everyone to make the switch.
Pete Morrissey
From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jenkins, Matthew
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 4:01 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject
even done dynamic VLAN
assignment based off AD group membership since day one and have not had any
issues.
Walt
On Jul 24, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Jenkins, Matthew wrote:
Thanks everyone for your quick responses! As far as the EAP method
goes, we will primarily be using MS AD
We are also on 4.2.61.0. I had chuckle when you said you didn't want to
touch it again for 6 months. It seems like there is always some gotcha
bug that we get hit by in whatever release we are on. At least TAC
usually knows which bug it is sigh. I was thinking of going up to
4.2.112.0 as well,
We have WCS configured to e-mail rogue alerts to us. We then
investigate them on the WCS maps and make a decision whether to contain
them. I have seen rogues in urban areas that I have not contained
because I could not identify them as being within our building.
Matt
Matthew Jenkins
We are using Cisco 7920 and 7921 phones on CCM v4 (shortly will be v6)
on the Cisco LWAPP. We have no issues with the wireless voice; however,
we currently only have a handful of the wireless phones deployed
(primarily due to cost of the phones). We also allow RRM to adjust
signal strength now
I agree. We installed Cisco LW APs in our dorms two years ago and the
number of students bringing in their own gear dropped to almost none.
Previously we had Cisco 350s deployed that were not centrally managed.
Because of the poor service to users, they began to do their own thing
(i.e. setup
