Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

[Jeffrey D. Sessler]

Prime made a huge leap with the release of 3.1, and I’ve been extremely happy 
with it now for management of our WiFi. The Prime team seems to have 
accelerated their cadence of updates to better support emerging features on the 
wireless platform. Back in the old days of WCS, updates to WCS and WLC code 
came together, but that stopped with Prime until the 3.x releases. The 3.x 
releases (and device packs) seem to more closely mimic the old pacing.

As for its use as a management platform, I have no complaints. The widgets are 
great especially if one spends the time to customize them. Dashboards are 
highly customizable, and the API is very powerful. If you do find something you 
need that’s not in the product, it’s simple to query for it.

I also find product development to be responsive to the provide feedback link 
within the interface. I’ve submitted several improvement suggestions and always 
hear back from them within a week or two.

Jeff


From: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> 
on behalf of "oliver.elli...@bristol.ac.uk" <oliver.elli...@bristol.ac.uk>
Reply-To: "oliver.elli...@bristol.ac.uk" <oliver.elli...@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 at 7:48 AM
To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

Is anyone even happily using PI?

On 10 January 2017 at 15:33, Lee H Badman 
<lhbad...@syr.edu<mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu>> wrote:

This comes up on occasion, and I'm hoping to hear actual cases of users, versus 
"have you heard about blah blah blah?"



For large Cisco WLAN environments on the list, is anyone happily and 
effectively using non-homegrown wireless management other than Prime 
Infrastructure?



Regards,



Lee






Lee Badman | Network Architect | CWNE #200
Information Technology Services
206 Machinery Hall
120 Smith Drive
Syracuse, New York 13244
t 315.443.3003   f 315.443.4325   e lhbad...@syr.edu<mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu> w 
its.syr.edu<http://its.syr.edu>
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
syr.edu<http://syr.edu>
** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE 
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at 
http://www.educause.edu/discuss.



--
Oliver Elliott
Senior Network Specialist
IT Services, University of Bristol
t: 0117 39 (41131)
** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE 
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at 
http://www.educause.edu/discuss.

**
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group 
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

[Julian Y Koh]

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 07:31, Lee H Badman  wrote:
> 
> I was a fan of WLSE, actually.
> 

We used it and WLSM quite successfully here as well for our first generation 
wireless network deployments.  It was one of those deals where just about 
everyone else was complaining constantly about it and we seemed to be just 
incredibly lucky to not have any of those problems.  I have no idea what we 
were doing differently, but I’ll take it.  :)

-- 
Julian Y. Koh
Associate Director, Telecommunications and Network Services
Northwestern Information Technology

2001 Sheridan Road #G-166
Evanston, IL 60208
+1-847-467-5780
Northwestern IT Web Site: 
PGP Public Key: 


**
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group 
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

[McClintic, Thomas]

We have Airwave and PI.

I started using PI when it was WCS and was very pleased with it. I like PI and 
where it has come, but it lacks in doing what Cisco states or I feel it should 
do. Constantly finding new bugs is always painful.

The Airwave deployment is much smaller, but I find it to be smoother 
operationally and once I understood the flow it works quite well. The reporting 
is great.

Finally, a newer engineer we have is asking if/when we can move to Airwave 
completely as he is happier working in that platform. Since his history is the 
newest with both products it leads me to believe users may find Airwave as a 
smoother ramp up than PI.


From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:08 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

Thanks, John. Interesting information. We have a long history with PI, and it’s 
various incarnations. It’s been a ride.

-Lee

Lee Badman | CWNE #200 | Network Architect

Information Technology Services
206 Machinery Hall
120 Smith Drive
Syracuse, New York 13244
t 315.443.3003   f 315.443.4325   e lhbad...@syr.edu<mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu> w 
its.syr.edu
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
syr.edu

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Watters, John
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:43 PM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

