Dale- Don't hold back- say what's on your mind:)
I'll be the first to agree that the "SWAN" and WLSM thing was abysmal. But that being said, we have used WLSE for config management, firmware upgrades, what limited IDS stuff it does, and general WLAN management with nothing less than 90% satisfaction- and it's cheap. We will change to WCS, etc. at some point- but not for a while. So- to go back to my question- and again, I do know all about the thin AP model and WCS, but migrating to that also brings costs ($$ and admin) that we're not quite ready to expend- has anybody actually used the self-healing with specific pros or cons beyond the "the whole thing sucks" mantra? We already have the floor plans in the WLSE (was not a lot of effort.) We do "real" surveys now, and basically have what I consider a good, reliable, quality wireless network. Since the self-healing is available at no more cost to us with our existing hardware combination, just wondering if anyone has let the system fend for itself under the name of self-healing. Thanks- Lee >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/6/2005 12:35:32 PM >>> On Dec 6, 2005, at 8:55 AM, Lee Badman wrote: > I am contemplating piloting a rather large new building to use > Cisco's WLSE/AP "self healing" features- have had some success with > it in small test areas. Wondering if anyone is using it on a larger > scale and has either gotten comfortable with it or has experienced > pain as a result. I'll be blunt. Our opinion of the WLSE and WLSM stuff is that it is largely a solution looking for a problem in this arena. We tried a WLSE for a while a year ago and it was nothing but worthless pain and overall a half-baked piece of junk. For how often you actually expect the RF footprint to change, an AP go down, for all of the effort to set up and deal with all of the WLSE/WLSM crap, importing map graphics, I can have a 24x7 tech log into and set power levels, reboot an AP remotely via a POE switch, or even do a truck roll to replace an AP for a lot less cost and all using monitoring infrastructure already in place. Select your channels and coverage maps with good pre and post deployment site surveys. Have those maps available to the NOC. You can set client power levels (for clients that obey) via the IOS cli. We have large buildings (libraries in particular) with 100% coverage, lots of AP's, lots of clients (A,B and G), some 24x7, and nothing that has ever required "self healing" mumbo-jumbo. Save your money on marketing buzzwords, and spend it on quality RF design and tools. Note that for all of the Aironet engineers' effort, more or less all of the CCX/WDS/WLSE/WLSM architecture is or will be junk now with the Airospace equipment and the lightweight AP model which all of the vendors are at or are moving towards. Cisco has always lagged behind other vendors in wireless technology (which is fine by them, as it lets the others take the risks in a fast moving market). Dale ---------------------------------- Dale W. Carder - Network Engineer University of Wisconsin at Madison http://net.doit.wisc.edu/~dwcarder ********** 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/.
