We have a similar environment.

We opted for MAB (MAC Authentication Bypass) on the wire instead of 802.1x 
because Microsoft's implementation of 802.1x is what can only be described as, 
purposefully obtuse.

802.1x is a fantastic technology and once you get it setup it works very well.  
However, the management is a nightmare wrapped in terror sent CoD courtesy of 
Redmond.

There are several 3rd party vendors that offer suites to make the roll out and 
management of 802.1x on windows easier but they are not free and you get what 
you pay for.

MAB works very well and will do everything 802.1x does sans the encryption. 
Best part? It requires no changes to the clients, MAB is configured on the 
switch and the client is blissfully ignorant.

Wireless is another story, we use MAB there too.  But since wireless is a 
shared medium it is significantly easier to attempt to spoof a MAC and gain 
access to the network.  Just make sure you have some counter measures in place 
to mitigate known attack vectors.

Jake Sallee
Godfather of Bandwidth
Network Engineer
University of Mary Hardin-Baylor

900 College St.
Belton, Texas
76513

Fone: 254-295-4658
Phax: 254-295-4221
________________________________
From: Damian Mendoza [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:42 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [PacketFence-users] recommendations/ideas for Packetfence large 
workstation school board

Hi,

Looking at installing Packetfence at a school district with 8,000 wired 
workstations and 2,000 wireless devices across 26 schools.

The goal is to lock down the network so switch ports are not open for network 
access unless approved by a on-site technician and wireless connections are 
more secure than just using a basic SSID. Dynamic VLAN assignment would be a 
plus for guest access.

Switches are all fairly Current Cisco models that support 802.1x

Does it make sense to use 802.1x on all wired devices? 90% of workstations are 
Windows XP. If we went with link up/link down would we be looking at 
performance issues on a single PF server? Would Multiple PF servers be 
recommended?

Configuring 802.1x on 8,000 workstation would take some time since we would 
have to push out scripts to enable it and configure it properly. Wired guest 
workstations would also have to be configured with 802.1x which might not be 
possible.

Any recommendations?


Thanks,

--
Damian Mendoza
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET
Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost.
Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead
Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1
_______________________________________________
PacketFence-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users

Reply via email to