RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
I'm with you Jamie. Standards are extremely important, but only to the extent that they serve the consumer. You still have to buy the whole system from one vendor, so what is the difference? As long as the clients will be interoperable, then I don't think it really matters. I could be missing something, but that is my take on the whole thing. Meru appears to offer some compelling QOS features. Pete Morrissey Syracuse University _ From: Jamie Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:50 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article Hi, The attached article was in the May 28th issue of Network Computing. Regarding Meru vs. Cisco and the possibility of interference with co-located APs. I'd be interested in any commentary. We're currently a Cisco shop (autonomous APs) and realize we're heading for a forklift wireless change in the near future (most of our fat APs can't be converted to thin). Even if Meru violates the 802.11 standard (as claimed by Cisco), as we control the airspace on campus, I guess we don't care if we cause interference issues with devices (ie..rogues) that shouldn't be there in the first place. ...comments anyone?...thx...J James Savage York University Senior Communications Tech. 108 Steacie Building [EMAIL PROTECTED]4700 Keele Street ph: 416-736-2100 ext. 22605Toronto, Ontario fax: 416-736-5701M3J 1P3, CANADA ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
Jamie, My Meru network was one of the test networks used in the evaluation of the product for that article. While onsite the engineers were not able, on the latest GA code, to verify any violation of the standard and found no problems with good neighbor behaviours. It is very important to pay close attention to the raw data, which is available for download. Yes when Meru and Cisco co-exist the Meru network provides more throughput to the clients. The question though: Does that mean it is not sharing the RF approximately equally? Meru equivocally states that the bandwidth difference, which can also be demonstrated in a non-overlapping environment, is an effect of more efficient use of the spectrum. Mike - Michael G. Ruiz H'99 ESSE, ACP, A+ Network and Systems Engineer Hobart and William Smith Colleges Information Technology Services v.315.781.3711 f.315.781.3409 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype:MichaelGRuiz - From: Jamie Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:50 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article Hi, The attached article was in the May 28th issue of Network Computing. Regarding Meru vs. Cisco and the possibility of interference with co-located APs. I'd be interested in any commentary. We're currently a Cisco shop (autonomous APs) and realize we're heading for a forklift wireless change in the near future (most of our fat APs can't be converted to thin). Even if Meru violates the 802.11 standard (as claimed by Cisco), as we control the airspace on campus, I guess we don't care if we cause interference issues with devices (ie..rogues) that shouldn't be there in the first place. ...comments anyone?...thx...J James Savage York University Senior Communications Tech. 108 Steacie Building [EMAIL PROTECTED]4700 Keele Street ph: 416-736-2100 ext. 22605Toronto, Ontario fax: 416-736-5701M3J 1P3, CANADA ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
A while back, Meru did not yet have a central management console, but it was pending while we decided on which thin AP road to go down. Can anyone comment on how effective/buggy Meru's management platform is? Lee H. Badman Wireless/Network Engineer KC2IYK, CWNA/CWSP Information Technology and Services Syracuse University 315 443-3003 From: Winders, Timothy A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:06 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article We did just the same thing this year. We had a relatively small Cisco AP installation, with about 25 APs. We needed to go to full campus coverage would have to forklift the Cisco gear. We went with Meru and I've never looked back. Our wired gear is all Cisco, but we've been very pleased with the Meru wireless. I never used the Cisco wireless controllers, so I can't compare, but, the Meru gear is very easy to setup and deploy. We have a single SSID (WPA/TKIP) and clients connect to different VLANs based on their RADIUS authentication (authenticating against AD). The Network Computing article came out after we purchased our gear. It didn't bother me and in practice, I haven't experienced the claims Cisco made. We see rogues pop up on the network. We have the Meru rogue detection enabled, but mitigation disabled. So, when a rogue turns up, we track it down. It's usually a student in their dorm room who brought it with them, or wasn't able to authenticate to our wireless network, so installed their own router. In practice, these work (i.e. no interference from the Meru equipment) but we shut them down anyway and help the student get authenticated to our network. We do occasionally see legitimate rogues identified by the Meru equipment. This is usually a surrounding business. After the NC article came out, I did contact one of them to make sure they weren't experiencing any problems. Everything was fine. I expect that if we enabled rogue mitigation it would cause them troubles. :-) If we do decide to go that way, there is a way to exempt/authorize non-Meru APs so they don't get blasted. I have not tested this, so I would work with those local businesses to make sure we don't cause them any troubles. Tim Winders | Associate Dean of Information Technology | South Plains College From: Jamie Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:50 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article Hi, The attached article was in the May 28th issue of Network Computing. Regarding Meru vs. Cisco and the possibility of interference with co-located APs. I'd be interested in any commentary. We're currently a Cisco shop (autonomous APs) and realize we're heading for a forklift wireless change in the near future (most of our fat APs can't be converted to thin). Even if Meru violates the 802.11 standard (as claimed by Cisco), as we control the airspace on campus, I guess we don't care if we cause interference issues with devices (ie..rogues) that shouldn't be there in the first place. ...comments anyone?...thx...J James Savage York University Senior Communications Tech. 108 Steacie Building [EMAIL PROTECTED]4700 Keele Street ph: 416-736-2100 ext. 22605Toronto, Ontario fax: 416-736-5701M3J 1P3, CANADA ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
