RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

[Frank Bulk]

Multi-tenant locations such as high-rises in Manhattan where interference
from floors above and below, and across the street, are potentially the most
problematic in regards to co-channel interference. 

I think most organizations will be insulated from neighboring networks by
distance, building materials, or physical isolation.  

Frank

-Original Message-
From: Dale W. Carder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 6:31 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

(still catching up on old email, sorry)

On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Dave Molta wrote:
> I am particuarly concerned about the intersection between private
> enterprise WLANs and public metro Wi-Fi networks.

Time will tell, but I estimate that public services offered on crappy
unlicensed bands (where trees eat packets, and interference is king)
will probably fail.  The more formally run networks (such as wimax) are
more poised to win, customer-experience-wise, when properly engineered.

> It may not be a big problem today but I wonder if it will be a
> problem in the future.

If we want to stick to enterprise environments, this may not occur too
frequently except at the periphery.  More low-e glass may play a role,
too in newer buildings.

> We understand that our tests represent worst-case scenarios that
> few enterprises currently experience but sometimes there is value
> in pointing out the worst-case situations.

Yes there is.  I think we all appreciate your work.

Dale

**
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 vs. Meru article

[Dale W. Carder]

(still catching up on old email, sorry)

On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Dave Molta wrote:
Again, that could indicate that Aruba is also somehow playing foul  
as well (Cisco speculated that they might be using a variation of  
PCF interframe spacing, though Aruba denied it) but it doesn't look  
that way to me.


Come on, we're network engineers not electrical engineers in this forum.
What happened to rough consensus and running code?  It's  
interoperability

that matters, right?  (flame suit in-hand).  If your network has no
compatibility issues, would you not use the feature?  Engineers face
this issue all the time, I don't think it's anything new.

It's of course hilarious that Vendor C is on the other side of the  
standards

fence this time ;-)

I am particuarly concerned about the intersection between private  
enterprise WLANs and public metro Wi-Fi networks.


Time will tell, but I estimate that public services offered on crappy
unlicensed bands (where trees eat packets, and interference is king)
will probably fail.  The more formally run networks (such as wimax) are
more poised to win, customer-experience-wise, when properly engineered.

It may not be a big problem today but I wonder if it will be a  
problem in the future.


If we want to stick to enterprise environments, this may not occur too
frequently except at the periphery.  More low-e glass may play a role,
too in newer buildings.

We understand that our tests represent worst-case scenarios that  
few enterprises currently experience but sometimes there is value  
in pointing out the worst-case situations.


Yes there is.  I think we all appreciate your work.

If there's a silver lining here, it may be that 11n is likely to  
push most enterprises towards more pervasive 5 GHz deployments,  
where co-channel interference is not such a big issue.


I think everybody will move there, it's a problem everywhere including
apartment units, dense subdivisions...

Dale

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

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

[Ken Connell]

Kevin, 

Regarding feedback on Aruba, I can tell you this:

We been extremely happy with Aruba's solution which has allowed us to load 
balanced users with easy, manage our WLAN from one GUI, and config changes are 
a snap.

We had a think AP (Proxim) deployment of 150 AP's and had major issues with the 
classroom environment. Every time there was a test with 40-50 students there 
was always complaints afterwords with connectivity and thoroughtput issues.

Our deployment stratagie now is based more on user count and not coverage.
We have some classrooms that have upto 9 AP's with a 4 channel plan and Aruba 
takes care of the channel assignment and radio power levels.
We've had plenty of online tests and the results for us have been like "night 
and day "...



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: Kevin Whitney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:37 pm
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU


> May be a little off subject but I would like to post question out there
> as it seems there are some happy Meru users here on this forum..
> 
> Any thoughts or advice on implementing/selecting a wireless system for
> use in a High School environment ? 
> 
> Specifically, would love any feedback on pros/cons of a central
> controller based system (ie -Meru, Aruba, etc) vs installing Fat AP's
> around our building.
> 
> While our needs are quite simple I am sure, compared to the size of
> other user's who have posted,  I can see there is a great deal of
> knowledge and experience in this area. Basic site surveys conducted here
> have indicated we need somewhere around 25 access points to provide
> coverage throughout our building.
> 
> Appreciate any input on this subject.
> 
> Kevin Whitney
> District Technology Coordinator
> Cresskill Public Schools
> 1 Lincoln Drive
> Cresskill, NJ 07626
> 201-541-4162
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.cresskillboe.k12.nj.us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-----
> From: Dave Molta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:21 PM
> To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
> 
> Debbie,
> 
> They were Intel 2915 clients. I have some pretty dense spreadsheets
> covering various permutations of clients and infrastructure if you are
> interested in seeing raw results. We didn't come away from this with any
> firm conclusions about what's good and what's bad (I guess we've learned
> our lesson about pointing the finger too soon!). What was most
> interesting to us was the fact that there was so much variation, which
> is something we didn't expect from such a mature standard.
> 
> dm 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: debbie fligor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:59 AM
> > To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
> > 
> > On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:24, Dave Molta wrote:
> > 
> > > Just to elaborate a bit, the article James sent around was not the 
> 
> > > original Meru-Cisco feature story but rather a column that
> > reports on
> > > results of subsequent testing. In this column, I reported three 
> > > things. First, Cisco was unsuccessful in getting the Wi-Fi
> > Alliance to
> > > rescind Meru's certification. Since WFA certifies interoperability 
> 
> > > rather than standards compliance, this is not proof that Meru 
> isn't 
> > > stretching standards a bit but it still casts a cloud over Cisco's 
> 
> > > allegations. Second, I reported findings from subsequent
> > tests where
> > > we added Aruba to the mix and found that Cisco's performance also 
> 
> > > cratered when co-located with Aruba gear.
> > > Again, that could indicate that Aruba is also somehow
> > playing foul as
> > > well (Cisco speculated that they might be using a variation of PCF 
> 
> > > interframe spacing, though Aruba denied it) but it doesn't
> > look that
> > > way to me. Finally, we decided to re-run these interference
> > tests with
> > > different mixes of clients, using Atheros, Broadcom, and Intel 
> > > chipsets. We found significant differences in the
> > performance results. 
> > > Atheros-based clients performed best.
> > 
> > Something I noticed in the article was that Meru did the worst with 
> 

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

[Lee H Badman]

I have to chime in... make sure you know what features are important to
you- and talk one-on-one to users that have had various systems for a
while. Some of the things that make or break these systems for true
effectiveness are not obvious. For example- I was disappointed with
these findings with a given management system on a given thin AP
product, after migrating from autonomous:

- There is no scheduling of configuration changes available- radios off
in a given area, firmware upgrades, change of user VLAN, etc.
- If I choose to add an SSID to a single AP on a controller that has a
hundred APs, I need to apply the new SSID controller-wide to all APs,
then push a template that takes it off of the 99 APs I don't want it on,
then reboot those 99 to get the change to take (I consider this
disruptive and ill thought out- on fat APs you simply add an SSID live)
- I can no longer say that one AP is restricted from supporting 802.11a,
b, or g if I choose to- it is a controller-wide setting (in many ways,
1000 access points on 20 controllers = 20 giant access points for some
of the device configurability, a true loss of configuration granularity)
- Despite having a central management console, a fair number of
functions and views can only be accessed directly on the controllers
(especially debug functions)- and which controller you need to be on may
not be obvious
- Some product sets (and development teams) in the thin market are still
arguably immature, and thus can feel quite "beta" at times 

Just some examples of tradeoffs against the many benefits- but again,
these are hard details to pull out unless you use the system. Put enough
of this sort of "step back" in function together, and you may find that
the benefits of the "thin" model don't equal or exceed the trade-offs,
for your specific environment. That's why interviewing those who have
used a given system for a while and reaped the benefits/suffered the
rewards are important- especially if their applications and processes
are close to you yours.

