RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures
Where you'll find primary loss on radomes, antenna covers, etc is when they get painted- the wrong paint (mineral content) can do bad and unpredictable things to signal. (USAF Electronic Warfare/Ham Radio talking here... :)) Lee H. Badman Wireless/Network Engineer Information Technology and Services Syracuse University 315 443-3003 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Enfield Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 12:53 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures Regarding the RF loss of the ABS dome, Oberon told me the following: ...we tested loss on our microwave network analyzer. We put a dipole antenna on port 1, and another dipole on port 2, and measured insertion loss when there was just air between antennas and then when antenna 1 was enclosed by ABS dome- we could not tell the difference. I know there must be some loss, but we just could not really quantify it, so we just say its low loss. Chuck -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Enfield Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 10:28 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures It would seem to have many of the same virtues as the enclosure we use. I've used some pretty heavy plastic enclosures to protect APs from baseballs, basketballs, etc., in gymnasiums. Those were fiberglass reinforced polyethylene, and resulted in very little attenuation. I know ABS is a common radome material, so I would expect the loss to be lower still, probably a fraction of a dB. You could contact Oberon to find out for sure. They're very RF savvy, so I'm sure it's something they considered. -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Johnson, Bruce T Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 5:51 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures Chuck, What are your thoughts about this enclosure, also from Oberon. I am told the Cisco 1250 APs can be supported with the 1240 AP brackets, and since this enclosure doesn't require antenna holes, should work for hardware upgrades. It uses a rectangular plastic dome cover. Does anyone know how much RF attenuation is introduced with plastic covers? http://www.oberonwireless.com/WebDocs/1059%20Spec%20Sheet.pdf -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Enfield Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 5:37 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures I'm a little late to the discussion, as usual, but I'm very happy with our enclosure. It lays on the grid in place of a 2'x2' tile, has a mounting plate that is predrilled and threaded for a wide assortment of APs, and comes with eyelets for the code-required drop wires Jim mentioned in his email starting the thread. They make installation a snap. We use the Oberon Model 1050-00. It's basically the same as the one at this link, http://www.oberonwireless.com/WebDocs/1052%20Spec%20Sheet.pdf, but it comes with the universal mounting plate. They also have models with strategically located holes or plastic domes for integral antennas if that's what your AP requires. While I'm on the topic, Oberon also sells some low-profile antennas that look quite nice on this enclosure. Scott, if you see a surge in sales after this post, I expect a cut. ;-) The point about expense is well taken, but I think it's important from an RF standpoint to get the antennas below the ceiling and I think this enclosure looks far better than wall-mounted APs in most cases. The enclosure's contribution to security will vary based on the other measures you have in place. It would be easy to remove the enclosure with the AP in it, but it would be hard to conceal. If you have video surveillance, the enclosure will definitely make it harder to get out of the building without being spotted. We haven't lost any to theft yet. (Knock on wood!) Is it more secure than hiding the APs above the ceiling? Your guess is as good as mine. While it's likely that getting rid of enclosures will make you less likely to be caught violating the building code, it's not necessarily a formula for compliance. If your jurisdiction relies on the 2005 NEC, the conventional interpretation is that nothing other than the ceiling itself can be supported by the ceiling tiles, grid, or drop wire. You'll have to mount the AP (and even the antennas) to a wall, uni-strut, cable tray, etc, above the ceiling, or support it with a dedicated drop wire. Prior to 2005, that restriction only applied when the drop ceiling was necessary for the buil
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures
Regarding the RF loss of the ABS dome, Oberon told me the following: ...we tested loss on our microwave network analyzer. We put a dipole antenna on port 1, and another dipole on port 2, and measured insertion loss when there was just air between antennas and then when antenna 1 was enclosed by ABS dome- we could not tell the difference. I know there must be some loss, but we just could not really quantify it, so we just say its low loss. Chuck -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Enfield Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 10:28 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures It would seem to have many of the same virtues as the enclosure we use. I've used some pretty heavy plastic enclosures to protect APs from baseballs, basketballs, etc., in gymnasiums. Those were fiberglass reinforced polyethylene, and resulted in very little attenuation. I know ABS is a common radome material, so I would expect the loss to be lower still, probably a fraction of a dB. You could contact Oberon to find out for sure. They're very RF savvy, so I'm sure it's something they considered. -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Johnson, Bruce T Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 5:51 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures Chuck, What are your thoughts about this enclosure, also from Oberon. I am told the Cisco 1250 APs can be supported with the 1240 AP brackets, and since this enclosure doesn't require antenna holes, should work for hardware upgrades. It uses a rectangular plastic dome cover. Does anyone know how much RF attenuation is introduced with plastic covers? http://www.oberonwireless.com/WebDocs/1059%20Spec%20Sheet.pdf -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Enfield Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 5:37 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures I'm a little late to the discussion, as usual, but I'm very happy with our enclosure. It lays on the grid in place of a 2'x2' tile, has a mounting plate that is predrilled and threaded for a wide assortment of APs, and comes with eyelets for the code-required drop wires Jim mentioned in his email starting the thread. They make installation a snap. We use the Oberon Model 1050-00. It's basically the same as the one at this link, http://www.oberonwireless.com/WebDocs/1052%20Spec%20Sheet.pdf, but it comes with the universal mounting plate. They also have models with strategically located holes or plastic domes for integral antennas if that's what your AP requires. While I'm on the topic, Oberon also sells some low-profile antennas that look quite nice on this enclosure. Scott, if you see a surge in sales after this post, I expect a cut. ;-) The point about expense is well taken, but I think it's important from an RF standpoint to get the antennas below the ceiling and I think this enclosure looks far better than wall-mounted APs in most cases. The enclosure's contribution to security will vary based on the other measures you have in place. It would be easy to remove the enclosure with the AP in it, but it would be hard to conceal. If you have video surveillance, the enclosure will definitely make it harder to get out of the building without being spotted. We haven't lost any to theft yet. (Knock on wood!) Is it more secure than hiding the APs above the ceiling? Your guess is as good as mine. While it's likely that getting rid of enclosures will make you less likely to be caught violating the building code, it's not necessarily a formula for compliance. If your jurisdiction relies on the 2005 NEC, the conventional interpretation is that nothing other than the ceiling itself can be supported by the ceiling tiles, grid, or drop wire. You'll have to mount the AP (and even the antennas) to a wall, uni-strut, cable tray, etc, above the ceiling, or support it with a dedicated drop wire. Prior to 2005, that restriction only applied when the drop ceiling was necessary for the building's fire rating. If your jurisdiction relies on an earlier version of the NEC (I understand some jurisdictions still reference the 1996 code), you can get away with using the ceiling components for support in most cases. The 2008 NEC is out, but I haven't had time to check if those restrictions have been relaxed at all. Chuck Enfield Sr. Communications Engineer Penn State University Telecommunications & Networking Services 110 USB2, UP, PA 16802 Ph. (814) 863-8715 Fx. (814) 865-3988 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mail
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures
It would seem to have many of the same virtues as the enclosure we use. I've used some pretty heavy plastic enclosures to protect APs from baseballs, basketballs, etc., in gymnasiums. Those were fiberglass reinforced polyethylene, and resulted in very little attenuation. I know ABS is a common radome material, so I would expect the loss to be lower still, probably a fraction of a dB. You could contact Oberon to find out for sure. They're very RF savvy, so I'm sure it's something they considered. -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Johnson, Bruce T Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 5:51 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures Chuck, What are your thoughts about this enclosure, also from Oberon. I am told the Cisco 1250 APs can be supported with the 1240 AP brackets, and since this enclosure doesn't require antenna holes, should work for hardware upgrades. It uses a rectangular plastic dome cover. Does anyone know how much RF attenuation is introduced with plastic covers? http://www.oberonwireless.com/WebDocs/1059%20Spec%20Sheet.pdf -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Enfield Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 5:37 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures I'm a little late to the discussion, as usual, but I'm very happy with our enclosure. It lays on the grid in place of a 2'x2' tile, has a mounting plate that is predrilled and threaded for a wide assortment of APs, and comes with eyelets for the code-required drop wires Jim mentioned in his email starting the thread. They make installation a snap. We use the Oberon Model 1050-00. It's basically the same as the one at this link, http://www.oberonwireless.com/WebDocs/1052%20Spec%20Sheet.pdf, but it comes with the universal mounting plate. They also have models with strategically located holes or plastic domes for integral antennas if that's what your AP requires. While I'm on the topic, Oberon also sells some low-profile antennas that look quite nice on this enclosure. Scott, if you see a surge in sales after this post, I expect a cut. ;-) The point about expense is well taken, but I think it's important from an RF standpoint to get the antennas below the ceiling and I think this enclosure looks far better than wall-mounted APs in most cases. The enclosure's contribution to security will vary based on the other measures you have in place. It would be easy to remove the enclosure with the AP in it, but it would be hard to conceal. If you have video surveillance, the enclosure will definitely make it harder to get out of the building without being spotted. We haven't lost any to theft yet. (Knock on wood!) Is it more secure than hiding the APs above the ceiling? Your guess is as good as mine. While it's likely that getting rid of enclosures will make you less likely to be caught violating the building code, it's not necessarily a formula for compliance. If your jurisdiction relies on the 2005 NEC, the conventional interpretation is that nothing other than the ceiling itself can be supported by the ceiling tiles, grid, or drop wire. You'll have to mount the AP (and even the antennas) to a wall, uni-strut, cable tray, etc, above the ceiling, or support it with a dedicated drop wire. Prior to 2005, that restriction only applied when the drop ceiling was necessary for the building's fire rating. If your jurisdiction relies on an earlier version of the NEC (I understand some jurisdictions still reference the 1996 code), you can get away with using the ceiling components for support in most cases. The 2008 NEC is out, but I haven't had time to check if those restrictions have been relaxed at all. Chuck Enfield Sr. Communications Engineer Penn State University Telecommunications & Networking Services 110 USB2, UP, PA 16802 Ph. (814) 863-8715 Fx. (814) 865-3988 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Kirstein Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:57 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures For the most part, we do not use enclosures unless it's in a low hanging area. We used the Panduit enclosures for a couple of APs just about a month ago. They were least costly that I could find. Lee H Badman wrote: > We have also decided against enclosures for two reasons: cost and > aesthetics. Having mostly standardized on the Cisco 1130 for a/g, the > form-factor is close enough to that of smoke heads and other devices > that they are far easier on the eye than the typical enclosure. And > has been sta
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures
Chuck, What are your thoughts about this enclosure, also from Oberon. I am told the Cisco 1250 APs can be supported with the 1240 AP brackets, and since this enclosure doesn't require antenna holes, should work for hardware upgrades. It uses a rectangular plastic dome cover. Does anyone know how much RF attenuation is introduced with plastic covers? http://www.oberonwireless.com/WebDocs/1059%20Spec%20Sheet.pdf -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Enfield Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 5:37 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures I'm a little late to the discussion, as usual, but I'm very happy with our enclosure. It lays on the grid in place of a 2'x2' tile, has a mounting plate that is predrilled and threaded for a wide assortment of APs, and comes with eyelets for the code-required drop wires Jim mentioned in his email starting the thread. They make installation a snap. We use the Oberon Model 1050-00. It's basically the same as the one at this link, http://www.oberonwireless.com/WebDocs/1052%20Spec%20Sheet.pdf, but it comes with the universal mounting plate. They also have models with strategically located holes or plastic domes for integral antennas if that's what your AP requires. While I'm on the topic, Oberon also sells some low-profile antennas that look quite nice on this enclosure. Scott, if you see a surge in sales after this post, I expect a cut. ;-) The point about expense is well taken, but I think it's important from an RF standpoint to get the antennas below the ceiling and I think this enclosure looks far better than wall-mounted APs in most cases. The enclosure's