RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco????
Now that would be interesting - different data rates and/or Radio Management support, per controller, based on an AP Grouping mechanism. The fatter these controllers get the more it has to be the procrustean bed for all sorts of wireless devices. Does any Thin AP vendor support this? Bruce T. Johnson | Network Engineer | Partners Healthcare Network Engineering | 617.726.9662 | Pager: 31633 | bjohns...@partners.org From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf of Lee H Badman Sent: Thu 1/29/2009 12:29 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco Hi Chris- Sorry to be late in responding to this one, but you've got me confused on #4. But let me also touch on the others... 1. I am not sure with Aruba, But Cisco deployment can account for more AP's, depending on which specification you survey against.. Lee- anyone's hardware set should show different results if you survey for 11g versus 11a, especially at 54 Mbps rates. But if you are capacity-driven (like in a dorm, for example) versus range, this becomes less of an issue. We tend to be so dense because of rapidly escalating wireless popularity that range (and by extension the number of APs) almost becomes meaningless in general. (This is not an invitation for vendors to call me- I know there is more to this topic). 2. Another thing to consider is the uplink trunked ports needed for both devices. For Instance, the Cisco Controller 4404 desires to have 4 of the ports port channeled to the core. The amount of trunked, Port channeled, ports is a consideration in both installations. Lee- there can be some interesting differences in oversubscription rates when you move from 11a/g to 11n, when the same number of APs at significant higher data rates and gig uplinks connect to the same old controllers. But the whole oversubscription discussion can be taken in a lot of directions, and proven/disproven in numerous ways- especially in the theoretical versus real-world. I find this to be a very interesting study when looking at what all vendors offer in controller uplink versus AP counts. 3. If you have any existing Standalone Wireless devices, these can cause Spanning-tree loops if close to the new access points due to the client connecting to both. Ciscos solution is to turn the power down on the standalone AP's so there is a gap between new and existing wireless. Lee- not sure why there should ever be a fat-AP cell adjacent to an LWAPP cell on the same network (other than for device management) with the same SSID- roaming would surely break, and seems like the potential for a lot of issues beyond spanning tree. 4. Cisco Controllers, although they are trying to fix this, have one power setting per controller. What this means is that if a building absorbs the radio waves more or less than the others, the controller sets the AP Power all the same. This will cause you to have gaps in your coverage. A survey might take this into account, but when the controller power setting is changed, it affects all the Access point that are controlled by it. Some buildings are like a sponge while others are not. Lee- I think you may be unique in experiencing this, or in being told this. The Cisco controllers do configure data rates controller wide (which I have been found to be limiting in certain cases), but not transmit power. See this graphic (actually two pics)- different APs, different power, same controller, multiple buildings: https://phsexchweb.partners.org/exchange/BJOHNSON5/Drafts/RE:%20%5BWIRELESS-LAN %5D%20Comments%20about%20Aruba%20and%20Cisco_x003F__x003F__x003F__x003F_.EML/1_m ultipart/image001.jpg https://phsexchweb.partners.org/exchange/BJOHNSON5/Drafts/RE:%20%5BWIRELESS-LAN %5D%20Comments%20about%20Aruba%20and%20Cisco_x003F__x003F__x003F__x003F_.EML/1_m ultipart/image002.jpg This of course, depends on the automatic stuff being enabled. Do you have any tech docs that describe RRM as you describe it? I'm not looking to prove you wrong, but your description is curious versus everything (I think) I know about this part of the system. Thanks- Lee H. Badman Wireless/Network Engineer Information Technology and Services Syracuse University 315 443-3003 From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher DeSmit Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:02 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco Ken, You might want to consider the management side of the project. With Cisco you can connect directly to the controller-WISM, but they recommend you use another product called WCS. Things to watch out for are in the following: 5. I am not sure with Aruba, But Cisco deployment can account for more AP's, depending on which specification you survey
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco????
