We are in the process of re-cabling some of our CAT5 only buildings. We have decided to run two Cat6A cables for each AP. The cost of running an additional cable is negligible compared to the labor of replacing a bad cable later on.
-- Christina Klam Network Engineer Institute for Advanced Study Email: [email protected] Einstein Drive Telephone: 609-734-8154 Princeton, NJ 08540 Fax: 609-951-4418 On 03/24/2015 04:02 PM, Kevin McCormick wrote: > We have a big roll out of new .11ac APs this summer and we have > decided to run one CAT6a cable to the APs for future capacity. I > expect that 10G switches and APs will be common place before the next > refresh. I can understand running a second wire only if you are doing > a refresh and dual 2.5G was common place. Even then I would be running > a CAT6a as the second cable. > > Kevin McCormick > uTech Network Services > Western Illinois University > > On 3/24/2015 11:58 AM, Deshong, Kenneth wrote: >> With the advance in Cisco's new Multigigabit technology you can >> use existing CAT5e\CAT6 cables and run speeds 5GB/10GB respectively >> over copper. No need to run multiple cables to your Access Points. I >> saw a presentation by Cisco where the new 3850's coming out this year >> will already support this technology. I'm assuming their Wave 2 >> Access Points will also support this and you can effectively run >> 5gbps over your older CAT5e cables. While I do agree, 20-40 users on >> an access points doesn't make it necessary to run 10GB to that access >> point, I would rather have it and not need it. Any Cisco shops can >> attest, most of the time when they roll out a new AP/Switch, the >> price point is usually pretty close or the same as the older model so >> it only makes sense to roll out the new technology. >> >> http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/solutions/collateral/enterprise-networks/catalyst-multigigabit-switching/multigigabit-ethernet-technology.pdf >> >> >> >> >> Ken DeShong >> Network Engineer >> USF Health Information Systems >> Desk: 813-396-9472 >> Fax: 813-974-5198 >> >> >> Amazing Things Happen When You Connect the Unconnected >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of McClintic, >> Thomas >> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 11:45 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 1GBE as a bottleneck to APs? >> >> For now mgig doesn't seem necessary from a wireless perspective. I >> think new installations may justify multiple drops if you know >> funding for some areas comes and goes. Like a slow refresh on switch >> gear, but the ability to upgrade to full AC Aps. Mgig will most >> likely be driven from our research departments as they upgrade >> machines with newer NICs and expect to take advantage of it. We try >> to anticipate the needs and so far we see very little need for mgig >> on the wireless front. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chuck Enfield >> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:24 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 1GBE as a bottleneck to APs? >> >> I'd add to Frank's list: >> >> - Wave 2 won't increase spectral efficiency as much as initially >> projected. Expect 2x once most of the client radios are wave-2 11ac >> rather than the 4x that was being tossed around a year ago. >> >> - Most, if not all, ac client devices will be 2-stream. >> >> - There's insufficient spectrum available to leverage 80MHz channels. >> Even if more spectrum becomes available in the next couple years, it >> will be years after that before a large enough percentage of client >> devices support those new channels for them to be useful. >> >> Add all this up and it is likely to be at least 5 years before you >> achieve Gbit on the wire to 802.11ac APs, and it may never happen. >> If you agree with this assessment, then there's no reason to rush >> into proprietary multi-gig edge switching. It seems wise to wait for >> an IEEE standard. >> >> 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Frank Sweetser >> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 11:06 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] 1GBE as a bottleneck to APs? >> >> Personally, I'm not too worried about it. >> >> While naively adding up the wireless marketing sheets gets you to > >> 1Gb numbers, especially when treated with Wave 2 pixie dust, I think >> there are a few factors which make this a low concern. >> >> - The wireless numbers are half duplex, while that 1Gb wired >> connection is full duplex. This means that while your client >> bandwidth is probably going to be biased download more than upload, >> the upload and download packets that are bottlenecked through the >> common air time each have their own contention-free 1Gb channel once >> they hit the wired network. >> >> - Wireless throughput is *very* picky at top speeds. I've seen >> estimates that those magic wave 2 numbers won't be reachable more >> than a few meters away from the AP. >> >> - It only takes a few legacy clients hopping onto your nice new >> 11ac AP to drag you back down to a fraction of your peak throughput. >> Given how many budget laptops are being sold today with 2 stream, >> 2.4GHz only 11n adapters, this problem will be with us for a long time. >> >> Even if you do end up in a situation that legitimately needs over >> 1Gb, I'd be careful before relying on the LACP based solutions. >> Unless you're terminating your user sessions locally, all of the >> traffic will be going through an encapsulated tunnel between the AP >> and controller, which can easily end up hashing all of the traffic >> down one link. There are tricks to work around this (I believe Aruba >> opens up multiple tunnels with different endpoint IP addresses, for >> example), but this it's still an imperfect solution where 1 + 1 != 2. >> >> So my guess is that we have a few years before it's a major concern, >> and I'm waiting on a decent answer for 2.5Gb switching before I do >> any real investment in a solution. >> >> 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 3/24/2015 10:37 AM, Hinson, Matthew P wrote: >>> I've seen a few articles here and there regarding possible solutions >>> for "the gigabit bottleneck" as it pertains to .11ac access points. >>> Said solutions include Cisco's forthcoming protocols for 2.5G and 5G >>> over CAT5 cabling as well as LACP'ing two gigabit ports per switch and >> AP as some vendors suggest... >>> My question for the group is: Has anyone actually seen a throughput >>> issue using gigabit to the edge? Certainly your distribution layer >>> gear could be a limitation if it's not specced correctly, but I've >>> just never seen a situation where I've wished for more than 1000BASE-T >>> to an AP. Our fastest 802.11ac access points can "only" hit >>> 600-700mbit/s real TCP throughput, and that's in ideal, almost >> laboratory conditions. >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Thank you! >>> >>> Matthew Hinson >>> >>> Network Operations >>> >>> ********** Participation and subscription information for this >>> EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.educause.edu_groups_&d=AwICAg&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=rYfqH_8oTvcXxRxUI3x3m3Y7Nwgir7tnuoGbdZsrUM4&m=aRIFf4j3Cb26NCkqlVW7jldakPzvp05IpI7KziJvs4E&s=iLKMgMYWjCyXtI44NLuSMqZBHTcMBcJN4ChS3UWryVM&e= >>> . >>> >> ********** >> Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE >> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.educause.edu_groups_&d=AwICAg&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=rYfqH_8oTvcXxRxUI3x3m3Y7Nwgir7tnuoGbdZsrUM4&m=aRIFf4j3Cb26NCkqlVW7jldakPzvp05IpI7KziJvs4E&s=iLKMgMYWjCyXtI44NLuSMqZBHTcMBcJN4ChS3UWryVM&e= >> . >> >> ********** >> Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE >> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.educause.edu_groups_&d=AwICAg&c=6vgNTiRn9_pqCD9hKx9JgXN1VapJQ8JVoF8oWH1AgfQ&r=rYfqH_8oTvcXxRxUI3x3m3Y7Nwgir7tnuoGbdZsrUM4&m=aRIFf4j3Cb26NCkqlVW7jldakPzvp05IpI7KziJvs4E&s=iLKMgMYWjCyXtI44NLuSMqZBHTcMBcJN4ChS3UWryVM&e= >> . >> >> ********** >> 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/.
