Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement
On Wed Aug 26 2015 13:02:49 CDT, Hunter Fuller hf0...@uah.edu wrote: Of course I can't speak for everyone, and I don't know that I would lay out an SLA saying wireless will be up 99.999% of the time or anything, but it just doesn't seem as fragile as one might think initially. The next problem is uniformly defining uptime for an enterprise/campus-wide service. How does the failure of a single AP (or a single switch if you're talking wired networking) impact your uptime number? The issue is even more nebulous for wireless since I would bet in most cases if you have a single AP out in most of our buildings, there's still some residual connectivity available from other nearby APs. -- Julian Y. Koh Associate Director, Telecommunications and Network Services Northwestern University Information Technology (NUIT) 2001 Sheridan Road #G-166 Evanston, IL 60208 847-467-5780 NUIT Web Site: http://www.it.northwestern.edu/ PGP Public Key:http://bt.ittns.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement
If you're going to be really measuring yourself against an SLA, the only sane way I can see would be to do so with a metrics tool like 7Signals, Streetwise, or NetBeez. This would also force you to specify exactly *where* you're trying to offer a given SLA, allowing you to focus on critical areas like classrooms, while explicitly leaving unmonitored areas like parking lots at a best-effort only level. Once you have metrics being gathered via an objective tool, questions like one AP out of a group going offline don't matter nearly so much anymore. As long as you're hitting your metrics (able to connect, at least XX throughput, no more than YY jitter) you're good, regardless of individual component level status. Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.edu| For every problem, there is a solution that Manager of Network Operations | is simple, elegant, and wrong. Worcester Polytechnic Institute | - HL Mencken On 8/26/2015 2:14 PM, Julian Y Koh wrote: On Wed Aug 26 2015 13:02:49 CDT, Hunter Fuller hf0...@uah.edu wrote: Of course I can't speak for everyone, and I don't know that I would lay out an SLA saying wireless will be up 99.999% of the time or anything, but it just doesn't seem as fragile as one might think initially. The next problem is uniformly defining uptime for an enterprise/campus-wide service. How does the failure of a single AP (or a single switch if you're talking wired networking) impact your uptime number? The issue is even more nebulous for wireless since I would bet in most cases if you have a single AP out in most of our buildings, there's still some residual connectivity available from other nearby APs. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement
in residential areas, I could see potential problems with students' APs overrunning the institution's APs. But I haven't seen that level of disruption from the occasional rogue in an academic or administrative area. If we spec a room for putting 50 students in it, I feel pretty confident that we can shrug off a handful of rogue APs in that same space. We will take a small performance hit - but I haven't witnessed this causing an actual denial of service to any of our customers. Of course I can't speak for everyone, and I don't know that I would lay out an SLA saying wireless will be up 99.999% of the time or anything, but it just doesn't seem as fragile as one might think initially. Maybe it's 5GHz, maybe it's our more recent high density deployments, maybe it's Maybelline. I don't know. I do have a high level of confidence in it these days though, based upon what I see. -- Hunter Fuller Network Engineer VBRH M-9B +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Systems and Infrastructure I am part of the UAH Safe Zone LGBTQIA support network: http://www.uah.edu/student-affairs/safe-zone On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Thomas Carter tcar...@austincollege.edu wrote: I do not have the same confidence in wireless as I do wired. There is no control over the airwaves like there is over physical cabling, and some interference cannot be dealt with (like visitor's mobile hotspots). Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hunter Fuller Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 5:40 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Chuck Enfield chu...@psu.edu wrote: If so, why would we focus on saying, wireless might not work. It's not helpful to us or our users. A much more constructive approach would be to tell faculty to plan for when wireless doesn't work - to have a back-up plan for that iPad app, to download the PowerPoint presentation before class begins instead of during class, to plug into a wired connection if that's an option, etc.. The way I read this, it seems to imply a lack of confidence in the service. Since our wireless and wired infrastructures are separate to some degree, it's possible that a wireless connection would not work - but it's just as likely that a wired drop would not work, too. Therefore, I'd estimate that I am equally confident in both services. Maybe if it was phrased differently, like make sure to test wired and wireless ahead of time, in case one fails - but I see wireless and wired as equals. Just my two cents. ** 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] WiFi Service Level Agreement
I do not have the same confidence in wireless as I do wired. There is no control over the airwaves like there is over physical cabling, and some interference cannot be dealt with (like visitor's mobile hotspots). Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hunter Fuller Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 5:40 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Chuck Enfield chu...@psu.edu wrote: If so, why would we focus on saying, wireless might not work. It's not helpful to us or our users. A much more constructive approach would be to tell faculty to plan for when wireless doesn't work - to have a back-up plan for that iPad app, to download the PowerPoint presentation before class begins instead of during class, to plug into a wired connection if that's an option, etc.. The way I read this, it seems to imply a lack of confidence in the service. Since our wireless and wired infrastructures are separate to some degree, it's possible that a wireless connection would not work - but it's just as likely that a wired drop would not work, too. Therefore, I'd estimate that I am equally confident in both services. Maybe if it was phrased differently, like make sure to test wired and wireless ahead of time, in case one fails - but I see wireless and wired as equals. Just my two cents. ** 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] WiFi Service Level Agreement
