Wireless Networking
I am going to have to rewire our whole network for centralization in the next couple of months and am looking at possibly making some or all of it wireless. We have an all NT network. We currently have approximately 60 nodes. We will probably be up to 80-100 nodes within 2 years. We were looking at using Cisco gear to replace our aging Kingston network. The whole LAN is less than 200 feet in length from end to end and will be meeting in the middle at around the 100 foot mark. Here are the questions: Would wireless technology be a possibility? Would it be cheaper in the long run to just rerun homeruns to a centralized switch and stay wired? What technology would we need to make this work? If we have to stay wired, what switch would you recommend? Does wireless really only go up to 11MB? Thanks for all your help. Denis Denis A. Baldwin Network Administrator - CAE, Inc. A+, MCP, i-Net+, Network+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 810-231-9373, ext. 229 _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless Networking
> Would wireless technology be a possibility? Sure, your place is idle for that all the machine are close, in a single floor. > Would it be cheaper in the long run to just rerun homeruns to a centralized > switch and stay wired? Depends on the cabling requirement on your site. If free run cable is acceptable. The cost is low. If conduit and pipe work is a must. Then Wireless may be a cheaper solution. > If we have to stay wired, what switch would you recommend? If you don't need VLAN and VLAN routing. I suggest Catalyst 6509. If you need VLAN and VLAN routing, I suggest you not to use Cisco. Let's try Extreme or Foundry > Does wireless really only go up to 11MB? For a 802.11 Wireless LAN, yes. but in a limit distant only. And it must be an open area. Not block by wall. If the env is not idel. It will step down to 5MB, 2MB then 1MB. Quncy CCNP HK _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wireless Networking
I would not recommend wireless in your environment. While wireless is a nice gee wiz thing, it should be used to compliment the functionality of your network but not be your network. First, the current limitation is 11 megabit SHARED bandwidth. So you will get better performance by having Cat5e or Cat6 home runned to a switch. Without knowing what your business is, it sounds like you could get away with a stack of 2 to 3 3548 switches. BUT you could potentially also get a Catalyst 4000 series switch. However, if you have QOS, VoIP, IP/TV or other high end needs, a cat 6000 or 6500 series chasis maybe appropriate. - Original Message - From: "Denis A. Baldwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:44 AM Subject: Wireless Networking > I am going to have to rewire our whole network for centralization in the > next couple of months and am looking at possibly making some or all of it > wireless. We have an all NT network. We currently have approximately 60 > nodes. We will probably be up to 80-100 nodes within 2 years. We were > looking at using Cisco gear to replace our aging Kingston network. The > whole LAN is less than 200 feet in length from end to end and will be > meeting in the middle at around the 100 foot mark. Here are the questions: > > Would wireless technology be a possibility? > > Would it be cheaper in the long run to just rerun homeruns to a centralized > switch and stay wired? > > What technology would we need to make this work? > > If we have to stay wired, what switch would you recommend? > > Does wireless really only go up to 11MB? > > Thanks for all your help. > > Denis > > > Denis A. Baldwin > Network Administrator - CAE, Inc. > A+, MCP, i-Net+, Network+ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 810-231-9373, ext. 229 > > > _ > 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]
Re: Wireless Networking
Please explain your choice here. Quncy Lau wrote: > If you don't need VLAN and VLAN routing. I suggest Catalyst 6509. > If you need VLAN and VLAN routing, I suggest you not to use Cisco. > Let's try Extreme or Foundry > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fw: Wireless Networking
- Original Message - From: "corychambers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Denis A. Baldwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 7:42 PM Subject: Re: Wireless Networking > I would not recommend Cisco's (Aironet) wireless option. We tested the > wireless cards and the maximum throughput you will receive with these card's > is about 6mb. Try Cabletrons wireless option, the throughput and > administrative software is much better. Cabletron is also coming out with a > 50mb card sometime in the second quarter of next year. > > Cory > - Original Message - > From: "Denis A. Baldwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 7:44 AM > Subject: Wireless Networking > > > > I am going to have to rewire our whole network for centralization in the > > next couple of months and am looking at possibly making some or all of it > > wireless. We have an all NT network. We currently have approximately 60 > > nodes. We will probably be up to 80-100 nodes within 2 years. We were > > looking at using Cisco gear to replace our aging Kingston network. The > > whole LAN is less than 200 feet in length from end to end and will be > > meeting in the middle at around the 100 foot mark. Here are the questions: > > > > Would wireless technology be a possibility? > > > > Would it be cheaper in the long run to just rerun homeruns to a > centralized > > switch and stay wired? > > > > What technology would we need to make this work? > > > > If we have to stay wired, what switch would you recommend? > > > > Does wireless really only go up to 11MB? > > > > Thanks for all your help. > > > > Denis > > > > > > Denis A. Baldwin > > Network Administrator - CAE, Inc. > > A+, MCP, i-Net+, Network+ > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 810-231-9373, ext. 229 > > > > > > _ > > 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]
RE: Wireless Networking
I am a bit curious myself on that. Foundry is more oriented to webfarms and load balancing while extreme is oriented to Enterprise datacenters and MANs. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of LaRoy Slaughter Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 1:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wireless Networking Please explain your choice here. Quncy Lau wrote: > If you don't need VLAN and VLAN routing. I suggest Catalyst 6509. > If you need VLAN and VLAN routing, I suggest you not to use Cisco. > Let's try Extreme or Foundry > _ 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]