If nothing else, taking a hard look and finding the dirty laundry of
each of these systems from real users will help you to have proper
perspective against the vendor hype.


Lee H. Badman
Wireless/Network Engineer
KC2IYK, CWNA/CWSP
Information Technology and Services
Syracuse University
315 443-3003

-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:48 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

Good discussion going on here.  It should probably be clarified that
having
a controller does not mean that all the data flows have to or will be
centralized.  

There are generally three planes: management, control, and data.  Almost
all
the vendors provide a centralized management plan and that's almost a
de-facto must for anything but the smallest installations.  For many
vendors
the control plane is also centralized, not necessarily.  And it's just
in
the last few months that vendors are really talking about distributing
the
data plane, which could become busier with the higher speeds possible
through 802.11n.  

As Dale suggests, there's no need to re-invent the AP management wheel.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: Dale W. Carder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:53 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

On Jun 14, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Kevin Whitney wrote:
>
> Any thoughts or advice on implementing/selecting a wireless system for
> use in a High School environment ?

Hi Kevin,



For pros & cons on central controller vs "fat" AP's, you should hands
down go with a central controller unless you are a programmer willing to
write tools to monitor and automate tasks and your labor doesn't figure
into the real "cost" of the wireless install.  You will still probably
want to use a controller later anyway, as that's the only place where
new feature development is really occurring.

Dale
University of Wisconsin & WiscNet

**
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 vs. Meru article

[Frank Bulk]

Most wireless networks will not see the effect of co-channel interference
and degradation from neighboring networks unless they are moving serious
amounts of traffic. Remember the Network Computing's tests used Chariot to
fill the pipe.  

So just because you haven't seen a problem in your deployments doesn't mean
it's not happening, it's just more likely that it's not noticeable in
casual-use networks.  And even if you did try to systematically evaluate the
performance of those APs that 'touch' neighboring wireless networks, the
existence of your own production traffic and neighboring APs would make it
difficult to tease out the specific causes.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: debbie fligor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:59 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:24, Dave Molta wrote:



>
> The broader issues here relate to standards compliance (e.g., to
> what degree can a vendor selectively implement certain elements of
> a QoS standard?) and, perhaps more importantly, performance issues
> with Wi-Fi that may arise in the future as the density of deployed
> networks results in increasing levels of co-channel interference. I
> am particuarly concerned about the intersection between private
> enterprise WLANs and public metro Wi-Fi networks. It may not be a
> big problem today but I wonder if it will be a problem in the
> future. We understand that our tests represent worst-case scenarios
> that few enterprises currently experience but sometimes there is
> value in pointing out the worst-case situations.

It's always good to know what to keep an eye out for when you're
designing something.  We're not seeing problems in our still Cisco
buildings that are near Meru buildings that we are aware of, and the
users are pretty good at telling us if it quits working.

>
> If there's a silver lining here, it may be that 11n is likely to
> push most enterprises towards more pervasive 5 GHz deployments,
> where co-channel interference is not such a big issue.
>
> dm
>
>
-
-debbie
Debbie Fligor, n9dn   Network Engineer, CITES, Univ. of Il
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  <http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/fligor>
"My turn."  -River

**
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 vs. Meru article

[Frank Bulk]

Good discussion going on here.  It should probably be clarified that having
a controller does not mean that all the data flows have to or will be
centralized.  

There are generally three planes: management, control, and data.  Almost all
the vendors provide a centralized management plan and that's almost a
de-facto must for anything but the smallest installations.  For many vendors
the control plane is also centralized, not necessarily.  And it's just in
the last few months that vendors are really talking about distributing the
data plane, which could become busier with the higher speeds possible
through 802.11n.  

As Dale suggests, there's no need to re-invent the AP management wheel.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: Dale W. Carder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:53 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

On Jun 14, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Kevin Whitney wrote:
>
> Any thoughts or advice on implementing/selecting a wireless system for
> use in a High School environment ?

Hi Kevin,



For pros & cons on central controller vs "fat" AP's, you should hands
down go with a central controller unless you are a programmer willing to
write tools to monitor and automate tasks and your labor doesn't figure
into the real "cost" of the wireless install.  You will still probably
want to use a controller later anyway, as that's the only place where
new feature development is really occurring.

Dale
University of Wisconsin & WiscNet

**
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 vs. Meru article

[Ruiz, Mike]

Flexibility is paramount in any Wireless network.  We all want to build the 
minimum to meet the coverage and performance expectations for today and 
tomorrow.  The problem is what about day after tomorrow?  Once wireless kindles 
in minor uses and innovation begins then the usage patterns start to change.  
Of course there are the fixed laptop cart classrooms that make user density 
planning easy.  Ideally we would all deploy a maximum level of capacity at all 
locations -- if money were no object.  
 
This is, in my opinion, the most outstanding feature and benefit that Meru 
delivers above all others in the a/b/g and even in the n range.  
 
Where else can you paint for coverage with an access point that can handle 
between 128 clients.  *This is a tested number with VoWLAN phones by one of 
their clients*  Then take that paint for coverage model and deploy additional 
capacity on non-overlapping channels anywhere it is needed.  Now you've 
provided the optimal formula, the minimum to operate everywhere with the 
minimum costs (both financial and technical) to upgrade.  You don't sacrifice 
your tech staffs time to resurvey by changing power levels on micro or pico 
cells.  You don't waste resources buying more access points than you need.  You 
DO at absolute maximum deployment gain the ability to deploy EVERYWHERE in your 
environment the full 3 non overlapping channels of b/g or the ful 8-16 channels 
of a (depending on region) l  thus providing the absolute maximum possible 
bandwidth that either standard can supply for more clients per ap than any 
other vendor can support.
 
The added option of using centralized architecture with the ability to detach 
the dataplane of any AP from tunneled to bridged brings management and 
flexibility.  This way when you have multi-radio ap's capable of generating 
more bandwidth than you have deliverable to your controllers you don't have to 
decentralize your controllers, you have a choice.  WIth Meru when you do this 
you still get configuration and firmware maintenance from the central 
controller.
 
The various rules of thumb out there are wise but become less critical as 
scaling the network becomes less of a hassle and less of a cost.
 
Perhaps I've had too much Meru kool-aid but this is one case where there isn't 
too much of a good thing.  The data from their variety of clients bears it out 
quite well.
 
Mike
 
 
 
-
Michael G. Ruiz, ESSE ACP A+
Network and Systems Engineer
Hobart and William Smith Colleges
Information Technology Services
 
P.315-781-3711  F.315-781-3409
Team Leader: Derek Lustig ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
 
 
Did you know that HWS Students, Faculty, Staff, Alums, etc
can purchase computers, accessories, electronics and software
at a discount through our partner CDW-G?  
http://www.cdwg.com/hws/
-
 



From: Brooks, Stan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 6/14/2007 3:42 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article



Kevin -

I would caution against just looking at coverage for your high school 
deployment.  I would also consider your user density.  We originally went for 
coverage over capacity at our Law School deployment a couple of years ago.  
When the instructors "discovered" wireless coverage, they had their students 
all try opening web pages at once - 5 classrooms of about 120 students each 
that was covered by 4 APs.  Needless to say, not all the students were able to 
get on, much less surf to the web pages.  We use a rule of 20-30 maximum users 
per AP here at Emory; less if we expect any sort of multi-media traffic on the 
wireless network.