Exactly. As much as we try, wireless cannot be promised or guaranteed the same level of service as wired. But as we've seen, people are often just as happy with a convenient service that works well 80% of the time, as an inconvenient (wired) service that works without issue almost 100% of the time. In the residence halls, where we have pervasive wireless, we have significant issues associated with rouge devices. We can do little to nothing except to locate and politely ask them to turn that off. On our wired network we have pretty much total control. So, just from an administrative point of view, we have little to no control over the medium for wireless, and almost total control on wired. Kinda makes it difficult to be able to say the services are the same, or that we can offer the same SLA. I guess you can say anything, but it doesn't make it true... Ryan H Turner Senior Network Engineer The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill CB 1150 Chapel Hill, NC 27599 +1 919 445 0113 Office +1 919 274 7926 Mobile -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Carter Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 10:19 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement I do not have the same confidence in wireless as I do wired. There is no control over the airwaves like there is over physical cabling, and some interference cannot be dealt with (like visitor's mobile hotspots). Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hunter Fuller Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 5:40 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Chuck Enfield chu...@psu.edu wrote: If so, why would we focus on saying, wireless might not work. It's not helpful to us or our users. A much more constructive approach would be to tell faculty to plan for when wireless doesn't work - to have a back-up plan for that iPad app, to download the PowerPoint presentation before class begins instead of during class, to plug into a wired connection if that's an option, etc.. The way I read this, it seems to imply a lack of confidence in the service. Since our wireless and wired infrastructures are separate to some degree, it's possible that a wireless connection would not work - but it's just as likely that a wired drop would not work, too. Therefore, I'd estimate that I am equally confident in both services. Maybe if it was phrased differently, like make sure to test wired and wireless ahead of time, in case one fails - but I see wireless and wired as equals. Just my two cents. ** 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] WiFi Service Level Agreement
You're point is well taken, but the logic is a little flawed. You're examining some of the factors which affect the marginal cost of providing a single connection. The proper thing to examine is the total cost of providing and supporting the two networks at different scales. Sometimes the two analyses yield the same results, but often they don't. I'm pretty sure this will be one of the times that they don't. You may still end up concluding it's better to keep the larger wireless LAN, but the cost difference between the two alternative wont be the same. Chuck -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Jeffrey D. Sessler Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 10:24 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement The other piece to consider here is the life-cycle of an AP against the life-cycle of a switched port. In most cases, an AP will be replaced at around the 5 year mark, mostly to advance to newer technology, but also because of more aggressive EOL on the vendor side. Contrast this with a switch, where you may get 10+ years out of them and vendors have very long EOL cycles. As an example, my cost for a gigabit port is about $92, and we've seen our switch life-cycle exceed 10 years. That's about $9 per year to connect a device. A high-end AP, including the back-end controller/management license is probably $1000, or about $200 per year with a 5-year life-cycle. Add in the cost for the port, and for your 5 desktops, you're at about $60 per device/per year. The AP comes out a bit less, but at what cost? If you do any sort of desktop management where you image systems and/or then push out applications, the speed over wireless will be significantly slower than wired. You're migrating the savings in delivering a device a network connection for lost productivity in other areas such as your system management area. Said another way, if my user support person spends two hours preparing a system that took only 15 mins on wired, all of the savings on the network side just evaporated. Jeff -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Osborne, Bruce W (Network Services) Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 5:03 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement A large cost of a wired connection is the actual switch port. When we reduced the wired connections in our dorms a few years ago, we pulled out $1 million worth of switches which have been redeployed elsewhere. Bruce Osborne Wireless Engineer IT Infrastructure Media Solutions (434) 592-4229 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY Training Champions for Christ since 1971 -Original Message- From: Hinson, Matthew P [mailto:matthew.hin...@vikings.berry.