If I understand you question, I feel it is addressed with the MERU system. They use TDM instead. Each need is handled via a time slice. Multiple needs, A, B/G, WPA, WPA2, WEP, etc etc will have its own time slice. Did I understand you question wrong? Thanks, Christopher DeSmit University of North Carolina Pembroke- Division of Information Technology Network Security Specialist 910-521-6260 chris.des...@uncp.edu -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Johnson, Bruce T Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:43 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco Now that would be interesting - different data rates and/or Radio Management support, per controller, based on an AP Grouping mechanism. The fatter these controllers get the more it has to be the procrustean bed for all sorts of wireless devices. Does any Thin AP vendor support this? Bruce T. Johnson | Network Engineer | Partners Healthcare Network Engineering | 617.726.9662 | Pager: 31633 | bjohns...@partners.org From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf of Lee H Badman Sent: Thu 1/29/2009 12:29 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco Hi Chris- Sorry to be late in responding to this one, but you've got me confused on #4. But let me also touch on the others... 1. I am not sure with Aruba, But Cisco deployment can account for more AP's, depending on which specification you survey against.. Lee- anyone's hardware set should show different results if you survey for 11g versus 11a, especially at 54 Mbps rates. But if you are capacity-driven (like in a dorm, for example) versus range, this becomes less of an issue. We tend to be so dense because of rapidly escalating wireless popularity that range (and by extension the number of APs) almost becomes meaningless in general. (This is not an invitation for vendors to call me- I know there is more to this topic). 2. Another thing to consider is the uplink trunked ports needed for both devices. For Instance, the Cisco Controller 4404 desires to have 4 of the ports port channeled to the core. The amount of trunked, Port channeled, ports is a consideration in both installations. Lee- there can be some interesting differences in oversubscription rates when you move from 11a/g to 11n, when the same number of APs at significant higher data rates and gig uplinks connect to the same old controllers. But the whole oversubscription discussion can be taken in a lot of directions, and proven/disproven in numerous ways- especially in the theoretical versus real-world. I find this to be a very interesting study when looking at what all vendors offer in controller uplink versus AP counts. 3. If you have any existing Standalone Wireless devices, these can cause Spanning-tree loops if close to the new access points due to the client connecting to both. Ciscos solution is to turn the power down on the standalone AP's so there is a gap between new and existing wireless. Lee- not sure why there should ever be a fat-AP cell adjacent to an LWAPP cell on the same network (other than for device management) with the same SSID- roaming would surely break, and seems like the potential for a lot of issues beyond spanning tree. 4. Cisco Controllers, although they are trying to fix this, have one power setting per controller. What this means is that if a building absorbs the radio waves more or less than the others, the controller sets the AP Power all the same. This will cause you to have gaps in your coverage. A survey might take this into account, but when the controller power setting is changed, it affects all the Access point that are controlled by it. Some buildings are like a sponge while others are not. Lee- I think you may be unique in experiencing this, or in being told this. The Cisco controllers do configure data rates controller wide (which I have been found to be limiting in certain cases), but not transmit power. See this graphic (actually two pics)- different APs, different power, same controller, multiple buildings: https://phsexchweb.partners.org/exchange/BJOHNSON5/Drafts/RE:%20%5BWIRELESS-LAN %5D%20Comments%20about%20Aruba%20and%20Cisco_x003F__x003F__x003F__x003F_.EML/1_m ultipart/image001.jpg https://phsexchweb.partners.org/exchange/BJOHNSON5/Drafts/RE:%20%5BWIRELESS-LAN %5D%20Comments%20about%20Aruba%20and%20Cisco_x003F__x003F__x003F__x003F_.EML/1_m ultipart/image002.jpg This of course, depends on the automatic stuff being enabled. Do you have any tech docs that describe RRM as you describe it? I'm not looking to prove you wrong, but your description is curious versus everything (I think) I know about this part of the system. Thanks- Lee H. Badman Wireless/Network Engineer Information Technology
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco????
Thanks Chris, Meru is a different beast somewhat, as it uses a more of a point coordination mechanism (TDM-like as you indicated), rather than the DCF function (everything's a station - STA - whether it be a client or an AP) of other 802.11 products. This is something akin to the Token Ring vs. Ethernet paradigms of times past. But in this case the air makes a better argument for deterministic control than the wire (the rise of switches have made this moot now). There was a brief time when the IEEE considered standardizing on something like Meru's approach(Hybrid Coordinated Channel Access or HCCA) for QoS, but it never took off (legacy wins again). The data rates I assume are still provisioned (the same) across all the APs, but the airtime controls are an overlay to this. Regards, Bruce T. Johnson | Network Engineer | Partners Healthcare Network Engineering | 617.726.9662 | Pager: 31633 | bjohns...@partners.org From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf of Christopher DeSmit Sent: Thu 1/29/2009 12:48 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco If I understand you question, I feel it is addressed with the MERU system. They use TDM instead. Each need is handled via a time slice. Multiple needs, A, B/G, WPA, WPA2, WEP, etc etc will have its own time slice. Did I understand you question wrong? Thanks, Christopher DeSmit University of North Carolina Pembroke- Division of Information Technology Network Security Specialist 910-521-6260 chris.des...@uncp.edu -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Johnson, Bruce T Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:43 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco Now that would be interesting - different data rates and/or Radio Management support, per controller, based on an AP Grouping mechanism. The fatter these controllers get the more it has to be the procrustean bed for all sorts of wireless devices. Does any Thin AP vendor support this? Bruce T. Johnson | Network Engineer | Partners Healthcare Network Engineering | 617.726.9662 | Pager: 31633 | bjohns...@partners.org From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf of Lee H Badman Sent: Thu 1/29/2009 12:29 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco Hi Chris- Sorry to be late in responding to this one, but you've got me confused on #4. But let me also touch on the others... 1. I am not sure with Aruba, But Cisco deployment can account for more AP's, depending on which specification you survey against.. Lee- anyone's hardware set should show different results if you survey for 11g versus 11a, especially at 54 Mbps rates. But if you are capacity-driven (like in a dorm, for example) versus range, this becomes less of an issue. We tend to be so dense because of rapidly escalating wireless popularity that range (and by extension the number of APs) almost becomes meaningless in general. (This is not an invitation for vendors to call me- I know there is more to this topic). 2. Another thing to consider is the uplink trunked ports needed for both devices. For Instance, the Cisco Controller 4404 desires to have 4 of the ports port channeled to the core. The amount of trunked, Port channeled, ports is a consideration in both installations. Lee- there can be some interesting differences in oversubscription rates when you move from 11a/g to 11n, when the same number of APs at significant higher data rates and gig uplinks connect to the same old controllers. But the whole oversubscription discussion can be taken in a lot of directions, and proven/disproven in numerous ways- especially in the theoretical versus real-world. I find this to be a very interesting study when looking at what all vendors offer in controller uplink versus AP counts. 3. If you have any existing Standalone Wireless devices, these can cause Spanning-tree loops if close to the new access points due to the client connecting to both. Ciscos solution is to turn the power down on the standalone AP's so there is a gap between new and existing wireless. Lee- not sure why there should ever be a fat-AP cell adjacent to an LWAPP cell on the same network (other than for device management) with the same SSID- roaming would surely break, and seems like the potential for a lot of issues beyond spanning tree. 4. Cisco Controllers, although they are trying to fix this, have one power setting per controller. What this means is that if a building absorbs the radio waves more or less than the others, the controller sets the AP Power all the same. This will cause you to have gaps in your coverage. A survey might take
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco????
