11Mb is only available within close proximity to the Access Point. As you
move away from it your speed drops off at specified levels - 11Mb -> 4Mb ->
2Mb -> 1Mb. High density placement of Access Points are required to maintain
11Mb. throughout a given area.
There's this company that bought a really nice wireless company with an
excellent product line called Aironet? (Now, Cisco Aironet), and they have
lots of literature on wireless and the 802.11 Standard.
Most of the systems have on board encryption per the 802.11 Standard called
WEP, Wireless Equivalent Privacy (56 bit DES), and they are working on an
upgrade to triple DES. Also, there are products that provide a software
piece for your remote device and a hardware component for the wired portion
of the LAN that provide FIPS certified encryption for the airwave link.
(TimeStep VPNS offer the best FIPS certified one so far.)
The biggest thing to remember is that every time you add an Access Point to
your LAN, you've added an open air antenna that is accessible by anyone. Not
necessarily able to enter the network automatically, but a potential point
for exploitation.
That's why my answer was Security. You have to know what your
vulnerabilities are, the type of data you deal with, and the level of risk
you are willing to assume.
All of the answers so far have some validity. There are places that wireless
is the proper solution and other places that it isn't. Also, All wireless
LANs of any size will have a wired infrastructure, so the only completely
wireless network is going to be small.
************************************************************************
Brad Stanfield
Network/Integration Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Government Micro Resources
Network Operations Control Center
Norfolk Naval Shipyard
Bldg 33 NAVSEA NCOE
757-393-9526
1-800-626-6622
-----Original Message-----
From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 7:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Wireless LANS
Actually, the application I have in mind involves filming a
life-threatening operation and sending the streaming video to the MD expert
who couldn't be there in person.
Seriously, high-bandwidth wireless applications will become more popular.
Bandwidth is like closet space. There's never enough of it.
Priscilla
At 02:45 PM 10/30/00, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>To clarify further, at this point in time what you have is really a return
>to the old 10baseT hub, if you will, with all the bad things that may
>entail. On the other hand, it might be argued that those most likely to
want
>this mobility are management types who want nothing more than to read their
>e-mail during boring meetings ;->
>
>This discussion can go in a number of directions from here. But in general,
>high bandwidth users are probably not real good candidates for this kind of
>mobility anyway. Most places I know of have their conference rooms wired
for
>high speed LAN connections to accommodate those who need high speed
>connectivity during meetings and presentations.
>
>Also, I have this theory that for a good percentage of mobile users,
>wireless connectivity to e-mal and customer name and address databases is
>really al that is necessary. Palm or some similar wireless device would be
>more than enough for these folks, assuming the back ends are in place.
>
>Chuck
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
>Irwin Lazar
>Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 2:11 PM
>To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>Subject: RE: Wireless LANS
>
> << File: Irwin Lazar.vcf >>
>Something to note, the 11MB is shared by all users of the base station,
they
>don't each get 11MB.
>
>Irwin
>
> > Slow? How many end-users (not servers or datacenters)
> > really need more
> > than 10 megabit of bandwidth? Unless you are an engineer or architect
> > pushing around 100 meg Autocad files or an IT department
> > deploying software
> > packages and updates, the average desktop user, who is opening Word
> > Documents, surfing the Internet, and viewing email do not really need
> > anything more than 10 megabit for day-to-day needs.
> > Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't deploy anything under a
> > 100 mbit today, with
> > the exception of wireless, but do the _majority_ of end-users
> > really need
> > the bandwidth that they have available to them?
> >
> > Perry J. Lucas
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Priscilla Oppenheimer
> > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 3:34 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Wireless LANS
> >
> > 1. It's pretty slow (< 11 Mbps shared bandwidth)
> > 2. Mobile wireless is fraught with issues. How do you get a
> > new IP address
> > when you move from subnet to subnet? (Of course, that's not too
> > straightforward on wired either, come to think of it.)
> >
> > Priscilla
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