RE: Wireless Networking
Thats a silly comment. They compete directly and have very similar product lines. As a side note, I happen to prefer Foundry due to my past experiences and it does deliver better bang for the buck and features at wire speed (ie, that don't melt the router if you turn them on). Juniper does also. Cisco may figure it out one day, or just continue to hemorage market share. andy On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Perry Lucas wrote: > I am a bit curious myself on that. Foundry is more oriented to webfarms and > load balancing while extreme is oriented to Enterprise datacenters and MANs. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > LaRoy Slaughter > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 1:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Wireless Networking > > > > Please explain your choice here. > > Quncy Lau wrote: > > > If you don't need VLAN and VLAN routing. I suggest Catalyst 6509. > > If you need VLAN and VLAN routing, I suggest you not to use Cisco. > > Let's try Extreme or Foundry > > > > > > _ > 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] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Wireless Networking
-Original Message- From: Quncy Lau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Wireless Networking Dude, lot of people read these post so please be right when you do post. > Would wireless technology be a possibility? ***RHM We have a huge network, with Cisco switch 5500, 6509, 8500, every type of router from the very small to the 7500. I have deployed 11mbs wireless through out this origination and it works fine. It is true it is limited by distance (500ft) but you solve this by placing your wireless access points to cover all areas and over lap each other. The new format we are testing at 22mbs and in about 8 month the 54 mbs version will arrive. This is a great solution and will make you shine with your CFO. The new Access points we are testing will do layer 4 QOS, IP routing, IGMP snooping VoIP , 100 node multi point telnet EAP security, just to mane a few. It goes thru all walls, I have my access points place in the wire closets and I know our users are not there. I have also found transmission going two floors down into the buildings lobby. Thank god for 128 bit encryption. And just for the record I totally disagree with your reference to the vlan routing and the 6509. Do you know they will do layer 4 switching? The 6509 is a awesome switch with lots of compatibilities. Have you even worked with one? It comes with the NFFC card and already will route at layer 3. Please clarify. Be 100% sure before giving advice, nothing worse then being wrong in front of the world. Rob Mears III, NNCSS, NNCDS, MCSE, CNE, CCNA, A+ Technical Mercenary Sprint Enterprise Network Services Allied Riser Sure, your place is idle for that all the machine are close, in a single floor. > Would it be cheaper in the long run to just rerun homeruns to a centralized > switch and stay wired? Depends on the cabling requirement on your site. If free run cable is acceptable. The cost is low. If conduit and pipe work is a must. Then Wireless may be a cheaper solution. > If we have to stay wired, what switch would you recommend? If you don't need VLAN and VLAN routing. I suggest Catalyst 6509. If you need VLAN and VLAN routing, I suggest you not to use Cisco. Let's try Extreme or Foundry > Does wireless really only go up to 11MB? For a 802.11 Wireless LAN, yes. but in a limit distant only. And it must be an open area. Not block by wall. If the env is not idel. It will step down to 5MB, 2MB then 1MB. Quncy CCNP HK _ 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]
Re: Wireless Networking
Not really. The ServerIron and BigIron product lines are targeted for DotCom and Enterprise datacenters as well as the FastIron switches. That is how foundry made its debut into the market and is gaining market share. I imagine that is one of the reasons Cisco made the acquisition of Arrowpoint to begin competing on more equal ground with Foundry products. I agree with you on the fact that you get more bang for you buck with the Foundry switches and I have coordinated three deployments myself of their products, all of which were in the DotCom market space. I will concede their products are working their way down the vertical into the wiring closest and small to medium business markets BUT there are other considersations to hardware choices and deployment beyond just how well they perform. One that I find most important is the amount of available support for Cisco products than Foundry products. In any case, to get back on topic with the orginal message that started this thread. The company in question is also looking at implementing VoIP technology in the near future. (VoIP was discussed in an offline correspondance) Based on that and the first look glimpse that we were given, I personally believe Cisco would be a more appropriate vendor choice at this time. - Original Message - From: "Andy Walden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Perry Lucas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "LaRoy Slaughter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 8:30 AM Subject: RE: Wireless Networking > > Thats a silly comment. They compete directly and have very similar product > lines. As a side note, I happen to prefer Foundry due to my past > experiences and it does deliver better bang for the buck and features at > wire speed (ie, that don't melt the router if you turn them on). Juniper > does also. Cisco may figure it out one day, or just continue to hemorage > market share. > > andy > > On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Perry Lucas wrote: > > > I am a bit curious myself on that. Foundry is more oriented to webfarms and > > load balancing while extreme is oriented to Enterprise datacenters and MANs. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > LaRoy Slaughter > > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 1:27 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Wireless Networking > > > > > > > > Please explain your choice here. > > > > Quncy Lau wrote: > > > > > If you don't need VLAN and VLAN routing. I suggest Catalyst 6509. > > > If you need VLAN and VLAN routing, I suggest you not to use Cisco. > > > Let's try Extreme or Foundry > > > > > > > > > > > _ > > 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] > > > > _ > 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]
