|
2. Since thin APs should be cheaper than fat ones,
the exact ratio is going to depend on the number of APs deployed, declining
toward 1.0 as the network gets large enough. I'll assume you're referring
only to capital purchase cost here; we expect to achieve savings in
management/maintenance load on staff as well.
3.
d. Stolen thin APs are paperweights.
Stolen fat APs may yield passwords and/or encryption keys,
etc.
We've deployed ~10 hotspots using fat APs, and are
about to start rolling out a CBA solution across swaths of
campus.
David Gillett
I would be interested in other
opinions on the following analysis of this issue:
- Using AirWave’s AMP management
platform has almost eliminated the management advantage of the
controller-based architecture (CBA). AMP monitors, reports, and
updates Fat APs just fine. Also, some CBAs don’t yet have a single
management platform for multiple controllers.
- CBA is considerably more
expensive, in the 1.5 – 2.0 x range compared to Fat APs
- The other advantages of CBA boil
down to the following. If others I’d like to hear. And if these
are fictitious, also of interest:
- Roaming, theoretically across
an entire campus, without requiring a single vlan
- Significantly faster handoff
between APs due to 802.1x keys on the controller, important for voice
support.
- Automagic dense AP deployment
from radio feedback to and adjustments from controller (or Meru’s
approach).
Obviously I’m considering sticking
with Fat APs for another few years and allowing the CBA products to mature,
but I ain’t got no religion here, and would welcome success/horror
stories from large scale CBA deployments.
Tom Zeller
Indiana
University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
812-855-6214
**********
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/.
|
