Another midspan device is Panduit's. They say they can power the 1252
without any problem. I know they could deliver up to 30 watts per port
and are gig capable.
http://www.panduit.com/search/search_results.asp?N=501Ntk=AllNtt=m
idspanNty=1D=midspanNtx=mode+matchallpartialDx=mode+matchallpartial
Nu=P_RollupKey
-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