Just to elaborate a bit, the article James sent around was not the original Meru-Cisco feature story but rather a column that reports on results of subsequent testing. In this column, I reported three things. First, Cisco was unsuccessful in getting the Wi-Fi Alliance to rescind Meru's certification. Since WFA certifies interoperability rather than standards compliance, this is not proof that Meru isn't stretching standards a bit but it still casts a cloud over Cisco's allegations. Second, I reported findings from subsequent tests where we added Aruba to the mix and found that Cisco's performance also cratered when co-located with Aruba gear. Again, that could indicate that Aruba is also somehow playing foul as well (Cisco speculated that they might be using a variation of PCF interframe spacing, though Aruba denied it) but it doesn't look that way to me. Finally, we decided to re-run these interference tests with different mixes of clients, using Atheros, Broadcom, and Intel chipsets. We found significant differences in the performance results. Atheros-based clients performed best. The broader issues here relate to standards compliance (e.g., to what degree can a vendor selectively implement certain elements of a QoS standard?) and, perhaps more importantly, performance issues with Wi-Fi that may arise in the future as the density of deployed networks results in increasing levels of co-channel interference. I am particuarly concerned about the intersection between private enterprise WLANs and public metro Wi-Fi networks. It may not be a big problem today but I wonder if it will be a problem in the future. We understand that our tests represent worst-case scenarios that few enterprises currently experience but sometimes there is value in pointing out the worst-case situations. If there's a silver lining here, it may be that 11n is likely to push most enterprises towards more pervasive 5 GHz deployments, where co-channel interference is not such a big issue. dm _ From: Peter Morrissey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:03 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article I'm with you Jamie. Standards are extremely important, but only to the extent that they serve the consumer. You still have to buy the whole system from one vendor, so what is the difference? As long as the clients will be interoperable, then I don't think it really matters. I could be missing something, but that is my take on the whole thing. Meru appears to offer some compelling QOS features. Pete Morrissey Syracuse University _ From: Jamie Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:50 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article Hi, The attached article was in the May 28th issue of Network Computing. Regarding Meru vs. Cisco and the possibility of interference with co-located APs. I'd be interested in any commentary. We're currently a Cisco shop (autonomous APs) and realize we're heading for a forklift wireless change in the near future (most of our fat APs can't be converted to thin). Even if Meru violates the 802.11 standard (as claimed by Cisco), as we control the airspace on campus, I guess we don't care if we cause interference issues with devices (ie..rogues) that shouldn't be there in the first place. ...comments anyone?...thx...J James Savage York University Senior Communications Tech. 108 Steacie Building [EMAIL PROTECTED]4700 Keele Street ph: 416-736-2100 ext. 22605Toronto, Ontario fax: 416-736-5701M3J 1P3, CANADA ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
Each controller has it's own web-based interface for management and configuration. For smaller installations, this should be good enough. When you get to larger installations with multiple controllers and require location and visualization you'll want to look at the Application Suite product. You have to license the different pieces of the product separately, so make sure your sales rep does a good job of explaining the feature set of each component so you license everything you need. As far as effective/buggy. I'm not sure what you mean. It's a java application front end with a dedicated server on the backend. We haven't had any troubles with the product. I don't have the visualization piece. It wasn't available the last I checked. I see it on the website, so it might be available now. Tim Winders | Associate Dean of Information Technology | South Plains College From: Lee H Badman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:15 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article A while back, Meru did not yet have a central management console, but it was pending while we decided on which thin AP road to go down. Can anyone comment on how effective/buggy Meru's management platform is? Lee H. Badman Wireless/Network Engineer KC2IYK, CWNA/CWSP Information Technology and Services Syracuse University 315 443-3003 From: Winders, Timothy A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:06 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article We did just the same thing this year. We had a relatively small Cisco AP installation, with about 25 APs. We needed to go to full campus coverage would have to forklift the Cisco gear. We went with Meru and I've never looked back. Our wired gear is all Cisco, but we've been very pleased with the Meru wireless. I never used the Cisco wireless controllers, so I can't compare, but, the Meru gear is very easy to setup and deploy. We have a single SSID (WPA/TKIP) and clients connect to different VLANs based on their RADIUS