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:00 AM Subject: Re: WiFi Service Level Agreement Mike: It is true that a few quality APs and wireless adapters for the clients can replace wired ports most of the time. I've admin'ed a few sites where this was done, but if you've already got the Ethernet runs done, why work towards the reduction of bespoke ports? Or are you referring to only new construction or room repurposing? Chuck: It was just a brainstorming idea. I wasn't saying that this should be implemented as official policy. I view Wi-Fi as an extension of our wired network that has massive convenience and cost benefits, but at the end of the day, if given the option, I'll take an Ethernet connection 10 times out of 10. -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Mike Cunningham Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 9:43 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement We have just approved a campus strategic plan that calls for a reduction in wired outlets in favor of wireless. Mostly targeted at office desktops where usage is very predictable and not classrooms or other student spaces where it is not. Bandwidth use to our typical office desktop is very low and a cluster of 5-6 desktop users could easily share a single high bandwidth access point instead of 5-6 wired connections. -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chuck Enfield Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 9:22 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement Wi-Fi is not intended to replace the wired network, but is a convenient, supplemental method for accessing the campus network. Mission-critical applications should NOT rely upon Wi-Fi. While I think it's completely appropriate to recommend wired connections for certain functions, if anybody who worked
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement
We tried putting classroom computers on wireless, but ran into problems with waking computers. Our patch management procedures rely heavily on waking computers during a maintenance period at night, and we couldn't find a way to do that. For some, we went to wakeup times into BIOS. We had enough problems that we dropped the project. Has anything changed lately to make management of wireless computers easier? I have to say, though, that Wake On LAN is always reliable either. John -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Carter Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 10:19 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement I do not have the same confidence in wireless as I do wired. There is no control over the airwaves like there is over physical cabling, and some interference cannot be dealt with (like visitor's mobile hotspots). Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hunter Fuller Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 5:40 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Chuck Enfield chu...@psu.edu wrote: If so, why would we focus on saying, wireless might not work. It's not helpful to us or our users. A much more constructive approach would be to tell faculty to plan for when wireless doesn't work - to have a back-up plan for that iPad app, to download the PowerPoint presentation before class begins instead of during class, to plug into a wired connection if that's an option, etc.. The way I read this, it seems to imply a lack of confidence in the service. Since our wireless and wired infrastructures are separate to some degree, it's possible that a wireless connection would not work - but it's just as likely that a wired drop would not work, too. Therefore, I'd estimate that I am equally confident in both services. Maybe if it was phrased differently, like make sure to test wired and wireless ahead of time, in case one fails - but I see wireless and wired as equals. Just my two cents. ** 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] WiFi Service Level Agreement
While wireless classrooms may experience growing pains at the present time, I do not see how they won't progress as time marches on, as is the case with all computing. As is the case with decisions regarding other technical challenges, there will be a place for wired and a place for wireless. The case for wireless has been steadily growing for some time now, from a niche to a privilege to mission critical at times. I know some will always have an aversion to particular technologies, whether we're discussing wireless, or the cloud, or virtual servers, the list goes on. But to dismiss the idea of transitioning from wired to wireless due to past problems would be nearsighted, as those past and/or present obstacles will eventually be surmounted. Speaking on a much more specific level, we currently have a much higher than average number of computing classrooms per FTE at this institution than is the case nationwide. Mostly due to socio-economic factors, we have always provided an abundance of institutionally owned technology that is available for students to use while on campus. Of course, as is the case with all of you, the cost to support that infrastructure has grown over time, both in capital expenses as well as operational expenses. While we've done our best to minimize the OpEx aspect of it using whatever technology is available to manage everything at a macro level, there will always be issues that need resolving at the micro level. We have many new and remodeled classrooms now on wireless, and have run into many of the same issues that some of you have experienced. However, none of them have been deal breakers, and the experience gained thus far has given us the confidence to build upon this first foray into wireless classrooms in the future. Also, as previously mentioned, there will of course always be situations where wired is the correct choice. I do not endorse the idea to go wireless simply for wireless' sake. But the upside of choosing to do so when possible and it is the correct choice is clear, at least to our institution. The end users, both staff and students, have been very happy with the transition, and have mostly been very understanding when issues have arisen, as they are the ones looking to move us to wireless even more than we are. Lastly, one quick analogy that has always come to mind for those who suggest that wired just works while wireless is more complicated. That's mostly true. However, couldn't the same be said with just about any modern good versus an older version? Cars, televisions, cell phones, etc. Most of us appreciate the new features found in all of them that make the complication and possibility of experiencing an issue worthwhile, however, and would be unwilling to give them up for their older, simpler versions. That's my two cents