It's hard to tell how often they work on the Cisco parts of the product. I do 
know that they accepted a bug that I found recently -- radio levels and the 
corresponding dBm levels were incorrect, even varying between multiple devices 
of the same mode. For instance, the power level of a 2700i AP could be reported 
as 1(20 dBm) and an identical AP could report 1(22 dBm). And, this is not just 
for newer models. As new features are added to the WLCs, these generally get 
left behind (at least until a bunch of folks complain). I typically use the AMP 
for the majority of my work. However, if I am dealing with a newer feature, I 
usually put the AMP into monitor-only mode, make the changes directly to the 
WLC (GUI and/or CLI), then wait to see if the AMP even detects the change -- 
usually not. Since I only have five 8510s right now (one for each of our MPLS 
areas plus one for testing plus one for Athletics) I don’t have to touch too 
many WLCs. My three AMPs are currently physical Dell servers. The lightest 
loaded one supports just under 2K APs  with two 8510s and the highest loaded 
one supports just over 3K APs and one 8510. The middle one has about 2,500 APs 
and two 8510s. This is about as many APs as I feel comfortable with on the 
8510s anyway (I think their rated max is 6K). The Dell servers are relatively 
new with SSD drives and a lot of memory. I am starting to look at upgrading 
them though to try to get quicker response times. The AMP is supposed to be 
able to be run on a VM. However, I have opted out of that for now.

Another thing that currently irritates me about the AMP is the use of screen 
space. Slightly older versions have user-dragable column widths while the 
newest versions seem to scale a column somewhat larger that the max value 
presented in the column on the screen. The screen will scroll left and right 
but you lose visibility to the name of the device as it scrolls off the left 
side of the screen. With the older user-dragable column widths you could often 
get away with a column only a couple of characters wide if it had something in 
it like device status (up, down, ignored, planned down, pending). I don’t need 
to see the full word to see what the status is. The screen I am looking at now 
has a column width in excess of 20 spaces with the AP client count in it. I 
can’t possibly get that many clients on a single AP (can you?). Most/all column 
widths are greatly oversized.

Another boy in our group has been paying with the current PI product to help 
with switch & wireless management. He has no bias against it based on past 
experience (since he had never seen it before). I don’t think he is very 
impressed since he never mentions it and I have never seen him playing with it.

I expect that at some time we will have to abandon the AMPs simply because the 
incorporation of new Cisco features seems to be getting further and further 
behind. However, historical reporting is excellent. Reporting can easily be 
scheduled on a periodic basis with data being kept (per a config option) for 
over a year. Ad hoc reporting is also extremely easy.

If HP would invest more in this product it could become really great for a 
Cisco shop. As it is now, it probably depends on the number of WLCs you use (it 
does also support the ol

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

[Lee H Badman]

Thanks, John. Interesting information. We have a long history with PI, and it’s 
various incarnations. It’s been a ride.

-Lee

Lee Badman | CWNE #200 | Network Architect

Information Technology Services
206 Machinery Hall
120 Smith Drive
Syracuse, New York 13244
t 315.443.3003   f 315.443.4325   e lhbad...@syr.edu<mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu> w 
its.syr.edu
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
syr.edu

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Watters, John
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:43 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

It's hard to tell how often they work on the Cisco parts of the product. I do 
know that they accepted a bug that I found recently -- radio levels and the 
corresponding dBm levels were incorrect, even varying between multiple devices 
of the same mode. For instance, the power level of a 2700i AP could be reported 
as 1(20 dBm) and an identical AP could report 1(22 dBm). And, this is not just 
for newer models. As new features are added to the WLCs, these generally get 
left behind (at least until a bunch of folks complain). I typically use the AMP 
for the majority of my work. However, if I am dealing with a newer feature, I 
usually put the AMP into monitor-only mode, make the changes directly to the 
WLC (GUI and/or CLI), then wait to see if the AMP even detects the change -- 
usually not. Since I only have five 8510s right now (one for each of our MPLS 
areas plus one for testing plus one for Athletics) I don’t have to touch too 
many WLCs. My three AMPs are currently physical Dell servers. The lightest 
loaded one supports just under 2K APs  with two 8510s and the highest loaded 
one supports just over 3K APs and one 8510. The middle one has about 2,500 APs 
and two 8510s. This is about as many APs as I feel comfortable with on the 
8510s anyway (I think their rated max is 6K). The Dell servers are relatively 
new with SSD drives and a lot of memory. I am starting to look at upgrading 
them though to try to get quicker response times. The AMP is supposed to be 
able to be run on a VM. However, I have opted out of that for now.