contribution to security will vary based on the other measures you have in place. It would be easy to remove the enclosure with the AP in it, but it would be hard to conceal. If you have video surveillance, the enclosure will definitely make it harder to get out of the building without being spotted. We haven't lost any to theft yet. (Knock on wood!) Is it more secure than hiding the APs above the ceiling? Your guess is as good as mine. While it's likely that getting rid of enclosures will make you less likely to be caught violating the building code, it's not necessarily a formula for compliance. If your jurisdiction relies on the 2005 NEC, the conventional interpretation is that nothing other than the ceiling itself can be supported by the ceiling tiles, grid, or drop wire. You'll have to mount the AP (and even the antennas) to a wall, uni-strut, cable tray, etc, above the ceiling, or support it with a dedicated drop wire. Prior to 2005, that restriction only applied when the drop ceiling was necessary for the building's fire rating. If your jurisdiction relies on an earlier version of the NEC (I understand some jurisdictions still reference the 1996 code), you can get away with using the ceiling components for support in most cases. The 2008 NEC is out, but I haven't had time to check if those restrictions have been relaxed at all. Chuck Enfield Sr. Communications Engineer Penn State University Telecommunications & Networking Services 110 USB2, UP, PA 16802 Ph. (814) 863-8715 Fx. (814) 865-3988 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Kirstein Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:57 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures For the most part, we do not use enclosures unless it's in a low hanging area. We used the Panduit enclosures for a couple of APs just about a month ago. They were least costly that I could find. Lee H Badman wrote: > We have also decided against enclosures for two reasons: cost and > aesthetics. Having mostly standardized on the Cisco 1130 for a/g, the > form-factor is close enough to that of smoke heads and other devices > that they are far easier on the eye than the typical enclosure. And > has been stated here by others, the enclosures can often add half > again or more to the per-AP cost. When we did our dorms and student > apartments 100% last year, we put hundreds and hundreds of APs within > reach of potential theft, some ended up in student rooms out of > necessity. To date, we have lost 1. > > But- as we look at 11n and weigh options, I hope that the major > players hear the call for APs that aren't obviously and visually antenna laden. > These are probably easier targets versus "low profile" APs, mounting > candidate locations are reduced, and they are a tougher sell to very > particular architects and space planners. > > -Lee Badman > > > -Original Message- > From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Consti
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures
I'm a little late to the discussion, as usual, but I'm very happy with our enclosure. It lays on the grid in place of a 2'x2' tile, has a mounting plate that is predrilled and threaded for a wide assortment of APs, and comes with eyelets for the code-required drop wires Jim mentioned in his email starting the thread. They make installation a snap. We use the Oberon Model 1050-00. It's basically the same as the one at this link, http://www.oberonwireless.com/WebDocs/1052%20Spec%20Sheet.pdf, but it comes with the universal mounting plate. They also have models with strategically located holes or plastic domes for integral antennas if that's what your AP requires. While I'm on the topic, Oberon also sells some low-profile antennas that look quite nice on this enclosure. Scott, if you see a surge in sales after this post, I expect a cut. ;-) The point about expense is well taken, but I think it's important from an RF standpoint to get the antennas below the ceiling and I think this enclosure looks far better than wall-mounted APs in most cases. The enclosure's contribution to security will vary based on the other measures you have in place. It would be easy to remove the enclosure with the AP in it, but it would be hard to conceal. If you have video surveillance, the enclosure will definitely make it harder to get out of the building without being spotted. We haven't lost any to theft yet. (Knock on wood!) Is it more secure than hiding the APs above the ceiling? Your guess is as good as mine. While it's likely that getting rid of enclosures will make you less likely to be caught violating the building code, it's not necessarily a formula for compliance. If your jurisdiction relies on the 2005 NEC, the conventional interpretation is that nothing other than the ceiling itself can be supported by the ceiling tiles, grid, or drop wire. You'll have to mount the AP (and even the antennas) to a wall, uni-strut, cable tray, etc, above the ceiling, or support it with a dedicated drop wire. Prior to 2005, that restriction only applied when the drop ceiling was necessary for the building's fire rating. If your jurisdiction relies on an earlier version of