Rogue Devices
Can anyone suggest a good tool that I can detect/ prevent Rogue devices out in the network. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: Rogue Devices
Which wireless system are you using? What type of rogue devices are you most interested in? (rogue on a wire, neighboring device, etc.) Do you need to also locate these rogue devices? From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Bibin George Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:27 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Rogue Devices Can anyone suggest a good tool that I can detect/ prevent Rogue devices out in the network. ** 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] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service...
Lee, I agree with you on this. The students don’t ask if there is air to breath on campus. There is an unspoken expectation that air will be provided. Wi-Fi is evolving as a basic expectation that does not need to be specified. John Cosgrove Wireless Staff Specialist PSU/College of Medicine MS Hershey Medical Center From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:50 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... Chuck- you might want to add the question “Do you assume that we have excellent Wi-Fi connectivity?” at the top of the list. For students that grew up wireless, my own experience shows that this very much is the assumption. They are so used to it at home they don’t give it much thought- until it sucks. -Lee Lee Badman Wireless/Network Architect ITS, Syracuse University 315.443.3003 (Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com) From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chuck Enfield Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:48 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... Thanks John. FWIW, your characterization matches my experience in re the opinions of people in a position to know. But every time I've been able to ask the basis for that opinion the evidence is either anecdotal or it's based on a survey of their peers. This reeks of groupthink. I have my own anecdotal evidence, no more reliable than others of course, that suggest connectivity isn't high on the priority list of prospective students. When presented with the opportunity, I've asked some of our Lion Ambassadors, who give campus tours to prospective students, what kind of questions they get about wireless and networking. All four that I've asked said they don't get general questions about availability or performance. They reported being asked about how to access the network during the tour, but that question was more likely to come from a parent than an applicant. I think this is a very important question, but I don't have the resources to pursue the answer myself. I eagerly await credible evidence one way or the other. Chuck On May 13, 2015 9:06 PM, Jon Young j...@network-plumbers.commailto:j...@network-plumbers.com wrote: Chuck, That's a very fair question and I don't believe there is solid data to support (or oppose) my contention. I can only support my claim by consistent anecdotal opinions of those in the institutional position to know - our stakeholder interviews with personnel in Admissions, Res Life, Student Affairs strongly favor this opinion at most residential institutions. Interestingly, in my experience this is less so for those institutions that have a larger demographic from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. I'll leave the guessing as to why that is so to another forum. As you are likely aware, the ACUTA survey supports my contention but I am unaware of any solid data surveying student recruitment in this area so it is accurate to say that my opinion is based strictly on anecdotal (but consistent) evidence from key stakeholders at a broad swath of institutions. Even the ACUTA survey is based on the opinions of the those institutional personnel, not direct student surveys. That said, for internal political purposes, those internal stakeholder opinions tend to be crucial in gaining the backing needed for effective wireless initiatives. As we all also know, higher-ed has a strong tendency to base decisions on what peers and aspirational peers are doing and the ACUTA survey can be an excellent tool for this. Thanks, Jon Vantage Technology Consulting Group On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Chuck Enfield chu...@psu.edumailto:chu...@psu.edu wrote: John, I’ve often heard it said that wireless is important to recruiting and retention, but I’ve yet to find any solid foundation for the claim. This may be because those search terms in Google return so much unrelated information that the good data is hard to find, or it could be that the claim is tenuous. Can you point us to any sources to substantiate it? I’m skeptical, but open to evidence. It would definitely change the way I think about our wireless services in relation to business needs. Thanks, Chuck Enfield Manager, Wireless Systems Engineering Telecommunications Networking Services The Pennsylvania State University 110H, USB2, UP, PA 16802 ph: 814.863.8715tel:814.863.8715 fx: 814.865.3988tel:814.865.3988 From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU]
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service...
Brian, All I'm seeing is a suggested solution--use cellular rather than 802.11. Have you been given a problem statement? That is, what problem is being solved by using cellular? Carrier X caught the ear of someone here a few years ago and we went through this exercise. Like you, I immediately knew it was a bad idea. I explained some of the major drawbacks but quickly realized that there was some serious mesmerization going on and backed off. Sometimes you need to stop trying to take the shovel away. You get to the bottom of the hole faster. Carrier X came in with their plan. We said, Oh, that was way more expensive than we thought. Never mind. Good luck! Rand Rand P. Hall Director, Network Services askIT! Merrimack College 978-837-3532 rand.h...@merrimack.edu If I had an hour to save the world, I would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and five minutes finding solutions. – Einstein On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Brian Helman bhel...@salemstate.edu wrote: I have a little more information to provide now. I absolutely appreciate that it will be extremely tempting to respond with biased opinions. I don’t think there is anything that can be said that I haven’t already expressed to my team. However, that will not help me write up my recommendation. So that being said, feel free to chime in with tangible reasons to do this or not… Apparently, our president heard that some schools are investigating purchasing bulk data contracts with mobile (“cellular”) carriers for data. The idea is, we would stop providing 802.11g/n/ac wireless in the residence halls and instead provide students with the abilities to register their devices with the mobile carrier to use 4G/LTE data. The University will pay for this. Pros: No wireless (802.11) to purchase, support Reduced POE requirements on switches No wireless driver/configuration mismatches problems to support Cons: Is mobile wireless signal available everywhere inside the buildings? Costs to improve signal. What speeds are available (what range of speeds)? Is it by user or aggregate? How is congestion handled? What devices – mobile phones only? Hotspots to provide access to non-cellular devices (e.g wifi-only tablets; laptops) More Ethernet ports needed for devices that previously depended on wireless What provider(s)? Support shifted from “device to institutional wifi” to “device to myfi” or “devide to 3rd party” Cost per user, per GB? What else? If you know of any institutions who have attempted this (I have heard MIT is looking at it, but we aren’t MIT), please let me know. By the way, the background here is .. we installed our 802.11n network ~5 years ago and haven’t had any commitment to fund it since. So now we are trying to deal with capacity (BYOD) issues that didn’t exist 5 years ago while upgrading to 11ac. Of course, it’s not a 1:1 swap of equipment since we’d be migrating from 2.4GHz to 2.4+5GHz. That puts the costs for forklift upgrades pretty high (did I mention I’ve been unsuccessfully asking for funding for 3 years?). I believe this can all best be summarized with a simple .. Oy. -Brian *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Jerkan, Kristijan *Sent:* Sunday, May 03, 2015 12:34 PM *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU *Subject:* [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... As a public institution in the EDU sector we always had a byod policy in our dorm network, specifically including „anything You want to connect to the port in Your room“. Parameters: -5k+ dorm rooms (1.8k the largest segment, 20 the smallest) -120km radius -at least one (mostly two) RJ45 port per room (cat5-7 to the switch, fiber afterwards) -10/100MBit ports (deliberatly did not go for 1GBit at the edge) -no additional accounting, just dhcp with opt82 -public ips behind reflexive acl (no shaping, etc.) -uplink via the federal research network -service neutral (whoever wants to can use a DSL provider also/instead and may use the inhouse cable from their basement to their room for it) -one service number (fixed number, forwarded to five cellphones – whoever picks up first wins) -managed by ~10 students (pro bono, but with a couple of incentives) That beeing said, here are a few points why this works for us and is not generally applicable: -people have to work together to archive common goals (state, local, university and dorm administration – technical and administrative staff) -it does not take much to put a service neutral CAT cable into every room while they are beeing built/renovated instead of a cheaper telephone cable, but it does take a joint effort and common goals -to every dorm room there is a rent/contract, so we know who is „behind“ it and can make one
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service...