Another thing that currently irritates me about the AMP is the use of screen 
space. Slightly older versions have user-dragable column widths while the 
newest versions seem to scale a column somewhat larger that the max value 
presented in the column on the screen. The screen will scroll left and right 
but you lose visibility to the name of the device as it scrolls off the left 
side of the screen. With the older user-dragable column widths you could often 
get away with a column only a couple of characters wide if it had something in 
it like device status (up, down, ignored, planned down, pending). I don’t need 
to see the full word to see what the status is. The screen I am looking at now 
has a column width in excess of 20 spaces with the AP client count in it. I 
can’t possibly get that many clients on a single AP (can you?). Most/all column 
widths are greatly oversized.

Another boy in our group has been paying with the current PI product to help 
with switch & wireless management. He has no bias against it based on past 
experience (since he had never seen it before). I don’t think he is very 
impressed since he never mentions it and I have never seen him playing with it.

I expect that at some time we will have to abandon the AMPs simply because the 
incorporation of new Cisco features seems to be getting further and further 
behind. However, historical reporting is excellent. Reporting can easily be 
scheduled on a periodic basis with data being kept (per a config option) for 
over a year. Ad hoc reporting is also extremely easy.

If HP would invest more in this product it could become really great for a 
Cisco shop. As it is now, it probably depends on the number of WLCs you use (it 
does also support the old standalone APs that are still in use; I even have a 
couple for special stuff) and how close to the most recent Cisco code release 
you are using. I am now on 8.0.140.0. SO, I am not yet current. On the other 
hand, I have a few more older AP models to get rid of before I can move ahead. 
It just takes money & time to fix, right?

We could end up with both the AMPs as well as PI.

John Watters
Network Engineer, Office of Information Technology
The University of Alabama<https://www.ua.edu/>
A115 Gordon Palmer Hall
Box 870346
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
Phone 205-348-3992
john.watt...@ua.edu<mailto:john.watt...@ua.edu>
[The University of Alabama]<https://www.ua.edu/>

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 11:54 AM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Val

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

[Watters, John]

It's hard to tell how often they work on the Cisco parts of the product. I do 
know that they accepted a bug that I found recently -- radio levels and the 
corresponding dBm levels were incorrect, even varying between multiple devices 
of the same mode. For instance, the power level of a 2700i AP could be reported 
as 1(20 dBm) and an identical AP could report 1(22 dBm). And, this is not just 
for newer models. As new features are added to the WLCs, these generally get 
left behind (at least until a bunch of folks complain). I typically use the AMP 
for the majority of my work. However, if I am dealing with a newer feature, I 
usually put the AMP into monitor-only mode, make the changes directly to the 
WLC (GUI and/or CLI), then wait to see if the AMP even detects the change -- 
usually not. Since I only have five 8510s right now (one for each of our MPLS 
areas plus one for testing plus one for Athletics) I don’t have to touch too 
many WLCs. My three AMPs are currently physical Dell servers. The lightest 
loaded one supports just under 2K APs  with two 8510s and the highest loaded 
one supports just over 3K APs and one 8510. The middle one has about 2,500 APs 
and two 8510s. This is about as many APs as I feel comfortable with on the 
8510s anyway (I think their rated max is 6K). The Dell servers are relatively 
new with SSD drives and a lot of memory. I am starting to look at upgrading 
them though to try to get quicker response times. The AMP is supposed to be 
able to be run on a VM. However, I have opted out of that for now.

Another thing that currently irritates me about the AMP is the use of screen 
space. Slightly older versions have user-dragable column widths while the 
newest versions seem to scale a column somewhat larger that the max value 
presented in the column on the screen. The screen will scroll left and right 
but you lose visibility to the name of the device as it scrolls off the left 
side of the screen. With the older user-dragable column widths you could often 
get away with a column only a couple of characters wide if it had something in 
it like device status (up, down, ignored, planned down, pending). I don’t need 
to see the full word to see what the status is. The screen I am looking at now 
has a column width in excess of 20 spaces with the AP client count in it. I 
can’t possibly get that many clients on a single AP (can you?). Most/all column 
widths are greatly oversized.

Another boy in our group has been paying with the current PI product to help 
with switch & wireless management. He has no bias against it based on past 
experience (since he had never seen it before). I don’t think he is very 
impressed since he never mentions it and I have never seen him playing with it.

I expect that at some time we will have to abandon the AMPs simply because the 
incorporation of new Cisco features seems to be getting further and further 
behind. However, historical reporting is excellent. Reporting can easily be 
scheduled on a periodic basis with data being kept (per a config option) for 
over a year. Ad hoc reporting is also extremely easy.

