A while back, Meru did not yet have a central management console, but it was pending while we decided on which thin AP road to go down. Can anyone comment on how effective/buggy Meru's management platform is? Lee H. Badman Wireless/Network Engineer KC2IYK, CWNA/CWSP Information Technology and Services Syracuse University 315 443-3003 ________________________________
From: Winders, Timothy A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article We did just the same thing this year. We had a relatively small Cisco AP installation, with about 25 APs. We needed to go to full campus coverage would have to forklift the Cisco gear. We went with Meru and I've never looked back. Our wired gear is all Cisco, but we've been very pleased with the Meru wireless. I never used the Cisco wireless controllers, so I can't compare, but, the Meru gear is very easy to setup and deploy. We have a single SSID (WPA/TKIP) and clients connect to different VLANs based on their RADIUS authentication (authenticating against AD). The Network Computing article came out after we purchased our gear. It didn't bother me and in practice, I haven't experienced the claims Cisco made. We see rogues pop up on the network. We have the Meru rogue detection enabled, but mitigation disabled. So, when a rogue turns up, we track it down. It's usually a student in their dorm room who brought it with them, or wasn't able to authenticate to our wireless network, so installed their own router. In practice, these work (i.e. no interference from the Meru equipment) but we shut them down anyway and help the student get authenticated to our network. We do occasionally see legitimate rogues identified by the Meru equipment. This is usually a surrounding business. After the NC article came out, I did contact one of them to make sure they weren't experiencing any problems. Everything was fine. I expect that if we enabled rogue mitigation it would cause them troubles. :-) If we do decide to go that way, there is a way to exempt/authorize non-Meru APs so they don't get blasted. I have not tested this, so I would work with those local businesses to make sure we don't cause them any troubles. Tim Winders | Associate Dean of Information Technology | South Plains College From: Jamie Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco vs. Meru article Hi, The attached article was in the May 28th issue of Network Computing. Regarding Meru vs. Cisco and the possibility of interference with co-located APs. I'd be interested in any commentary. We're currently a Cisco shop (autonomous APs) and realize we're heading for a forklift wireless change in the near future (most of our fat APs can't be converted to thin). Even if Meru violates the 802.11 standard (as claimed by Cisco), as we control the airspace on campus, I guess we don't care if we cause interference issues with devices (ie..rogues) that shouldn't be there in the first place. ...........comments anyone?...........thx...............J James Savage York University Senior Communications Tech. 108 Steacie Building [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4700 Keele Street ph: 416-736-2100 ext. 22605 Toronto, Ontario fax: 416-736-5701 M3J 1P3, CANADA ********** 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/.