authentication (authenticating against AD). The Network Computing article came out after we purchased our gear. It didn't bother me and in practice, I haven't experienced the claims Cisco made. We see rogues pop up on the network. We have the Meru rogue detection enabled, but mitigation disabled. So, when a rogue turns up, we track it down. It's usually a student in their dorm room who brought it with them, or wasn't able to authenticate to our wireless network, so installed their own router. In practice, these work (i.e. no interference from the Meru equipment) but we shut them down anyway and help the student get authenticated to our network. We do occasionally see legitimate rogues identified by the Meru equipment. This is usually a surrounding business. After the NC article came out, I did contact one of them to make sure they weren't experiencing any problems. Everything was fine. I expect that if we enabled rogue mitigation it would cause them troubles. J If we do decide to go that way, there is a way to exempt/authorize non-Meru APs so they don't get blasted. I have not tested this, so I would work with those local businesses to make sure we don't cause them any troubles. Tim Winders | Associate Dean of Information Technology | South Plains College From: Jamie Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:50 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article Hi, The attached article was in the May 28th issue of Network Computing. Regarding Meru vs. Cisco and the possibility of interference with co-located APs. I'd be interested in any commentary. We're currently a Cisco shop (autonomous APs) and realize we're heading for a forklift wireless change in the near future (most of our fat APs can't be converted to thin). Even if Meru violates the 802.11 standard (as claimed by Cisco), as we control the airspace on campus, I guess we don't care if we cause interference issues with devices (ie..rogues) that shouldn't be there in the first place. ...comments anyone?...thx...J James Savage York University Senior Communications Tech. 108 Steacie Building [EMAIL PROTECTED]4700 Keele Street ph: 416-736-2100 ext. 22605Toronto, Ontario fax: 416-736-5701M3J 1P3, CANADA ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
Debbie, They were Intel 2915 clients. I have some pretty dense spreadsheets covering various permutations of clients and infrastructure if you are interested in seeing raw results. We didn't come away from this with any firm conclusions about what's good and what's bad (I guess we've learned our lesson about pointing the finger too soon!). What was most interesting to us was the fact that there was so much variation, which is something we didn't expect from such a mature standard. dm -Original Message- From: debbie fligor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:59 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:24, Dave Molta wrote: Just to elaborate a bit, the article James sent around was not the original Meru-Cisco feature story but rather a column that reports on results of subsequent testing. In this column, I reported three things. First, Cisco was unsuccessful in getting the Wi-Fi Alliance to rescind Meru's certification. Since WFA certifies interoperability rather than standards compliance, this is not proof that Meru isn't stretching standards a bit but it still casts a cloud over Cisco's allegations. Second, I reported findings from subsequent tests where we added Aruba to the mix and found that Cisco's performance also cratered when co-located with Aruba gear. Again, that could indicate that Aruba is also somehow playing foul as well (Cisco speculated that they might be using a variation of PCF interframe spacing, though Aruba denied it) but it doesn't look that way to me. Finally, we decided to re-run these interference tests with different mixes of clients, using Atheros, Broadcom, and Intel chipsets. We found significant differences in the performance results. Atheros-based clients performed best. Something I noticed in the article was that Meru did the worst with Intel chipsets, but which chipset wasn't mentioned. The 3945 Intel micro code bug makes them work very poorly with Meru and causes some problems with other vendors APs. We've been waiting for an update from Intel, but still don't have it. What Intel has done is ceased to sell that chipset -- this worries me that there wont be a microcode fix, but at least we wont have new equipment coming in with that card. So if the testing was with all 3945 cards, I don't think that accurately indicates Meru doesn't work well with Intel in general. Dave do you happen to know what the cards were? For those not following the problem with the 3945 cards, there is a bug in the micro code that causes it to crash if it sees out-of-order packets from the same AP. I heard this from an Intel employee on a conference call with them and Meru. It had been replicated in Intel's state-side offices and finally at their development site in Haifa last February just days before our phone call. Since all Meru APs look the same to the client, it's easy for things to be out-of-order like that. The initial work around of setting the power save mode to off didn't work, not because it was the wrong work around, but because the driver kept taking it out of never power save mode. If you update to the latest Intel driver, and then again set it to not use power saving, it stays set that way and the disconnects go away, at least for the ones we've tried it on so far. The broader issues here relate to standards compliance (e.g., to what degree can a vendor selectively implement certain elements of a QoS standard?) and, perhaps more importantly, performance issues with Wi-Fi that may arise in the future as the density of deployed networks results in increasing levels of co-channel interference. I am particuarly concerned about the intersection between private enterprise WLANs and public metro Wi-Fi networks. It may not be a big problem today but I wonder if it will be a problem in the future. We understand that our tests represent worst-case scenarios that few enterprises currently experience but sometimes there is value in pointing out the worst-case situations. It's always good to know what to keep an eye out for when you're designing something. We're not seeing problems in our still Cisco buildings that are near Meru buildings that we are aware of, and the users are pretty good at telling us if it quits working. If there's a silver lining here, it may be that 11n is likely to push most enterprises towards more pervasive 5 GHz deployments, where co-channel interference is not such a big issue. dm - -debbie Debbie Fligor, n9dn Network Engineer, CITES, Univ. of Il email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/fligor My turn. -River ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