on the matter, anyway. Patrick Mauretti Sr. Network Admin Massasoit Community College 1 Massasoit Blvd Brockton, MA 02302 508-588-9100 x1660 “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of John York Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 10:39 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement We tried putting classroom computers on wireless, but ran into problems with waking computers. Our patch management procedures rely heavily on waking computers during a maintenance period at night, and we couldn't find a way to do that. For some, we went to wakeup times into BIOS. We had enough problems that we dropped the project. Has anything changed lately to make management of wireless computers easier? I have to say, though, that Wake On LAN is always reliable either. John -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Carter Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 10:19 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement I do not have the same confidence in wireless as I do wired. There is no control over the airwaves like there is over physical cabling, and some interference cannot be dealt with (like visitor's mobile hotspots). Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hunter Fuller Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 5:40 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Chuck Enfield chu...@psu.edu wrote: If so, why would we focus on saying, wireless might not work. It's not helpful to us or our users. A much more constructive approach would be to tell faculty to plan for when
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement
I received a critique of my reply off-list that merits a reply, but I think it's worth responding to the group. I spoke too strongly without explanation. While my concerns go beyond this, my biggest problem with the statement I cited is that in most cases when I hear similar things from people in the Wi-Fi business they're using it as an excuse for not doing a better job with their service. That's the part I find dangerous. Before I knew what I was doing I used all these same excuses. Now I know that these obstacles are rarely an issue when the network is well designed an managed. Do they still pop up? Absolutely, but not enough to obsess over them. The sooner we acknowledge that Wi-Fi can succeed the better off we will be. Even if you disagree with my opinion above, there is still plenty of room for concern. For example, I see credit instruction as mission critical, and there's no way we can get away from Wi-Fi for credit instruction. There are too many useful apps that don't have an easy-to-use/affordable laptop alternative. If you're an independent trucker then your truck is mission-critical, but it's going to break down eventually. That's not a reason to start a different business. That fact that Wi-Fi doesn't always work as we would like doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. It means we must be prepared for it. The point of an SLA is to tell people what to expect. To the extent that statements about the challenges of wireless are used to set expectations, I think they can be very constructive. The only level-setting value I can identify in the suggestions below is that wireless might not work. If that's your SLA, then just say that and stop there. There's no reason to be so long-winded. I hope that at most of our institution's wireless networks work reliably in most covered areas most of the time for most users. If so, why would we focus on saying, wireless might not work. It's not helpful to us or our users. A much more constructive approach would be to tell faculty to plan for when wireless doesn't work - to have a back-up plan for that iPad app, to download the PowerPoint presentation before class begins instead of during class, to plug into a wired connection if that's an option, etc.. FWIW, I think the textbook network SLA language associated with service availability, equipment uptime, incident response times, etc., fall well short of the mark too. Those things are all relevant, but they don't do much more to set the user expectation than the suggestions below. I think a wireless SLA should include all those things as well as a description of the coverage area, the coverage standard, the protocols supported, any protocols explicitly prevented from working, etc., and there should be a user-facing document that explains the consequences of these technical parameters in language a typical user can understand. It's not easy and requires continuous updating, but if the goal is to set expectations I'm not sure how else to do it. Chuck -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chuck Enfield Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 9:22 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement Wi-Fi is not intended to replace the wired network, but is a convenient, supplemental method for accessing the campus network. Mission-critical applications should NOT rely upon Wi-Fi. While I think it's completely appropriate to recommend wired connections for certain functions, if anybody who worked for me suggested something this broad I would affect an extreme attitude adjustment. Chuck Enfield Manager, Wireless Systems Engineering Telecommunications Networking Services The Pennsylvania State University 110H, USB2, UP, PA 16802 ph: 814.863.8715 fx: 814.865.3988 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hinson, Matthew P Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 8:38 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement We looked into doing this for awhile but could never clearly define what acceptable quality of service is. 99.999% uptime in all areas? 99%? 90? 75? Here are a few excerpts of things we had in our draft that never went live. Wi-Fi is not intended to replace the wired network, but is a convenient, supplemental method for accessing the campus network. Mission-critical applications should NOT rely upon Wi-Fi. Due to the uniqueness of each wireless installation and the shared spectrum nature of current wireless technology, the theoretical maximum throughput will not be available everywhere coverage is provided. Further, the available bandwidth will depend directly on the number of Wi-Fi users and upon their respective bandwidth usage in any given coverage area. All 802.11