Personally, I definitely see value of a centralized architecture for as little 
as 6-10 APs.  The centralized systems allow for much easier configuration and 
management than fat APs, and it will give you a better view into your wireless 
network.

BTW - Emory is an Aruba shop with about 1525 APs and 21 controllers.

 >>-> Stan Brooks - CWNA/CWSP
  Emory University
  Network Communications Division
  404.727.0226
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM: WLANstan  Yahoo!: WLANstan  MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Whitney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:34 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

May be a little off subject but I would like to post question out there as it 
seems there are some happy Meru users here on this forum..

Any thoughts or advice on implementing/selecting a wireless system for use in a 
High School environment ?

Specifically, would love any feedback on pros/cons of a central controller 
based system (ie -Meru, Aruba, etc) vs installing Fat AP's around our building.

While our needs are quite simple I am sure, compared to the size of other 
user's who have posted,  I can see there is a great deal of knowledge and 

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

[Dale W. Carder]

On Jun 14, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Kevin Whitney wrote:


Any thoughts or advice on implementing/selecting a wireless system for
use in a High School environment ?


Hi Kevin,

In talking to IT staff from K-12's at our (WiscNet's) last conference,
one interesting thing I found was that technology has to work
"on the first try".  For example, a demo or document sharing done
via wireless when it's not working or too slow can severely interrupt
a lesson plan, and most teachers will only tolerate their lesson plans
being burnt once or twice.

The point that was hammered over and over was professionaly done design
(usually outsourced for K-12's) site surveys done before and after
installation.  A large part of that design process, as others
have mentioned is planning upfront for user density.  A few classrooms
back to back covered by only a few AP's may not work under load.

For pros & cons on central controller vs "fat" AP's, you should hands
down go with a central controller unless you are a programmer willing to
write tools to monitor and automate tasks and your labor doesn't figure
into the real "cost" of the wireless install.  You will still probably
want to use a controller later anyway, as that's the only place where
new feature development is really occurring.

Dale
University of Wisconsin & WiscNet

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

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

[John Center]

Hi Kevin,

At Villanova, we're migrating from Cisco "fat" APs to Meru.  One of the 
things we found is, we need fewer Meru APs than before.  For example, we 
were able to provide service for over 500 law students taking exams with 
10 Meru APs in 5 classrooms.  Since all the APs were on a single 
channel, if we did have a contention issue, adding another AP to the mix 
would have been a simple process.  No need to play with channel layouts 
& power settings.


HTH

-John


Kevin Whitney wrote:

May be a little off subject but I would like to post question out there
as it seems there are some happy Meru users here on this forum..

Any thoughts or advice on implementing/selecting a wireless system for
use in a High School environment ?

Specifically, would love any feedback on pros/cons of a central
controller based system (ie -Meru, Aruba, etc) vs installing Fat AP's
around our building.

While our needs are quite simple I am sure, compared to the size of
other user's who have posted,  I can see there is a great deal of
knowledge and experience in this area. Basic site surveys conducted here
have indicated we need somewhere around 25 access points to provide
coverage throughout our building.

Appreciate any input on this subject.

Kevin Whitney
District Technology Coordinator
Cresskill Public Schools
1 Lincoln Drive
Cresskill, NJ 07626
201-541-4162
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cresskillboe.k12.nj.us


--
John Center
Villanova University

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

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

[Winders, Timothy A]

Kevin -

25 APs is getting on the heavy side for managing them individually.  We
had around that number of Cisco FAT APs and management was very
difficult.  I didn't have an easy way to determine usage, upgrade
software, update configurations or do troubleshooting.  Going to a
controller based system has been wonderful.  Meru makes a controller for
up to 30 access points before you step up into bigger gear.  I'm not
familiar with Aruba, but I expect they do as well.  I highly recommend
you go to a centrally managed system, rather than trying to manage your
APs individually.

Tim Winders | Associate Dean of Information Technology | South Plains
College

> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Whitney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 1:34 PM
> To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
> 
> May be a little off subject but I would like to post question out
there
> as it seems there are some happy Meru users here on this forum..
> 
> Any thoughts or advice on implementing/selecting a wireless system for
> use in a High School environment ?
> 
> Specifically, would love any feedback on pros/cons of a central
> controller based system (ie -Meru, Aruba, etc) vs installing Fat AP's
> around our building.
> 
> While our needs are quite simple I am sure, compared to the size of
> other user's who have posted,  I can see there is a great deal of
> knowledge and experience in this area. Basic site surveys conducted
> here
> have indicated we need somewhere around 25 access points to provide
> coverage throughout our building.
> 
> Appreciate any input on this subject.
> 
> Kevin Whitney
> District Technology Coordinator
> Cresskill Public Schools
> 1 Lincoln Drive
> Cresskill, NJ 07626
> 201-541-4162
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.cresskillboe.k12.nj.us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Molta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:21 PM
> To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
> 
> Debbie,
> 
> They were Intel 2915 clients. I have some pretty dense spreadsheets
> covering various permutations of clients and infrastructure if you are
> interested in seeing raw results. We didn't come away from this with
> any
> firm conclusions about what's good and what's bad (I guess we've
> learned
> our lesson about pointing the finger too soon!). What was most
> interesting to us was the fact that there was so much variation, which
> is something we didn't expect from such a mature standard.
> 
> dm
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: debbie fligor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:59 AM
> > To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
> >
> > On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:24, Dave Molta wrote:
> >
> > > Just to elaborate a bit, the article James sent around was not the
> > > original Meru-Cisco feature story but rather a column that
> > reports on
> > > results of subsequent testing. In this column, I reported three
> > > things. First, Cisco was unsuccessful in getting the Wi-Fi
> > Alliance to
> > > rescind Meru's certification. Since WFA certifies interoperability
> > > rather than standards compliance, this is not proof that Meru
isn't
> > > stretching standards a bit but it still casts a cloud over Cisco's
> > > allegations. Second, I reported findings from subsequent
> > tests where
> > > we added Aruba to the mix and found that Cisco's performance also
> > > cratered when co-located with Aruba gear.
> > > Again, that could indicate that Aruba is also somehow
> > playing foul as
> > > well (Cisco speculated that they might be using a variation of PCF
> > > interframe spacing, though Aruba denied it) but it doesn't
> > look that
> > > way to me. Finally, we decided to re-run these interference
> > tests with
> > > different mixes of clients, using Atheros, Broadcom, and Intel
> > > chipsets. We found significant differences in the
> > performance results.
> > > Atheros-based clients performed best.
> >
> > Something I noticed in the article was that Meru did the worst with
> > Intel chipsets, but which chipset wasn't mentioned.
> >
> > The 3945 Intel micro code bug makes them work very poorly with Meru
> > and causes some problems with other vendors APs.
> > We've been waiting for an update from Intel, but still don't have
it.
> 
&

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

[Brooks, Stan]

Kevin -

I would caution against just looking at coverage for your high school 
deployment.  I would also consider your user density.  We originally went for 
coverage over capacity at our Law School deployment a couple of years ago.  
When the instructors "discovered" wireless coverage, they had their students 
all try opening web pages at once - 5 classrooms of about 120 students each 
that was covered by 4 APs.  Needless to say, not all the students were able to 
get on, much less surf to the web pages.  We use a rule of 20-30 maximum users 
per AP here at Emory; less if we expect any sort of multi-media traffic on the 
wireless network.