Some tests we found worthwhile: -Check to see if multicast works like you expect. -Related to multicast and in general, check to see if fragmentation also leads to reordering of fragments and if your applications can live with this. -Test client throughput in various scenarios (Single client, multiple clients, multiple clients some of which are legacy, bonded N channels vs. unbonded, as many client cards as possible) and with varying number of TCP streams per client. In particular with 802.11n the throughput behavior between Aruba and Cisco was quite different depending on the number of concurrent streams a client was sending / receiving. -Test WPA2 authentication with whatever authentication backend you wish to use, including roaming between APs. Unless you get several controllers, you may not be able to see whether the hand-off between APs on different controllers introduces longer delays. -Run some customer support scenarios trying to find out whether a client is working right, seeing what might be the cause for bad performance, and look at logging of information within the various systems. -You didn't mention the scale of your deployment, but see what additional pieces you might need to go full-scale, such as how many APs/Controllers one WCS box can handle before you need several and Navigator. I'm not sure what the equivalent in Aruba parlance is. -You mentioned you're looking at the 1200 series (our new Ciscos are 1142s) but also look at mounting and physical security options as well as harmonious life with your Friendly Fire Marshall on your gear in regards to plenum issues. -If you are planning to use PoE gear in a mixed-vendor environment, test the behavior of that as well. You'd think this would be easy-peasy but we didn't find this to necessarily be the case. -If you're using rogue detection features, see whether the alerts are valid, and in a case of multiple rogues you'd like to contain whether you can correctly un-contain some or add new rogues to the containment list. -Test for controller failures and AP behavior -- also make sure to see what happens when the downed controller is brought back. -- Toivo Voll Network Administrator Information Technology Communications University of South Florida On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Johnson, Ken ken.john...@med.fsu.edu wrote: All, I am a member of an evaluation team at Florida State University considering Cisco and Aruba wireless products. We are focusing on LWAPs and controllers. For evaluation configuration and pricing purposes, we have requested from the companies information and pricing relating to configurations with 128 and 1200 APs. The Aruba LWAP is the AP125 while Cisco LWAP is the recently release 1142. The Aruba controller is the M3 while the Cisco product is the WiSM. There are other aspects, too. I know many of you have experience with Cisco and Aruba and have gone through similar experiences. I am interested in learning about any observations and experiences you have that we should consider in our efforts. Please send me your thoughts. Thanks. Ken ~~ Ken Johnson Director, Information Technology FSU College of Medicine 1115 Call Street Tallahassee, FL 32306-4300 e-mail: ken.john...@med.fsu.edu phone: 850.644.9396 cell: 850.443.7300 fax: 850.644.5584 Please note: Florida has very broad public records laws. Most written communications to or from state/university employees and students are public records and available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. ** 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] Comments about Aruba and Cisco????
Assuming that this will be a large scale deployment, make sure to actually use the management software during your evaluations. Cisco uses a WCS and Aruba has purchased the Airwave product. It's my opinion that with enough hard work any vendors can eventually provide a good wireless experience for the end users. With that said, our latest evaluations are also including the management platforms. We are hoping for a decent Administrative experience also. -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Toivo Voll Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:48 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco Some tests we found worthwhile: -Check to see if multicast works like you expect. -Related to multicast and in general, check to see if fragmentation also leads to reordering of fragments and if your applications can live with this. -Test client throughput in various scenarios (Single client, multiple clients, multiple clients some of which are legacy, bonded N channels vs. unbonded, as many client cards as possible) and with varying number of TCP streams per client. In particular with 802.11n the throughput behavior between Aruba and Cisco was quite different depending on the number of concurrent streams a client was sending / receiving. -Test WPA2 authentication with whatever authentication backend you wish to use, including roaming between APs. Unless you get several controllers, you may not be able to see whether the hand-off between APs on different controllers introduces longer delays. -Run some customer support scenarios trying to find out whether a client is working right, seeing what might be the cause for bad performance, and look at logging of information within the various systems. -You didn't mention the scale of your deployment, but see what additional pieces you might need to go full-scale, such as how many APs/Controllers one WCS box can handle before you need several and Navigator. I'm not sure what the equivalent in Aruba parlance is. -You mentioned you're looking at the 1200 series (our new Ciscos are 1142s) but also look at mounting and physical security options as well as harmonious life with your Friendly Fire Marshall on your gear in regards to plenum issues. -If you are planning to use PoE gear in a mixed-vendor environment, test the behavior of that as well. You'd think this would be easy-peasy but we didn't find this to necessarily be the case. -If you're using rogue detection features, see whether the alerts are valid, and in a case of multiple rogues you'd like to contain whether you can correctly un-contain some or add new rogues to the containment list. -Test for controller failures and AP behavior -- also make sure to see what happens when the downed controller is brought back. -- Toivo Voll Network Administrator Information Technology Communications University of South Florida On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Johnson, Ken ken.john...@med.fsu.edu wrote: All, I am a member of an evaluation team at Florida State University considering Cisco and Aruba wireless products. We are focusing on LWAPs and controllers. For evaluation configuration and pricing purposes, we have requested from the companies information and pricing relating to configurations with 128 and 1200 APs. The Aruba LWAP is the AP125 while Cisco LWAP is the recently release 1142. The Aruba controller is the M3 while the Cisco product is the WiSM. There are other aspects, too. I know many of you have experience with Cisco and Aruba and have gone through similar experiences. I am interested in learning about any observations and experiences you have that we should consider in our efforts. Please send me your thoughts. Thanks. Ken ~~ Ken Johnson Director, Information Technology FSU College of Medicine 1115 Call Street Tallahassee, FL 32306-4300 e-mail: ken.john...@med.fsu.edu phone: 850.644.9396 cell: 850.443.7300 fax: 850.644.5584 Please note: Florida has very broad public records laws. Most written communications to or from state/university employees and students are public records and available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. ** 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] Comments about Aruba and Cisco????
