## 6 Evaluations
### Results and Discussions  
Table 6 shows the simulation and measurement results for the two fields. The _m_in. host thro. cons. G (Mbps) represents the threshold value for the _minimum host throughput constraint_. This value is used as the benchmark. All the hosts in the network should achieve it regardless of the relative distances from the associated APs. In our study, the value was selected manually, taking into account the number of hosts, the number of APs, and the overall network capacity of the WLAN. The number of active APs should be increased when this constant is not satisfied. In Table 6, the _ave. min. host thro._ (Mbps) represents the average minimum host throughput (Mbps), and the _ave. overall thro._ (Mbps) represents the average overall throughput in the network. The _sim._ represents the simulation results, and _mea_. represents the measurement results.  
Note: _field_ #1 in Table 6 corresponds to _Engineering Building_ #2. The _minimum host throughput constraint_ is applied with \(G=10\) Mbps and \(G=25\) Mbps. The throughput results from the simulation are well matched with the measurement results in any topology.  
Figure 9: Testbed topology for dual interface.  
This confirms the accuracy of the proposed algorithm, and the use of the dual interface at the AP can minimize the number of active APs.  
In addition, _field_ #2 in Table 6 corresponds to _Graduate School Building_. The same _minimum host throughput constraint_ is considered in this field. Again, the throughput results by the simulation are well matched with the measurement results in each topology. Thus, the accuracy and effectiveness of the proposed algorithm are confirmed.  
Additionally, we evaluated the proposal by comparing the performances between the single 11 ac interface case and the dual interface case when the same number of APs are activated. As shown in Table 7, both the minimum host throughput and the average overall throughput results were increased by the proposal. The dual interfaces at the AP operated at different frequency bands. It allows one AP to communicate with two hosts simultaneously without interference. In addition, it can reduce interference between neighboring APs in a dense WLAN, because the number of active APs can be reduced. As a result, the performance of the proposal is greater than that of the single 11 ac interface case. The measured throughput results are well-matched with the simulated ones in any case. It is confirmed that the proposal provides higher overall throughput than 11 ac only when the same number of APs are activated.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Single Interface**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Dual Interface**} \\ \cline{3-10}  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Dual Interface**} \\ \cline{3-10}  
Figure 11: Throughput results for Topology 2.  
Figure 12: Throughput results for Topology 3.  
Figure 13: Throughput results for Topology 4.  
the external interface in two different network fields. In future works, we will further improve the AP configuration algorithm by considering partially overlapping channels, transmission power optimizations, and the 11 ax protocol. Then, we will evaluate our proposals in various network fields and topologies to confirm their effectiveness.  
Conceptualization, S.C.R. and N.F.; methodology, S.C.R. and N.F.; software, S.C.R.; validation, S.C.R., M.M.R. and B.W.; formal analysis, S.C.R.; investigation, S.C.R.; resources, S.C.R.; data curation, S.C.R., M.M.R. and B.W.; writing--original draft preparation, S.C.R.; writing--review and editing, S.C.R., N.F., M.K. and W.-C.K.; visualization, S.C.R.; supervision, N.F.; project administration, N.F.; funding acquisition, N.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research received no external funding.  
Not applicable.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.