Personally, I definitely see value of a centralized architecture for as little 
as 6-10 APs.  The centralized systems allow for much easier configuration and 
management than fat APs, and it will give you a better view into your wireless 
network.

BTW - Emory is an Aruba shop with about 1525 APs and 21 controllers.

 >>-> Stan Brooks - CWNA/CWSP
  Emory University
  Network Communications Division
  404.727.0226
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM: WLANstan  Yahoo!: WLANstan  MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Whitney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:34 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

May be a little off subject but I would like to post question out there as it 
seems there are some happy Meru users here on this forum..

Any thoughts or advice on implementing/selecting a wireless system for use in a 
High School environment ?

Specifically, would love any feedback on pros/cons of a central controller 
based system (ie -Meru, Aruba, etc) vs installing Fat AP's around our building.

While our needs are quite simple I am sure, compared to the size of other 
user's who have posted,  I can see there is a great deal of knowledge and 
experience in this area. Basic site surveys conducted here have indicated we 
need somewhere around 25 access points to provide coverage throughout our 
building.

Appreciate any input on this subject.

Kevin Whitney
District Technology Coordinator
Cresskill Public Schools
1 Lincoln Drive
Cresskill, NJ 07626
201-541-4162
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cresskillboe.k12.nj.us





-Original Message-
From: Dave Molta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:21 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

Debbie,

They were Intel 2915 clients. I have some pretty dense spreadsheets covering 
various permutations of clients and infrastructure if you are interested in 
seeing raw results. We didn't come away from this with any firm conclusions 
about what's good and what's bad (I guess we've learned our lesson about 
pointing the finger too soon!). What was most interesting to us was the fact 
that there was so much variation, which is something we didn't expect from such 
a mature standard.

dm

> -Original Message-
> From: debbie fligor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:59 AM
> To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
>
> On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:24, Dave Molta wrote:
>
> > Just to elaborate a bit, the article James sent around was not the
> > original Meru-Cisco feature story but rather a column that
> reports on
> > results of subsequent testing. In this column, I reported three
> > things. First, Cisco was unsuccessful in getting the Wi-Fi
> Alliance to
> > rescind Meru's certification. Since WFA certifies interoperability
> > rather than standards compliance, this is not proof that Meru isn't
> > stretching standards a bit but it still casts a cloud over Cisco's
> > allegations. Second, I reported findings from subsequent
> tests where
> > we added Aruba to the mix and found that Cisco's performance also
> > cratered when co-located with Aruba gear.
> > Again, that could indicate that Aruba is also somehow
> playing foul as
> > well (Cisco speculated that they might be using a variation of PCF
> > interframe spacing, though Aruba denied it) but it doesn't
> look that
> > way to me. Finally, we decided to re-run these interference
> tests with
> > different mixes of clients, using Atheros, Broadcom, and Intel
> > chipsets. We found significant differences in the
> performance results.
> > Atheros-based clients performed best.
>
> Something I noticed in the article was that Meru did the worst with
> Intel chipsets, but which chipset wasn't mentioned.
>
> The 3945 Intel micro code bug makes them work very poorly with Meru
> and causes some problems with other vendors APs.
> We've been waiting for an update from Intel, bu

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

[Kevin Whitney]

May be a little off subject but I would like to post question out there
as it seems there are some happy Meru users here on this forum..

Any thoughts or advice on implementing/selecting a wireless system for
use in a High School environment ? 

Specifically, would love any feedback on pros/cons of a central
controller based system (ie -Meru, Aruba, etc) vs installing Fat AP's
around our building.

While our needs are quite simple I am sure, compared to the size of
other user's who have posted,  I can see there is a great deal of
knowledge and experience in this area. Basic site surveys conducted here
have indicated we need somewhere around 25 access points to provide
coverage throughout our building.

Appreciate any input on this subject.

Kevin Whitney
District Technology Coordinator
Cresskill Public Schools
1 Lincoln Drive
Cresskill, NJ 07626
201-541-4162
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cresskillboe.k12.nj.us





-Original Message-
From: Dave Molta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:21 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

Debbie,

They were Intel 2915 clients. I have some pretty dense spreadsheets
covering various permutations of clients and infrastructure if you are
interested in seeing raw results. We didn't come away from this with any
firm conclusions about what's good and what's bad (I guess we've learned
our lesson about pointing the finger too soon!). What was most
interesting to us was the fact that there was so much variation, which
is something we didn't expect from such a mature standard.

dm 

> -Original Message-
> From: debbie fligor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:59 AM
> To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
> 
> On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:24, Dave Molta wrote:
> 
> > Just to elaborate a bit, the article James sent around was not the 
> > original Meru-Cisco feature story but rather a column that
> reports on
> > results of subsequent testing. In this column, I reported three 
> > things. First, Cisco was unsuccessful in getting the Wi-Fi
> Alliance to
> > rescind Meru's certification. Since WFA certifies interoperability 
> > rather than standards compliance, this is not proof that Meru isn't 
> > stretching standards a bit but it still casts a cloud over Cisco's 
> > allegations. Second, I reported findings from subsequent
> tests where
> > we added Aruba to the mix and found that Cisco's performance also 
> > cratered when co-located with Aruba gear.
> > Again, that could indicate that Aruba is also somehow
> playing foul as
> > well (Cisco speculated that they might be using a variation of PCF 
> > interframe spacing, though Aruba denied it) but it doesn't
> look that
> > way to me. Finally, we decided to re-run these interference
> tests with
> > different mixes of clients, using Atheros, Broadcom, and Intel 
> > chipsets. We found significant differences in the
> performance results. 
> > Atheros-based clients performed best.
> 
> Something I noticed in the article was that Meru did the worst with 
> Intel chipsets, but which chipset wasn't mentioned.
> 
> The 3945 Intel micro code bug makes them work very poorly with Meru 
> and causes some problems with other vendors APs.
> We've been waiting for an update from Intel, but still don't have it.

> What Intel has done is ceased to sell that chipset
> -- this worries me that there wont be a microcode fix, but at least we

> wont have new equipment coming in with that card.
> 
> So if the testing was with all 3945 cards, I don't think that 
> accurately indicates Meru doesn't work well with Intel in general.
> Dave do you happen to know what the cards were?
> 
> For those not following the problem with the 3945 cards, there is a 
> bug in the micro code that causes it to crash if it sees out-of-order 
> packets from the same AP.  I heard this from an Intel employee on a 
> conference call with them and Meru.  It had been replicated in Intel's

> state-side offices and finally at their development site in Haifa last

> February just days before our phone call.
> 
> Since all Meru APs look the same to the client, it's easy for things 
> to be out-of-order like that.  The initial work around of setting the 
> power save mode to off didn't work, not because it was the wrong work 
> around, but because the driver kept taking it out of "never power 
> save" mode.  If you update to the latest Intel driver, and then again 
> set it to not use power saving, it stays set that way and the 
> disconnects go away, at least for the o

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

[Dave Molta]

Debbie,

They were Intel 2915 clients. I have some pretty dense spreadsheets covering
various permutations of clients and infrastructure if you are interested in
seeing raw results. We didn't come away from this with any firm conclusions
about what's good and what's bad (I guess we've learned our lesson about
pointing the finger too soon!). What was most interesting to us was the fact
that there was so much variation, which is something we didn't expect from
such a mature standard.

