On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Jon Freeman wrote:
As higher level standards in 802.11 call for more AP control, this will
become more valuable in ensuring less co-channel interference across
heterogeneous environments. But, it will also mean less need for IT
intervention as the access device will make
Interesting TechWorld article on an aspect of 802.11n rollout that I hadn't
seen discussed before.
http://tinyurl.com/2ebpd4
Tom Zeller
Indiana University
**
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group
discussion list can be found at http
Remember, it's in Extricom's interest to demonstrate a scarcity of channels
(less channel choice = more co-channel interference) because they have a
coordinated RF approach.
While the second-generation of 802.11n draft 2.0 chips from Atheros deals
with some of DFS challenges, I was led
to the 802.3at standard and just not support as many
ports. The 5400 answer is that it will probably be a different module.
I haven't heard on the 3500.
I haven't heard a ratification date for the 802.3at standard, and I
heard that it was going to happen about the same time or after the
802.11n standard
On Nov 18, 2007, at 7:06 PM, Kevin Miller wrote:
One thing to note is that 300Mbps as a symbol rate is only possible
with 40MHz channels (versus the 20MHz standard width for 802.11a/b/
g) .. which in 2.4GHz takes you from 3 non-overlapping to 1 non-
overlapping. In 5GHz you have at least 8
heard on the 3500.
I haven't heard a ratification date for the 802.3at standard, and I
heard that it was going to happen about the same time or after the
802.11n standard. I haven't followed that one as close, last I saw they
hadn't decided on 33 or 48 watts of power per port.
-Original Message
. The 5400 answer is that it will probably be a different module.
I haven't heard on the 3500.
I haven't heard a ratification date for the 802.3at standard, and I
heard that it was going to happen about the same time or after the
802.11n standard. I haven't followed that one as close, last I saw
@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n tied to 802.3at
I heard from Cisco 2 days ago that the 3750E and the modules that will
power their 1252 will be availble around the end of Dec/Januarary time
frame. I'm trying to pry out of HP if the 5400's and 3500's will be
firmware upgradable
Following the trail of discussion about 802.11n,
I wouldn't be buying 802.11n before 802.3at (AKA Power over Ethernet PLUS)
gears are on the market. By then, 802.11n vendors
should have only one Ethernet port to the AP.
One port will bring savings on PoE injectors, Cabling, and even
switchports
Something that I think is worth noting.. desktop administrators have
asked us if they should be buying 802.11n client adapters. Our general
response has been 'yes', with the usual caveat about potential hardware
changes between now and final ratification. (In most cases I've seen the
'n
prove to be
David Gillett
-Original Message-
From: Dan McCarriar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:14 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n Draft 2.0
Lee,
As was noted by others earlier today, we recently
] 802.11n Draft 2.0
Dan,
I'd be interested in your experience integrating Xirrus with Aruba.
We're deploying Aruba now, but there are a couple of high-density
areas (not yet deployed) for which I've been thinking of Xirrus as
an informal Plan B in case it's needed. I haven't been sure how
: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n Draft 2.0
Hi Lee-
I would encourage an eyes-open, non-biased bake-off if you have no
wireless now. Regardless of what APs you settle on, scrutinize the
management component closely. You may end up with a whiz-bang WLAN, but
if you become a slave to the management tool, you'll
. Ah,
just found the old press release that seems to confirm:
URL:http://www.wi-fi.org/news/pressrelease-022503-80211gcertification/en
So in that regard, we may do better with 802.11n draft 2 hardware. But
it doesn't address what happens when draft 3 hardware arrives, or a
vendor drops support
You are correct that Cisco is shipping N now, but the 1250 AP's are
modular to accommodate any changes to the 802.11n draft that would
require a radio modification. There are 6 external antennas on the box
and they weigh about as much as a cinder block. They are not really
good for ceiling
Carnegie Mellon just went through an extensive N evalthey chose
Aruba.
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/071112/0324644.html
From: Lee Weers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:25 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n Draft 2.0
-LAN] 802.11n Draft 2.0
Michael:
I would argue that 802.11n APs don't require gigabit Ethernet ports, though
it would help with the occasional burst of traffic. Schools who can't
afford an edge switch and wireless upgrade in one year could easily get away
with doing 802.11n draft gear
We are currently rolling out Cisco a/b/g wireless and asked the vendor
about designing with 802.11n in mind. The overall response was that the
technology is too immature and any predictions would be highly
speculative. They also said that the consumer base would not be
populated with N - capable
with about 90% of it
being 10/100 switched. I'd like to know what other schools are doing
with 802.11n.
