Mike Tennefoss is a good contact.
Although I cannot comment on Aruba's support for Cisco wireless, I know that
Airwave is going through some major pains to add back functionality lost when
rearchitecting the product to eliminate Adobe Flash dependencies.
Anyway, FWIW, I am sure Aruba's support
Anyway, FWIW, I am sure Aruba's support for Cisco wireless is much better than
Cisco's support for Aruba wireless.
Lee gives this two big fat thumbs' up.
:)
From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
We're getting some evaluation Meraki APs shortly and I was wondering if anyone
had any information on how Meraki worked out for you; what trouble you ran into
(if any) or anything else you might want to share.
Thanks in advance,
Jeremy Hunt
Network Analyst
Lansing Community College
We're getting some evaluation Meraki APs shortly and I was wondering if anyone
had any information on how Meraki worked out for you; what trouble you ran into
(if any) or anything else you might want to share.
Thanks in advance,
Jeremy Hunt
Network Analyst
Lansing Community College
We have adopted Meraki as our branch solution of choice. We have sites that use
just Meraki APs, and others that use Meraki site-site VPN,LAN switches, and
APs. Generally quite content.
Be happy to do a call if you'd like (rather than type out paragraphs).
Lee Badman
Wireless/Network Architect
We use a handful of Meraki APs in two locations. They work very well. We
have had no major issues. The branch office scenario seems to be a popular
use case for them, but I would add them to a list of solutions to evaluate
for other purposes as well. You can call me if you would like.
Greg
Jeremy,
We've deployed 475+ APs over the last three years and been *very *happy
until recently. The lack of transparency is becoming problematic.
Non-firmware dependent (cloud) features often come and go without warning
or documentation. Firmware release notes are unavailable. We recently
blindly
We evaluated them a couple years ago during an RFP. I found that they worked
fairly well overall, but I believe there was some concerns about how they would
work with our registration system. I believe they were in the final running but
we went with another vendor.
--
Heath Barnhart
ITS
Marriott Hotel Services has come to a $600,000 agreement with the
Federal Communications Commission to settle allegations that the hotel
chain interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by
consumers in the conference facilities at a Nashville hotel in March 2013.
According to the
I don't think that there's a distinction about the location. My understanding
is that the issue was that Marriott was jamming the hotspots to force people to
pay for the hotel provided wireless network. I don't think that there would
have been a lawsuit if the hotel Wi-Fi was free.
Not so sure I agree- I know that Marriott's insane fees led to this, but the
FCC seems to be saying you can't touch people's Wi-Fi, period whether you
offer a free alternative or not seems irrelevant. But then again, it appears
that they issued a decision and were clueless about the fact that
My thought is that the FCC is simply trying to police the ISM band, as
outlined in FCC part 15 regulations
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d5df6d61f643786c6651653f0942fd73node=pt47.1.15rgn=div5
The 2.4GHz ISM band is free an open for everyone to use. If you
intentionally disrupt
IANAL, but it seems the FCC is trying to regulate the “communications.” Sending
a spoofed disassociate may not be jamming, but it is intentionally interrupting
valid communications. They may see making something unusable through whatever
means as equivalent to jamming.
Thomas Carter
Network
If you have a rogue AP on your campus, and you mitigate it by sending a
spoofed disassociate packet, well, are you jamming?
IANAL, but I pipe up anyway...
If this AP is connected to your (wired) network (i.e. extending it) or is
masquerading as a part of your network (advertising your SSID)
While I agree that this opens up a nasty precedent for commercial institutions,
I don't think it's a threat to colleges or universities. We ask our students to
sign a number of agreements when they matriculate, one of which has to do with
being a good net citizen (don't DDOS our servers or
. We ask our students to sign a number of agreements when they
matriculate, one of which has to do with being a good net citizen (don't
DDOS our servers or anyone else's, don't download protected content, etc).
They must agree not to use their own APs without the permission of IT*
I'm not sure
From paragraph 24 of the Consent Decree The Parties further agree that
this Consent Decree does not constitute either an adjudication on the
merits or a factual or legal finding or determination regarding any
compliance or noncompliance with the Communications Laws.
While we now know that the FCC
So isn’t the MiFi device essentially jamming your network and interrupting
valid communications if it overlaps a nearby channel?
Pete Morrissey
From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Carter
Sent: Monday,
So isn’t the MiFi device essentially jamming your network and interrupting
valid communications if it overlaps a nearby channel?
No. It's not your network, in the sense that the wired infrastructure you
built is. The wireless network uses a free to use, public, unlicensed RF
spectrum. Yes you
That’s my point. If it isn’t my network, then it isn’t the MiFi owner’s network
either.
Pete Morrissey
From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Tony Skalski
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:18 PM
To:
Along that line of thinking, they must be equals. So if you can send the
student deauths, legally, they can send your users deauths too (although
violating university policy they may be).
--
Hunter Fuller
Network Engineer
VBRH M-9B
+1 256 824 5331
Office of Information Technology
The University
21 matches
Mail list logo
