Philippe: Can you explain what you mean at the end of your email about power consumption? It's my understanding that the most power-hungry fat AP is Cisco's 1200 series with two radios (one b/g and the other a), that's in the 12-13 watt range, I believe, still under the 15.4 W maximum.
Frank -----Original Message----- From: Philippe Hanset [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 11:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Controller Architecture vs FAT APs A few facts "for" the fats: (BTW: those light-weights are as fat as heavy-weights!) -Even as the number grows, FATS are still cheaper (probably a matter of supply/demand issue) eg: Our Cisco rep told us that more than 80% of sales are still FAT APs) -Some vendor may lure you with cheap Lightweight APs but they get you on the controller pricing -All traffic goes to a controller: What happened when the load increases? (eg: 802.11n). Buy more controllers and build a cluster? -Those controllers are usually PCs, with all their weaknesses. -Proprietary: CBA solutions were not designed with Standard protocols in mind. You are locked in a solution until you infrastructure gets obsolete. What do you do with you infrastructure when Aruba/Trapeze/Meru goes belly up? (deep fry you lightweights) There is no doubt that eventually FATs will be limited by 802.3AF (power over ethernet) once they have to handle multiple 802.1x sessions over 802.11n, dealing with less than 15 Watts. (can you see two cat5 drops to each AP coming soon!) CBA solutions might be the future. Is now the right time? Philippe Hanset ********** 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/.