the NEC (I understand some jurisdictions still reference the 1996 code), you can get away with using the ceiling components for support in most cases. The 2008 NEC is out, but I haven't had time to check if those restrictions have been relaxed at all. Chuck Enfield Sr. Communications Engineer Penn State University Telecommunications & Networking Services 110 USB2, UP, PA 16802 Ph. (814) 863-8715 Fx. (814) 865-3988 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Kirstein Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:57 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures For the most part, we do not use enclosures unless it's in a low hanging area. We used the Panduit enclosures for a couple of APs just about a month ago. They were least costly that I could find. Lee H Badman wrote: > We have also decided against enclosures for two reasons: cost and > aesthetics. Having mostly standardized on the Cisco 1130 for a/g, the > form-factor is close enough to that of smoke heads and other devices > that they are far easier on the eye than the typical enclosure. And > has been stated here by others, the enclosures can often add half > again or more to the per-AP cost. When we did our dorms and student > apartments 100% last year, we put hundreds and hundreds of APs within > reach of potential theft, some ended up in student rooms out of > necessity. To date, we have lost 1. > > But- as we look at 11n and weigh options, I hope that the major > players hear the call for APs that aren't obviously and visually antenna laden. > These are probably easier targets versus "low profile" APs, mounting > candidate locations are reduced, and they are a tougher sell to very > particular architects and space planners. > > -Lee Badman > > > -Original Message- > From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on > behalf of Hector J Rios > Sent: Mon 4/14/2008 11:28 AM > To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures > > I agree with Michael. The "added" security provided by the enclosures > doesn't justify the cost. Most of our APs are installed above ceiling. > Locations where we do not have false ceiling, we put the APs high > enough where they cannot be reach. In the 9 years we've had wireless, > we've had > 4 APs stolen. Paying for the replacement is way cheaper. Currently we > have a little over 1500 APs installed. > > Hector > > -Original Message
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures
For the most part, we do not use enclosures unless it's in a low hanging area. We used the Panduit enclosures for a couple of APs just about a month ago. They were least costly that I could find. Lee H Badman wrote: We have also decided against enclosures for two reasons: cost and aesthetics. Having mostly standardized on the Cisco 1130 for a/g, the form-factor is close enough to that of smoke heads and other devices that they are far easier on the eye than the typical enclosure. And has been stated here by others, the enclosures can often add half again or more to the per-AP cost. When we did our dorms and student apartments 100% last year, we put hundreds and hundreds of APs within reach of potential theft, some ended up in student rooms out of necessity. To date, we have lost 1. But- as we look at 11n and weigh options, I hope that the major players hear the call for APs that aren't obviously and visually antenna laden. These are probably easier targets versus "low profile" APs, mounting candidate locations are reduced, and they are a tougher sell to very particular architects and space planners. -Lee Badman -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf of Hector J Rios Sent: Mon 4/14/2008 11:28 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures I agree with Michael. The "added" security provided by the enclosures doesn't justify the cost. Most of our APs are installed above ceiling. Locations where we do not have false ceiling, we put the APs high enough where they cannot be reach. In the 9 years we've had wireless, we've had 4 APs stolen. Paying for the replacement is way cheaper. Currently we have a little over 1500 APs installed. Hector -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Kaegler Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:45 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures We stopped using them. There are no moving parts, so we don't need dust protection. All of the current generation of APs are plenum. And security: If the AP is on top of the drop ceiling, out of sight, then its out of mind. In our environment we don't need any additional security (As evidenced by the fact that we haven't had a single loss even in student dorm buildings, even ones where we had to place the AP on the bare wall inside the student broom closets!). We do use the integrated (although not exactly hardened) locking mechanism on the Cisco 1232/1242 APs. In some situations we use kenningston-style cable locks. -porkchop At 9:50 AM -0400 4/14/08, Jim Gogan wrote: >I'm curious to know what other campuses are doing in regards to >ceiling enclosures for access points. > >We've been using PANDUIT-PZXIFIED and PANDUIT-PZW2X2DCB ceiling >enclosure hardware but our Facilities folks and our Infrastructure >Engineering folks in conversations with the State Building Code >officers have determined that the labor/installation costs for those >enclosures are now going to go up (see below) and, well suffice it >to say, when it gets to the point that the enclosures themselves >start to get closer in cost to the APs, you gotta wonder. > >Would be interested to hear what others are doing in this regard. >Thanks in advance. > -- Michael "Porkchop" Kaegler, Sr. Network Analyst (845) 575-3061 Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY ** 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] WAP Enclosures