May be a little off subject but I would like to post question out there as it seems there are some happy Meru users here on this forum.. Any thoughts or advice on implementing/selecting a wireless system for use in a High School environment ? Specifically, would love any feedback on pros/cons of a central controller based system (ie -Meru, Aruba, etc) vs installing Fat AP's around our building. While our needs are quite simple I am sure, compared to the size of other user's who have posted, I can see there is a great deal of knowledge and experience in this area. Basic site surveys conducted here have indicated we need somewhere around 25 access points to provide coverage throughout our building. Appreciate any input on this subject. Kevin Whitney District Technology Coordinator Cresskill Public Schools 1 Lincoln Drive Cresskill, NJ 07626 201-541-4162 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cresskillboe.k12.nj.us -Original Message- From: Dave Molta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:21 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article Debbie, They were Intel 2915 clients. I have some pretty dense spreadsheets covering various permutations of clients and infrastructure if you are interested in seeing raw results. We didn't come away from this with any firm conclusions about what's good and what's bad (I guess we've learned our lesson about pointing the finger too soon!). What was most interesting to us was the fact that there was so much variation, which is something we didn't expect from such a mature standard. dm -Original Message- From: debbie fligor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:59 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:24, Dave Molta wrote: Just to elaborate a bit, the article James sent around was not the original Meru-Cisco feature story but rather a column that reports on results of subsequent testing. In this column, I reported three things. First, Cisco was unsuccessful in getting the Wi-Fi Alliance to rescind Meru's certification. Since WFA certifies interoperability rather than standards compliance, this is not proof that Meru isn't stretching standards a bit but it still casts a cloud over Cisco's allegations. Second, I reported findings from subsequent tests where we added Aruba to the mix and found that Cisco's performance also cratered when co-located with Aruba gear. Again, that could indicate that Aruba is also somehow playing foul as well (Cisco speculated that they might be using a variation of PCF interframe spacing, though Aruba denied it) but it doesn't look that way to me. Finally, we decided to re-run these interference tests with different mixes of clients, using Atheros, Broadcom, and Intel chipsets. We found significant differences in the performance results. Atheros-based clients performed best. Something I noticed in the article was that Meru did the worst with Intel chipsets, but which chipset wasn't mentioned. The 3945 Intel micro code bug makes them work very poorly with Meru and causes some problems with other vendors APs. We've been waiting for an update from Intel, but still don't have it. What Intel has done is ceased to sell that chipset -- this worries me that there wont be a microcode fix, but at least we wont have new equipment coming in with that card. So if the testing was with all 3945 cards, I don't think that accurately indicates Meru doesn't work well with Intel in general. Dave do you happen to know what the cards were? For those not following the problem with the 3945 cards, there is a bug in the micro code that causes it to crash if it sees out-of-order packets from the same AP. I heard this from an Intel employee on a conference call with them and Meru. It had been replicated in Intel's state-side offices and finally at their development site in Haifa last February just days before our phone call. Since all Meru APs look the same to the client, it's easy for things to be out-of-order like that. The initial work around of setting the power save mode to off didn't work, not because it was the wrong work around, but because the driver kept taking it out of never power save mode. If you update to the latest Intel driver, and then again set it to not use power saving, it stays set that way and the disconnects go away, at least for the ones we've tried it on so far. The broader issues here relate to standards compliance (e.g., to what degree can a vendor selectively implement certain elements of a QoS standard?) and, perhaps more importantly, performance issues with Wi-Fi that may arise in the future as the density of deployed networks results in increasing levels of co-channel interference. I am particuarly concerned about the
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