Also- look closely at what code versions are required to do the things you want to do. Wanna do 11n? What about mesh? For Cisco, both require newer code. And depending on who in Cisco you speak with, that same newer code should be avoided in many cases. Not sure if Aruba has these same nuances, but they need to be carefully ferreted out before you make plans. 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:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Brenner Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:16 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco Assuming that this will be a large scale deployment, make sure to actually use the management software during your evaluations. Cisco uses a WCS and Aruba has purchased the Airwave product. It's my opinion that with enough hard work any vendors can eventually provide a good wireless experience for the end users. With that said, our latest evaluations are also including the management platforms. We are hoping for a decent Administrative experience also. -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Toivo Voll Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:48 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco Some tests we found worthwhile: -Check to see if multicast works like you expect. -Related to multicast and in general, check to see if fragmentation also leads to reordering of fragments and if your applications can live with this. -Test client throughput in various scenarios (Single client, multiple clients, multiple clients some of which are legacy, bonded N channels vs. unbonded, as many client cards as possible) and with varying number of TCP streams per client. In particular with 802.11n the throughput behavior between Aruba and Cisco was quite different depending on the number of concurrent streams a client was sending / receiving. -Test WPA2 authentication with whatever authentication backend you wish to use, including roaming between APs. Unless you get several controllers, you may not be able to see whether the hand-off between APs on different controllers introduces longer delays. -Run some customer support scenarios trying to find out whether a client is working right, seeing what might be the cause for bad performance, and look at logging of information within the various systems. -You didn't mention the scale of your deployment, but see what additional pieces you might need to go full-scale, such as how many APs/Controllers one WCS box can handle before you need several and Navigator. I'm not sure what the equivalent in Aruba parlance is. -You mentioned you're looking at the 1200 series (our new Ciscos are 1142s) but also look at mounting and physical security options as well as harmonious life with your Friendly Fire Marshall on your gear in regards to plenum issues. -If you are planning to use PoE gear in a mixed-vendor environment, test the behavior of that as well. You'd think this would be easy-peasy but we didn't find this to necessarily be the case. -If you're using rogue detection features, see whether the alerts are valid, and in a case of multiple rogues you'd like to contain whether you can correctly un-contain some or add new rogues to the containment list. -Test for controller failures and AP behavior -- also make sure to see what happens when the downed controller is brought back. -- Toivo Voll Network Administrator Information Technology Communications University of South Florida On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Johnson, Ken ken.john...@med.fsu.edu wrote: All, I am a member of an evaluation team at Florida State University considering Cisco and Aruba wireless products. We are focusing on LWAPs and controllers. For evaluation configuration and pricing purposes, we have requested from the companies information and pricing relating to configurations with 128 and 1200 APs. The Aruba LWAP is the AP125 while Cisco LWAP is the recently release 1142. The Aruba controller is the M3 while the Cisco product is the WiSM. There are other aspects, too. I know many of you have experience with Cisco and Aruba and have gone through similar experiences. I am interested in learning about any observations and experiences you have that we should consider in our efforts. Please send me your thoughts. Thanks. Ken ~~ Ken Johnson Director, Information Technology FSU College of Medicine 1115 Call Street Tallahassee, FL 32306-4300 e-mail: ken.john...@med.fsu.edu phone: 850.644.9396 cell: 850.443.7300 fax: 850.644.5584 Please note: Florida has very broad public records laws. Most written communications to or from state/university
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco????