If HP would invest more in this product it could become really great for a 
Cisco shop. As it is now, it probably depends on the number of WLCs you use (it 
does also support the old standalone APs that are still in use; I even have a 
couple for special stuff) and how close to the most recent Cisco code release 
you are using. I am now on 8.0.140.0. SO, I am not yet current. On the other 
hand, I have a few more older AP models to get rid of before I can move ahead. 
It just takes money & time to fix, right?

We could end up with both the AMPs as well as PI.

John Watters
Network Engineer, Office of Information Technology
The University of Alabama<https://www.ua.edu/>
A115 Gordon Palmer Hall
Box 870346
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
Phone 205-348-3992
john.watt...@ua.edu<mailto:john.watt...@ua.edu>
[The University of Alabama]<https://www.ua.edu/>

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 11:54 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

Thanks, John. Way back when Airwave was its own company, and did fair amount of 
testing AMP for articles I wrote for Network Computing. I think I may have 
touched it once after Aruba bought Airwave (man, oh man I was hoping Cisco 
would buy them as an early WCS customer). So… I feel like I have at least a 
conversational familiarity with the UI, etc. and you’re hitting on my concerns- 
like how often does it get updated and are there any gaps in its ability to 
config controllers/APs. And.. scalability, VM capabilities, etc.

Thanks-

Lee

Lee Badman | CWNE #200 | Network Architect

Information Technology Services
206 Machinery Hall
120 Smith Drive
Syracuse, New York 13244
t 315.443.3003 

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

[Lee H Badman]

Thanks, John. Way back when Airwave was its own company, and did fair amount of 
testing AMP for articles I wrote for Network Computing. I think I may have 
touched it once after Aruba bought Airwave (man, oh man I was hoping Cisco 
would buy them as an early WCS customer). So… I feel like I have at least a 
conversational familiarity with the UI, etc. and you’re hitting on my concerns- 
like how often does it get updated and are there any gaps in its ability to 
config controllers/APs. And.. scalability, VM capabilities, etc.

Thanks-

Lee

Lee Badman | CWNE #200 | Network Architect

Information Technology Services
206 Machinery Hall
120 Smith Drive
Syracuse, New York 13244
t 315.443.3003   f 315.443.4325   e lhbad...@syr.edu<mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu> w 
its.syr.edu
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
syr.edu

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Watters, John
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 12:06 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

Using HP/Aruba/Airwave AMPs (3) to support 3 MPLS areas on campus. Reporting is 
much better than PI (at least, the last time I looked, which has been awhile). 
Management of Cisco WLC & AP configs is good, but not great. Mainly, this is 
due to them not keeping up with the latest WLC code changes. But, it is still 
quite manageable. will be glad to talk more off line about it or give a quick 
demo. The last I heard, the University of Texas (Austin) is also using the 
Airwave product.

John Watters
Network Engineer, Office of Information Technology
The University of Alabama<https://www.ua.edu/>
A115 Gordon Palmer Hall
Box 870346
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
Phone 205-348-3992
john.watt...@ua.edu<mailto:john.watt...@ua.edu>
[The University of Alabama]<https://www.ua.edu/>

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ian Lyons
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 10:23 AM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

Using it yes. Happily, no.

Much better than it was (I am told), but leaves a lot to be desired.   “A work 
in Progress” would be my summation.

Ian Lyons
Network Engineer
Rollins College

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Oliver Elliott
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 10:49 AM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

Is anyone even happily using PI?

On 10 January 2017 at 15:33, Lee H Badman 
<lhbad...@syr.edu<mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu>> wrote:

This comes up on occasion, and I'm hoping to hear actual cases of users, versus 
"have you heard about blah blah blah?"



For large Cisco WLAN environments on the list, is anyone happily and 
effectively using non-homegrown wireless management other than Prime 
Infrastructure?



Regards,



Lee






Lee Badman | Network Architect | CWNE #200
Information Technology Services
206 Machinery Hall
120 Smith Drive
Syracuse, New York 13244
t 315.443.3003   f 315.443.4325   e lhbad...@syr.edu<mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu> w 
its.syr.edu<http://its.syr.edu>
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
syr.edu<http://syr.edu>
** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE 
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at 
http://www.educause.edu/discuss.



--
Oliver Elliott
Senior Network Specialist
IT Services, University of Bristol
t: 0117 39 (41131)
** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE 
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at 
http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE 
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at 
http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE 
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at 
http://www.educause.edu/discuss.

