M1/M2 Macs poor network performance issues while on corporate network AWDL

caffine247
New Contributor III

Reports have been coming in about macs on the corporate network getting "poor network stability" messages periodically and my networking team has confirmed that systems are jumping from 5ghz network to the 2.4ghz network, or having a hard time moving from AP to AP based on proximity. 

 

After doing some digging I have noticed some articles with similar issues referring to AWDL (Apple Wireless Direct Link).  https://www.meter.com/mac-osx-awdl-psa Mainly to disable this feature on systems to avoid future issues.  

 

 

This article mentions that the issue should have been resolved in the recent updates to macOS, but systems with the latest OS are still reporting issues. Have others seen similar issues and implemented this practice of disabling the AWDL?

 

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

foobarfoo
Contributor

Without knowing for sure, I assume you're running a Cisco based controller network? Usually, similar issues arise with Cisco.

And yes, we did have issues similar to yours. First, AWDL did play a small part in this, but only a minor one. After much effort we realized that the following helps (but does not solve the problems entirely):

1. Separate your SSID's into one that only runs on 5GHz and ensure your Apple devices use this one exclusively - roaming to 2.4GHz can otherwise unexpectedly occur, such as when devices experience a coverage hole, and then they roam to 2.4GHz

2. Contrary to common belief, if the WMM policy is set to "Allowed" instead of "Required", that will affect roaming capabilities and device association stability. Ensure it's set to "Required". Your network team might claim then that this breaks some older non-Apple clients on the network. While this may be true, a recommendations is again to have a separate SSID, along with modern features enabled for modern clients, and have legacy stuff (read: junk) on another SSID, preferably combined with 2.4GHz enabled

3. Also ensure that 802.11krv is enabled. In Cisco lingo, those are for instance 802.11k, BSS transition, assisted roaming/neighbor prediction (but without dual-band) etc. Same goes here with legacy clients - see step 2.

4. If you have many clients on one AP, consider enabling MU-MIMO. Also, assuming this hasn't been done already, disable low data rates as this might hog the entire radio spectrum on one AP with a single client that uses a low data rate.

View solution in original post

2 REPLIES 2

foobarfoo
Contributor

Without knowing for sure, I assume you're running a Cisco based controller network? Usually, similar issues arise with Cisco.

And yes, we did have issues similar to yours. First, AWDL did play a small part in this, but only a minor one. After much effort we realized that the following helps (but does not solve the problems entirely):

1. Separate your SSID's into one that only runs on 5GHz and ensure your Apple devices use this one exclusively - roaming to 2.4GHz can otherwise unexpectedly occur, such as when devices experience a coverage hole, and then they roam to 2.4GHz

2. Contrary to common belief, if the WMM policy is set to "Allowed" instead of "Required", that will affect roaming capabilities and device association stability. Ensure it's set to "Required". Your network team might claim then that this breaks some older non-Apple clients on the network. While this may be true, a recommendations is again to have a separate SSID, along with modern features enabled for modern clients, and have legacy stuff (read: junk) on another SSID, preferably combined with 2.4GHz enabled

3. Also ensure that 802.11krv is enabled. In Cisco lingo, those are for instance 802.11k, BSS transition, assisted roaming/neighbor prediction (but without dual-band) etc. Same goes here with legacy clients - see step 2.

4. If you have many clients on one AP, consider enabling MU-MIMO. Also, assuming this hasn't been done already, disable low data rates as this might hog the entire radio spectrum on one AP with a single client that uses a low data rate.

caffine247
New Contributor III

Yes we are in a Cisco based controller network. Will pass this response along to the networking team to review and confirm if these changes could be made.