Frank I do not agree that the n solution is viable in a large enterprise at this point. My customers expect stability and reliability and while I encourage innovation I have no confidence that such a large rollout of n AP's is wise or justifiable.
Thanks Bret Bret Jones Managing Director Technology Operations and Engineering The George Washington University 801 22nd Street NW, Suite B148 Washington, DC 20052 Phone: (202)994-5548 Fax: (202)994-0730 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Frank Bulk - iNAME [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 9:30 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n Jonn: According to Cisco, if you have particular models of the 3750E, 4500, and 6500, you may be able to power their new 802.11n APs with full features. If that's not workable solution in a customer's environment, then standalone PoE adapters are also a possibility. As Dave has mentioned elsewhere, only those organizations that have scheduled upgrades, have a particular performance need, or want investment protection for a new installation, should be seriously considering 802.11n earlier this year. Which vendor bonds multiple PoE ports for powering 802.11n APs? IIRC, Aruba is using it for quick failover and Trapeze for network connectivity, not power. For those who want to go to 802.3at today and are willing to stomach a mid-span device, there are some choices out there: http://ipcommunications.tmcnet.com/news/2008/01/07/366635.htm?p=ims http://voip-buzz.com/2006/07/01/phihong%E2%80%99s-one-port-midspan-supports- high-speed-wireless-access-points/ Frank -----Original Message----- From: Jonn Martell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:02 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n I won't speak for Bret but considering the cost differential of 11xx and 12xx models in Cisco, I'm not sure there is a cost/benefit value of deploying the 1250 at this point? Fundamentally, the biggest hurdle I see for Cisco's 802.11n strategy is the fact that you can't use installed 802.3af (POE) infrastructure! That means that the thousands of ports installed in some environments can't be used to power the new Cisco 802.11n dual radio APs. Fine, the new installation can install the new POE Plus (to be?) standard but at what cost? It seems that some vendors are supporting bonding multiple POE ports to provide the POE Plus output required for the dual radio support but it seems that Cisco has decided not to go this route (at least for now until they hear from the installed base! :-) Also wonder what type of mid-span POE 802.3af to 802.3at devices will exists in the coming year to address this shortfall. Hope there aren't any patent issues on what should be commodity devices based on standards. ... Jonn Martell (wearing a consultant hat) CWNE martell.ca The cost/benefit On 1/14/08, Frank Bulk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bret: > > What do you perceive the risks to be? > > There's no doubt that the price is higher, though the price/Mbps is lower. > The standard is already viable, there's no question in my mind regarding > that, though 2008 won't be the year that 802.11n APs match the price of > enterprise 802.11b/g APs today. > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bret Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 5:50 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n > > 1. The technology is very new in the enterprise market and when rolling out > thousands of AP's is just too risky at this point. > > 2. The cost is much higher for now > > I do expect the standard and cost will become much more viable over the next > year and will consider this again in 2009 > > Thanks Bret > > Bret Jones > Managing Director > Technology Operations and Engineering > The George Washington University > 801 22nd Street NW, Suite B148 > Washington, DC 20052 > Phone: (202)994-5548 > Fax: (202)994-0730 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Bulk - iNAME [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 1:02 PM > To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n > > Can I ask why you've decided to skip 802.11n at this time? Do you have > plans to do a round of hardware replacements in 3 years, and take advantage > of lower 802.11b/g AP pricing? > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bret Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 4:12 AM > To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n > > We are doing a large AP rollout in 2008 (1500 AP's) we are going with Cisco, > but not with "n", we will not be putting the AP's under smartnet because it > is expensive and much more cost effective to just replace AP's when they > fail. The failure rate for us has been very low I think 3 out of 1000 in > the last 2 years. We will have smartnet on the other components i.e. > controllers and location appliances. > > Thanks Bret > > Bret Jones > Managing Director > Technology Operations and Engineering > The George Washington University > 801 22nd Street NW, Suite B148 > Washington, DC 20052 > Phone: (202)994-5548 > Fax: (202)994-0730 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonn Martell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 5:46 PM > To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n > > This is where size and your relationship to your Cisco AM is important. > > I don't think that you should have to put all your APs on Smartnet if > you do local sparing. At one of my last EDU, we had 2000+ APs deployed > and only a handful on Smartnet (required to call TAC).... > > If your Cisco AM doesn't understand this, that's when competition > starts to look really interesting! Forcing maintenance on the small > stuff is ridiculous especially for thin APs that are controlled by the > controllers (these APs aren't autonomous anymore). > > If you want to stay with Cisco, then waiting for the "WiFi 802.11n" > compliance certification is likely your best bet. > > ... Jonn Martell > > On 1/11/08, Lee H Badman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Lee- > > > > > > > > Where I find fault with this is the requirement to keep APs under > > maintenance. Our model has always been that the APs are cheap enough and > > reliable enough that it's more cost effective to keep a dozen spares on > hand > > than to keep 1600 APs on maintenance. so in my opinion, Smartnet isn't > the > > right silver bullet for protection against changes to the standard- but I > do > > concede that every environment has their own circumstances. > > > > > > > > Lee > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Lee Weers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:46 AM > > To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n > > > > > > > > > > We have a campus wide wireless project just starting that we are going to > do > > 802.11n everywhere we can place a Cisco 1252. We couldn't get a guarantee > > from Cisco that there won't be a hardware change. Just that if the AP is > > under smartnet they will then do the upgrade for free. > > > > > > > > I have also heard the same thing from Xirrus with their AP arrays. If > they > > are under maintenance then they will send you the 802.11n radios to swap > > out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Lee H Badman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 9:39 AM > > To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > > Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n > > > > Wondering who is taking the early plunge on 802.11n, who's system you are > > going with (beyond small pilots), and if you are requiring commitment from > > the manufacturer that if the standard does change in ways that make > > pre-standard hardware incompatible, free replacements would be provided? > > > > > > > > On list or off is OK- just trying to gather data for our own 11n research. > > > > > > > > Kind regards- > > > > > > > > Lee H. Badman > > > > Wireless/Network Engineer > > > > Information Technology and Services > > > > Syracuse University > > > > 315 443-3003 > > > > > > > > ********** 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/. > > ********** > 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/.