Chuck- you might want to add the question “Do you assume that we have excellent Wi-Fi connectivity?” at the top of the list. For students that grew up wireless, my own experience shows that this very much is the assumption. They are so used to it at home they don’t give it much thought- until it sucks. -Lee Lee Badman Wireless/Network Architect ITS, Syracuse University 315.443.3003 (Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com) From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chuck Enfield Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:48 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... Thanks John. FWIW, your characterization matches my experience in re the opinions of people in a position to know. But every time I've been able to ask the basis for that opinion the evidence is either anecdotal or it's based on a survey of their peers. This reeks of groupthink. I have my own anecdotal evidence, no more reliable than others of course, that suggest connectivity isn't high on the priority list of prospective students. When presented with the opportunity, I've asked some of our Lion Ambassadors, who give campus tours to prospective students, what kind of questions they get about wireless and networking. All four that I've asked said they don't get general questions about availability or performance. They reported being asked about how to access the network during the tour, but that question was more likely to come from a parent than an applicant. I think this is a very important question, but I don't have the resources to pursue the answer myself. I eagerly await credible evidence one way or the other. Chuck On May 13, 2015 9:06 PM, Jon Young j...@network-plumbers.commailto:j...@network-plumbers.com wrote: Chuck, That's a very fair question and I don't believe there is solid data to support (or oppose) my contention. I can only support my claim by consistent anecdotal opinions of those in the institutional position to know - our stakeholder interviews with personnel in Admissions, Res Life, Student Affairs strongly favor this opinion at most residential institutions. Interestingly, in my experience this is less so for those institutions that have a larger demographic from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. I'll leave the guessing as to why that is so to another forum. As you are likely aware, the ACUTA survey supports my contention but I am unaware of any solid data surveying student recruitment in this area so it is accurate to say that my opinion is based strictly on anecdotal (but consistent) evidence from key stakeholders at a broad swath of institutions. Even the ACUTA survey is based on the opinions of the those institutional personnel, not direct student surveys. That said, for internal political purposes, those internal stakeholder opinions tend to be crucial in gaining the backing needed for effective wireless initiatives. As we all also know, higher-ed has a strong tendency to base decisions on what peers and aspirational peers are doing and the ACUTA survey can be an excellent tool for this. Thanks, Jon Vantage Technology Consulting Group On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Chuck Enfield chu...@psu.edumailto:chu...@psu.edu wrote: John, I’ve often heard it said that wireless is important to recruiting and retention, but I’ve yet to find any solid foundation for the claim. This may be because those search terms in Google return so much unrelated information that the good data is hard to find, or it could be that the claim is tenuous. Can you point us to any sources to substantiate it? I’m skeptical, but open to evidence. It would definitely change the way I think about our wireless services in relation to business needs. Thanks, Chuck Enfield Manager, Wireless Systems Engineering Telecommunications Networking Services The Pennsylvania State University 110H, USB2, UP, PA 16802 ph: 814.863.8715tel:814.863.8715 fx: 814.865.3988tel:814.865.3988 From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jon Young Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 4:43 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... We consult with many higher-ed institutions and the question your President has posed about buying bulk data is a real one that many institutions have looked into. We are frequently asked this question (same question for cellular when it is time to replace the phone system) when we assist schools with the network and WiFi strategy so I can tell you that if you define the some schools are investigating this by asking their
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service...
Wi-Fi has become an (expensive to maintain) utility. It is just expected to be there and work well. You don't have people going around asking how much of a deciding factor the reliability of the electricity is for choosing where to go to school. Also, 7Signal isn't exactly an unbiased party with no conflicts of interest... On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 09:58:29AM -0400, Chuck Enfield wrote: I have no doubt that network availability, accessibility, and performance all affect student satisfaction. But my question is directed at the issue of recruitment and retention, as these things have a clear impact on the bottom line. It stands to reason that student satisfaction affects the bottom line as well, but to what extent is far less clear. If we can't figure out if networking is a significant factor in who chooses to attend our institutions, it's highly unlikely we'll figure out how it affects things like alumni activity, donations, etc.. The (undated) graphic Chris provided is the first time I've seen a survey of students that addresses the recruitment question. 38% say Wi-Fi quality is a deciding factor is pretty powerful. That said, how students choose their institution is a well-researched question and I've never found information like this in any other source. Typical of what I find is this 3 year old data from a UCLA survey: 1. College has very good academic reputation (63.8 percent) 2. This college's graduates get good jobs (55.9 percent) 3. I was offered financial assistance (45.6 percent) 4. The cost of attending this college (43.3 percent) 5. A visit to this campus (41.8 percent) 6. College has a good reputation for its social activities (40.2 percent) 7. Wanted to go to a college about this size (38.8 percent) 8. College's grads get into top grad/professional schools (32.8 percent) 9. The percentage of students that graduate from this college (30.4 percent) 10. I wanted to live near home (20.1 percent) 11. Information from a website (18.7 percent) 12. Rankings in national magazines (18.2 percent) 13. Parents wanted me to go to this school (15.1 percent) 14. Admitted early decision and/or early action (13.7 percent) 15. Could not afford first choice (13.4 percent) 16. High school counselor advised me (10.3 percent) 17. Not offered aid by first choice (9.5 percent) 18. Athletic department recruited me (8.9 percent) 19. Attracted by the religious affiliation/orientation of college (7.4 percent) 20. My relatives wanted me to come here (6.8 percent) 20. My teacher advised me (6.8 percent) 22. Private college counselor advised me (3.8 percent) 23. Ability to take online courses (3.2 percent) Based on this, it's pretty clear that 7 Signal didn't conduct their survey at UCLA in the fall of 2012. I've been able to find newer data, but nothing that lists this many factors. That's another problem with the available data. Amongst surveys which describe their methodology, many decide a priori what factors are important and let respondents choose from those factors in an attempt to weight them. As far as I can discern, few surveys allow the respondents to add factors that the surveyor didn't include. I don’t mean to give the impression that I've researched this topic exhaustively. I've probably spent 10-12 hours deliberately researching it over the last couple years. That activity has left me with 2 conclusions: 1) I don’t know how Wi-Fi affects enrollment, and 2) it's likely that nobody else does either. Chuck ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service...
Agree, but feel that the information is probably a pretty accurate representation all the same. Walter Reynolds Principal Systems Security Development Engineer Information and Technology Services University of Michigan (734) 615-9438 On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Lee H Badman lhbad...@syr.edu wrote: Is a great info graphic- but is only 208 students sampled, with no idea from x number of schools? Detracts from the validity (in my opinion). Lee Badman Wireless/Network Architect ITS, Syracuse University 315.443.3003 (Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com) *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Michael Allison *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:47 AM *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... I found some documentation on how WiFi ranks with students. It was a something done by a company called 7Signal. The PDF attached is their results. CHRISTOPHER ALLISON Network Engineer I Information Technology Mail Code 4622 625 Wham Drive Carbondale, Illinois 62901 chris.m.alli...@siu.edu %20chris.m.alli...@siu.edu P: 618 / 453 - 8415 F: 618 / 453 - 5261 INFOTECH.SIU.EDU http://infotech.siu.edu/ *Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.* Confucius -- *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU on behalf of Chuck Enfield chu...@psu.edu *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:02 PM *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... I agree that it's important for students to have network access in their homes. That says nothing about who should provide said access, and little about the specific features required. FWIW, the cost of a robust WiFi network in residence halls is generally so small compared to the other costs covered by the housing contract, that to provide it is almost a no-brainier. We're just finishing up an 18-month roll-out throughout our 153 residence halls. The 5-year cost of WiFi is about 1% of housing contract revenue. The per-student cost of a semester network access in the res halls is a little more than what Comcast charges for one month of broadband internet access in a downtown apartment. If the students want it and we can provide it at a lower cost than they could get it on the open market, why wouldn't we? -- *From: *Jake Snyder jsnyde...@gmail.com *To: *WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU *Sent: *Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:25:37 PM *Subject: *Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... The other factor in resnet applications is who is paying the bills. Some campuses require students to live on campus. Others compete directly with off-campus housing for revenue. Still others, housing and dining services are income sources to the school. Poor wireless becomes a student satisfaction issue. This can result in students leaving the school altogether (retention), or simply students moving to private housing (loss of revenue to housing). Both have a direct financial impact to the school. Sent from my iPhone On May 13, 2015, at 7:05 PM, Jon Young j...@network-plumbers.com wrote: Chuck, That's a very fair question and I don't believe there is solid data to support (or oppose) my contention. I can only support my claim by consistent anecdotal opinions of those in the institutional position to know - our stakeholder interviews with personnel in Admissions, Res Life, Student Affairs strongly favor this opinion at most residential institutions. Interestingly, in my experience this is less so for those institutions that have a larger demographic from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. I'll leave the guessing as to why that is so to another forum. As you are likely aware, the ACUTA survey supports my contention but I am unaware of any solid data surveying student recruitment in this area so it is accurate to say that my opinion is based strictly on anecdotal (but consistent) evidence from key stakeholders at a broad swath of institutions. Even the ACUTA survey is based on the opinions of the those institutional personnel, not direct student surveys. That said, for internal political purposes, those internal stakeholder opinions tend to be crucial in gaining the backing needed for effective wireless initiatives. As we all also know, higher-ed has a strong tendency to base decisions on what peers and aspirational peers are doing and the ACUTA survey can be an excellent tool for this.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service...
