> And working with the likes of Cisco, Lucent etc. > pretty well guarantees failure. > > laters, > marlon
Marlon, I am afraid I have to disagree with you on this one. There are many massive deployments (hundreds of APs in one campus) around the world using both Aruba and Cisco as their 802.11 infrastructure. Neither of these are a best fit for most WISP type deployments but they most definitely are the best for very large campus type environments. I would estimate that over 75% of very large campus environements are successfully deploying secure, reliable and scalable 802.11 using Aruba and Cisco. I do not sell or own equipment from either of these vendors so please know my perspective here is based solely on what I have read from the accounts of many system administrators involved in campus deployments. I have built smaller campus deloyments using WISP based systems as you have descibed but if I had to a large scale campus deployment there is no doubt for me that Aruba or Cisco would be the platform of choice. Scriv > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rogelio" <scubac...@gmail.com> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 2:32 AM > Subject: [WISPA] planning 802.11 Wi-Fi for extremely dense areas > > > > Within the last few weeks, I have gotten several inquiries about setting > > up 802.11 wireless access services for thousands (1000-5000) of people > > in a conference sort of area (assuming 100% subscription rate, which I > > think is sort of unreasonable, but that's another story), and I have > > told them that based on what I know, the 802.11 protocol breaks at those > > numbers. > > > > Is there any 802.11-based solution that can handle this density? The > > only way I have seen people get around it (like at the Superbowl press > > areas with tons and tons of people) is to try to offload a significant > > number of users on Ruckus devices using cat5. > > > > Does anyone have any suggestions here? In these situations, I would > > just probably put in a ton of smaller access points and then turn the > > power WAY down and then plan some sort of non-overlapping channel plan > > with 802.11a and 802.11b/g. I have heard of other solutions (e.g. > > Proxim) having soft limits on numbers of associations one each AP so > > that they can, at least, guarantee good coverage with the few who are > > able to associate to that access point. > > > > Anyone have any other ways around this? Based on what I know, access > > points (fat or thin, regardless of the model) crap out at around... > > > > --about 250 MAC associations > > --about 50 client associations > > --about 25 hardcore user sessions > > > > Any and all advice on the topic is welcome (even if it is to just tell > > me I'm stupid for even considering talking to these customers!) > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