Kevin - I would caution against just looking at coverage for your high school deployment. I would also consider your user density. We originally went for coverage over capacity at our Law School deployment a couple of years ago. When the instructors discovered wireless coverage, they had their students all try opening web pages at once - 5 classrooms of about 120 students each that was covered by 4 APs. Needless to say, not all the students were able to get on, much less surf to the web pages. We use a rule of 20-30 maximum users per AP here at Emory; less if we expect any sort of multi-media traffic on the wireless network. Personally, I definitely see value of a centralized architecture for as little as 6-10 APs. The centralized systems allow for much easier configuration and management than fat APs, and it will give you a better view into your wireless network. BTW - Emory is an Aruba shop with about 1525 APs and 21 controllers. - Stan Brooks - CWNA/CWSP Emory University Network Communications Division 404.727.0226 [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: WLANstan Yahoo!: WLANstan MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Kevin Whitney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:34 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article May be a little off subject but I would like to post question out there as it seems there are some happy Meru users here on this forum.. Any thoughts or advice on implementing/selecting a wireless system for use in a High School environment ? Specifically, would love any feedback on pros/cons of a central controller based system (ie -Meru, Aruba, etc) vs installing Fat AP's around our building. While our needs are quite simple I am sure, compared to the size of other user's who have posted, I can see there is a great deal of knowledge and experience in this area. Basic site surveys conducted here have indicated we need somewhere around 25 access points to provide coverage throughout our building. Appreciate any input on this subject. Kevin Whitney District Technology Coordinator Cresskill Public Schools 1 Lincoln Drive Cresskill, NJ 07626 201-541-4162 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cresskillboe.k12.nj.us -Original Message- From: Dave Molta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:21 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article Debbie, They were Intel 2915 clients. I have some pretty dense spreadsheets covering various permutations of clients and infrastructure if you are interested in seeing raw results. We didn't come away from this with any firm conclusions about what's good and what's bad (I guess we've learned our lesson about pointing the finger too soon!). What was most interesting to us was the fact that there was so much variation, which is something we didn't expect from such a mature standard. dm -Original Message- From: debbie fligor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:59 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:24, Dave Molta wrote: Just to elaborate a bit, the article James sent around was not the original Meru-Cisco feature story but rather a column that reports on results of subsequent testing. In this column, I reported three things. First, Cisco was unsuccessful in getting the Wi-Fi Alliance to rescind Meru's certification. Since WFA certifies interoperability rather than standards compliance, this is not proof that Meru isn't stretching standards a bit but it still casts a cloud over Cisco's allegations. Second, I reported findings from subsequent tests where we added Aruba to the mix and found that Cisco's performance also cratered when co-located with Aruba gear. Again, that could indicate that Aruba is also somehow playing foul as well (Cisco speculated that they might be using a variation of PCF interframe spacing, though Aruba denied it) but it doesn't look that way to me. Finally, we decided to re-run these interference tests with different mixes of clients, using Atheros, Broadcom, and Intel chipsets. We found significant differences in the performance results. Atheros-based clients performed best. Something I noticed in the article was that Meru did the worst with Intel chipsets, but which chipset wasn't mentioned. The 3945 Intel micro code bug makes them work very poorly with Meru and causes some problems with other vendors APs. We've been waiting for an update from Intel, but still don't have it. What Intel has done is ceased to sell that chipset -- this worries me that there wont be a microcode fix, but at least we wont have new equipment coming in with that card. So if the testing was with all 3945 cards, I don't think that accurately indicates Meru doesn't work well with Intel
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
Kevin - 25 APs is getting on the heavy side for managing them individually. We had around that number of Cisco FAT APs and management was very difficult. I didn't have an easy way to determine usage, upgrade software, update configurations or do troubleshooting. Going to a controller based system has been wonderful. Meru makes a controller for up to 30 access points before you step up into bigger gear. I'm not familiar with Aruba, but I expect they do as well. I highly recommend you go to a centrally managed system, rather than trying to manage your APs individually. Tim Winders | Associate Dean of Information Technology | South Plains College -Original Message- From: Kevin Whitney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 1:34 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article May be a little off subject but I would like to post question out there as it seems there are some happy Meru users here on this forum.. Any thoughts or advice on implementing/selecting a wireless system for use in a High School environment ? Specifically, would love any feedback on pros/cons of a central controller based system (ie -Meru, Aruba, etc) vs installing Fat AP's around our building. While our needs are quite simple I am sure, compared to the size of other user's who have posted, I can see there is a great deal of knowledge and experience in this area. Basic site surveys conducted here have indicated we need somewhere around 25 access points to provide coverage throughout our building. Appreciate any input on this subject. Kevin Whitney District Technology Coordinator Cresskill Public Schools 1 Lincoln Drive Cresskill, NJ 07626 201-541-4162 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cresskillboe.k12.nj.us -Original Message- From: Dave Molta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:21 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article Debbie, They were