We have also decided against enclosures for two reasons: cost and aesthetics. Having mostly standardized on the Cisco 1130 for a/g, the form-factor is close enough to that of smoke heads and other devices that they are far easier on the eye than the typical enclosure. And has been stated here by others, the enclosures can often add half again or more to the per-AP cost. When we did our dorms and student apartments 100% last year, we put hundreds and hundreds of APs within reach of potential theft, some ended up in student rooms out of necessity. To date, we have lost 1. But- as we look at 11n and weigh options, I hope that the major players hear the call for APs that aren't obviously and visually antenna laden. These are probably easier targets versus "low profile" APs, mounting candidate locations are reduced, and they are a tougher sell to very particular architects and space planners. -Lee Badman -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf of Hector J Rios Sent: Mon 4/14/2008 11:28 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures I agree with Michael. The "added" security provided by the enclosures doesn't justify the cost. Most of our APs are installed above ceiling. Locations where we do not have false ceiling, we put the APs high enough where they cannot be reach. In the 9 years we've had wireless, we've had 4 APs stolen. Paying for the replacement is way cheaper. Currently we have a little over 1500 APs installed. Hector -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Kaegler Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:45 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures We stopped using them. There are no moving parts, so we don't need dust protection. All of the current generation of APs are plenum. And security: If the AP is on top of the drop ceiling, out of sight, then its out of mind. In our environment we don't need any additional security (As evidenced by the fact that we haven't had a single loss even in student dorm buildings, even ones where we had to place the AP on the bare wall inside the student broom closets!). We do use the integrated (although not exactly hardened) locking mechanism on the Cisco 1232/1242 APs. In some situations we use kenningston-style cable locks. -porkchop At 9:50 AM -0400 4/14/08, Jim Gogan wrote: >I'm curious to know what other campuses are doing in regards to >ceiling enclosures for access points. > >We've been using PANDUIT-PZXIFIED and PANDUIT-PZW2X2DCB ceiling >enclosure hardware but our Facilities folks and our Infrastructure >Engineering folks in conversations with the State Building Code >officers have determined that the labor/installation costs for those >enclosures are now going to go up (see below) and, well suffice it >to say, when it gets to the point that the enclosures themselves >start to get closer in cost to the APs, you gotta wonder. > >Would be interested to hear what others are doing in this regard. >Thanks in advance. > -- Michael "Porkchop" Kaegler, Sr. Network Analyst (845) 575-3061 Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY ** 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] WAP Enclosures
We have never used any type on enclosures. In the past 9 years we've had only 2 APs stolen, but we tend to install our APs in sight below the ceiling. Users know what they are, and knocking them down is only going to affect their access, so for the most part they're left untouched. We have had issues with leaving them in the ceiling though...contractors will come in and demo a room which has APs and I find out the hard way that a particual area is under reno...with the APs below ceiling, they usually ask about it, and I get call about removing APs before renos start... Ken Connell Intermediate Network Engineer Computer & Communication Services Ryerson University 350 Victoria St RM AB50 Toronto, Ont M5B 2K3 416-979-5000 x6709 - Original Message - From: Jim Gogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:51 am Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > I'm curious to know what other campuses are doing in regards to > ceiling > enclosures for access points. > > We've been using PANDUIT-PZXIFIED and PANDUIT-PZW2X2DCB ceiling > enclosure hardware but our Facilities folks and our Infrastructure > Engineering folks in conversations with the State Building Code > officers > have determined that the labor/installation costs for those enclosures > > are now going to go up (see below) and, well