I have no doubt that network availability, accessibility, and performance all affect student satisfaction. But my question is directed at the issue of recruitment and retention, as these things have a clear impact on the bottom line. It stands to reason that student satisfaction affects the bottom line as well, but to what extent is far less clear. If we can't figure out if networking is a significant factor in who chooses to attend our institutions, it's highly unlikely we'll figure out how it affects things like alumni activity, donations, etc.. The (undated) graphic Chris provided is the first time I've seen a survey of students that addresses the recruitment question. 38% say Wi-Fi quality is a deciding factor is pretty powerful. That said, how students choose their institution is a well-researched question and I've never found information like this in any other source. Typical of what I find is this 3 year old data from a UCLA survey: 1. College has very good academic reputation (63.8 percent) 2. This college's graduates get good jobs (55.9 percent) 3. I was offered financial assistance (45.6 percent) 4. The cost of attending this college (43.3 percent) 5. A visit to this campus (41.8 percent) 6. College has a good reputation for its social activities (40.2 percent) 7. Wanted to go to a college about this size (38.8 percent) 8. College's grads get into top grad/professional schools (32.8 percent) 9. The percentage of students that graduate from this college (30.4 percent) 10. I wanted to live near home (20.1 percent) 11. Information from a website (18.7 percent) 12. Rankings in national magazines (18.2 percent) 13. Parents wanted me to go to this school (15.1 percent) 14. Admitted early decision and/or early action (13.7 percent) 15. Could not afford first choice (13.4 percent) 16. High school counselor advised me (10.3 percent) 17. Not offered aid by first choice (9.5 percent) 18. Athletic department recruited me (8.9 percent) 19. Attracted by the religious affiliation/orientation of college (7.4 percent) 20. My relatives wanted me to come here (6.8 percent) 20. My teacher advised me (6.8 percent) 22. Private college counselor advised me (3.8 percent) 23. Ability to take online courses (3.2 percent) Based on this, it's pretty clear that 7 Signal didn't conduct their survey at UCLA in the fall of 2012. I've been able to find newer data, but nothing that lists this many factors. That's another problem with the available data. Amongst surveys which describe their methodology, many decide a priori what factors are important and let respondents choose from those factors in an attempt to weight them. As far as I can discern, few surveys allow the respondents to add factors that the surveyor didn't include. I don’t mean to give the impression that I've researched this topic exhaustively. I've probably spent 10-12 hours deliberately researching it over the last couple years. That activity has left me with 2 conclusions: 1) I don’t know how Wi-Fi affects enrollment, and 2) it's likely that nobody else does either. Chuck -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Brown, Logan E Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:11 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... As a student myself, I can certainly vouch for the validity of the complaint section. I've seen plenty of students whine about wireless to their friends, and then never tell help desk or file a wireless complaint - something we have a form for. Instead, they just whine and then struggle through or maybe post to Facebook or Yikyak about it. Logan On May 14, 2015 09:07, Walter Reynolds wa...@umich.edu wrote: Agree, but feel that the information is probably a pretty accurate representation all the same. Walter Reynolds Principal Systems Security Development Engineer Information and Technology Services University of Michigan (734) 615-9438 On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Lee H Badman lhbad...@syr.edumailto:lhbad...@syr.edu wrote: Is a great info graphic- but is only 208 students sampled, with no idea from x number of schools? Detracts from the validity (in my opinion). Lee Badman Wireless/Network Architect ITS, Syracuse University 315.443.3003tel:315.443.3003 (Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com) From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Christopher Michael Allison Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:47 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... I found some documentation on how WiFi
RE: Rogue Devices
Thanks for the reply.. We have cisco 3700/3600 Aps, looking for the solution for both wireless and wired even if it is a two separate product. If I can locate them would be perfect. From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of McClintic, Thomas Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:39 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Rogue Devices Which wireless system are you using? What type of rogue devices are you most interested in? (rogue on a wire, neighboring device, etc.) Do you need to also locate these rogue devices? From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Bibin George Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:27 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Rogue Devices Can anyone suggest a good tool that I can detect/ prevent Rogue devices out in the network. ** 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/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service...
Is a great info graphic- but is only 208 students sampled, with no idea from x number of schools? Detracts from the validity (in my opinion). Lee Badman Wireless/Network Architect ITS, Syracuse University 315.443.3003 (Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com) From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Christopher Michael Allison Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:47 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... I found some documentation on how WiFi ranks with students. It was a something done by a company called 7Signal. The PDF attached is their results. CHRISTOPHER ALLISON Network Engineer I Information Technology Mail Code 4622 625 Wham Drive Carbondale, Illinois 62901 chris.m.alli...@siu.edumailto:%20chris.m.alli...@siu.edu P: 618 / 453 - 8415 F: 618 / 453 - 5261 INFOTECH.SIU.EDUhttp://infotech.siu.edu/ [http://asset.siu.edu/_assets/images/email_sig/SIU_email_2line.gif] Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life. Confucius From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU on behalf of Chuck Enfield chu...@psu.edumailto:chu...@psu.edu Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:02 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... I agree that it's important for students to have network access in their homes. That says nothing about who should provide said access, and little about the specific features required. FWIW, the cost of a robust WiFi network in residence halls is generally so small compared to the other costs covered by the housing contract, that to provide it is almost a no-brainier. We're just finishing up an 18-month roll-out throughout our 153 residence halls. The 5-year cost of WiFi is about 1% of housing contract revenue. The per-student cost of a semester network access in the res halls is a little more than what Comcast charges for one month of broadband internet access in a downtown apartment. If the students want it and we can provide it at a lower cost than they could get it on the open market, why wouldn't we? From: Jake Snyder jsnyde...@gmail.commailto:jsnyde...@gmail.com To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:25:37 PM Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... The other factor in resnet applications is who is paying the bills. Some campuses require students to live on campus. Others compete directly with off-campus housing for revenue. Still others, housing and dining services are income sources to the school. Poor wireless becomes a student satisfaction issue. This can result in students leaving the school altogether (retention), or simply students moving to private housing (loss of revenue to housing). Both have a direct financial impact to the school. Sent from my iPhone On May 13, 2015, at 7:05 PM, Jon Young j...@network-plumbers.commailto:j...@network-plumbers.com wrote: Chuck, That's a very fair question and I don't believe there is solid data to support (or oppose) my contention. I can only support my claim by consistent anecdotal opinions of those in the institutional position to know - our stakeholder interviews with personnel in Admissions, Res Life, Student Affairs strongly favor this opinion at most residential institutions. Interestingly, in my experience this is less so for those institutions that have a larger demographic from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. I'll leave the guessing as to why that is so to another forum. As you are likely aware, the ACUTA survey supports my contention but I am unaware of any solid data surveying student recruitment in this area so it is accurate to say that my opinion is based strictly on anecdotal (but consistent) evidence from key stakeholders at a broad swath of institutions. Even the ACUTA survey is based on the opinions of the those institutional personnel, not direct student surveys. That said, for internal political purposes, those internal stakeholder opinions tend to be crucial in gaining the backing needed for effective wireless initiatives. As we all also know, higher-ed has a strong tendency to base decisions on what peers and aspirational peers are doing and the ACUTA survey can be an excellent tool for this. Thanks, Jon Vantage Technology Consulting Group On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Chuck Enfield chu...@psu.edumailto:chu...@psu.edu wrote: John, I’ve often heard it said that
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service...
As a student myself, I can certainly vouch for the validity of the complaint section. I've seen plenty of students whine about wireless to their friends, and then never tell help desk or file a wireless complaint - something we have a form for. Instead, they just whine and then struggle through or maybe post to Facebook or Yikyak about it. Logan On May 14, 2015 09:07, Walter Reynolds wa...@umich.edu wrote: Agree, but feel that the information is probably a pretty accurate representation all the same. Walter Reynolds Principal Systems Security Development Engineer Information and Technology Services University of Michigan (734) 615-9438 On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Lee H Badman lhbad...@syr.edumailto:lhbad...@syr.edu wrote: Is a great info graphic- but is only 208 students sampled, with no idea from x number of schools? Detracts from the validity (in my opinion). Lee Badman Wireless/Network Architect ITS, Syracuse University 315.443.3003tel:315.443.3003 (Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com) From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Christopher Michael Allison Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:47 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... I found some documentation on how WiFi ranks with students. It was a something done by a company called 7Signal. The PDF attached is their results. CHRISTOPHER ALLISON Network Engineer I Information Technology Mail Code 4622 625 Wham Drive Carbondale, Illinois 62901 chris.m.alli...@siu.edumailto:%20chris.m.alli...@siu.edu P: 618 / 453 - 8415tel:618%20%2F%20453%20-%208415 F: 618 / 453 - 5261tel:618%20%2F%20453%20-%205261 INFOTECH.SIU.EDUhttp://infotech.siu.edu/ [http://asset.siu.edu/_assets/images/email_sig/SIU_email_2line.gif] Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life. Confucius From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU on behalf of Chuck Enfield chu...@psu.edumailto:chu...@psu.edu Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 11:02 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... I agree that it's important for students to have network access in their homes. That says nothing about who should provide said access, and little about the specific features required. FWIW, the cost of a robust WiFi network in residence halls is generally so small compared to the other costs covered by the housing contract, that to provide it is almost a no-brainier. We're just finishing up an 18-month roll-out throughout our 153 residence halls. The 5-year cost of WiFi is about 1% of housing contract revenue. The per-student cost of a semester network access in the res halls is a little more than what Comcast charges for one month of broadband internet access in a downtown apartment. If the students want it and we can provide it at a lower cost than they could get it on the open market, why wouldn't we? From: Jake Snyder jsnyde...@gmail.commailto:jsnyde...@gmail.com To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:25:37 PM Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... The other factor in resnet applications is who is paying the bills. Some campuses require students to live on campus. Others compete directly with off-campus housing for revenue. Still others, housing and dining services are income sources to the school. Poor wireless becomes a student satisfaction issue. This can result in students leaving the school altogether (retention), or simply students moving to private housing (loss of revenue to housing). Both have a direct financial impact to the school. Sent from my iPhone On May 13, 2015, at 7:05 PM, Jon Young j...@network-plumbers.commailto:j...@network-plumbers.com wrote: Chuck, That's a very fair question and I don't believe there is solid data to support (or oppose) my contention. I can only support my claim by consistent anecdotal opinions of those in the institutional position to know - our stakeholder interviews with personnel in Admissions, Res Life, Student Affairs strongly favor this opinion at most residential institutions. Interestingly, in my experience this is less so for those institutions that have a larger demographic from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. I'll leave the guessing as to why that is so to another forum. As you are
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service...
