For wireless we currently have an Aruba 2400, and a HP WESM xl module.
About a year ago I did a comparison (mostly on paper) of a campus wide
deployment of Aruba, Trapeze, Procurve, Xirrus, Cisco, and Siemens. It
came down to Procurve for several reasons. 1. It is very simple to
setup and
Hi all,
We're seeing this behaviour in our wireless network but it really
relates more to DHCP than to wireless itself. Is anyone aware of DCHP
client issues with any of the 'popular' latop operating systems. What I'm
seeing is a wireless client asking for, and receiving, an IP address
Had they received Wi-Fi certification? I think that could be a
differentiating factor.
I remeber that there was talk of 802.11g being certified *after* the
final release, but not during draft. Some 802.11g draft hardware was
specified as compliant after the final spec was approved, though.
You are correct that Cisco is shipping N now, but the 1250 AP's are
modular to accommodate any changes to the 802.11n draft that would
require a radio modification. There are 6 external antennas on the box
and they weigh about as much as a cinder block. They are not really
good for ceiling
Carnegie Mellon just went through an extensive N evalthey chose
Aruba.
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/071112/0324644.html
From: Lee Weers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:25 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n Draft 2.0
I'm pretty sure Powerdsine/Microsemi has certified its midspan products to
work with a number of vendors' gigabit switches.
Pete M.
_
From: Frank Bulk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:25 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re:
We are currently rolling out Cisco a/b/g wireless and asked the vendor
about designing with 802.11n in mind. The overall response was that the
technology is too immature and any predictions would be highly
speculative. They also said that the consumer base would not be
populated with N - capable
It probably is no surprise but we have a 1252-based pilot in operation
now, with ongoing conversations about when/how to expand. All of the
concerns raised so far are valid, and under discussion. Currently we're
using individual power injectors to Gig switches, but we all know how
well individual
I don't see a finalization of 802.11n anytime soon. If I remember right
the original draft was supposed to be finalized by now, but then pushed
it back to Spring 08 then Oct 08 and now Mar 09. I wouldn't be suprised
to see it pushed back yet again. I was also concerned about not seeing
a
Good point, though those legacy client devices seem to stick around longer
than you think. In any case, shipping chipsets will be predominately
802.11n by 2009 and my guess is that the installed base of clients will
reach 50% that year.
I think Kevin's 5 to 8 years is much too conservative.
Lee,
It's all about be willing to pay the price of being an early adopter!
Is it better to deploy an early 802.11n today and deal with the
consequences (two cat5, two 802.3af ports, I wonder if you can
etherchannel two 100 Mbps ports for each AP since you bring two cat5
anyway!)
or wait for a
agreed - you will always have those legacy issues, good thing for
backwards compatibility. But its not like we are just get accustomed to
WLAN now. The expectations are higher. g rolled out much quicker than
b and n will roll out much quicker than g.
Lee,
As was noted by others earlier today, we recently announced our new
Wireless Andrew 2.0 project, which will bring 802.11n to the campus
wireless network using equipment from Aruba and Xirrus. I'm happy to
answer any questions you might have.
-Dan
Dan McCarriar
Assistant
We are considering doing the upgrade over the holidays, but have no pressing
need to upgrade. We may just hold off until the summer, although the
holiday closure would have the least impact on our users.
Tom Magrini
Assistant Director, Network Services
The University of Arizona
[EMAIL
Pete Lee,
Same opinion here. I'm focusing on increased coverage. I plan on piloting
11n over the summer, but I have no plans for deployment at this time. Of
the 18,000 or so users that utilize the UA's wireless network, I have not
heard any complaints about bandwidth. I wouldn't expect it
For those organizations that are risk-averse and/or price conscious, the
best choice may be deploying 802.11b/g everywhere now (in positions where an
802.11n AP could be dropped in later) and then upgrading to 802.11n in 2-3
years. This best applies to those who have no wireless today.
If you're
Dan:
All the best. I would be most interested in hearing about your PoE and your
approach with existing APs.
Kind regards,
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Dan McCarriar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:14 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject:
We supplied wi-fi to Interop this year where 60% of all clients connecting were
11a. We're seeing the same stats at the ITU in Geneva during the world radio
congress last month.
Del'Oro indicated the majority shipping of tri-mode or 11a stations occured in
June of 06.
Regards,
Jon
Those are two events with rather technically savvy people who will set their
radios to prefer 802.11a. =)
So I would call 60% the high watermark. Most organizations will see less
than this.
Regards,
Frank
_
From: Jon Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13,
Hmmm... at SU, in certain areas, we see well over 50% for 802.11a at any given
time. Overall, we see around 35-40% 802.11a. One thing that's interesting (not
yet proven, but some good circumstantial evidence) is we see our newer
Macintoshes clinging like grim death to weak 802.11a cells where g
20 matches
Mail list logo