Thank you,
Lee Weers
Assistant Director for Network Services
Central College IT Services
(641) 628-7675
** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
Constituent
I don't see a finalization of 802.11n anytime soon. If I remember right
the original draft was supposed to be finalized by now, but then pushed
it back to Spring 08 then Oct 08 and now Mar 09. I wouldn't be suprised
to see it pushed back yet again. I was also concerned about not seeing
Good point, though those legacy client devices seem to stick around longer
than you think. In any case, shipping chipsets will be predominately
802.11n by 2009 and my guess is that the installed base of clients will
reach 50% that year.
I think Kevin's 5 to 8 years is much too conservative
Lee,
It's all about be willing to pay the price of being an early adopter!
Is it better to deploy an early 802.11n today and deal with the
consequences (two cat5, two 802.3af ports, I wonder if you can
etherchannel two 100 Mbps ports for each AP since you bring two cat5
anyway!)
or wait
.
From: Frank Bulk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:54 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n Draft 2.0
Good point, though those legacy client devices seem to stick around
longer than you think. In any case, shipping chipsets
Lee,
As was noted by others earlier today, we recently announced our new
Wireless Andrew 2.0 project, which will bring 802.11n to the campus
wireless network using equipment from Aruba and Xirrus. I'm happy to
answer any questions you might have.
-Dan
Dan McCarriar
Assistant
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:02 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n Draft 2.0
Lee,
I think you are right on. I think as long as your a/b/g network is working
well, the students aren't going to care about 11n. In my mind
For those organizations that are risk-averse and/or price conscious, the
best choice may be deploying 802.11b/g everywhere now (in positions where an
802.11n AP could be dropped in later) and then upgrading to 802.11n in 2-3
years. This best applies to those who have no wireless today.
If you're
: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n Draft 2.0
Lee,
As was noted by others earlier today, we recently announced our new
Wireless Andrew 2.0 project, which will bring 802.11n to the campus
wireless network using equipment from Aruba and Xirrus. I'm happy to
answer any questions you might have.
-Dan
-2666
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 06:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject:Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n Draft 2.0
For those organizations that are risk-averse and/or price
, 2007 8:16 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n Draft 2.0
We supplied wi-fi to Interop this year where 60% of all clients connecting
were 11a. We're seeing the same stats at the ITU in Geneva during the world
radio congress last month.
Del'Oro indicated
@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 802.11n Draft 2.0
Those are two events with rather technically savvy people who will set their
radios to prefer 802.11a. =)
So I would call 60% the high watermark. Most organizations will see less
than this.
Regards,
Frank
_
From
Tuesday to hear Craig Mathias give
an update on 802.11n. We hope you found it fascinating.
I¹m writing about three matters.
1. Recording of the Webcast is Available: The recording of the event is
now available for you to view and/or download at the following link:
www.airwave.com/docs
forward, wondering how (and if) members of this group are
contemplating the impact of 802.11n on your WLANs? I would wager many of
us have rogue pre-standard 802.11n hardware on campus now. Also, I have
heard some vendors poo-poo .11n as a non-starter for the enterprise, and
others promising
Here's my two cents...I think the WLAN infrastructure vendors will suggest
one or more of the following routes for customers wanting to upgrade to
802.11n:
a) re-rate their controllers to new 802.11b/g levels, suggesting that it can
handle 802.11n APs at the same quantities
b) add more controllers
Looking forward, wondering how (and if) members of this group are
contemplating the impact of 802.11n on your WLANs? I would wager many of
us have rogue pre-standard 802.11n hardware on campus now. Also, I have
heard some vendors poo-poo .11n as a non-starter for the enterprise, and
others
it is being looked at separately under
different cover and will hopefully be addressed by the time this becomes
a topic to really wrestle with.
Cheers,
-Simon
Lee Badman wrote:
Looking forward, wondering how (and if) members of this group are
contemplating the impact of 802.11n on your WLANs
101 - 135 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