When I was a program director recruiting undergrads at Syracuse, I used to get some questions about wireless networking services on campus, questions I welcomed because Morrissey, Badman, and Boardman have done a great job building out our network. It was a differentiator for us. These types of questions don’t get asked as much anymore. People just assume there is good campus Wi-Fi service. In fact, to most people, they wonder, what’s the big deal? If we can have good Wi-Fi at home, a prestigious University should be able to do the same. I’ve thought about explaining co-channel interference to them, but I don’t think that would help. As for students reporting problems with wireless, I’ve been administering a pre-course survey the past few years in my intro networking course, about 120 students. The question asks them what they do when they encounter a wireless network problem. Over 75% select the answer: “I do something else and try again later.” That helps explain why problems don’t get reported, despite Lee’s pleas to them to report problems when he visits my class. Oh, and by the way, I really like the students who answer: “I ping the default gateway address.” They usually do well in the course. dm -- Dave Molta Associate Professor of Practice Syracuse University School of Information Studies email: djmo...@syr.edu phone: 315-443-4549 From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Coehoorn, Joel Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:22 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... I'll add another anecdotal viewpoint that I don't think anyone chooses to go to a specific school because of the wireless. I do think a student may choose NOT to go to a specific school if the student has a bad wireless experience. A candidate is more likely to assume the wifi works, and their one bad experience is an aberration, unless it happens repeatedly or they hear other students complain about it. A simple, Yeah, it's always like that comment. and suddenly a candidate goes elsewhere, but unless that happens wifi just isn't on a candidate's radar. Even if it is, many high schooler's don't yet have their own laptops (it's becoming a common graduation present), and will instead rely on a phone that has a backup data plan. This is especially true on a campus visit. Many candidate may never even try to connect to your network before arriving as a student for the first time. A current student will know better (or think they know better) by the end of the their first term. A single bad experience here or there typically won't matter much, but a consistently poor result may contribute to a transfer decision where wifi is one factor. I think wifi is rarely if ever the only factor, but the poorer the provided wifi service gets the more it has a potential to be a big factor. In other words, wifi service can translate over into the retention side of things, but teasing out just how much is challenging. The wifi service is important, but it's probably a mistake to try to build out the service to the level where you could see it as a competitive advantage over other institutions. As long as you don't fall significantly behind, you should be in good shape. Failing to provide service at all, though, is to risk falling significantly behind. Again, this is my anecdotal viewpoint. [http://www.york.edu/Portals/0/Images/Logo/YorkCollegeLogoSmall.jpg] Joel Coehoorn Director of Information Technology 402.363.5603tel:402.363.5603 jcoeho...@york.edumailto:jcoeho...@york.edu The mission of York College is to transform lives through Christ-centered education and to equip students for lifelong service to God, family, and society On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Chuck Enfield chu...@psu.edumailto:chu...@psu.edu wrote: I agree with the utility analogy, but what does that tell us? Not much, I think. Natural gas is also a utility, but request that in your office and see what kind of response you get. The utility analogy fails to answer many question related to how and where we should deliver Wi-Fi services. The answers to these questions must be driven by business requirements, and those are challenging to define. -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chuck Anderson Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:35 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... Wi-Fi has become an (expensive to maintain) utility. It is just expected to be there and work well. You don't have people going around asking how much of a deciding
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points
+1 Sent from my phone, please excuse brevity and/or misspelling. From: Oliver, Jeffmailto:jeff.oli...@uleth.ca Sent: 14/05/2015 18:22 To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points Even in ceiling space (drop ceiling or not) it is always best to terminate on a jack and then use a short patch cable. Cheers, Jeff From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Mark H. Wehrle Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:06 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points Good afternoon all, We are faced with some challenges in upgrading our access points in our residence halls this summer. Our existing installation has access points wall mounted and we terminate Cat5E cable on a Cat5E type biscuit jack on the wall near where the access point is mounted. From there we place a short cable from the jack to the access point. In current state, this makes for easier troubleshooting to decipher cable versus AP problems, however it's understood that there could be other problems associated with multiple termination points etc. In our current project, we are looking install access points with internal antennas and we are looking to move these to ceiling mounts in most/all of these rooms where we can. We made this choice because we've found that some students will vary the positions of antennas, which have impacted RF coverage and we have added more access points in some areas to compensate (we cannot easily get into student rooms to inspect access points). The question I was asked before we move these jacks is whether we should save costs and time by just making a field termination of the Cat5E cable with an RJ45 connector crimped right on the cable then plug this cable directly into the access point and avoid the biscuit jack and short station cable. I'm wondering if anyone is doing this, was doing this and stopped, plans to do this etc? Does this present any problems like bad mechanical connection problems etc? Thanks for your feedback. --Mark Wehrle Phone: (215) 898-9664 Technical Director, ISC Network Telecom Operations Fax: (215) 898-9348 University of Pennsylvania 3401 Walnut Suite 221a Email:weh...@isc.upenn.edumailto:weh...@isc.upenn.edu Phila. PA 19104-6228 ** 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/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points
I remember arguing with cabling crews about that exact issue: ME: I want to have the RJ-45 connector crimped on the cable for two reasons: -It saves money (on one jack and one patch cable, that’s about $10 per AP) -It prevents patch cable theft (not huge but very annoying especially in Residence Halls) CABLING CREW: we want to terminate on a jack because: -It is a pain to terminate a RJ-45 connector on the cable (unless new connector designs exist) and the money saved in equipment is wasted in labor -We cannot properly label the circuit on a cable but we can do it on a jack In the end, they won the argument. Some may argue that terminating on a Jack also gives the option to add a longer patch cable if needed, but we always left a service loop anyway! Philippe Hanset www.eduroam.us On May 14, 2015, at 1:05 PM, Mark H. Wehrle weh...@isc.upenn.edu wrote: Good afternoon all, We are faced with some challenges in upgrading our access points in our residence halls this summer. Our existing installation has access points wall mounted and we terminate Cat5E cable on a Cat5E type biscuit jack on the wall near where the access point is mounted. From there we place a short cable from the jack to the access point. In current state, this makes for easier troubleshooting to decipher cable versus AP problems, however it's understood that there could be other problems associated with multiple termination points etc. In our current project, we are looking install access points with internal antennas and we are looking to move these to ceiling mounts in most/all of these rooms where we can. We made this choice because we've found that some students will vary the positions of antennas, which have impacted RF coverage and we have added more access points in some areas to compensate (we cannot easily get into student rooms to inspect access points). The question I was asked before we move these jacks is whether we should save costs and time by just making a field termination of the Cat5E cable with an RJ45 connector crimped right on the cable then plug this cable directly into the access point and avoid the biscuit jack and short station cable. I'm wondering if anyone is doing this, was doing this and stopped, plans to do this etc? Does this present any problems like bad mechanical connection problems etc? Thanks for your feedback. --Mark Wehrle Phone: (215) 898-9664 Technical Director, ISC Network Telecom Operations Fax: (215) 898-9348 University of Pennsylvania 3401 Walnut Suite 221a Email:weh...@isc.upenn.edu mailto:weh...@isc.upenn.edu Phila. PA 19104-6228 ** 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] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points
Hey Mark, If you are going to terminate the cable directly just make sure you have a service loop were possible just in case you need to tweak the location of the ap after install and final surveys. Joey Rego Network Security Administrator Information Technology 3601 North Military Trail Boca Raton, FL 33431 T: 561-237-7982 jr...@lynn.edumailto:jr...@lynn.edu 1-800-888-5986 | www.lynn.eduhttp://www.lynn.edu/ [cid:image002.jpg@01CF442D.90504330] From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Philippe Hanset Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 2:14 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points I remember arguing with cabling crews about that exact issue: ME: I want to have the RJ-45 connector crimped on the cable for two reasons: -It saves money (on one jack and one patch cable, that’s about $10 per AP) -It prevents patch cable theft (not huge but very annoying especially in Residence Halls) CABLING CREW: we want to terminate on a jack because: -It is a pain to terminate a RJ-45 connector on the cable (unless new connector designs exist) and the money saved in equipment is wasted in labor -We cannot properly label the circuit on a cable but we can do it on a jack In the end, they won the argument. Some may argue that terminating on a Jack also gives the option to add a longer patch cable if needed, but we always left a service loop anyway! Philippe Hanset www.eduroam.ushttp://www.eduroam.us On May 14, 2015, at 1:05 PM, Mark H. Wehrle weh...@isc.upenn.edumailto:weh...