Ken, Factors that we have considered in our wireless vendor analysis and that are beyond the controller but can make a big difference in implementation and cost are: -Form factor of the AP (size of AP, brackets, cost of antennas..) -Power requirements for full 3X3 802.11n capacity (eg: can a off-the- shelve midspan support the AP or does it require a proprietary solution for full 802.11n capabilities) Other factors: -Yearly support cost -Bandwidth capacity of controllers when 802.11n is considered (10 GE capable...) -Power requirements of controllers (Green data centers) -Ease of Management and monitoring (can change your number of FTEs drastically) -Ease of configuration -How good is the self controlled radio management -What are the web-portal capabilities (visitor network etc) Regards, Philippe Hanset Univ. of TN On Jan 27, 2009, at 8:59 PM, Johnson, Ken wrote: All, I am a member of an evaluation team at Florida State University considering Cisco and Aruba wireless products. We are focusing on LWAPs and controllers. For evaluation configuration and pricing purposes, we have requested from the companies information and pricing relating to configurations with 128 and 1200 APs. The Aruba LWAP is the AP125 while Cisco LWAP is the recently release 1142. The Aruba controller is the M3 while the Cisco product is the WiSM. There are other aspects, too. I know many of you have experience with Cisco and Aruba and have gone through similar experiences. I am interested in learning about any observations and experiences you have that we should consider in our efforts. Please send me your thoughts. Thanks. Ken ~~ Ken Johnson Director, Information Technology FSU College of Medicine 1115 Call Street Tallahassee, FL 32306-4300 e-mail: ken.john...@med.fsu.edu phone: 850.644.9396 cell: 850.443.7300 fax: 850.644.5584 “Please note: Florida has very broad public records laws. Most written communications to or from state/university employees and students are public records and available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure.” ** 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] Comments about Aruba and Cisco????
To clarify #3 The issue with a PC is that when you are in between the coverage of a AP, a PC will register its MAC address with the AP. When a end switch sees that address of the PC in both locations, the switch starts logging errors and is looking for a spanning tree loop. Or in other words, the host will flap between trunked ports back to the core: Jan 28 10:29:46.957: %MAC_MOVE-SP-4-NOTIF: Host 0013.e83b.aca9 in vlan 70 is flapping between port Gi9/15 and port Po3 I had experienced this issue first hand and know that this can happen. This might not even be an issue if there is no existing AP's. I agree that a PC can only connect to one radio, but the MAC address can be present on both even if not connected. #4 I hope Cisco fixes this, they told me they were, but this is a common problem. They recommend that you bunch up buildings on the controller that act the same. If a building absorbs more of the radio freq, due to sand being in the cement block walls, or steel, or overhead lighting and etc... the same power setting for a building that doesn't will be used. I have seen both of these issues and this is to be considered with implementing any wireless solution. Thanks, Christopher DeSmit University of North Carolina Pembroke- Division of Information Technology Network Security Specialist 910-521-6260 chris.des...@uncp.edu From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher DeSmit Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:02 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco Ken, You might want to consider the management side of the project. With Cisco you can connect directly to the controller-WISM, but they recommend you use another product called WCS. Things to watch out for are in the following: 1. I am not sure with Aruba, But Cisco deployment can account for more AP's, depending on which specification you survey against.. 2. Another thing to consider is the uplink trunked ports needed for both devices. For Instance, the Cisco Controller 4404 desires to have 4 of the ports port channeled to the core. The amount of trunked, Port channeled, ports is a consideration in both installations. 3. If you have any existing Standalone Wireless devices, these can cause Spanning-tree loops if close to the new access points due to the client connecting to both. Ciscos solution is to turn the power down on the standalone AP's so there is a gap between new and existing wireless. 4. Cisco Controllers, although they are trying to fix this, have one power setting per controller. What this means is that if a building absorbs the radio waves more or less than the others, the controller sets the AP Power all the same. This will cause you to have gaps in your coverage. A survey might take this into account, but when the controller power setting is changed, it affects all the Access point that are controlled by it. Some buildings are like a sponge while others are not. I may not be totally accurate of all the statements above, but this is meant to spark some thought for you to consider... Good Luck! Thanks, Christopher DeSmit University of North Carolina Pembroke- Division of Information Technology Network Security Specialist 910-521-6260 chris.des...@uncp.edu From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Johnson, Ken Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:00 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco All, I am a member of an evaluation team at Florida State University considering Cisco and Aruba wireless products. We are focusing on LWAPs and controllers. For evaluation configuration and pricing purposes, we have requested from the companies information and pricing relating to configurations with 128 and 1200 APs. The Aruba LWAP is the AP125 while Cisco LWAP is the recently release 1142. The Aruba controller is the M3 while the Cisco product is the WiSM. There are other aspects, too. I know many of you have experience with Cisco and Aruba and have gone through similar experiences. I am interested in learning about any observations and experiences you have that we should consider in our efforts. Please send me your thoughts. Thanks. Ken ~~ Ken Johnson Director, Information Technology FSU College of Medicine 1115 Call Street Tallahassee, FL 32306-4300 e-mail: ken.john...@med.fsu.edumailto:ken.john...@med.fsu.edu phone: 850.644.9396 cell: 850.443.7300 fax: 850.644.5584 Please note: Florida has very broad public records laws. Most written communications to or from state/university employees and students are public records and available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. ** Participation
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco????
