RE: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs]
If you're going with Extricom you don't need to worry about channel planning beyond adding more channel blankets. Frank -Original Message- From: Carl Karsten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 10:56 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Adrian Chadd; Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Thank you for all the advice - it was nice to see 20 replies that all basically agreed (and with me too.) If only the 6 people involved in this project were such. On Wifi for 1000: I have tried to make sure everyone involved in this PyCon Wifi project has read http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/ppt/joel.pdf - too bad some have read it and don't get it. I think it will be OK, because someone else wrote up the plan, which is basically to use http://wavonline.com/vendorpages/extricom.htm If anyone would like to see it in action, I am sure something can be arranged. (you are welcome to come look at it, but I would think would want to actually peek under the hood and see some stuff in real time, etc. ) March 13-16 in Chicago. Carl K Joel Jaeggli wrote: Frank Bulk wrote: I would have disagree with your point on centralized AP controllers -- almost all the vendors have some form of high availability, and Trapeze's offering, new (and may not yet be G.A) purports to be almost entirely seamless in its load sharing and failover support. I have a few scars to show from deploying centralized ap controllers, from several vendors including the one that you mention above. Hence my observation that they must be deployed in a HA setup in that sort of environment... We you lose a fat-ap, unless cascading failure ensues you just lost one ap... When your ap-controller with 80 radio's attached goes boom, you are dead. So, as I said if you're going to use a central ap controller for an environment like this you need to avail yourself of it's HA features. Now that dual-band radios in laptops are becoming more prevalent, it's possible to get 30 to 50% of your user population using 802.11a. Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joel Jaeggli Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:51 PM To: Adrian Chadd Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Adrian Chadd wrote: On Sat, Nov 10, 2007, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Speaking of all that, does someone have a conference wireless' bcp handy? The sort that starts off with dont deploy $50 unbranded taiwanese / linksys etc routers that fall over and die at more than 5 associations, place them so you dont get RF interference all over the place etc before going on to more faqs like what to do so worms dont run riot? Comes in handy for that, as well as for public wifi access points. Everyone I speak to says something along the lines of Why would I put that sort of stuff up? I want people to pay me for that kind of clue. I did a presentation a couple of years ago at nanog on high-density conference style wireless deployments. It's in the proceedings from Scottsdale. Fundamentally the game hasn't changed that much since then: Newer hardware is a bit more robust. Centralized AP controllers are beguiling but have to be deployed with high availability in mind because putting all your eggs in a smaller number of baskets carriers some risk... If you can, deploy A to draw off some users from 2.4ghz. Design to keep the number of users per radio at 50 or less in the worst case. Instrument everything... There are slides covering basic stuff and observations out there. (I'm going through a wireless deployment at an ISP conference next week; I'll draft up some notes on the nanog cluepon site.) Adrian
Re: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Bulk) wrote: If you're going with Extricom you don't need to worry about channel planning beyond adding more channel blankets. Is that based on marketing, theory (based on the whitepapers and patent descriptions) or practical experience? Elmar.
RE: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs]
Elmar: Marketing and theory -- I haven't had a chance to test it myself. BTW, I'm not regurgitating Extricom's marketing rhetoric when I say you don't need to worry about channel planning -- their product is designed with that specifically in mind. The technical benefits and caveats of this single-channel architecture, and the possible concerns that a network planner might have around the requirement to have L1 connectivity from Extricom's APs to their switch, are better discussed in another forum. Frank -Original Message- From: Elmar K. Bins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:46 AM To: Frank Bulk Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Bulk) wrote: If you're going with Extricom you don't need to worry about channel planning beyond adding more channel blankets. Is that based on marketing, theory (based on the whitepapers and patent descriptions) or practical experience? Elmar.
Re: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs]
Frank Bulk wrote: Foundry OEMs from Meru, which also uses a single-channel approach. It does not have an L1 requirement. Meru APs tunnel back to the controller, so any old L3 will do. We took an AP home (just for grins) and it still worked back to our controller through residential broadband. Jeff
Re: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs]
Hard-earned knowledge: Meru's single-channel approach has some compatability issues with certain drivers, most notably Lenovo laptops with the Atheros chipset. If you decide to go that route, make sure you have a USB key lying around with the latest drivers from the Lenovo site for the T60's wireless network. Regardless of your deployment, make sure your front line support staff (you DO have a helptable, right?) has the ability to update drivers on PCs without requiring wireless connectivity. An ethernet cable should work just fine :) --Casey Jeff Kell wrote: Frank Bulk wrote: Foundry OEMs from Meru, which also uses a single-channel approach. It does not have an L1 requirement. Meru APs tunnel back to the controller, so any old L3 will do. We took an AP home (just for grins) and it still worked back to our controller through residential broadband. Jeff
RE: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs]
Also, some issues with Intel, too: http://www.intel.com/support/wireless/wlan/sb/cs-006205.htm http://listserv.educause.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0608L=wireless-lanD=1H= 1T=0P=5230 I know that this has been at least somewhat addressed, but I'm not sure if they are fully addressed. Regards, Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Casey Callendrello Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:20 PM To: nanog@merit.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs] Hard-earned knowledge: Meru's single-channel approach has some compatability issues with certain drivers, most notably Lenovo laptops with the Atheros chipset. If you decide to go that route, make sure you have a USB key lying around with the latest drivers from the Lenovo site for the T60's wireless network. Regardless of your deployment, make sure your front line support staff (you DO have a helptable, right?) has the ability to update drivers on PCs without requiring wireless connectivity. An ethernet cable should work just fine :) --Casey Jeff Kell wrote: Frank Bulk wrote: Foundry OEMs from Meru, which also uses a single-channel approach. It does not have an L1 requirement. Meru APs tunnel back to the controller, so any old L3 will do. We took an AP home (just for grins) and it still worked back to our controller through residential broadband. Jeff