@isc.upenn.edu wrote: Good afternoon all, We are faced with some challenges in upgrading our access points in our residence halls this summer. Our existing installation has access points wall mounted and we terminate Cat5E cable on a Cat5E type biscuit jack on the wall near where the access point is mounted. From there we place a short cable from the jack to the access point. In current state, this makes for easier troubleshooting to decipher cable versus AP problems, however it's understood that there could be other problems associated with multiple termination points etc. In our current project, we are looking install access points with internal antennas and we are looking to move these to ceiling mounts in most/all of these rooms where we can. We made this choice because we've found that some students will vary the positions of antennas, which have impacted RF coverage and we have added more access points in some areas to compensate (we cannot easily get into student rooms to inspect access points). The question I was asked before we move these jacks is whether we should save costs and time by just making a field termination of the Cat5E cable with an RJ45 connector crimped right on the cable then plug this cable directly into the access point and avoid the biscuit jack and short station cable. I'm wondering if anyone is doing this, was doing this and stopped, plans to do this etc? Does this present any problems like bad mechanical connection problems etc? Thanks for your feedback. --Mark Wehrle Phone: (215) 898-9664 Technical Director, ISC Network Telecom Operations Fax: (215) 898-9348 University of Pennsylvania 3401 Walnut Suite 221a Email:weh...@isc.upenn.edumailto:weh...@isc.upenn.edu Phila. PA 19104-6228 ** 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/. This email is intended for the designated recipient only, and may be confidential, non-public, proprietary, protected by the attorney/client or other privilege. Unauthorized reading, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipients should not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or protection. If you are not the intended recipient or if you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies from your computer system without reading, saving, or using it in any manner. Although it has been checked for viruses and other malicious software, malware, we do not warrant, represent or guarantee in any way that this communication is free of malware or potentially damaging defects. All liability for any actual or alleged loss, damage, or injury arising out of or resulting in any way from the receipt, opening or use of this email is expressly disclaimed.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points
We had the contractors use field installable, certified, CAT6 RJ45 ends on our AP circuits; throughout our new residence hall last year (46 of them). Has worked out great. And recent changes in the cable certification criteria now allow for such terminations in the testing. It would be a good argument as to which system is less/more labor intensive, never mind the cost issue. A practiced technician, in either scenario, would make a for good race. I’ll go with the direct connect termination, in the field, any time. Phil From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Philippe Hanset Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 2:14 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points I remember arguing with cabling crews about that exact issue: ME: I want to have the RJ-45 connector crimped on the cable for two reasons: -It saves money (on one jack and one patch cable, that’s about $10 per AP) -It prevents patch cable theft (not huge but very annoying especially in Residence Halls) CABLING CREW: we want to terminate on a jack because: -It is a pain to terminate a RJ-45 connector on the cable (unless new connector designs exist) and the money saved in equipment is wasted in labor -We cannot properly label the circuit on a cable but we can do it on a jack In the end, they won the argument. Some may argue that terminating on a Jack also gives the option to add a longer patch cable if needed, but we always left a service loop anyway! Philippe Hanset www.eduroam.ushttp://www.eduroam.us On May 14, 2015, at 1:05 PM, Mark H. Wehrle weh...@isc.upenn.edumailto:weh...@isc.upenn.edu wrote: Good afternoon all, We are faced with some challenges in upgrading our access points in our residence halls this summer. Our existing installation has access points wall mounted and we terminate Cat5E cable on a Cat5E type biscuit jack on the wall near where the access point is mounted. From there we place a short cable from the jack to the access point. In current state, this makes for easier troubleshooting to decipher cable versus AP problems, however it's understood that there could be other problems associated with multiple termination points etc. In our current project, we are looking install access points with internal antennas and we are looking to move these to ceiling mounts in most/all of these rooms where we can. We made this choice because we've found that some students will vary the positions of antennas, which have impacted RF coverage and we have added more access points in some areas to compensate (we cannot easily get into student rooms to inspect access points). The question I was asked before we move these jacks is whether we should save costs and time by just making a field termination of the Cat5E cable with an RJ45 connector crimped right on the cable then plug this cable directly into the access point and avoid the biscuit jack and short station cable. I'm wondering if anyone is doing this, was doing this and stopped, plans to do this etc? Does this present any problems like bad mechanical connection problems etc? Thanks for your feedback. --Mark Wehrle Phone: (215) 898-9664 Technical Director, ISC Network Telecom Operations Fax: (215) 898-9348 University of Pennsylvania 3401 Walnut Suite 221a Email:weh...@isc.upenn.edumailto:weh...@isc.upenn.edu Phila. PA 19104-6228 ** 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] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points
We actually terminate in a flush dual backbox and fish cable between it and the back of the AP / CCTV camera, and have the blank faceplate next to it. Allows us to access all of it from below the ceiling and test up to our demarc between our network and $contractors maintained camera . Sent from my phone, please excuse brevity and/or misspelling. From: Howard, Christophermailto:christopher-how...@utc.edu Sent: 14/05/2015 18:45 To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points +1 also. We used to have RJ-45s terminated directly on the cable, but we have since stopped that and now terminate jacks and use a 1-2ft patch cable. We have not experienced any issues with this. Christopher Howard Senior Network Engineer University of Tennessee at Chattanooga From: Ian McDonald i...@st-andrews.ac.ukmailto:i...@st-andrews.ac.uk Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Date: Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 1:25 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points +1 Sent from my phone, please excuse brevity and/or misspelling. From: Oliver, Jeffmailto:jeff.oli...@uleth.ca Sent: ?14/?05/?2015 18:22 To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points Even in ceiling space (drop ceiling or not) it is always best to terminate on a jack and then use a short patch cable. Cheers, Jeff From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Mark H. Wehrle Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:06 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points Good afternoon all, We are faced with some challenges in upgrading our access points in our residence halls this summer. Our existing installation has access points wall mounted and we terminate Cat5E cable on a Cat5E type biscuit jack on the wall near where the access point is mounted. From there we place a short cable from the jack to the access point. In current state, this makes for easier troubleshooting to decipher cable versus AP problems, however it's understood that there could be other problems associated with multiple termination points etc. In our current project, we are looking install access points with internal antennas and we are looking to move these to ceiling mounts in most/all of these rooms where we can. We made this choice because we've found that some students will vary the positions of antennas, which have impacted RF coverage and we have added more access points in some areas to compensate (we cannot easily get into student rooms to inspect access points). The question I was asked before we move these jacks is whether we should save costs and time by just making a field termination of the Cat5E cable with an RJ45 connector crimped right on the cable then plug this cable directly into the access point and avoid the biscuit jack and short station cable. I'm wondering if anyone is doing this, was doing this and stopped, plans to do this etc? Does this present any problems like bad mechanical connection problems etc? Thanks for your feedback. --Mark Wehrle Phone: (215) 898-9664 Technical Director, ISC Network Telecom Operations Fax: (215) 898-9348 University of Pennsylvania 3401 Walnut Suite 221a Email:weh...@isc.upenn.edumailto:weh...@isc.upenn.edu Phila. PA 19104-6228 ** 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/. ** 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: Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points
Even in ceiling space (drop ceiling or not) it is always best to terminate on a jack and then use a short patch cable. Cheers, Jeff From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Mark H. Wehrle Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:06 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points Good afternoon all, We are faced with some challenges in upgrading our access points in our residence halls this summer. Our existing installation has access points wall mounted and we terminate Cat5E cable on a Cat5E type biscuit jack on the wall near where the access point is mounted. From there we place a short cable from the jack to the access point. In current state, this makes for easier troubleshooting to decipher cable versus AP problems, however it's understood that there could be other problems associated with multiple termination points etc. In our current project, we are looking install access points with internal antennas and we are looking to move these to ceiling mounts in most/all of these rooms where we can. We made this choice because we've found that some students will vary the positions of antennas, which have impacted RF coverage and we have added more access points in some areas to compensate (we cannot easily get into student rooms to inspect access points). The question I was asked before we move these jacks is whether we should save costs and time by just making a field termination of the Cat5E cable with an RJ45 connector crimped right on the cable then plug this cable directly into the access point and avoid the biscuit jack and short station cable. I'm wondering if anyone is doing this, was doing this and stopped, plans to do this etc? Does this present any problems like bad mechanical connection problems etc? Thanks for your feedback. --Mark Wehrle Phone: (215) 898-9664 Technical Director, ISC Network Telecom Operations Fax: (215) 898-9348 University of Pennsylvania 3401 Walnut Suite 221a Email:weh...@isc.upenn.edumailto:weh...@isc.upenn.edu Phila. PA 19104-6228 ** 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] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points