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Chuck Enfield chu...@psu.edu wrote: If so, why would we focus on saying, wireless might not work. It's not helpful to us or our users. A much more constructive approach would be to tell faculty to plan for when wireless doesn't work - to have a back-up plan for that iPad app, to download the PowerPoint presentation before class begins instead of during class, to plug into a wired connection if that's an option, etc.. The way I read this, it seems to imply a lack of confidence in the service. Since our wireless and wired infrastructures are separate to some degree, it's possible that a wireless connection would not work - but it's just as likely that a wired drop would not work, too. Therefore, I'd estimate that I am equally confident in both services. Maybe if it was phrased differently, like make sure to test wired and wireless ahead of time, in case one fails - but I see wireless and wired as equals. Just my two cents. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement
Wi-Fi is not intended to replace the wired network, but is a convenient, supplemental method for accessing the campus network. Mission-critical applications should NOT rely upon Wi-Fi. While I think it's completely appropriate to recommend wired connections for certain functions, if anybody who worked for me suggested something this broad I would affect an extreme attitude adjustment. Chuck Enfield Manager, Wireless Systems Engineering Telecommunications Networking Services The Pennsylvania State University 110H, USB2, UP, PA 16802 ph: 814.863.8715 fx: 814.865.3988 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hinson, Matthew P Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 8:38 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement We looked into doing this for awhile but could never clearly define what acceptable quality of service is. 99.999% uptime in all areas? 99%? 90? 75? Here are a few excerpts of things we had in our draft that never went live. Wi-Fi is not intended to replace the wired network, but is a convenient, supplemental method for accessing the campus network. Mission-critical applications should NOT rely upon Wi-Fi. Due to the uniqueness of each wireless installation and the shared spectrum nature of current wireless technology, the theoretical maximum throughput will not be available everywhere coverage is provided. Further, the available bandwidth will depend directly on the number of Wi-Fi users and upon their respective bandwidth usage in any given coverage area. All 802.11 technologies (a, b, g, n, and ac) utilize frequencies unlicensed by the FCC. Therefore, other devices utilizing wireless technology that are operating within the same frequency ranges may interfere with Wi-Fi. IT will try to solve any interference issues that arise, but IT may not be able to affect the removal of such interfering devices. Construction materials used in many buildings significantly impair the propagation of wireless radio signals. As such, not all devices will be able to consistently connect in all areas of the campus' buildings. Consistent coverage, especially for devices with small antennae (such as smartphones), cannot be guaranteed. While we never ended up making it live, I think it might get you started. :) -Matthew -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Mervyn Christoffels Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 1:45 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement Greetings Colleagues I have been tasked with the process of setting up a service level agreement for a wifi tender Has anyone developed a user experience sla for wifi ? Or a services description for the wifi solution Best regards, mervyn Mervyn Christoffels, Elec Eng (CPUT), MBA (UCT), Mcomm InfSYS (UCT) University of the Western Cape, Modderdam Road, Bellville, 7535, South Africa T +27 21 9592304 E mchristoff...@uwc.ac.za ** 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] WiFi Service Level Agreement
We looked into doing this for awhile but could never clearly define what acceptable quality of service is. 99.999% uptime in all areas? 99%? 90? 75? Here are a few excerpts of things we had in our draft that never went live. Wi-Fi is not intended to replace the wired network, but is a convenient, supplemental method for accessing the campus network. Mission-critical applications should NOT rely upon Wi-Fi. Due to the uniqueness of each wireless installation and the shared spectrum nature of current wireless technology, the theoretical maximum throughput will not be available everywhere coverage is provided. Further, the available bandwidth will depend directly on the number of Wi-Fi users and upon their respective bandwidth usage in any given coverage area. All 802.11 technologies (a, b, g, n, and ac) utilize frequencies unlicensed by the FCC. Therefore, other devices utilizing wireless technology that are operating within the same frequency ranges may interfere with Wi-Fi. IT will try to solve any interference issues that arise, but IT may not be able to affect the removal of such interfering devices. Construction materials used in many buildings significantly impair the propagation of wireless radio signals. As such, not all devices will be able to consistently connect in all areas of the campus' buildings. Consistent coverage, especially for devices with small antennae (such as smartphones), cannot be guaranteed. While we never ended up making it live, I think it might get you started. :) -Matthew -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Mervyn Christoffels Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 1:45 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] WiFi Service Level Agreement Greetings Colleagues I have been tasked with the process of setting up a service level agreement for a wifi tender Has anyone developed a user experience sla for wifi ? Or a services description for the wifi solution Best regards, mervyn Mervyn Christoffels, Elec Eng (CPUT), MBA (UCT), Mcomm InfSYS (UCT) University of the Western Cape, Modderdam Road, Bellville, 7535, South Africa T +27 21 9592304 E mchristoff...@uwc.ac.za ** 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/.