Intel 2915 clients. I have some pretty dense spreadsheets covering various permutations of clients and infrastructure if you are interested in seeing raw results. We didn't come away from this with any firm conclusions about what's good and what's bad (I guess we've learned our lesson about pointing the finger too soon!). What was most interesting to us was the fact that there was so much variation, which is something we didn't expect from such a mature standard. dm -Original Message- From: debbie fligor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:59 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:24, Dave Molta wrote: Just to elaborate a bit, the article James sent around was not the original Meru-Cisco feature story but rather a column that reports on results of subsequent testing. In this column, I reported three things. First, Cisco was unsuccessful in getting the Wi-Fi Alliance to rescind Meru's certification. Since WFA certifies interoperability rather than standards compliance, this is not proof that Meru isn't stretching standards a bit but it still casts a cloud over Cisco's allegations. Second, I reported findings from subsequent tests where we added Aruba to the mix and found that Cisco's performance also cratered when co-located with Aruba gear. Again, that could indicate that Aruba is also somehow playing foul as well (Cisco speculated that they might be using a variation of PCF interframe spacing, though Aruba denied it) but it doesn't look that way to me. Finally, we decided to re-run these interference tests with different mixes of clients, using Atheros, Broadcom, and Intel chipsets. We found significant differences in the performance results. Atheros-based clients performed best. Something I noticed in the article was that Meru did the worst with Intel chipsets, but which chipset wasn't mentioned. The 3945 Intel micro code bug makes them work very poorly with Meru and causes some problems with other vendors APs. We've been waiting for an update from Intel, but still don't have it. What Intel has done is ceased to sell that chipset -- this worries me that there wont be a microcode fix, but at least we wont have new equipment coming in with that card. So if the testing was with all 3945 cards, I don't think that accurately indicates Meru doesn't work well with Intel in general. Dave do you happen to know what the cards were? For those not following the problem with the 3945 cards, there is a bug in the micro code that causes it to crash if it sees out-of-order packets from the same AP. I heard this from an Intel employee on a conference call with them and Meru. It had been replicated in Intel's state-side offices and finally at their
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
Hi Kevin, At Villanova, we're migrating from Cisco fat APs to Meru. One of the things we found is, we need fewer Meru APs than before. For example, we were able to provide service for over 500 law students taking exams with 10 Meru APs in 5 classrooms. Since all the APs were on a single channel, if we did have a contention issue, adding another AP to the mix would have been a simple process. No need to play with channel layouts power settings. HTH -John Kevin Whitney wrote: May be a little off subject but I would like to post question out there as it seems there are some happy Meru users here on this forum.. Any thoughts or advice on implementing/selecting a wireless system for use in a High School environment ? Specifically, would love any feedback on pros/cons of a central controller based system (ie -Meru, Aruba, etc) vs installing Fat AP's around our building. While our needs are quite simple I am sure, compared to the size of other user's who have posted, I can see there is a great deal of knowledge and experience in this area. Basic site surveys conducted here have indicated we need somewhere around 25 access points to provide coverage throughout our building. Appreciate any input on this subject. Kevin Whitney District Technology Coordinator Cresskill Public Schools 1 Lincoln Drive Cresskill, NJ 07626 201-541-4162 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cresskillboe.k12.nj.us -- John Center Villanova University ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
On Jun 14, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Kevin Whitney wrote: Any thoughts or advice on implementing/selecting a wireless system for use in a High School environment ? Hi Kevin, In talking to IT staff from K-12's at our (WiscNet's) last conference, one interesting thing I found was that technology has to work on the first try. For example, a demo or document sharing done via wireless when it's not working or too slow can severely interrupt a lesson plan, and most teachers will only tolerate their lesson plans being burnt once or twice. The point that was hammered over and over was professionaly done design (usually outsourced for K-12's) site surveys done before and after installation. A large part of that design process, as others have mentioned is planning upfront for user density. A few classrooms back to back covered by only a few AP's may not work under load. For pros cons on central controller vs fat AP's, you should hands down go with a central controller unless you are a programmer willing to write tools to monitor and automate tasks and your labor doesn't figure into the real cost of the wireless install. You will still probably want to use a controller later anyway, as that's the only place where new feature development is really occurring. Dale University of Wisconsin WiscNet ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