+1 also. We used to have RJ-45s terminated directly on the cable, but we have since stopped that and now terminate jacks and use a 1-2ft patch cable. We have not experienced any issues with this. Christopher Howard Senior Network Engineer University of Tennessee at Chattanooga From: Ian McDonald i...@st-andrews.ac.ukmailto:i...@st-andrews.ac.uk Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Date: Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 1:25 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points +1 Sent from my phone, please excuse brevity and/or misspelling. From: Oliver, Jeffmailto:jeff.oli...@uleth.ca Sent: ?14/?05/?2015 18:22 To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points Even in ceiling space (drop ceiling or not) it is always best to terminate on a jack and then use a short patch cable. Cheers, Jeff From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Mark H. Wehrle Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:06 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points Good afternoon all, We are faced with some challenges in upgrading our access points in our residence halls this summer. Our existing installation has access points wall mounted and we terminate Cat5E cable on a Cat5E type biscuit jack on the wall near where the access point is mounted. From there we place a short cable from the jack to the access point. In current state, this makes for easier troubleshooting to decipher cable versus AP problems, however it's understood that there could be other problems associated with multiple termination points etc. In our current project, we are looking install access points with internal antennas and we are looking to move these to ceiling mounts in most/all of these rooms where we can. We made this choice because we've found that some students will vary the positions of antennas, which have impacted RF coverage and we have added more access points in some areas to compensate (we cannot easily get into student rooms to inspect access points). The question I was asked before we move these jacks is whether we should save costs and time by just making a field termination of the Cat5E cable with an RJ45 connector crimped right on the cable then plug this cable directly into the access point and avoid the biscuit jack and short station cable. I'm wondering if anyone is doing this, was doing this and stopped, plans to do this etc? Does this present any problems like bad mechanical connection problems etc? Thanks for your feedback. --Mark Wehrle Phone: (215) 898-9664 Technical Director, ISC Network Telecom Operations Fax: (215) 898-9348 University of Pennsylvania 3401 Walnut Suite 221a Email:weh...@isc.upenn.edumailto:weh...@isc.upenn.edu Phila. PA 19104-6228 ** 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/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points
Good afternoon all, We are faced with some challenges in upgrading our access points in our residence halls this summer. Our existing installation has access points wall mounted and we terminate Cat5E cable on a Cat5E type biscuit jack on the wall near where the access point is mounted. From there we place a short cable from the jack to the access point. In current state, this makes for easier troubleshooting to decipher cable versus AP problems, however it's understood that there could be other problems associated with multiple termination points etc. In our current project, we are looking install access points with internal antennas and we are looking to move these to ceiling mounts in most/all of these rooms where we can. We made this choice because we've found that some students will vary the positions of antennas, which have impacted RF coverage and we have added more access points in some areas to compensate (we cannot easily get into student rooms to inspect access points). The question I was asked before we move these jacks is whether we should save costs and time by just making a field termination of the Cat5E cable with an RJ45 connector crimped right on the cable then plug this cable directly into the access point and avoid the biscuit jack and short station cable. I'm wondering if anyone is doing this, was doing this and stopped, plans to do this etc? Does this present any problems like bad mechanical connection problems etc? Thanks for your feedback. --Mark Wehrle Phone: (215) 898-9664 Technical Director, ISC Network Telecom Operations Fax: (215) 898-9348 University of Pennsylvania 3401 Walnut Suite 221a Email:weh...@isc.upenn.edumailto:weh...@isc.upenn.edu Phila. PA 19104-6228 ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points
Traditionally, plug terminations on solid conductor cables have been considered unreliable, but recently there have been some new products introduced to address that problem. While I can't speak to longevity, one design that caught my attentions was OCC http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=1ved=0CB4QF jAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.occfiber.com%2Fmain%2Fdownload.php%3Fd%3D232ei=u dlUVcLtGKGSsQThjoHACwusg=AFQjCNE6lbaeho8I_31bKjk52zkyQjhRvAsig2=elTAAn1h MUOt-XwNkPyyWQbvm=bv.93112503,d.cWccad=rja 's. It's a little larger than the traditional plug, which could be an issue in tight spaces, but it looks promising. From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Mark H. Wehrle Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:06 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points Good afternoon all, We are faced with some challenges in upgrading our access points in our residence halls this summer. Our existing installation has access points wall mounted and we terminate Cat5E cable on a Cat5E type biscuit jack on the wall near where the access point is mounted. From there we place a short cable from the jack to the access point. In current state, this makes for easier troubleshooting to decipher cable versus AP problems, however it's understood that there could be other problems associated with multiple termination points etc. In our current project, we are looking install access points with internal antennas and we are looking to move these to ceiling mounts in most/all of these rooms where we can. We made this choice because we've found that some students will vary the positions of antennas, which have impacted RF coverage and we have added more access points in some areas to compensate (we cannot easily get into student rooms to inspect access points). The question I was asked before we move these jacks is whether we should save costs and time by just making a field termination of the Cat5E cable with an RJ45 connector crimped right on the cable then plug this cable directly into the access point and avoid the biscuit jack and short station cable. I'm wondering if anyone is doing this, was doing this and stopped, plans to do this etc? Does this present any problems like bad mechanical connection problems etc? Thanks for your feedback. --Mark Wehrle Phone: (215) 898-9664 Technical Director, ISC Network Telecom Operations Fax: (215) 898-9348 University of Pennsylvania 3401 Walnut Suite 221a Email: mailto:weh...@isc.upenn.edu weh...@isc.upenn.edu Phila. PA 19104-6228 ** 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: Rogue Devices
We use Prime Infrastructure and MSE. With Prime, if you add both APs and switches, you can shut off wired port to disconnect rogue, but you still have the RF interference to deal with. Works pretty good other than all the issues with Prime, but as a whole, this solution works. Just wish we had resources to go after all the rogues . . . they are everywhere. From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Bibin George Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:11 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Rogue Devices Thanks for the reply.. We have cisco 3700/3600 Aps, looking for the solution for both wireless and wired even if it is a two separate product. If I can locate them would be perfect. From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of McClintic, Thomas Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:39 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Rogue Devices Which wireless system are you using? What type of rogue devices are you most interested in? (rogue on a wire, neighboring device, etc.) Do you need to also locate these rogue devices? From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Bibin George Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:27 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Rogue Devices Can anyone suggest a good tool that I can detect/ prevent Rogue devices out in the network. ** 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/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service...
I agree with the utility analogy, but what does that tell us? Not much, I think. Natural gas is also a utility, but request that in your office and see what kind of response you get. The utility analogy fails to answer many question related to how and where we should deliver Wi-Fi services. The answers to these questions must be driven by business requirements, and those are challenging to define. -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chuck Anderson Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:35 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... Wi-Fi has become an (expensive to maintain) utility. It is just expected to be there and work well. You don't have people going around asking how much of a deciding factor the reliability of the electricity is for choosing where to go to school. Also, 7Signal isn't exactly an unbiased party with no conflicts of interest... On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 09:58:29AM -0400, Chuck Enfield wrote: I have no doubt that network availability, accessibility, and performance all affect student satisfaction. But my question is directed at the issue of recruitment and retention, as these things have a clear impact on the bottom line. It stands to reason that student satisfaction affects the bottom line as well, but to what extent is far less clear. If we can't figure out if networking is a significant factor in who chooses to attend our institutions, it's highly unlikely we'll figure out how it affects things like alumni activity, donations, etc.. The (undated) graphic Chris provided is the first time I've seen a survey of students that addresses the recruitment question. 38% say Wi-Fi quality is a deciding factor is pretty powerful. That said, how students choose their institution is a well-researched question and I've never found information like this in any other source. Typical of what I find is this 3 year old data from a UCLA survey: 1. College has very good academic reputation (63.8 percent) 2. This college's graduates get good jobs (55.9 percent) 3. I was offered financial assistance (45.6 percent) 4. The cost of attending this college (43.3 percent) 5. A visit to this campus (41.8 percent) 6. College has a good reputation for its social activities (40.2 percent) 7. Wanted to go to a college about this size (38.8 percent) 8. College's grads get into top grad/professional schools (32.8 percent) 9. The percentage of students that graduate from this college (30.4 percent) 10. I wanted to live near home (20.1 percent) 11. Information from a website (18.7 percent) 12. Rankings in national magazines (18.2 percent) 13. Parents wanted me to go to this school (15.1 percent) 14. Admitted early decision and/or early action (13.7 percent) 15. Could not afford first choice (13.4 percent) 16. High school counselor advised me (10.3 percent) 17. Not offered aid by first choice (9.5 percent) 18. Athletic department recruited me (8.9 percent) 19. Attracted by the religious affiliation/orientation of college (7.4 percent) 20. My relatives wanted me to come here (6.8 percent) 20. My teacher advised me (6.8 percent) 22. Private college counselor advised me (3.8 percent) 23. Ability to take online courses (3.2 percent) Based on this, it's pretty clear that 7 Signal didn't conduct their survey at UCLA in the fall of 2012. I've been able to find newer data, but nothing that lists this many factors. That's another problem with the available data. Amongst surveys which describe their methodology, many decide a priori what factors are important and let respondents choose from those factors in an attempt to weight them. As far as I can discern, few surveys allow the respondents to add factors that the surveyor didn't include. I don’t mean to give the impression that I've researched this topic exhaustively. I've probably spent 10-12 hours deliberately researching it over the last couple years. That activity has left me with 2 conclusions: 1) I don’t know how Wi-Fi affects enrollment, and 2) it's likely that nobody else does either. Chuck ** 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] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service...