**
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group 
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

[Watters, John]

Using HP/Aruba/Airwave AMPs (3) to support 3 MPLS areas on campus. Reporting is 
much better than PI (at least, the last time I looked, which has been awhile). 
Management of Cisco WLC & AP configs is good, but not great. Mainly, this is 
due to them not keeping up with the latest WLC code changes. But, it is still 
quite manageable. will be glad to talk more off line about it or give a quick 
demo. The last I heard, the University of Texas (Austin) is also using the 
Airwave product.

John Watters
Network Engineer, Office of Information Technology
The University of Alabama<https://www.ua.edu/>
A115 Gordon Palmer Hall
Box 870346
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
Phone 205-348-3992
john.watt...@ua.edu<mailto:john.watt...@ua.edu>
[The University of Alabama]<https://www.ua.edu/>

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ian Lyons
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 10:23 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

Using it yes. Happily, no.

Much better than it was (I am told), but leaves a lot to be desired.   “A work 
in Progress” would be my summation.

Ian Lyons
Network Engineer
Rollins College

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Oliver Elliott
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 10:49 AM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

Is anyone even happily using PI?

On 10 January 2017 at 15:33, Lee H Badman 
<lhbad...@syr.edu<mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu>> wrote:

This comes up on occasion, and I'm hoping to hear actual cases of users, versus 
"have you heard about blah blah blah?"



For large Cisco WLAN environments on the list, is anyone happily and 
effectively using non-homegrown wireless management other than Prime 
Infrastructure?



Regards,



Lee






Lee Badman | Network Architect | CWNE #200
Information Technology Services
206 Machinery Hall
120 Smith Drive
Syracuse, New York 13244
t 315.443.3003   f 315.443.4325   e lhbad...@syr.edu<mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu> w 
its.syr.edu<http://its.syr.edu>
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
syr.edu<http://syr.edu>
** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE 
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at 
http://www.educause.edu/discuss.



--
Oliver Elliott
Senior Network Specialist
IT Services, University of Bristol
t: 0117 39 (41131)
** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE 
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at 
http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE 
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at 
http://www.educause.edu/discuss.

**
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group 
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

[Ian Lyons]

Using it yes. Happily, no.

Much better than it was (I am told), but leaves a lot to be desired.   “A work 
in Progress” would be my summation.

Ian Lyons
Network Engineer
Rollins College

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Oliver Elliott
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 10:49 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

Is anyone even happily using PI?

On 10 January 2017 at 15:33, Lee H Badman 
<lhbad...@syr.edu<mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu>> wrote:

This comes up on occasion, and I'm hoping to hear actual cases of users, versus 
"have you heard about blah blah blah?"



For large Cisco WLAN environments on the list, is anyone happily and 
effectively using non-homegrown wireless management other than Prime 
Infrastructure?



Regards,



Lee






Lee Badman | Network Architect | CWNE #200
Information Technology Services
206 Machinery Hall
120 Smith Drive
Syracuse, New York 13244
t 315.443.3003   f 315.443.4325   e lhbad...@syr.edu<mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu> w 
its.syr.edu<http://its.syr.edu>
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
syr.edu<http://syr.edu>
** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE 
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at 
http://www.educause.edu/discuss.



--
Oliver Elliott
Senior Network Specialist
IT Services, University of Bristol
t: 0117 39 (41131)
** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE 
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at 
http://www.educause.edu/discuss.

**
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group 
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Prime Infrastructure Validated Alternatives

[Oliver Elliott]

Is anyone even happily using PI?

On 10 January 2017 at 15:33, Lee H Badman  wrote:

> This comes up on occasion, and I'm hoping to hear actual cases of users,
> versus "have you heard about blah blah blah?"
>
>
> For large Cisco WLAN environments on the list, is anyone happily and
> effectively using non-homegrown wireless management other than Prime
> Infrastructure?
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
> *Lee Badman* | Network Architect | CWNE #200
> Information Technology Services
> 206 Machinery Hall
> 120 Smith Drive
> Syracuse, New York 13244
> *t* 315.443.3003  * f* 315.443.4325   *e* lhbad...@syr.edu *w* its.syr.edu
> *SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY*
> syr.edu
> ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/
> discuss.
>
>


-- 
Oliver Elliott
Senior Network Specialist
IT Services, University of Bristol
t: 0117 39 (41131)

**
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group 
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.