Peter, I very much appreciated your contribution, and found the paper to be a useful overview of the territory. While your affiliation with Aruba was clear, I thought you did a good job of describing the basics of the architectures without leaving an impression of excessive bias.
Obviously there are differences of opinion about which approach may be better. But I, for one, always appreciate it when someone tries to explain the issues rather than simply assert their own superiority and/or throw marketing mud and FUD. As you note, I am a major proponent of testing wireless systems, and I hope that the results that were reported in the Novarum paper will result in more testing of enterprise wireless systems under real-world loads to investigate the issues that were revealed. No single technology or single approach to wireless networking is going to be perfect. Instead, we need to learn more about how wireless technologies and these different approaches behave in enterprise wireless networks and under real-world loads, so that everyone, network managers and vendors alike, can be successful when it comes to deploying this technology to deliver networking to users. Thanks, -Charles (not "Chuck" -- don't know where Dave Molta got that :-) Charles E. Spurgeon / UTnet UT Austin ITS / Networking [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 512.475.9265 On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 12:07:36PM -0700, Peter Thornycroft wrote: > > I'd like to quickly address some of the comments that were posted in > response to my paper on WLAN RF Architectures, which was an attempt to > enumerate the technical differences between a single channel WLAN > model and adaptive model. The post below has sparked some healthy > debate on the topic. > > > > The paper was created to fill a gap in available material on the > subject, especially as it relates to a fair assessment of the two > architectures. While some level of bias is inevitable given my > affiliation with Aruba, I made every effort to stay neutral on > evaluating the two solutions and separate the abundance of marketing > claims, driven by the fierce but healthy competitive environment, from > the actual technical capabilities of the two architectures. > > > > The intent of the paper was to provide a technical comparison of > adaptive vs. single-channel architectures and should not be viewed as > a substitute for an independent (read: not vendor sponsored) test of > the competing solutions. I would echo Chuck and Dave's comments about > the need for better information about WLAN scalability and encourage > more 802.11n tests that expose these differences between vendors. > This is critical evaluation criteria for the Higher Education space. > > > > I appreciate everyone's comments on the subject and the feedback from > my paper. > > > Peter Thornycroft > > Aruba Networks > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Johnson, > Bruce T > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:06 AM > To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Open Wireless in Higher Ed > > > Brian, > > > I'm curious about your Meru experiences. Aruba recently released a > white paper on the downsides of a single-channel architecture. Its a > pretty cogent argument, and I haven't seen any response yet from Meru. > > > You can take a look at it here: > > > [1]http://www.arubanetworks.com/pdf/technology/whitepapers/wp_RFARCH.p > df > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fruits, Brian > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:33 AM > To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Open Wireless in Higher Ed > > We use the captive portal with Bluesocket as well but, we authenticate > against external AD/LDAP and allow limited guest access. In our case > we can't do client policy enforcement (require AV, patches, etc.) like > Cisco Clean Access, but we can require that certain user groups use > different levels of security such as L2TP or IPSEC which can be > handled by the Bluesocket. The Bluesocket also assigns users into > roles that allow us to customize traffic limits and firewall > restrictions. Our primary access points are Meru Networks AP208s. > The APs will handle our WPA when we start heading in that direction. > Both Meru and Bluesocket can operate in multi-vlan configurations > allowing for good flexibility for different client classes (i.e. > voice) in a single box. > > > Brian Fruits > > ITS - Network Services > > UNC Charlotte > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jamie Savage > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:15 AM > To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Open Wireless in Higher Ed > > > We use a captive portal scenario with Bluesocket boxes. The > Bluesocket boxes redirect the user to a login page and verifies the > account/password combination via RADIUS. > ................................J > James Savage York University > > Senior Communications Tech. 108 Steacie Building > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4700 Keele Street > ph: 416-736-2100 ext. 22605 Toronto, Ontario > fax: 416-736-5701 M3J 1P3, CANADA > > Daniel Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv > <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> > > 03/26/2008 07:54 AM > > Please respond to > The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv > <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> > > To > > WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > > cc > > > Subject > > [WIRELESS-LAN] Open Wireless in Higher Ed > > > > > We are looking at technologies such as Radius, Cisco Clean Access, > etc. to require our wireless client to authenticate to our network. > Currently we have an open, unsecured wireless network. What are you > Higher Ed institutions implementing to make sure that only valid users > are using your wireless networks? If your policy is to do nothing > then please indicate that as well. > Thanks > Daniel R. Bennett > CompTIA Security+ > Information Technology Security Analyst > Pennsylvania College of Technology > One College Ave > Williamsport, PA 17701 > (P) 570.329.4989 > ********** > 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 > EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only > for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential > and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other > use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or > entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this > information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 > an > d > properly dispose of this information. > > > > ********** 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/. > > References > > 1. http://www.arubanetworks.com/pdf/technology/whitepapers/wp_RFARCH.pdf ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