I'll add another anecdotal viewpoint that I don't think anyone chooses to go to a specific school because of the wireless. I do think a student *may *choose NOT to go to a specific school if the student has a bad wireless experience. A candidate is more likely to assume the wifi works, and their one bad experience is an aberration, unless it happens repeatedly or they hear other students complain about it. A simple, Yeah, it's always like that comment. and suddenly a candidate goes elsewhere, but unless that happens wifi just isn't on a candidate's radar. Even if it is, many high schooler's don't yet have their own laptops (it's becoming a common graduation present), and will instead rely on a phone that has a backup data plan. This is especially true on a campus visit. Many candidate may never even try to connect to your network before arriving as a student for the first time. A current student will know better (or think they know better) by the end of the their first term. A single bad experience here or there typically won't matter much, but a consistently poor result may contribute to a transfer decision where wifi is one factor. I think wifi is rarely if ever the only factor, but the poorer the provided wifi service gets the more it has a potential to be a big factor. In other words, wifi service can translate over into the retention side of things, but teasing out just how much is challenging. The wifi service is important, but it's probably a mistake to try to build out the service to the level where you could see it as a competitive advantage over other institutions. As long as you don't fall significantly behind, you should be in good shape. Failing to provide service at all, though, is to risk falling significantly behind. Again, this is my anecdotal viewpoint. Joel Coehoorn Director of Information Technology 402.363.5603 *jcoeho...@york.edu jcoeho...@york.edu* The mission of York College is to transform lives through Christ-centered education and to equip students for lifelong service to God, family, and society On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Chuck Enfield chu...@psu.edu wrote: I agree with the utility analogy, but what does that tell us? Not much, I think. Natural gas is also a utility, but request that in your office and see what kind of response you get. The utility analogy fails to answer many question related to how and where we should deliver Wi-Fi services. The answers to these questions must be driven by business requirements, and those are challenging to define. -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chuck Anderson Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:35 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] AW: [WIRELESS-LAN] To provide (wireless) service, or not to provide (wireless) service... Wi-Fi has become an (expensive to maintain) utility. It is just expected to be there and work well. You don't have people going around asking how much of a deciding factor the reliability of the electricity is for choosing where to go to school. Also, 7Signal isn't exactly an unbiased party with no conflicts of interest... On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 09:58:29AM -0400, Chuck Enfield wrote: I have no doubt that network availability, accessibility, and performance all affect student satisfaction. But my question is directed at the issue of recruitment and retention, as these things have a clear impact on the bottom line. It stands to reason that student satisfaction affects the bottom line as well, but to what extent is far less clear. If we can't figure out if networking is a significant factor in who chooses to attend our institutions, it's highly unlikely we'll figure out how it affects things like alumni activity, donations, etc.. The (undated) graphic Chris provided is the first time I've seen a survey of students that addresses the recruitment question. 38% say Wi-Fi quality is a deciding factor is pretty powerful. That said, how students choose their institution is a well-researched question and I've never found information like this in any other source. Typical of what I find is this 3 year old data from a UCLA survey: 1. College has very good academic reputation (63.8 percent) 2. This college's graduates get good jobs (55.9 percent) 3. I was offered financial assistance (45.6 percent) 4. The cost of attending this college (43.3 percent) 5. A visit to this campus (41.8 percent) 6. College has a good reputation for its social activities (40.2 percent) 7. Wanted to go to a college about this size (38.8 percent) 8. College's grads get into top grad/professional schools (32.8 percent) 9. The percentage of students that graduate from this college (30.4 percent) 10. I wanted to live near home (20.1 percent) 11. Information from a website (18.7 percent) 12. Rankings in national
RE: Rogue Devices
Part of the rogue defense posture is very much non-technical. Many years ago, we drafted policy that was endorsed by our CIO and we did a lot of education with across our admin spaces and with our distributed support folks. Once they bought in to removing rogues as being in everybody’s interest (and as we grew a really good WLAN), they become partners and enforcers to us in the networking group. We’ve had extremely good luck on a very large campus for several years keeping rogues out based *mostly* on crafting a good message and providing solid, reliable Wi-Fi. Then there’s the dorms… All of the above applies, except buy-in isn’t as uniform. We do a lot of education at move-in time, and have various tricks to find and have the students remove their rogues without leaving the office. In all cases, the response is “I didn’t know!” despite many, many communications of various types on the topic. My dream: a digital sign in each dorm lobby that scrolls network news, tips, etc- and spreads some shame. Like “If your Wi-Fi seems slow near rooms 625-629, it may be because someone has a network called Frankie’s Airport creaming the campus network.” Using PI/MSE to get close to signal then let peer pressure fix the problem. ☺ Lee Badman Wireless/Network Architect ITS, Syracuse University 315.443.3003 (Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com) From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Christopher Michael Allison Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 3:17 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Rogue Devices We are in the same boat we use Prime and MSE. Resources are in issue. I wish we could still use the containment feature that Prime and the AP's have for the Rogues. We are currently doing a building by building sweep of our Academic Buildings to remove all the Rogues that aren't managed by our department. Its a slow and long process. CHRISTOPHER ALLISON Network Engineer I Information Technology Mail Code 4622 625 Wham Drive Carbondale, Illinois 62901 chris.m.alli...@siu.edumailto:%20chris.m.alli...@siu.edu P: 618 / 453 - 8415 F: 618 / 453 - 5261 INFOTECH.SIU.EDUhttp://infotech.siu.edu/ [http://asset.siu.edu/_assets/images/email_sig/SIU_email_2line.gif] Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life. Confucius From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU on behalf of Reams, Lane lane.re...@vanderbilt.edumailto:lane.re...@vanderbilt.edu Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:37 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Rogue Devices We use Prime Infrastructure and MSE. With Prime, if you add both APs and switches, you can shut off wired port to disconnect rogue, but you still have the RF interference to deal with. Works pretty good other than all the issues with Prime, but as a whole, this solution works. Just wish we had resources to go after all the rogues . . . they are everywhere. From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Bibin George Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:11 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Rogue Devices Thanks for the reply.. We have cisco 3700/3600 Aps, looking for the solution for both wireless and wired even if it is a two separate product. If I can locate them would be perfect. From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of McClintic, Thomas Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:39 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Rogue Devices Which wireless system are you using? What type of rogue devices are you most interested in? (rogue on a wire, neighboring device, etc.) Do you need to also locate these rogue devices? From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Bibin George Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:27 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Rogue Devices Can anyone suggest a good tool that I can detect/ prevent Rogue devices out in the network. ** 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
Re: Rogue Devices
We are in the same boat we use Prime and MSE. Resources are in issue. I wish we could still use the containment feature that Prime and the AP's have for the Rogues. We are currently doing a building by building sweep of our Academic Buildings to remove all the Rogues that aren't managed by our department. Its a slow and long process. ? CHRISTOPHER ALLISON Network Engineer I Information Technology Mail Code 4622 625 Wham Drive Carbondale, Illinois 62901 chris.m.alli...@siu.edumailto:%20chris.m.alli...@siu.edu P: 618 / 453 - 8415 F: 618 / 453 - 5261 INFOTECH.SIU.EDUhttp://infotech.siu.edu/ [http://asset.siu.edu/_assets/images/email_sig/SIU_email_2line.gif] Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life. Confucius From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU on behalf of Reams, Lane lane.re...@vanderbilt.edu Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:37 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Rogue Devices We use Prime Infrastructure and MSE. With Prime, if you add both APs and switches, you can shut off wired port to disconnect rogue, but you still have the RF interference to deal with. Works pretty good other than all the issues with Prime, but as a whole, this solution works. Just wish we had resources to go after all the rogues . . . they are everywhere. From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Bibin George Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:11 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Rogue Devices Thanks for the reply.. We have cisco 3700/3600 Aps, looking for the solution for both wireless and wired even if it is a two separate product. If I can locate them would be perfect. From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of McClintic, Thomas Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:39 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Rogue Devices Which wireless system are you using? What type of rogue devices are you most interested in? (rogue on a wire, neighboring device, etc.) Do you need to also locate these rogue devices? From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Bibin George Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:27 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Rogue Devices Can anyone suggest a good tool that I can detect/ prevent Rogue devices out in the network. ** 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/. ** 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] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points