Flexibility is paramount in any Wireless network. We all want to build the minimum to meet the coverage and performance expectations for today and tomorrow. The problem is what about day after tomorrow? Once wireless kindles in minor uses and innovation begins then the usage patterns start to change. Of course there are the fixed laptop cart classrooms that make user density planning easy. Ideally we would all deploy a maximum level of capacity at all locations -- if money were no object. This is, in my opinion, the most outstanding feature and benefit that Meru delivers above all others in the a/b/g and even in the n range. Where else can you paint for coverage with an access point that can handle between 128 clients. *This is a tested number with VoWLAN phones by one of their clients* Then take that paint for coverage model and deploy additional capacity on non-overlapping channels anywhere it is needed. Now you've provided the optimal formula, the minimum to operate everywhere with the minimum costs (both financial and technical) to upgrade. You don't sacrifice your tech staffs time to resurvey by changing power levels on micro or pico cells. You don't waste resources buying more access points than you need. You DO at absolute maximum deployment gain the ability to deploy EVERYWHERE in your environment the full 3 non overlapping channels of b/g or the ful 8-16 channels of a (depending on region) l thus providing the absolute maximum possible bandwidth that either standard can supply for more clients per ap than any other vendor can support. The added option of using centralized architecture with the ability to detach the dataplane of any AP from tunneled to bridged brings management and flexibility. This way when you have multi-radio ap's capable of generating more bandwidth than you have deliverable to your controllers you don't have to decentralize your controllers, you have a choice. WIth Meru when you do this you still get configuration and firmware maintenance from the central controller. The various rules of thumb out there are wise but become less critical as scaling the network becomes less of a hassle and less of a cost. Perhaps I've had too much Meru kool-aid but this is one case where there isn't too much of a good thing. The data from their variety of clients bears it out quite well. Mike - Michael G. Ruiz, ESSE ACP A+ Network and Systems Engineer Hobart and William Smith Colleges Information Technology Services P.315-781-3711 F.315-781-3409 Team Leader: Derek Lustig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Did you know that HWS Students, Faculty, Staff, Alums, etc can purchase computers, accessories, electronics and software at a discount through our partner CDW-G? http://www.cdwg.com/hws/ - From: Brooks, Stan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 6/14/2007 3:42 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article Kevin - I would caution against just looking at coverage for your high school deployment. I would also consider your user density. We originally went for coverage over capacity at our Law School deployment a couple of years ago. When the instructors discovered wireless coverage, they had their students all try opening web pages at once - 5 classrooms of about 120 students each that was covered by 4 APs. Needless to say, not all the students were able to get on, much less surf to the web pages. We use a rule of 20-30 maximum users per AP here at Emory; less if we expect any sort of multi-media traffic on the wireless network. Personally, I definitely see value of a centralized architecture for as little as 6-10 APs. The centralized systems allow for much easier configuration and management than fat APs, and it will give you a better view into your wireless network. BTW - Emory is an Aruba shop with about 1525 APs and 21 controllers. - Stan Brooks - CWNA/CWSP Emory University Network Communications Division 404.727.0226 [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: WLANstan Yahoo!: WLANstan MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Kevin Whitney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:34 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article May be a little off subject but I would like to post question out there as it seems there are some happy Meru users here on this forum.. Any thoughts or advice on implementing/selecting a wireless system for use in a High School environment ? Specifically, would love any feedback on pros/cons of a central controller based system (ie -Meru, Aruba, etc) vs installing Fat AP's around our building. While our needs are quite simple I am sure, compared to the size of other user's who have posted, I can see there is a great deal of knowledge and experience in this area. Basic site surveys conducted here have
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
Good discussion going on here. It should probably be clarified that having a controller does not mean that all the data flows have to or will be centralized. There are generally three planes: management, control, and data. Almost all the vendors provide a centralized management plan and that's almost a de-facto must for anything but the smallest installations. For many vendors the control plane is also centralized, not necessarily. And it's just in the last few months that vendors are really talking about distributing the data plane, which could become busier with the higher speeds possible through 802.11n. As Dale suggests, there's no need to re-invent the AP management wheel. Frank -Original Message- From: Dale W. Carder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:53 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article On Jun 14, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Kevin Whitney wrote: Any thoughts or advice on implementing/selecting a wireless system for use in a High School environment ? Hi Kevin, snip For pros cons on central controller vs fat AP's, you should hands down go with a central controller unless you are a programmer willing to write tools to monitor and automate tasks and your labor doesn't figure into the real cost of the wireless install. You will still probably want to use a controller later anyway, as that's the only place where new feature development is really occurring. Dale University of Wisconsin WiscNet ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
