Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] microcell vs virtual cell
Where virtual cell deployments really shine is in a couple of ways: 1. By timing the transmissions of both the APs and the clients, they cut *way* down on the number of collisions and retransmits. This alone is what causes the throughput of a normal AP to completely tank after 20-30 users. So, by cutting down on the amount of waisted air created by the random backoffs and the collisions themselves, you gain quite a bit of usable throughput and the ability to reliably support more than 20 users (since the available spectrum can be equally divided without the clients fighting like a bunch of siblings). 2. By moving to an almost TDMA approach, 802.11g clients get better performance when 802.11b clients are sharing the cell than they would with traditional APs (at least this is true for Meru). This is because the AP will give each client the same amount of air*time* instead of the same number of frames, allowing the 802.11g client to transmit more data before again having to wait on another client. 3. Most people don't realize (or it just doesn't dawn on them) that you *can* run all 3 channels in a virtual cell deployment. You do have to install more APs to support this configuration, but, by doing this, you get 3 virtual cells spanning your campus and all of the available bandwidth that goes along with it (which, for the reasons listed above, is more than you would get using a traditional 3 channel deployment, making your actual aggregate available throughput much closer to the 162Mbps theoretical max for 2.4GHz usage). One of the other nice benefits of virtual cell deployments is the lack of client-initiated roaming. This is especially useful for cutting down roam times when the WLAN is 802.1x authenticated (and it doesn't require PMK). Since, even though the client has moved his association to a new physical AP, he's still talking on the same channel and to the same BSSID, he has no clue that he has roamed and his session state has been seamlessly moved by the controller. I'd be happy to discuss (offline) our Meru system with anyone who'd like to ask questions. --Mike On Apr 6, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Ringgold, Clint wrote: I am interested in the findings as well. My concern is the actual throughput. It would seem to me that a virtual 3 ap setup would be 54MB while in a microcell it would be 162MBPotential. I hope I'm wrong and or can get clarification. -Original Message- From: Scholz, Greg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 3:59 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] microcell vs virtual cell I am also interested in anything you find. -Original Message- From: Steve Fletty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 3:33 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] microcell vs virtual cell Is there any scholarly or technical data/analyis of the single-channel virtual cell architecture vs the traditional micro-cell WIFI achitecture? I don't want to hear from vendors. I don't want bake-off results or vendor white papers. I'd like to know if there's any hard science comparing the two contrasting schemes. -- Steve Fletty Network Design Engineer University of Minnesota ** 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/. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Cisco Location Appliance
Lee, We've been struggling with that one for over a year. Cisco is promising a new release sometime in the next 6 months that will fix the problem. We had originally set our maps up with all the walls and other barriers carefully added. As soon as we got the Location Appliance and fired it up, it crapped out. It took much struggling with Cisco to find out that the internal data structures were sized for a single building, not a whole campus. One problem is the limit on objects. Another is the overall limit on memory consumed by the maps. If I remember right it's 32MB. I figured we weren't the only ones suffering!! - Mark -- Mark Berman, Director for Networks & Systems Williams College, OIT, Jesup Hall Williamstown, MA. 01267 413-597-2092 On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, WIRELESS-LAN automatic digest system wrote: From: Lee Badman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Cisco Location Appliance Am seeing a running condition on our two Cisco Location Appliances, where we show constant orange error on WCS for hitting the maximum of 2,500 objects tracked- though the WCS itself reports far less. We have told the appliances to only log clients (not rogues, RFID tags, etc.) and have cut the history way done as per Cisco. There is no overlap in network designs assigned to our two servers- meaning that any one network design is assigned only to a single location server. Even when WCS says that each location server sees less than 1500 clients, Location Appliance alarm is pegged. My sense is that we may not the only environment experiencing this condition. Wondering if anyone else has had to go down this road, and if there has been any remediation or explanation for the condition identified? Thanks- Lee Badman ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] microcell vs virtual cell
http://www.jaist.ac.jp/~razvan/publications/voip_survey_final.pdf Speaks about the different techniques used for QOS.. E.J. von Schaumburg (o) 704-644-8292 (c) 973-879-4408 -Original Message- From: Whittaker, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 4:04 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] microcell vs virtual cell Here's one point of view on the topic .. I got this from an Educause link .. On 4/6/07 3:59 PM, "Scholz, Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am also interested in anything you find. > > > -Original Message- > From: Steve Fletty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 3:33 PM > To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] microcell vs virtual cell > > Is there any scholarly or technical data/analyis of the single-channel > virtual cell architecture vs the traditional micro-cell WIFI > achitecture? > > I don't want to hear from vendors. I don't want bake-off results or > vendor white papers. I'd like to know if there's any hard science > comparing the two contrasting schemes. > > -- > Steve Fletty > Network Design Engineer > University of Minnesota > > ** > 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/. Ken --- ** 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/.