Same thing here. We have always terminated the cable directly, with a service loop, and never had any problems. -Hector Rios Louisiana State University From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joey Rego Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:25 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points Hey Mark, If you are going to terminate the cable directly just make sure you have a service loop were possible just in case you need to tweak the location of the ap after install and final surveys. Joey Rego Network Security Administrator Information Technology 3601 North Military Trail Boca Raton, FL 33431 T: 561-237-7982 jr...@lynn.edumailto:jr...@lynn.edu 1-800-888-5986 | www.lynn.eduhttp://www.lynn.edu/ [cid:image002.jpg@01CF442D.90504330] From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Philippe Hanset Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 2:14 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points I remember arguing with cabling crews about that exact issue: ME: I want to have the RJ-45 connector crimped on the cable for two reasons: -It saves money (on one jack and one patch cable, that’s about $10 per AP) -It prevents patch cable theft (not huge but very annoying especially in Residence Halls) CABLING CREW: we want to terminate on a jack because: -It is a pain to terminate a RJ-45 connector on the cable (unless new connector designs exist) and the money saved in equipment is wasted in labor -We cannot properly label the circuit on a cable but we can do it on a jack In the end, they won the argument. Some may argue that terminating on a Jack also gives the option to add a longer patch cable if needed, but we always left a service loop anyway! Philippe Hanset www.eduroam.ushttp://www.eduroam.us On May 14, 2015, at 1:05 PM, Mark H. Wehrle weh...@isc.upenn.edumailto:weh...@isc.upenn.edu wrote: Good afternoon all, We are faced with some challenges in upgrading our access points in our residence halls this summer. Our existing installation has access points wall mounted and we terminate Cat5E cable on a Cat5E type biscuit jack on the wall near where the access point is mounted. From there we place a short cable from the jack to the access point. In current state, this makes for easier troubleshooting to decipher cable versus AP problems, however it's understood that there could be other problems associated with multiple termination points etc. In our current project, we are looking install access points with internal antennas and we are looking to move these to ceiling mounts in most/all of these rooms where we can. We made this choice because we've found that some students will vary the positions of antennas, which have impacted RF coverage and we have added more access points in some areas to compensate (we cannot easily get into student rooms to inspect access points). The question I was asked before we move these jacks is whether we should save costs and time by just making a field termination of the Cat5E cable with an RJ45 connector crimped right on the cable then plug this cable directly into the access point and avoid the biscuit jack and short station cable. I'm wondering if anyone is doing this, was doing this and stopped, plans to do this etc? Does this present any problems like bad mechanical connection problems etc? Thanks for your feedback. --Mark Wehrle Phone: (215) 898-9664 Technical Director, ISC Network Telecom Operations Fax: (215) 898-9348 University of Pennsylvania 3401 Walnut Suite 221a Email:weh...@isc.upenn.edumailto:weh...@isc.upenn.edu Phila. PA 19104-6228 ** 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/. This email is intended for the designated recipient only, and may be confidential, non-public, proprietary, protected by the attorney/client or other privilege. Unauthorized reading, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipients should not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or protection. If you are not the intended recipient or if you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies from your computer system without reading, saving, or using it in any manner. Although it has been checked for viruses and other malicious
RE: Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points
Yes, and I've replaced a handful (5-10) of these unreliable RJ45 terminations with jacks in the past couple of years. For a sense of scale, we have 275 APs and only about 20% of those have the service cable terminated with a plug instead of a jack. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 [AusColl_Logo_Email] From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chuck Enfield Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:28 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points Traditionally, plug terminations on solid conductor cables have been considered unreliable, but recently there have been some new products introduced to address that problem. While I can't speak to longevity, one design that caught my attentions was OCC'shttp://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=1ved=0CB4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.occfiber.com%2Fmain%2Fdownload.php%3Fd%3D232ei=udlUVcLtGKGSsQThjoHACwusg=AFQjCNE6lbaeho8I_31bKjk52zkyQjhRvAsig2=elTAAn1hMUOt-XwNkPyyWQbvm=bv.93112503,d.cWccad=rja. It's a little larger than the traditional plug, which could be an issue in tight spaces, but it looks promising. From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Mark H. Wehrle Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:06 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points Good afternoon all, We are faced with some challenges in upgrading our access points in our residence halls this summer. Our existing installation has access points wall mounted and we terminate Cat5E cable on a Cat5E type biscuit jack on the wall near where the access point is mounted. From there we place a short cable from the jack to the access point. In current state, this makes for easier troubleshooting to decipher cable versus AP problems, however it's understood that there could be other problems associated with multiple termination points etc. In our current project, we are looking install access points with internal antennas and we are looking to move these to ceiling mounts in most/all of these rooms where we can. We made this choice because we've found that some students will vary the positions of antennas, which have impacted RF coverage and we have added more access points in some areas to compensate (we cannot easily get into student rooms to inspect access points). The question I was asked before we move these jacks is whether we should save costs and time by just making a field termination of the Cat5E cable with an RJ45 connector crimped right on the cable then plug this cable directly into the access point and avoid the biscuit jack and short station cable. I'm wondering if anyone is doing this, was doing this and stopped, plans to do this etc? Does this present any problems like bad mechanical connection problems etc? Thanks for your feedback. --Mark Wehrle Phone: (215) 898-9664 Technical Director, ISC Network Telecom Operations Fax: (215) 898-9348 University of Pennsylvania 3401 Walnut Suite 221a Email:weh...@isc.upenn.edumailto:weh...@isc.upenn.edu Phila. PA 19104-6228 ** 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/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points
Thanks everyone for your feedback. It was very helpful. We are planning to leave a service loop regardless of what we do, and are still discussing either approach. There is an article that was forwarded to me from one of my staff members. http://www.cablinginstall.com/articles/2012/05/direct-attach-cabling-method-explained-demonstrated.html http://www.graybar.com/applications/facility-maintenance/direct-attach Thanks again. --Mark W From: Hector J Rios hr...@lsu.edumailto:hr...@lsu.edu Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Date: Thursday, May 14, 2015 4:33 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points Same thing here. We have always terminated the cable directly, with a service loop, and never had any problems. -Hector Rios Louisiana State University From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Joey Rego Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 1:25 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points Hey Mark, If you are going to terminate the cable directly just make sure you have a service loop were possible just in case you need to tweak the location of the ap after install and final surveys. Joey Rego Network Security Administrator Information Technology 3601 North Military Trail Boca Raton, FL 33431 T: 561-237-7982 jr...@lynn.edumailto:jr...@lynn.edu 1-800-888-5986 | www.lynn.eduhttp://www.lynn.edu/ [cid:image002.jpg@01CF442D.90504330] From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Philippe Hanset Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 2:14 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Copper Cable Field Terminations for Access Points I remember arguing with cabling crews about that exact issue: ME: I want to have the RJ-45 connector crimped on the cable for two reasons: -It saves money (on one jack and one patch cable, that’s about $10 per AP) -It prevents patch cable theft (not huge but very annoying especially in Residence Halls) CABLING CREW: we want to terminate on a jack because: -It is a pain to terminate a RJ-45 connector on the cable (unless new connector designs exist) and the money saved in equipment is wasted in labor -We cannot properly label the circuit on a cable but we can do it on a jack In the end, they won the argument. Some may argue that terminating on a Jack also gives the option to add a longer patch cable if needed, but we always left a service loop anyway! Philippe Hanset www.eduroam.ushttp://www.eduroam.us On May 14, 2015, at 1:05 PM, Mark H. Wehrle weh...@isc.upenn.edumailto:weh...@isc.upenn.edu wrote: Good afternoon all, We are faced with some challenges in upgrading our access points in our residence halls this summer. Our existing installation has access points wall mounted and we terminate Cat5E cable on a Cat5E type biscuit jack on the wall near where the access point is mounted. From there we place a short cable from the jack to the access point. In current state, this makes for easier troubleshooting to decipher cable versus AP problems, however it's understood that there could be other problems associated with multiple termination points etc. In our current project, we are looking install access points with internal antennas and we are looking to move these to ceiling mounts in most/all of these rooms where we can. We made this choice because we've found that some students will vary the positions of antennas, which have impacted RF coverage and we have added more access points in some areas to compensate (we cannot easily get into student rooms to inspect access points). The question I was asked before we move these jacks is whether we should save costs and time by just making a field termination of the Cat5E cable with an RJ45 connector crimped right on the cable then plug this cable directly into the access point and avoid the biscuit jack and short station cable. I'm wondering if anyone is doing this, was doing this and stopped, plans to do this etc? Does this present any problems like bad mechanical connection problems etc? Thanks for your feedback. --Mark Wehrle Phone: (215) 898-9664 Technical Director, ISC Network Telecom Operations Fax: (215) 898-9348 University of Pennsylvania 3401 Walnut Suite 221a Email:weh...@isc.upenn.edumailto:weh...@isc.upenn.edu Phila. PA 19104-6228 ** Participation and subscription information