Chris, You have some good points here. You are incorrect on the power setting per controller comment. Cisco's Radio Resource Management (RRM or Auto-RF) can change the power differentially across APs, and APs can be selectively removed from global RRM control for power and channel changes, and individually assigned static power levels and channels. The Cisco WCS relies on AP Templates for individual AP configuration changes, including SSID restriction. I would like to see better AP-grouping features for provisioning changes to specific environments/areas, but right now the answer to this has been is buy another controller. AirWave uses a more container-based vs. template-based model which would seem to allow for better group-level control (and their reporting is a lot better). If you have sites with a lot of requirement diversity, you may want to consider the separate chassis models as opp. to WiSM blades. Cisco and Aruba have their own flavor of RF management (Aruba's is Adaptive Radio Management or ARM). To borrow Lee's phrase, there are nuances to each vendors execution of this feature, and it can make a great deal of difference to a great many clients. Take this feature with a large grain of salt (maybe with some lemon and tequila as well), as YMMV has never been more appropriate. Its each vendor to their own methods, as this is not yet standardized. Pay attention to what each vendor does to protect and optimize client performance (in particular, around Radio Management and QoS). Be advised that Cisco APs with detachable antennas (1230, 1240, 1250) enforce strict limits on transmit power in 5GHz (as low as 11dB on several channels), much more than what others do I believe. If you are trying to achieve equal size cells in 2.4 and 5GHz, this means higher gain antennas if you go with the detachable option. Bruce T. Johnson | Network Engineer | Partners Healthcare Network Engineering | 617.726.9662 | Pager: 31633 | bjohns...@partners.org From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv on behalf of Christopher DeSmit Sent: Wed 1/28/2009 10:02 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco Ken, You might want to consider the management side of the project. With Cisco you can connect directly to the controller-WISM, but they recommend you use another product called WCS. Things to watch out for are in the following: 1. I am not sure with Aruba, But Cisco deployment can account for more AP's, depending on which specification you survey against.. 2. Another thing to consider is the uplink trunked ports needed for both devices. For Instance, the Cisco Controller 4404 desires to have 4 of the ports port channeled to the core. The amount of trunked, Port channeled, ports is a consideration in both installations. 3. If you have any existing Standalone Wireless devices, these can cause Spanning-tree loops if close to the new access points due to the client connecting to both. Ciscos solution is to turn the power down on the standalone AP's so there is a gap between new and existing wireless. 4. Cisco Controllers, although they are trying to fix this, have one power setting per controller. What this means is that if a building absorbs the radio waves more or less than the others, the controller sets the AP Power all the same. This will cause you to have gaps in your coverage. A survey might take this into account, but when the controller power setting is changed, it affects all the Access point that are controlled by it. Some buildings are like a sponge while others are not. I may not be totally accurate of all the statements above, but this is meant to spark some thought for you to consider... Good Luck! Thanks, Christopher DeSmit University of North Carolina Pembroke- Division of Information Technology Network Security Specialist 910-521-6260 chris.des...@uncp.edu From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Johnson, Ken Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:00 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco All, I am a member of an evaluation team at Florida State University considering Cisco and Aruba wireless products. We are focusing on LWAPs and controllers. For evaluation configuration and pricing purposes, we have requested from the companies information and pricing relating to configurations with 128 and 1200 APs. The Aruba LWAP is the AP125 while Cisco LWAP is the recently release 1142. The Aruba controller is the M3 while the Cisco product is the WiSM. There are other aspects, too. I know many of you have experience with Cisco and Aruba and have gone through similar experiences. I am interested in learning about any observations and experiences you have that we should consider in our efforts. Please
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco????
The Aruba-owned Airwave AMP product has quite successfully managed my Cisco WiSM deployment. We actually have two of them, one for campus APs controllers and a second for ResNet APs and controllers. I also own a WCS with its Location Appliance. But, I have quit using the WCS -- it is much harder to use than the AMP and gives much less current and past information. You might consider separating the management aspect from the wireless hardware. -jcw - John Watters UA: OIT 205-348-3992 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Brenner Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:16 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco Assuming that this will be a large scale deployment, make sure to actually use the management software during your evaluations. Cisco uses a WCS and Aruba has purchased the Airwave product. It's my opinion that with enough hard work any vendors can eventually provide a good wireless experience for the end users. With that said, our latest evaluations are also including the management platforms. We are hoping for a decent Administrative experience also. -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Toivo Voll Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:48 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco Some tests we found worthwhile: -Check to see if multicast works like you expect. -Related to multicast and in general, check to see if fragmentation also leads to reordering of fragments and if your applications can live with this. -Test client throughput in various scenarios (Single client, multiple clients, multiple clients some of which are legacy, bonded N channels vs. unbonded, as many client cards as possible) and with varying number of TCP streams per client. In particular with 802.11n the throughput behavior between Aruba and Cisco was quite different depending on the number of concurrent streams a client was sending / receiving. -Test WPA2 authentication with whatever authentication backend you wish to use, including roaming between APs. Unless you get several controllers, you may not be able to see whether the hand-off between APs on different controllers introduces longer delays. -Run some customer support scenarios trying to find out whether a client is working right, seeing what might be the cause for bad performance, and look at logging of information within the various systems. -You didn't mention the scale of your deployment, but see what additional pieces you might need to go full-scale, such as how many APs/Controllers one WCS box can handle before you need several and Navigator. I'm not sure what the equivalent in Aruba parlance is. -You mentioned you're looking at the 1200 series (our new Ciscos are 1142s) but also look at mounting and physical security options as well as harmonious life with your Friendly Fire Marshall on your gear in regards to plenum issues. -If you are planning to use PoE gear in a mixed-vendor environment, test the behavior of that as well. You'd think this would be easy-peasy but we didn't find this to necessarily be the case. -If you're using rogue detection features, see whether the alerts are valid, and in a case of multiple rogues you'd like to contain whether you can correctly un-contain some or add new rogues to the containment list. -Test for controller failures and AP behavior -- also make sure to see what happens when the downed controller is brought back. -- Toivo Voll Network Administrator Information Technology Communications University of South Florida On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Johnson, Ken ken.john...@med.fsu.edu wrote: All, I am a member of an evaluation team at Florida State University considering Cisco and Aruba wireless products. We are focusing on LWAPs and controllers. For evaluation configuration and pricing purposes, we have requested from the companies information and pricing relating to configurations with 128 and 1200 APs. The Aruba LWAP is the AP125 while Cisco LWAP is the recently release 1142. The Aruba controller is the M3 while the Cisco product is the WiSM. There are other aspects, too. I know many of you have experience with Cisco and Aruba and have gone through similar experiences. I am interested in learning about any observations and experiences you have that we should consider in our efforts. Please send me your thoughts. Thanks. Ken ~~ Ken Johnson Director, Information Technology FSU College of Medicine 1115 Call Street Tallahassee, FL 32306-4300 e-mail: ken.john...@med.fsu.edu phone: 850.644.9396 cell: 850.443.7300 fax: 850.644.5584 Please note: Florida has very broad public records laws
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco????