suffice it to say, when > it > gets to the point that the enclosures themselves start to get closer > in > cost to the APs, you gotta wonder. > > Would be interested to hear what others are doing in this regard. > Thanks in advance. > > -- Jim Gogan > Director, Networking / ITS Telecommunications > Univ of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > > > Original Message > Subject: Re: WAP - Mounting Brackets and Enclosures - Support > Requirements Reseach and Conclusions-11-01-07 > Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:41:18 -0400 > > All: > > I just concluded a conversation with Mike WardDepartment of > Insurance Risk Management (Electrical Section) State Building Code > Enforcement Officer.the AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) on Campus. > > Mr. Ward had done research regarding our request for clarification on > the support requirements for WAP (Wireless Access Point) back boxes. > > Simply stated: > > * to satisfy NEC requirementsthe back box must be secured to the > ceiling grid system w/ approved clips or brackets. > > * to satisfy DOI requirementsthe back box must be secured to the > building support structure. > > This can be accomplished by securing at least a single support > wireof gauge adequate to support weight of devicefrom the back > box to an anchor in structure. The anchor may be newor an existing > ceiling support eye (existing support of grid system) or an anchor in > structure that currently is used in support of duct workconduit > trapeze.etc. > > Thank you. > > ** > 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] WAP Enclosures
I agree with Michael. The "added" security provided by the enclosures doesn't justify the cost. Most of our APs are installed above ceiling. Locations where we do not have false ceiling, we put the APs high enough where they cannot be reach. In the 9 years we've had wireless, we've had 4 APs stolen. Paying for the replacement is way cheaper. Currently we have a little over 1500 APs installed. Hector -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Kaegler Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:45 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WAP Enclosures We stopped using them. There are no moving parts, so we don't need dust protection. All of the current generation of APs are plenum. And security: If the AP is on top of the drop ceiling, out of sight, then its out of mind. In our environment we don't need any additional security (As evidenced by the fact that we haven't had a single loss even in student dorm buildings, even ones where we had to place the AP on the bare wall inside the student broom closets!). We do use the integrated (although not exactly hardened) locking mechanism on the Cisco 1232/1242 APs. In some situations we use kenningston-style cable locks. -porkchop At 9:50 AM -0400 4/14/08, Jim Gogan wrote: >I'm curious to know what other campuses are doing in regards to >ceiling enclosures for access points. > >We've been using PANDUIT-PZXIFIED and PANDUIT-PZW2X2DCB ceiling >enclosure hardware but our Facilities folks and our Infrastructure >Engineering folks in conversations with the State Building Code >officers have determined that the labor/installation costs for those >enclosures are now going to go up (see below) and, well suffice it >to say, when it gets to the point that the enclosures themselves >start to get closer in cost to the APs, you gotta wonder. > >Would be interested to hear what others are doing in this regard. >Thanks in advance. > -- Michael "Porkchop" Kaegler, Sr. Network Analyst (845) 575-3061 Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY ** 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] WAP Enclosures
We stopped using them. There are no moving parts, so we don't need dust protection. All of the current generation of APs are plenum. And security: If the AP is on top of the drop ceiling, out of sight, then its out of mind. In our environment we don't need any additional security (As evidenced by the fact that we haven't had a single loss even in student dorm buildings, even ones where we had to place the AP on the bare wall inside the student broom closets!). We do use the integrated (although not exactly hardened) locking mechanism on the Cisco 1232/1242 APs. In some situations we use kenningston-style cable locks. -porkchop At 9:50 AM -0400 4/14/08, Jim Gogan wrote: I'm curious to know what other campuses are doing in regards to ceiling enclosures for access points. We've been using PANDUIT-PZXIFIED and PANDUIT-PZW2X2DCB ceiling enclosure hardware but our Facilities folks and our Infrastructure Engineering folks in conversations with the State Building Code officers have determined that the labor/installation costs for those enclosures are now going to go up (see below) and, well suffice it to say, when it gets to the point that the enclosures themselves start to get closer in cost to the APs, you gotta wonder. Would be interested to hear what others are doing in this regard. Thanks in advance. -- Michael "Porkchop" Kaegler, Sr. Network Analyst (845) 575-3061 Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