dm 

> -Original Message-
> From: debbie fligor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:59 AM
> To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
> 
> On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:24, Dave Molta wrote:
> 
> > Just to elaborate a bit, the article James sent around was not the 
> > original Meru-Cisco feature story but rather a column that 
> reports on 
> > results of subsequent testing. In this column, I reported three 
> > things. First, Cisco was unsuccessful in getting the Wi-Fi 
> Alliance to 
> > rescind Meru's certification. Since WFA certifies interoperability 
> > rather than standards compliance, this is not proof that Meru isn't 
> > stretching standards a bit but it still casts a cloud over Cisco's 
> > allegations. Second, I reported findings from subsequent 
> tests where 
> > we added Aruba to the mix and found that Cisco's performance also 
> > cratered when co-located with Aruba gear.
> > Again, that could indicate that Aruba is also somehow 
> playing foul as 
> > well (Cisco speculated that they might be using a variation of PCF 
> > interframe spacing, though Aruba denied it) but it doesn't 
> look that 
> > way to me. Finally, we decided to re-run these interference 
> tests with 
> > different mixes of clients, using Atheros, Broadcom, and Intel 
> > chipsets. We found significant differences in the 
> performance results. 
> > Atheros-based clients performed best.
> 
> Something I noticed in the article was that Meru did the 
> worst with Intel chipsets, but which chipset wasn't mentioned.
> 
> The 3945 Intel micro code bug makes them work very poorly 
> with Meru and causes some problems with other vendors APs.  
> We've been waiting for an update from Intel, but still don't 
> have it.  What Intel has done is ceased to sell that chipset 
> -- this worries me that there wont be a microcode fix, but at 
> least we wont have new equipment coming in with that card.
> 
> So if the testing was with all 3945 cards, I don't think that 
> accurately indicates Meru doesn't work well with Intel in general.  
> Dave do you happen to know what the cards were?
> 
> For those not following the problem with the 3945 cards, 
> there is a bug in the micro code that causes it to crash if 
> it sees out-of-order packets from the same AP.  I heard this 
> from an Intel employee on a conference call with them and 
> Meru.  It had been replicated in Intel's state-side offices 
> and finally at their development site in Haifa last February 
> just days before our phone call.
> 
> Since all Meru APs look the same to the client, it's easy for 
> things to be out-of-order like that.  The initial work around 
> of setting the power save mode to off didn't work, not 
> because it was the wrong work around, but because the driver 
> kept taking it out of "never power save" mode.  If you update 
> to the latest Intel driver, and then again set it to not use 
> power saving, it stays set that way and the disconnects go 
> away, at least for the ones we've tried it on so far.
> 
> >
> > The broader issues here relate to standards compliance 
> (e.g., to what 
> > degree can a vendor selectively implement certain elements of a QoS 
> > standard?) and, perhaps more importantly, performance issues with 
> > Wi-Fi that may arise in the future as the density of 
> deployed networks 
> > results in increasing levels of co-channel interference. I am 
> > particuarly concerned about the intersection between private 
> > enterprise WLANs and public metro Wi-Fi networks. It may 
> not be a big 
> > problem today but I wonder if it will be a problem in the 
> future. We 
> > understand that our tests represent worst-case scenarios that few 
> > enterprises currently experience but sometimes there is value in 
> > pointing out the worst-case situations.
> 
> It's always good to know what to keep an eye out for when 
> you're designing something.  We're not seeing problems in our 
> still Cisco buildings that are near Meru buildings 

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

[Scholz, Greg]

We just selected Foundry wireless (AKA Rebranded Meru) in part because
they "do it different".  We are a Foundry shop and have found that
Foundry makes excellent decisions for their products so their choice to
work with Meru for their wireless solution adds to our confidence that
Meru is an excellent product.  We have done an in house demo and the
first permanent APs are going in place in the next weeks.

 

For what it's worth: we are piloting our first "wireless only" (i.e. no
wired data connections) residence hall this fall using the Meru/Foundry
gear.  We are that confident.

 

_

Thank you,

Gregory R. Scholz

Director of Telecommunications

Information Technology Group

Keene State College

(603)358-2070

 

--Lead, follow, or get out of the way. 

(author unknown)

 



From: Jamie Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:50 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

 


Hi, 
   The attached article was in the May 28th issue of Network Computing.
Regarding Meru vs. Cisco and the possibility of interference with
co-located APs.   I'd be interested in any commentary.  We're currently
a Cisco shop (autonomous APs) and realize we're heading for a forklift
wireless change in the near future (most of our fat APs can't be
converted to thin).  Even if Meru violates the 802.11 standard (as
claimed by Cisco), as we control the airspace on campus, I guess we
don't care if we cause interference issues with devices (ie..rogues)
that shouldn't be there in the first place. 

...comments anyone?...thx...J 



James Savage   York University

Senior Communications Tech.   108 Steacie Building
[EMAIL PROTECTED]4700 Keele Street
ph: 416-736-2100 ext. 22605Toronto, Ontario
fax: 416-736-5701M3J 1P3, CANADA 


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

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

[debbie fligor]

On Jun 14, 2007, at 10:24, Dave Molta wrote:

Just to elaborate a bit, the article James sent around was not the  
original Meru-Cisco feature story but rather a column that reports  
on results of subsequent testing. In this column, I reported three  
things. First, Cisco was unsuccessful in getting the Wi-Fi Alliance  
to rescind Meru's certification. Since WFA certifies  
interoperability rather than standards compliance, this is not  
proof that Meru isn't stretching standards a bit but it still casts  
a cloud over Cisco's allegations. Second, I reported findings from  
subsequent tests where we added Aruba to the mix and found that  
Cisco's performance also cratered when co-located with Aruba gear.  
Again, that could indicate that Aruba is also somehow playing foul  
as well (Cisco speculated that they might be using a variation of  
PCF interframe spacing, though Aruba denied it) but it doesn't look  
that way to me. Finally, we decided to re-run these interference  
tests with different mixes of clients, using Atheros, Broadcom, and  
Intel chipsets. We found significant differences in the performance  
results. Atheros-based clients performed best.


Something I noticed in the article was that Meru did the worst with  
Intel chipsets, but which chipset wasn't mentioned.


The 3945 Intel micro code bug makes them work very poorly with Meru  
and causes some problems with other vendors APs.  We've been waiting  
for an update from Intel, but still don't have it.  What Intel has  
done is ceased to sell that chipset -- this worries me that there  
wont be a microcode fix, but at least we wont have new equipment  
coming in with that card.


So if the testing was with all 3945 cards, I don't think that  
accurately indicates Meru doesn't work well with Intel in general.  
Dave do you happen to know what the cards were?


For those not following the problem with the 3945 cards, there is a  
bug in the micro code that causes it to crash if it sees out-of-order  
packets from the same AP.  I heard this from an Intel employee on a  
conference call with them and Meru.  It had been replicated in  
Intel's state-side offices and finally at their development site in  
Haifa last February just days before our phone call.


Since all Meru APs look the same to the client, it's easy for things  
to be out-of-order like that.  The initial work around of setting the  
power save mode to off didn't work, not because it was the wrong work  
around, but because the driver kept taking it out of "never power  
save" mode.  If you update to the latest Intel driver, and then again  
set it to not use power saving, it stays set that way and the  
disconnects go away, at least for the ones we've tried it on so far.