Re: WIRELESS-LAN Digest - 5 Apr 2007 to 6 Apr 2007 - Special issue (#2007-58)
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, WIRELESS-LAN automatic digest system wrote: [NON-Text Body part not included] ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] microcell vs virtual cell
That's a vendor white paper. :( Whittaker, Ken wrote: Here's one point of view on the topic .. I got this from an Educause link .. On 4/6/07 3:59 PM, "Scholz, Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am also interested in anything you find. -Original Message- From: Steve Fletty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 3:33 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] microcell vs virtual cell Is there any scholarly or technical data/analyis of the single-channel virtual cell architecture vs the traditional micro-cell WIFI achitecture? I don't want to hear from vendors. I don't want bake-off results or vendor white papers. I'd like to know if there's any hard science comparing the two contrasting schemes. -- Steve Fletty Network Design Engineer University of Minnesota ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] microcell vs virtual cell
I am interested in the findings as well. My concern is the actual throughput. It would seem to me that a virtual 3 ap setup would be 54MB while in a microcell it would be 162MBPotential. I hope I'm wrong and or can get clarification. -Original Message- From: Scholz, Greg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 3:59 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] microcell vs virtual cell I am also interested in anything you find. -Original Message- From: Steve Fletty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 3:33 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] microcell vs virtual cell Is there any scholarly or technical data/analyis of the single-channel virtual cell architecture vs the traditional micro-cell WIFI achitecture? I don't want to hear from vendors. I don't want bake-off results or vendor white papers. I'd like to know if there's any hard science comparing the two contrasting schemes. -- Steve Fletty Network Design Engineer University of Minnesota ** 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/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] microcell vs virtual cell
I am also interested in anything you find. -Original Message- From: Steve Fletty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 3:33 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] microcell vs virtual cell Is there any scholarly or technical data/analyis of the single-channel virtual cell architecture vs the traditional micro-cell WIFI achitecture? I don't want to hear from vendors. I don't want bake-off results or vendor white papers. I'd like to know if there's any hard science comparing the two contrasting schemes. -- Steve Fletty Network Design Engineer University of Minnesota ** 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/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Wireless Back Haul Product Evaluation
Mike: Network Computing magazine will be printing an comparative review about PTP wireless fairly soon. Can I ask what your key interests and selection criteria are? Kind regards, Frank -Original Message- From: Mike Testa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 8:40 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Wireless Back Haul Product Evaluation Hello: I am wondering if anyone is using or has used one of the following products and if so, can you share what your experience using the product has been like? - ZyXEL A-6000. - Proxim TeraBridge 5345 or 5845. - Proxim TsunamiR QuickBridge Series 5054-R. Feel free to contact me off list if you like. Any information you can provide is appreciated. Thank You, Mike -- Mike Testa Technical Services Manager Computing Services Denison University Granville, Ohio 43023 Ph. 740.587.6333 ** 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/.
microcell vs virtual cell
Is there any scholarly or technical data/analyis of the single-channel virtual cell architecture vs the traditional micro-cell WIFI achitecture? I don't want to hear from vendors. I don't want bake-off results or vendor white papers. I'd like to know if there's any hard science comparing the two contrasting schemes. -- Steve Fletty Network Design Engineer University of Minnesota ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: Cisco Location Appliance
No problem. >>> Lee Badman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4/6/2007 10:47 AM >>> Thanks, Tony- I am hearing all of the many ways Concannon is going to possibly touch some of the current deficiencies in the LWAPP system, but have not been able to extract any tangible information from Cisco on it. Lee Lee Badman, KC2IYK Network/Wireless Engineer CWNA, CWSP Information Technology and Services Syracuse University 315 443-3003 >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/6/2007 8:33:25 AM >>> Lee, This is a known issue with element tracking. I have been talking with the Beta Concannon team on the new Beta (4.1) Concannon release, and they have ensured me that this will be fixed in this version (4.1.x) targeted for the end of April, early May. They will also be including the ability to view each element that is tracked, and the ability to choose the elements you want to track. Give it a few weeks, or two, and you will have many new options with this and it will be fixed. Thanks, Tony Roberts Network Engineer Indiana State University Office of Information Technology 210 N 7th Street Tirey Hall Room 065 Terre Haute, IN 47809 Office 812-237-8854 FAX 812-237-4361 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** This email, and any attachments, thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. *** >>> Lee Badman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4/6/2007 8:19 AM >>> Am seeing a running condition on our two Cisco Location Appliances, where we show constant orange error on WCS for hitting the maximum of 2,500 objects tracked- though the WCS itself reports far less. We have told the appliances to only log clients (not rogues, RFID tags, etc.) and have cut the history way done as per Cisco. There is no overlap in network designs assigned to our two servers- meaning that any one network design is assigned only to a single location server. Even when WCS says that each location server sees less than 1500 clients, Location Appliance alarm is pegged. My sense is that we may not the only environment experiencing this condition. Wondering if anyone else has had to go down this road, and if there has been any remediation or explanation for the condition identified? Thanks- Lee Badman ** 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/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco Location Appliance
