWALL

Looking at this heat map, you can see that when Drywall was correctly set as the wall type, the design requires 2 X 20W remotes and 25 Antennas in order to achieve the 95.1% KPI.

Looking at this heat map, you can see that when Sheet Rock-Light was set as the wall type, the design requires only 12 Antennas achieves a 95.5% KPI

So again, in this case – clearly the customer would be more inclined to go with the design that only requires the antennas. But, if that is not really the actual wall type – the network will not perform as predicted, and additional equipment, time and troubleshooting costs will be accumulated post-implementation.

To give you an idea of how the ‘Sheetrock – Light’ design would perform in reality with Drywall – take a look at this heat map:

As you can see, with the incorrect material, and the incorrect signal loss assigned to those materials, then the actual performance of the network is significantly at risk – in this case the KPI is reduced to just 30.5%, and the potential costs of the project can significantly increase from what was originally told to the customer – in this example, it would have been 81%

In Conclusion

Interesting to see how little inaccuracies in the design phase of a project can have such large impacts later on in the project. It is the very reason that CTS is so accurate and meticulous when they undertake the modeling phase of the design – and the reason they have so much success with their customers.

Thank you to Shane and all of CTS for presenting at our user group and sharing your valuable insights from the field with us!

What is your experience with modeling mistakes and their impact on performance and costs? Comment below to let us know.

Wirelessly yours,

Kelly

Interested in being featured on our blog? Send me an email at kelly.burroughs@ibwave.com