The broader issues here relate to standards compliance (e.g., to  
what degree can a vendor selectively implement certain elements of  
a QoS standard?) and, perhaps more importantly, performance issues  
with Wi-Fi that may arise in the future as the density of deployed  
networks results in increasing levels of co-channel interference. I  
am particuarly concerned about the intersection between private  
enterprise WLANs and public metro Wi-Fi networks. It may not be a  
big problem today but I wonder if it will be a problem in the  
future. We understand that our tests represent worst-case scenarios  
that few enterprises currently experience but sometimes there is  
value in pointing out the worst-case situations.


It's always good to know what to keep an eye out for when you're  
designing something.  We're not seeing problems in our still Cisco  
buildings that are near Meru buildings that we are aware of, and the  
users are pretty good at telling us if it quits working.




If there's a silver lining here, it may be that 11n is likely to  
push most enterprises towards more pervasive 5 GHz deployments,  
where co-channel interference is not such a big issue.


dm



-
-debbie
Debbie Fligor, n9dn   Network Engineer, CITES, Univ. of Il
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
   "My turn."  -River

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

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

[Winders, Timothy A]

I misspoke.  We do have the visualize and locate pieces.  We have not
imported maps for all our areas yet and haven't fully explored the
capabilities.

 

Tim Winders | Associate Dean of Information Technology | South Plains
College

 

From: Winders, Timothy A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:36 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

 

Each controller has it's own web-based interface for management and
configuration.  For smaller installations, this should be good enough.
When you get to larger installations with multiple controllers and
require location and visualization you'll want to look at the
Application Suite product.  You have to license the different pieces of
the product separately, so make sure your sales rep does a good job of
explaining the feature set of each component so you license everything
you need.

 

As far as effective/buggy.  I'm not sure what you mean.  It's a java
application front end with a dedicated server on the backend.  We
haven't had any troubles with the product.  I don't have the
visualization piece.  It wasn't available the last I checked.  I see it
on the website, so it might be available now.

 

Tim Winders | Associate Dean of Information Technology | South Plains
College

 

From: Lee H Badman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:15 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

 

A while back, Meru did not yet have a central management console, but it
was pending while we decided on which thin AP road to go down. Can
anyone comment on how effective/buggy Meru's management platform is?

 

Lee H. Badman

Wireless/Network Engineer

KC2IYK, CWNA/CWSP

Information Technology and Services

Syracuse University

315 443-3003



From: Winders, Timothy A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:06 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

 

We did just the same thing this year.  We had a relatively small Cisco
AP installation, with about 25 APs.  We needed to go to full campus
coverage would have to forklift the Cisco gear.  We went with Meru and
I've never looked back.  Our wired gear is all Cisco, but we've been
very pleased with the Meru wireless.  I never used the Cisco wireless
controllers, so I can't compare, but, the Meru gear is very easy to
setup and deploy.  We have a single SSID (WPA/TKIP) and clients connect
to different VLANs based on their RADIUS authentication (authenticating
against AD).

 

The Network Computing article came out after we purchased our gear.  It
didn't bother me and in practice, I haven't experienced the claims Cisco
made.  We see rogues pop up on the network.  We have the Meru rogue
detection enabled, but mitigation disabled.  So, when a rogue turns up,
we track it down.  It's usually a student in their dorm room who brought
it with them, or wasn't able to authenticate to our wireless network, so
installed their own router.  In practice, these work (i.e. no
interference from the Meru equipment) but we shut them down anyway and
help the student get authenticated to our network.

 

We do occasionally see legitimate rogues identified by the Meru
equipment.  This is usually a surrounding business.  After the NC
article came out, I did contact one of them to make sure they weren't
experiencing any problems.  Everything was fine.  I expect that if we
enabled rogue mitigation it would cause them troubles.  J  If we do
decide to go that way, there is a way to exempt/authorize non-Meru APs
so they don't get blasted.  I have not tested this, so I would work with
those local businesses to make sure we don't cause them any troubles.

 

Tim Winders | Associate Dean of Information Technology | South Plains
College

 

From: Jamie Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:50 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

 


Hi, 
   The attached article was in the May 28th issue of Network Computing.
Regarding Meru vs. Cisco and the possibility of interference with
co-located APs.   I'd be interested in any commentary.  We're currently
a Cisco shop (autonomous APs) and realize we're heading for a forklift
wireless change in the near future (most of our fat APs can't be
converted to thin).  Even if Meru violates the 802.11 standard (as
claimed by Cisco), as we control the airspace on campus, I guess we
don't care if we cause interference issues with devices (ie..rogues)
that shouldn't be there in the first place. 

...comments anyone?...thx...J 



James Savage   York University

Senior Communications Tech.   108 Steacie Building
[EMAIL PROT

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

[Winders, Timothy A]

Each controller has it's own web-based interface for management and
configuration.  For smaller installations, this should be good enough.
When you get to larger installations with multiple controllers and
require location and visualization you'll want to look at the
Application Suite product.  You have to license the different pieces of
the product separately, so make sure your sales rep does a good job of
explaining the feature set of each component so you license everything
you need.

 

As far as effective/buggy.  I'm not sure what you mean.  It's a java
application front end with a dedicated server on the backend.  We
haven't had any troubles with the product.  I don't have the
visualization piece.  It wasn't available the last I checked.  I see it
on the website, so it might be available now.

 

Tim Winders | Associate Dean of Information Technology | South Plains
College

 

From: Lee H Badman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:15 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

 

A while back, Meru did not yet have a central management console, but it
was pending while we decided on which thin AP road to go down. Can
anyone comment on how effective/buggy Meru's management platform is?

 

Lee H. Badman

Wireless/Network Engineer

KC2IYK, CWNA/CWSP

Information Technology and Services

Syracuse University

315 443-3003



From: Winders, Timothy A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:06 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

 

We did just the same thing this year.  We had a relatively small Cisco
AP installation, with about 25 APs.  We needed to go to full campus
coverage would have to forklift the Cisco gear.  We went with Meru and
I've never looked back.  Our wired gear is all Cisco, but we've been
very pleased with the Meru wireless.  I never used the Cisco wireless
controllers, so I can't compare, but, the Meru gear is very easy to
setup and deploy.  We have a single SSID (WPA/TKIP) and clients connect
to different VLANs based on their RADIUS authentication (authenticating
against AD).

 

The Network Computing article came out after we purchased our gear.  It
didn't bother me and in practice, I haven't experienced the claims Cisco
made.  We see rogues pop up on the network.  We have the Meru rogue
detection enabled, but mitigation disabled.  So, when a rogue turns up,
we track it down.  It's usually a student in their dorm room who brought
it with them, or wasn't able to authenticate to our wireless network, so
installed their own router.  In practice, these work (i.e. no
interference from the Meru equipment) but we shut them down anyway and
help the student get authenticated to our network.

 

We do occasionally see legitimate rogues identified by the Meru
equipment.  This is usually a surrounding business.  After the NC
article came out, I did contact one of them to make sure they weren't
experiencing any problems.  Everything was fine.  I expect that if we
enabled rogue mitigation it would cause them troubles.  J  If we do
decide to go that way, there is a way to exempt/authorize non-Meru APs
so they don't get blasted.  I have not tested this, so I would work with
those local businesses to make sure we don't cause them any troubles.

 

Tim Winders | Associate Dean of Information Technology | South Plains
College

 

From: Jamie Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:50 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

 


Hi, 
   The attached article was in the May 28th issue of Network Computing.
Regarding Meru vs. Cisco and the possibility of interference with
co-located APs.   I'd be interested in any commentary.  We're currently
a Cisco shop (autonomous APs) and realize we're heading for a forklift
wireless change in the near future (most of our fat APs can't be
converted to thin).  Even if Meru violates the 802.11 standard (as
claimed by Cisco), as we control the airspace on campus, I guess we
don't care if we cause interference issues with devices (ie..rogues)
that shouldn't be there in the first place. 

