I will second that emotion. Though we are a large Cisco controller-based environment, we run an extremely successful Meraki deployment in London: http://www.meraki.com/customers/higher-education/syracuse-university-london
and I also have a small Aerohive deployment in play. I would recommend that anyone give either solution as much consideration as any of the controller-based solutions, to include a legitimate trial. I'd also not get so hung up on white papers that tout AP performance and seriously consider whether the system management and vendor support mechanisms is effective for your own particular needs. -Lee Lee H. Badman Network Architect/Wireless TME ITS, Syracuse University 315.443.3003 ________________________________ From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [[email protected]] on behalf of Hall, Rand [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:10 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Distributed WiFi model - Thin vs Thick debate revisited Yes, I think there's a mistaken impression about the Aerohives and Merakis out there. Some of it is FUD from the big iron vendors. Some of it is old-timers like me questioning the over-hyped magic cloud. The stuff works. Anyone looking to move off their current solution should take a look. It's not perfect, but neither is the establishment. Rand P.S. A little de-FUD if you want it: http://www.meraki.com/trust/#oob Rand Rand P. Hall Director, Network Services askIT! Merrimack College 978-837-3532 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> If I had an hour to save the world, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute finding solutions. – Einstein On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Hurt,Trenton W. <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: With the aerohive solution this is done thru cooperative control amongst the aps that are RF neighbors with each other. Here is article that discusses the protocols that aerohive uses to accomplish this. http://blogs.aerohive.com/blog/wi-fi-that-wont-die/cooperative-control-part-3 From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Watters, John Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 11:55 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Distributed WiFi model - Thin vs Thick debate revisited What happens to client roaming, RF balancing, and channel selection without a controller-based architecture? If you use the Aruba Airwave AMP management platform, it should be able to keep your autonomous APs in sync. -jcw [cid:[email protected]] John Watters The University of Alabama Office of Information Technology 205-348-3992<tel:205-348-3992> ________________________________ From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Cappalli Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:50 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Distributed WiFi model - Thin vs Thick debate revisited What types of controller issues are you seeing that you hope to be fixed with a controller-less architecture? Tim Cappalli, Network Engineer LTS | Brandeis University x67149 | (617) 701-7149<tel:%28617%29%20701-7149> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Barros, Jacob <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello all. We are seriously considering replacing our Aruba infrastructure in favor of a distributed model. We are having controller issues this academic year and the appeal of a controller-less model is strong. It feels like I am coming full circle to where I was six years ago. Though I know its not exactly the same, I went back to the thin vs thick debates in the archives. A few things stood out to me as considerations: One concern was vendor longevity. Another was whether or not the thick AP model would be able to keep up with the controller based architecture. An advantage of the controller based architecture that stood out to me was central processing, specifically regarding key exchange. Are these points still valid concerns? If your administration asked you to consider a distributed architecture, what other (vendor-neutral) concerns would you have? Thanks, in advance, for your opinions! Jake Barros | Network Administrator | Office of Information Technology Grace College and Seminary | Winona Lake, IN | 574.372.5100 x6178<tel:574.372.5100%20x6178> ********** 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/. ********** 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/.
<<inline: image001.jpg>>