Thanks, Tony- I am hearing all of the many ways Concannon is going to possibly touch some of the current deficiencies in the LWAPP system, but have not been able to extract any tangible information from Cisco on it. Lee Lee Badman, KC2IYK Network/Wireless Engineer CWNA, CWSP Information Technology and Services Syracuse University 315 443-3003 >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/6/2007 8:33:25 AM >>> Lee, This is a known issue with element tracking. I have been talking with the Beta Concannon team on the new Beta (4.1) Concannon release, and they have ensured me that this will be fixed in this version (4.1.x) targeted for the end of April, early May. They will also be including the ability to view each element that is tracked, and the ability to choose the elements you want to track. Give it a few weeks, or two, and you will have many new options with this and it will be fixed. Thanks, Tony Roberts Network Engineer Indiana State University Office of Information Technology 210 N 7th Street Tirey Hall Room 065 Terre Haute, IN 47809 Office 812-237-8854 FAX 812-237-4361 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** This email, and any attachments, thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. *** >>> Lee Badman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4/6/2007 8:19 AM >>> Am seeing a running condition on our two Cisco Location Appliances, where we show constant orange error on WCS for hitting the maximum of 2,500 objects tracked- though the WCS itself reports far less. We have told the appliances to only log clients (not rogues, RFID tags, etc.) and have cut the history way done as per Cisco. There is no overlap in network designs assigned to our two servers- meaning that any one network design is assigned only to a single location server. Even when WCS says that each location server sees less than 1500 clients, Location Appliance alarm is pegged. My sense is that we may not the only environment experiencing this condition. Wondering if anyone else has had to go down this road, and if there has been any remediation or explanation for the condition identified? Thanks- Lee Badman ** 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/.
PEAP errors on MAC OS X
Folks, We are in the process of testing PEAP and are running into problems on MAC OS-X. We have a Cisco setup front to back (LWAP AP's, WSIM modules, ACS radius authenticating against AD). PEAP works fine on windows clients, but we are getting the following errors on the MAC OS-X side. When attempting to authenticate, we get the following pop-up: **802.1x authentication failed (Error 1001 on port en1)** The Mac client console logs shows: **EAPOL security error (10001)** Strange thing is, if I have a wired connection established, the PEAP authentication works fine (kinda defeats the purpose though). TIA Dave ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Wireless Back Haul Product Evaluation
Hello: I am wondering if anyone is using or has used one of the following products and if so, can you share what your experience using the product has been like? - ZyXEL A-6000. - Proxim TeraBridge 5345 or 5845. - Proxim Tsunami® QuickBridge Series 5054-R. Feel free to contact me off list if you like. Any information you can provide is appreciated. Thank You, Mike -- Mike Testa Technical Services Manager Computing Services Denison University Granville, Ohio 43023 Ph. 740.587.6333 ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: Cisco Location Appliance
Lee, This is a known issue with element tracking. I have been talking with the Beta Concannon team on the new Beta (4.1) Concannon release, and they have ensured me that this will be fixed in this version (4.1.x) targeted for the end of April, early May. They will also be including the ability to view each element that is tracked, and the ability to choose the elements you want to track. Give it a few weeks, or two, and you will have many new options with this and it will be fixed. Thanks, Tony Roberts Network Engineer Indiana State University Office of Information Technology 210 N 7th Street Tirey Hall Room 065 Terre Haute, IN 47809 Office 812-237-8854 FAX 812-237-4361 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** This email, and any attachments, thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. *** >>> Lee Badman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4/6/2007 8:19 AM >>> Am seeing a running condition on our two Cisco Location Appliances, where we show constant orange error on WCS for hitting the maximum of 2,500 objects tracked- though the WCS itself reports far less. We have told the appliances to only log clients (not rogues, RFID tags, etc.) and have cut the history way done as per Cisco. There is no overlap in network designs assigned to our two servers- meaning that any one network design is assigned only to a single location server. Even when WCS says that each location server sees less than 1500 clients, Location Appliance alarm is pegged. My sense is that we may not the only environment experiencing this condition. Wondering if anyone else has had to go down this road, and if there has been any remediation or explanation for the condition identified? Thanks- Lee Badman ** 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/.
Cisco Location Appliance
Am seeing a running condition on our two Cisco Location Appliances, where we show constant orange error on WCS for hitting the maximum of 2,500 objects tracked- though the WCS itself reports far less. We have told the appliances to only log clients (not rogues, RFID tags, etc.) and have cut the history way done as per Cisco. There is no overlap in network designs assigned to our two servers- meaning that any one network design is assigned only to a single location server. Even when WCS says that each location server sees less than 1500 clients, Location Appliance alarm is pegged. My sense is that we may not the only environment experiencing this condition. Wondering if anyone else has had to go down this road, and if there has been any remediation or explanation for the condition identified? Thanks- Lee Badman ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