(Aruba) Airwave is having a webinar in early FEB to introduce new features in their latest AMP release. This might be worth watching just to get a feel for how their interface looks and works. It manages the majority of fat APs, thin APs, and controllers. So far I have not seen a decrease in support for my Cisco gear since Aruba bought this company. I wish Cisco had taken my advice and bought it. I can send the registration URL (it appears to be open to customers and prospective customers), but didn't want to appear that I am making a sales pitch. If it doesn't run into the hundreds of requests, I wil send it along privately to those who ask. -jcw - John WattersUA: OIT 205-348-3992 _ From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Johnson, Ken Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:00 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco All, I am a member of an evaluation team at Florida State University considering Cisco and Aruba wireless products. We are focusing on LWAPs and controllers. For evaluation configuration and pricing purposes, we have requested from the companies information and pricing relating to configurations with 128 and 1200 APs. The Aruba LWAP is the AP125 while Cisco LWAP is the recently release 1142. The Aruba controller is the M3 while the Cisco product is the WiSM. There are other aspects, too. I know many of you have experience with Cisco and Aruba and have gone through similar experiences. I am interested in learning about any observations and experiences you have that we should consider in our efforts. Please send me your thoughts. Thanks. Ken ~~ Ken Johnson Director, Information Technology FSU College of Medicine 1115 Call Street Tallahassee, FL 32306-4300 e-mail: ken.john...@med.fsu.edu phone: 850.644.9396 cell: 850.443.7300 fax: 850.644.5584 Please note: Florida has very broad public records laws. Most written communications to or from state/university employees and students are public records and available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. ** 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] Comments about Aruba and Cisco????
Chris: Does this STP issue arise in a WiSM or fat AP configuration? Frank From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher DeSmit Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:01 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco To clarify #3 The issue with a PC is that when you are in between the coverage of a AP, a PC will register its MAC address with the AP. When a end switch sees that address of the PC in both locations, the switch starts logging errors and is looking for a spanning tree loop. Or in other words, the host will flap between trunked ports back to the core: Jan 28 10:29:46.957: %MAC_MOVE-SP-4-NOTIF: Host 0013.e83b.aca9 in vlan 70 is flapping between port Gi9/15 and port Po3 I had experienced this issue first hand and know that this can happen. This might not even be an issue if there is no existing AP's. I agree that a PC can only connect to one radio, but the MAC address can be present on both even if not connected. #4 I hope Cisco fixes this, they told me they were, but this is a common problem. They recommend that you bunch up buildings on the controller that act the same. If a building absorbs more of the radio freq, due to sand being in the cement block walls, or steel, or overhead lighting and etc. the same power setting for a building that doesn't will be used. I have seen both of these issues and this is to be considered with implementing any wireless solution. Thanks, Christopher DeSmit University of North Carolina Pembroke- Division of Information Technology Network Security Specialist 910-521-6260 chris.des...@uncp.edu From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher DeSmit Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:02 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco Ken, You might want to consider the management side of the project. With Cisco you can connect directly to the controller-WISM, but they recommend you use another product called WCS. Things to watch out for are in the following: 1. I am not sure with Aruba, But Cisco deployment can account for more AP's, depending on which specification you survey against.. 2. Another thing to consider is the uplink trunked ports needed for both devices. For Instance, the Cisco Controller 4404 desires to have 4 of the ports port channeled to the core. The amount of trunked, Port channeled, ports is a consideration in both installations. 3. If you have any existing Standalone Wireless devices, these can cause Spanning-tree loops if close to the new access points due to the client connecting to both. Ciscos solution is to turn the power down on the standalone AP's so there is a gap between new and existing wireless. 4. Cisco Controllers, although they are trying to fix this, have one power setting per controller. What this means is that if a building absorbs the radio waves more or less than the others, the controller sets the AP Power all the same. This will cause you to have gaps in your coverage. A survey might take this into account, but when the controller power setting is changed, it affects all the Access point that are controlled by it. Some buildings are like a sponge while others are not. I may not be totally accurate of all the statements above, but this is meant to spark some thought for you to consider. Good Luck! Thanks, Christopher DeSmit University of North Carolina Pembroke- Division of Information Technology Network Security Specialist 910-521-6260 chris.des...@uncp.edu From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Johnson, Ken Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:00 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco All, I am a member of an evaluation team at Florida State University considering Cisco and Aruba wireless products. We are focusing on LWAPs and controllers. For evaluation configuration and pricing purposes, we have requested from the companies information and pricing relating to configurations with 128 and 1200 APs. The Aruba LWAP is the AP125 while Cisco LWAP is the recently release 1142. The Aruba controller is the M3 while the Cisco product is the WiSM. There are other aspects, too. I know many of you have experience with Cisco and Aruba and have gone through similar experiences. I am interested in learning about any observations and experiences you have that we should consider in our efforts. Please send me your thoughts. Thanks. Ken ~~ Ken Johnson Director, Information Technology FSU College of Medicine 1115 Call Street Tallahassee, FL 32306-4300 e-mail: ken.john...@med.fsu.edu phone: 850.644.9396 cell
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco????