...comments anyone?...thx...J 



James Savage   York University

Senior Communications Tech.   108 Steacie Building
[EMAIL PROTECTED]4700 Keele Street
ph: 416-736-2100 ext. 22605Toronto, Ontario
fax: 416-736-5701M3J 1P3, CANADA 

** 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 discussio

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

[Winders, Timothy A]

Thanks for the clarification, Dave.  I hadn't seen the followup to the
original article.  This is very helpful.

 

Tim Winders | Associate Dean of Information Technology | South Plains
College

 

From: Dave Molta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:25 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

 

Just to elaborate a bit, the article James sent around was not the
original Meru-Cisco feature story but rather a column that reports on
results of subsequent testing. In this column, I reported three things.
First, Cisco was unsuccessful in getting the Wi-Fi Alliance to rescind
Meru's certification. Since WFA certifies interoperability rather than
standards compliance, this is not proof that Meru isn't stretching
standards a bit but it still casts a cloud over Cisco's allegations.
Second, I reported findings from subsequent tests where we added Aruba
to the mix and found that Cisco's performance also cratered when
co-located with Aruba gear. Again, that could indicate that Aruba is
also somehow playing foul as well (Cisco speculated that they might be
using a variation of PCF interframe spacing, though Aruba denied it) but
it doesn't look that way to me. Finally, we decided to re-run these
interference tests with different mixes of clients, using Atheros,
Broadcom, and Intel chipsets. We found significant differences in the
performance results. Atheros-based clients performed best.

 

The broader issues here relate to standards compliance (e.g., to what
degree can a vendor selectively implement certain elements of a QoS
standard?) and, perhaps more importantly, performance issues with Wi-Fi
that may arise in the future as the density of deployed networks results
in increasing levels of co-channel interference. I am particuarly
concerned about the intersection between private enterprise WLANs and
public metro Wi-Fi networks. It may not be a big problem today but I
wonder if it will be a problem in the future. We understand that our
tests represent worst-case scenarios that few enterprises currently
experience but sometimes there is value in pointing out the worst-case
situations.

 

If there's a silver lining here, it may be that 11n is likely to push
most enterprises towards more pervasive 5 GHz deployments, where
co-channel interference is not such a big issue.

 

dm

 



From: Peter Morrissey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:03 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
    Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

I'm with you Jamie. Standards are extremely important, but only
to the extent that they serve the consumer. You still have to buy the
whole system from one vendor, so what is the difference? As long as the
clients will be interoperable, then I don't think it really matters. I
could be missing something, but that is my take on the whole thing. Meru
appears to offer some compelling QOS features.

 

Pete Morrissey

Syracuse University

 



From: Jamie Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:50 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

 


Hi, 
   The attached article was in the May 28th issue of Network
Computing.   Regarding Meru vs. Cisco and the possibility of
interference with co-located APs.   I'd be interested in any commentary.
We're currently a Cisco shop (autonomous APs) and realize we're heading
for a forklift wireless change in the near future (most of our fat APs
can't be converted to thin).  Even if Meru violates the 802.11 standard
(as claimed by Cisco), as we control the airspace on campus, I guess we
don't care if we cause interference issues with devices (ie..rogues)
that shouldn't be there in the first place. 

...comments anyone?...thx...J 



James Savage   York University

Senior Communications Tech.   108 Steacie Building
[EMAIL PROTECTED]4700 Keele Street
ph: 416-736-2100 ext. 22605Toronto, Ontario
fax: 416-736-5701M3J 1P3, CANADA


** 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 vs. Meru article

[Dave Molta]

Just to elaborate a bit, the article James sent around was not the original
Meru-Cisco feature story but rather a column that reports on results of
subsequent testing. In this column, I reported three things. First, Cisco
was unsuccessful in getting the Wi-Fi Alliance to rescind Meru's
certification. Since WFA certifies interoperability rather than standards
compliance, this is not proof that Meru isn't stretching standards a bit but
it still casts a cloud over Cisco's allegations. Second, I reported findings
from subsequent tests where we added Aruba to the mix and found that Cisco's
performance also cratered when co-located with Aruba gear. Again, that could
indicate that Aruba is also somehow playing foul as well (Cisco speculated
that they might be using a variation of PCF interframe spacing, though Aruba
denied it) but it doesn't look that way to me. Finally, we decided to re-run
these interference tests with different mixes of clients, using Atheros,
Broadcom, and Intel chipsets. We found significant differences in the
performance results. Atheros-based clients performed best.
 
The broader issues here relate to standards compliance (e.g., to what degree
can a vendor selectively implement certain elements of a QoS standard?) and,
perhaps more importantly, performance issues with Wi-Fi that may arise in
the future as the density of deployed networks results in increasing levels
of co-channel interference. I am particuarly concerned about the
intersection between private enterprise WLANs and public metro Wi-Fi
networks. It may not be a big problem today but I wonder if it will be a
problem in the future. We understand that our tests represent worst-case
scenarios that few enterprises currently experience but sometimes there is
value in pointing out the worst-case situations.
 
If there's a silver lining here, it may be that 11n is likely to push most
enterprises towards more pervasive 5 GHz deployments, where co-channel
interference is not such a big issue.
 
dm


  _  

From: Peter Morrissey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:03 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article



I'm with you Jamie. Standards are extremely important, but only to the
extent that they serve the consumer. You still have to buy the whole system
from one vendor, so what is the difference? As long as the clients will be
interoperable, then I don't think it really matters. I could be missing
something, but that is my take on the whole thing. Meru appears to offer
some compelling QOS features.

 

Pete Morrissey

Syracuse University

 


  _  


From: Jamie Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:50 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

 


Hi, 
   The attached article was in the May 28th issue of Network Computing.
Regarding Meru vs. Cisco and the possibility of interference with co-located
APs.   I'd be interested in any commentary.  We're currently a Cisco shop
(autonomous APs) and realize we're heading for a forklift wireless change in
the near future (most of our fat APs can't be converted to thin).  Even if
Meru violates the 802.11 standard (as claimed by Cisco), as we control the
airspace on campus, I guess we don't care if we cause interference issues
with devices (ie..rogues) that shouldn't be there in the first place. 

...comments anyone?...thx...J 



James Savage   York University   
Senior Communications Tech.   108 Steacie Building
[EMAIL PROTECTED]4700 Keele Street
ph: 416-736-2100 ext. 22605Toronto, Ontario
fax: 416-736-5701M3J 1P3, CANADA 

** 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 vs. Meru article

[Lee H Badman]

A while back, Meru did not yet have a central management console, but it
was pending while we decided on which thin AP road to go down. Can
anyone comment on how effective/buggy Meru's management platform is?
 
Lee H. Badman
Wireless/Network Engineer
KC2IYK, CWNA/CWSP
Information Technology and Services
Syracuse University
315 443-3003


From: Winders, Timothy A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:06 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
 
We did just the same thing this year.  We had a relatively small Cisco
AP installation, with about 25 APs.  We needed to go to full campus
coverage would have to forklift the Cisco gear.  We went with Meru and
I've never looked back.  Our wired gear is all Cisco, but we've been
very pleased with the Meru wireless.  I never used the Cisco wireless
controllers, so I can't compare, but, the Meru gear is very easy to
setup and deploy.  We have a single SSID (WPA/TKIP) and clients connect
to different VLANs based on their RADIUS authentication (authenticating
against AD).
 
