I think comparing shared wireless to dedicated wired connections is a bit of an apple vs orange contest. You can get shared wireless where you can't get anything else (e.g. walking from one meeting room to the other, or attending a meeting with 10 other people in a room where there are only 4 wired ports), so obviously it is better than all the other choices. If you can choose between a 100Mbps switch port and a 11Mbps shared wireless link without sacrificing anything (e.g. in case of servers or desktop machines), then the 100Mbps switch port is obviously better.
Thanks, Zsombor "Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorte wrote: > > ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > What's the medium cost between the two cities? Can you use > demand > > circuits as a backup? Can you live with one more PVC and > trust the > > physical connection? Is QoS-unpredictable cable or DSL > available? > > > > Funny you should ask this, Howard. I've been struggling for > several weeks > how to pose the question. Have we, the engineering / technical > sales > community oversold the idea of dedicated bandwidth and QoS? > > Take, for example, wireless. > > Wireless is essentially a step backwards. For years we have > been convincing > customers to get rid of their hubs and move into a switched > domain, with > dedicated bandwidth for every user. This is often done in the > name of > productivity. Fewer interruptions of data streams, meaning work > completed > faster.Now all the wireless vendors ( Cisco included ) are > producing studies > showing how wireless is increasing productivity to the tune of > an hour a > day. On a shared contention medium. Cisco will shortly release > their > wireless telephone as part of their AVVID suite of products, > competing with > the SpectraLink product that has been available for a couple of > years. > > All this gives one reason to re-evaluate what we have been told > for the last > couple of years. a contention medium provides the means for > greater > productivity? > > You mention QoS in your response above. QoS is something being > pushed as > necessary for voice, video, and other delay sensitive traffic. > Cisco > wireless AP's offer one way quasi QoS. Wireless, however, > remains a > contention medium, and will remain so until the FCC changes the > rules. I'm > not sure they will be able to release sufficient radio spectrum > to permit > all the bandwidth and services that wired can. But wireless is > so damn > convenient! > > I'm not suggesting that dedicated bandwidth to the desktop is a > bad thing or > that there is not need for QoS. However, I'm wondering how all > of us might > reconcile two seemingly opposed points of view regarding > bandwidth and QoS - > recognizing that wireless, whatever it's limitations, is here > to stay, and > will become and remain essential to any and all networks, > enterprise or > small business, going forward. > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72665&t=72645 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