Most wireless networks will not see the effect of co-channel interference and degradation from neighboring networks unless they are moving serious amounts of traffic. Remember the Network Computing's tests used Chariot to fill the pipe. So just because you haven't seen a problem in your deployments doesn't mean it's not happening, it's just more likely that it's not noticeable in casual-use networks. And even if you did try to systematically evaluate the performance of those APs that 'touch' neighboring wireless networks, the existence of your own production traffic and neighboring APs would make it difficult to tease out the specific causes. Frank -Original Message- From: debbie fligor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:59 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:24, Dave Molta wrote: snip The broader issues here relate to standards compliance (e.g., to what degree can a vendor selectively implement certain elements of a QoS standard?) and, perhaps more importantly, performance issues with Wi-Fi that may arise in the future as the density of deployed networks results in increasing levels of co-channel interference. I am particuarly concerned about the intersection between private enterprise WLANs and public metro Wi-Fi networks. It may not be a big problem today but I wonder if it will be a problem in the future. We understand that our tests represent worst-case scenarios that few enterprises currently experience but sometimes there is value in pointing out the worst-case situations. It's always good to know what to keep an eye out for when you're designing something. We're not seeing problems in our still Cisco buildings that are near Meru buildings that we are aware of, and the users are pretty good at telling us if it quits working. If there's a silver lining here, it may be that 11n is likely to push most enterprises towards more pervasive 5 GHz deployments, where co-channel interference is not such a big issue. dm - -debbie Debbie Fligor, n9dn Network Engineer, CITES, Univ. of Il email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/fligor My turn. -River ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Advantages of Controller-based Wireless
Different vendor products offer different extra gravy. But in general, I see CBW as providing only a few benefits. They are important benefits for large scale implementations, but may not be worth the additional cost for small to medium scale deployments. I see the main advantages as: 1) True mobility - If you wireless LAN is small enough to have all users on a single subnet, you have that anyway. 2) The ability to pop different groups of users onto different vlans without plumbing all those vlans to every access point. Maybe not that valuable for two VLANs and 25 APs. 3) Potential for location-based services. Not clear to me that this is really strategic rather than just cool. I'm not sure I agree these are must have for smaller deployments. We did just fine with per-AP management until we were approaching 100 or so. For the most part, we didn't have to log into them all that often. However, realizing we were going to have 100s and eventually 1000s of APs we bought Airwave's AMP product, which provides an excellent central management platform for stand-alone APs (if you buy brands they support, which is most, maybe all, of the major brands). I don't see the centralized management aspect of CBW to be the driving force for us. Tom Zeller Indiana University [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Advantages of Controller-based Wireless
Tom: You didn't need the management capabilities of a CBW product because you had AirWave do that for you. Nothing wrong with that. It's just that most organizations prefer to use the vendor's management interface rather than a third-party one. The first point you raise about true mobility is definitely a value-add, and achieved by the control plane. Your second point is referred to some as 'VLAN explosion'. There's no doubt, putting the data plane on the controller rather than the AP simplifies VLAN management, but there are some possible concerns in relation to latency, jitter, and the controller's ability to process all the network traffic. I say possible, because the vendors with the strongest centralized-data plane vision, namely Aruba and Cisco, will likely build whatever box necessary to switch the Gbps achievable with 802.11n and a large deployment. In regards to your third point, there's nothing inherently better about location-based services with a CBW, it's just that those vendors (Cisco, Trapeze, and Meru) have been the ones to offer it. It's the APs that capture/record the signal, so there's no reason that AirWave couldn't read those values and do the same time of LBS as anyone else. Frank -Original Message- From: Tom Zeller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:18 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Advantages of Controller-based Wireless Different vendor products offer different extra gravy. But in general, I see CBW as providing only a few benefits. They are important benefits for large scale implementations, but may not be worth the additional cost for small to medium scale deployments. I see the main advantages as: 1) True mobility - If you wireless LAN is small enough to have all users on a single subnet, you have that anyway. 2) The ability to pop different groups of users onto different vlans without plumbing all those vlans to every access point. Maybe not that valuable for two VLANs and 25 APs. 3) Potential for location-based services. Not clear to me that this is really strategic rather than just cool. I'm not sure I agree these are must have for smaller deployments. We did just fine with per-AP management until we were approaching 100 or so. For the most part, we didn't have to log into them all that often. However, realizing we were going to have 100s and eventually 1000s of APs we bought Airwave's AMP product, which provides an excellent central management platform for stand-alone APs (if you buy brands they support, which is most, maybe all, of the major brands). I don't see the centralized management aspect of CBW to be the driving force for us. Tom Zeller Indiana University [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