The Network Computing article came out after we purchased our gear.  It
didn't bother me and in practice, I haven't experienced the claims Cisco
made.  We see rogues pop up on the network.  We have the Meru rogue
detection enabled, but mitigation disabled.  So, when a rogue turns up,
we track it down.  It's usually a student in their dorm room who brought
it with them, or wasn't able to authenticate to our wireless network, so
installed their own router.  In practice, these work (i.e. no
interference from the Meru equipment) but we shut them down anyway and
help the student get authenticated to our network.
 
We do occasionally see legitimate rogues identified by the Meru
equipment.  This is usually a surrounding business.  After the NC
article came out, I did contact one of them to make sure they weren't
experiencing any problems.  Everything was fine.  I expect that if we
enabled rogue mitigation it would cause them troubles.  :-)  If we do
decide to go that way, there is a way to exempt/authorize non-Meru APs
so they don't get blasted.  I have not tested this, so I would work with
those local businesses to make sure we don't cause them any troubles.
 
Tim Winders | Associate Dean of Information Technology | South Plains
College
 
From: Jamie Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:50 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article
 

Hi, 
   The attached article was in the May 28th issue of Network Computing.
Regarding Meru vs. Cisco and the possibility of interference with
co-located APs.   I'd be interested in any commentary.  We're currently
a Cisco shop (autonomous APs) and realize we're heading for a forklift
wireless change in the near future (most of our fat APs can't be
converted to thin).  Even if Meru violates the 802.11 standard (as
claimed by Cisco), as we control the airspace on campus, I guess we
don't care if we cause interference issues with devices (ie..rogues)
that shouldn't be there in the first place. 

...comments anyone?...thx...J 



James Savage   York University

Senior Communications Tech.   108 Steacie Building
[EMAIL PROTECTED]4700 Keele Street
ph: 416-736-2100 ext. 22605Toronto, Ontario
fax: 416-736-5701M3J 1P3, CANADA 
** 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 vs. Meru article

[Ruiz, Mike]

Jamie,

   My Meru network was one of the test networks used in the evaluation
of the product for that article.  While onsite the engineers were not
able, on the latest GA code, to verify any violation of the standard and
found no problems with good neighbor behaviours.  It is very important
to pay close attention to the raw data, which is available for download.


   Yes when Meru and Cisco co-exist the Meru network provides more
throughput to the clients.  The question though: Does that mean it is
not sharing the RF approximately equally?  Meru equivocally states that
the bandwidth difference, which can also be demonstrated in a
non-overlapping environment, is an effect of more efficient use of the
spectrum.

 

Mike

 

 

-

Michael G. Ruiz H'99 ESSE, ACP, A+

Network and Systems Engineer

Hobart and William Smith Colleges

Information Technology Services

v.315.781.3711 f.315.781.3409

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Skype:MichaelGRuiz

-

 

  

 

From: Jamie Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:50 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

 


Hi, 
   The attached article was in the May 28th issue of Network Computing.
Regarding Meru vs. Cisco and the possibility of interference with
co-located APs.   I'd be interested in any commentary.  We're currently
a Cisco shop (autonomous APs) and realize we're heading for a forklift
wireless change in the near future (most of our fat APs can't be
converted to thin).  Even if Meru violates the 802.11 standard (as
claimed by Cisco), as we control the airspace on campus, I guess we
don't care if we cause interference issues with devices (ie..rogues)
that shouldn't be there in the first place. 

...comments anyone?...thx...J 



James Savage   York University

Senior Communications Tech.   108 Steacie Building
[EMAIL PROTECTED]4700 Keele Street
ph: 416-736-2100 ext. 22605Toronto, Ontario
fax: 416-736-5701M3J 1P3, CANADA 


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

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

[Winders, Timothy A]

We did just the same thing this year.  We had a relatively small Cisco
AP installation, with about 25 APs.  We needed to go to full campus
coverage would have to forklift the Cisco gear.  We went with Meru and
I've never looked back.  Our wired gear is all Cisco, but we've been
very pleased with the Meru wireless.  I never used the Cisco wireless
controllers, so I can't compare, but, the Meru gear is very easy to
setup and deploy.  We have a single SSID (WPA/TKIP) and clients connect
to different VLANs based on their RADIUS authentication (authenticating
against AD).

 

The Network Computing article came out after we purchased our gear.  It
didn't bother me and in practice, I haven't experienced the claims Cisco
made.  We see rogues pop up on the network.  We have the Meru rogue
detection enabled, but mitigation disabled.  So, when a rogue turns up,
we track it down.  It's usually a student in their dorm room who brought
it with them, or wasn't able to authenticate to our wireless network, so
installed their own router.  In practice, these work (i.e. no
interference from the Meru equipment) but we shut them down anyway and
help the student get authenticated to our network.

 

We do occasionally see legitimate rogues identified by the Meru
equipment.  This is usually a surrounding business.  After the NC
article came out, I did contact one of them to make sure they weren't
experiencing any problems.  Everything was fine.  I expect that if we
enabled rogue mitigation it would cause them troubles.  J  If we do
decide to go that way, there is a way to exempt/authorize non-Meru APs
so they don't get blasted.  I have not tested this, so I would work with
those local businesses to make sure we don't cause them any troubles.

 

Tim Winders | Associate Dean of Information Technology | South Plains
College

 

From: Jamie Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:50 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

 


Hi, 
   The attached article was in the May 28th issue of Network Computing.
Regarding Meru vs. Cisco and the possibility of interference with
co-located APs.   I'd be interested in any commentary.  We're currently
a Cisco shop (autonomous APs) and realize we're heading for a forklift
wireless change in the near future (most of our fat APs can't be
converted to thin).  Even if Meru violates the 802.11 standard (as
claimed by Cisco), as we control the airspace on campus, I guess we
don't care if we cause interference issues with devices (ie..rogues)
that shouldn't be there in the first place. 

...comments anyone?...thx...J 



James Savage   York University

Senior Communications Tech.   108 Steacie Building
[EMAIL PROTECTED]4700 Keele Street
ph: 416-736-2100 ext. 22605Toronto, Ontario
fax: 416-736-5701M3J 1P3, CANADA 


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

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

[Peter Morrissey]

I'm with you Jamie. Standards are extremely important, but only to the
extent that they serve the consumer. You still have to buy the whole system
from one vendor, so what is the difference? As long as the clients will be
interoperable, then I don't think it really matters. I could be missing
something, but that is my take on the whole thing. Meru appears to offer
some compelling QOS features.

 

Pete Morrissey

Syracuse University

 

  _  

From: Jamie Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:50 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article

 


Hi, 
   The attached article was in the May 28th issue of Network Computing.
Regarding Meru vs. Cisco and the possibility of interference with co-located
APs.   I'd be interested in any commentary.  We're currently a Cisco shop
(autonomous APs) and realize we're heading for a forklift wireless change in
the near future (most of our fat APs can't be converted to thin).  Even if
Meru violates the 802.11 standard (as claimed by Cisco), as we control the
airspace on campus, I guess we don't care if we cause interference issues
with devices (ie..rogues) that shouldn't be there in the first place. 

...comments anyone?...thx...J 



James Savage   York University   
Senior Communications Tech.   108 Steacie Building
[EMAIL PROTECTED]4700 Keele Street
ph: 416-736-2100 ext. 22605Toronto, Ontario
fax: 416-736-5701M3J 1P3, CANADA 


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