Well, that's no surprise...that's just the nature of L2 networks. If Cisco can be criticized, it's because they have centralized and Fat AP options. Frank -Original Message- From: Christopher DeSmit [mailto:chris.des...@uncp.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:39 PM To: frnk...@iname.com Subject: RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco WISM.. flapping between the controllers and the standalone AP-Autonomous From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk [frnk...@iname.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:56 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco Chris: Does this STP issue arise in a WiSM or fat AP configuration? Frank From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher DeSmit Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:01 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco To clarify #3 The issue with a PC is that when you are in between the coverage of a AP, a PC will register its MAC address with the AP. When a end switch sees that address of the PC in both locations, the switch starts logging errors and is looking for a spanning tree loop. Or in other words, the host will flap between trunked ports back to the core: Jan 28 10:29:46.957: %MAC_MOVE-SP-4-NOTIF: Host 0013.e83b.aca9 in vlan 70 is flapping between port Gi9/15 and port Po3 I had experienced this issue first hand and know that this can happen. This might not even be an issue if there is no existing AP's. I agree that a PC can only connect to one radio, but the MAC address can be present on both even if not connected. #4 I hope Cisco fixes this, they told me they were, but this is a common problem. They recommend that you bunch up buildings on the controller that act the same. If a building absorbs more of the radio freq, due to sand being in the cement block walls, or steel, or overhead lighting and etc. the same power setting for a building that doesn't will be used. I have seen both of these issues and this is to be considered with implementing any wireless solution. Thanks, Christopher DeSmit University of North Carolina Pembroke- Division of Information Technology Network Security Specialist 910-521-6260 chris.des...@uncp.edu From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher DeSmit Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:02 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco Ken, You might want to consider the management side of the project. With Cisco you can connect directly to the controller-WISM, but they recommend you use another product called WCS. Things to watch out for are in the following: 1. I am not sure with Aruba, But Cisco deployment can account for more AP's, depending on which specification you survey against.. 2. Another thing to consider is the uplink trunked ports needed for both devices. For Instance, the Cisco Controller 4404 desires to have 4 of the ports port channeled to the core. The amount of trunked, Port channeled, ports is a consideration in both installations. 3. If you have any existing Standalone Wireless devices, these can cause Spanning-tree loops if close to the new access points due to the client connecting to both. Ciscos solution is to turn the power down on the standalone AP's so there is a gap between new and existing wireless. 4. Cisco Controllers, although they are trying to fix this, have one power setting per controller. What this means is that if a building absorbs the radio waves more or less than the others, the controller sets the AP Power all the same. This will cause you to have gaps in your coverage. A survey might take this into account, but when the controller power setting is changed, it affects all the Access point that are controlled by it. Some buildings are like a sponge while others are not. I may not be totally accurate of all the statements above, but this is meant to spark some thought for you to consider. Good Luck! Thanks, Christopher DeSmit University of North Carolina Pembroke- Division of Information Technology Network Security Specialist 910-521-6260 chris.des...@uncp.edu From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Johnson, Ken Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:00 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco All, I am a member of an evaluation team at Florida State University considering Cisco and Aruba wireless products. We are focusing on LWAPs and controllers. For evaluation configuration and pricing purposes, we have requested from
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco????
Ken, As far as my experience with researching and evaluating wireless products (market share aside), you are considering the top two vendors. I am not going to vent on this forum so, please email me directly. r...@tamu.edu. I will get our engineers together to help you through your evaluations. What is the timeframe until your first production purchase? Rob Brenner Texas AM University _ From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:wireless-...@listserv.educause.edu] On Behalf Of Johnson, Ken Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:00 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Comments about Aruba and Cisco All, I am a member of an evaluation team at Florida State University considering Cisco and Aruba wireless products. We are focusing on LWAPs and controllers. For evaluation configuration and pricing purposes, we have requested from the companies information and pricing relating to configurations with 128 and 1200 APs. The Aruba LWAP is the AP125 while Cisco LWAP is the recently release 1142. The Aruba controller is the M3 while the Cisco product is the WiSM. There are other aspects, too. I know many of you have experience with Cisco and Aruba and have gone through similar experiences. I am interested in learning about any observations and experiences you have that we should consider in our efforts. Please send me your thoughts. Thanks. Ken ~~ Ken Johnson Director, Information Technology FSU College of Medicine 1115 Call Street Tallahassee, FL 32306-4300 e-mail: ken.john...@med.fsu.edu phone: 850.644.9396 cell: 850.443.7300 fax: 850.644.5584 Please note: Florida has very broad public records laws. Most written communications to or from state/university employees and students are public records and available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to public disclosure. ** 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/.
