<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div apple-content-edited="true"><span><span style="orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; widows: 2; "><span style="orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; widows: 2; "><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Menlo; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: small; "><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Menlo; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">I think that part of the problem is that underlying wired backbone layer II network also needs to catch up on the port-change (possibly even switch-change) when the client is (invisibly) handed over to the new radio.</div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Menlo; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><span style="font-size: small; "></span></div><div><font size="2">Think along the lines o 30-second MAC table timeout before broadcast occurs unless there is constant 2-way data through the tables on the necessary devices to immediately see the change (dependent on logical backbone layout).</font></div><div><br></div><div>The same problem exists with clients on non-.ah networks too.</div><div><br></div><div>IMHO DECT (even with repeaters) beats WiFi hands-down for voice.</div><div><br></div><div><font size="2">Pete</font><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; font-size: small; "> </span></div></span></span></span></div><font size="2">
</font><br><div><div>On 22/09/2015, at 8:53 PM, Tim Bray <<a href="mailto:tim@kooky.org">tim@kooky.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">On 21/09/15 20:40, Robert Johnson wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Ubiquiti's UniFi WiFi line do just<br>that? Is there something I'm missing when a client moves closer to AP<br>"B" and the network dynamically hands off the connection to AP "B"?<br></blockquote><br>In theory yes. Unifi Zero hand off does just this. The client doesn't<br>see the roam.<br><br>Real life experience suggests the zero handoff isn't great in real world<br>conditions. I've spent a long time playing with it on a few sites, and<br>given up. Instead adjusting the minrssi system which pushes the client<br>to make a roam.<br><br><br>Maybe if you had very regular buildings, an isolated network for VoIP<br>(separate access points and L2), no neighbours using WiFi, then it might<br>be better,<br><br><br>There are some new UniFI APs coming out, so will be interesting to see<br>if they are any different.<br><br>Tim</blockquote></div></body></html>