By Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 07/20/2007 - 7:45pm.
Like so many compatibility scenarios from the past it doesn't surprise me that the fingers would point to Apple first when they should point to Cisco and their Edic of how networks should run.
By Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 11/28/2007 - 8:52pm.
Cisco has widespread issues with their microcell architechture Wireless Lan Gear. In typical Cisco fashion, what they sell and what their wireless LAN solutions deliver, even with the Controller based solution with the Aerospace acquisition is inferior in a pervasive environment. Cisco got into the wireless business via acquistion, and it's clearly not a best in class solution.
By Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 03/24/2008 - 9:31pm.
It's basically ridiculous to try to troubleshoot someone's network when you don't have the first clue what equipment they are even running, but if nothing else this announcement is interesting:
By Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 07/16/2007 - 5:36pm.
Great speed to market Apple! They might want to look at how their mobility groups are set up on the controller side. I thought the whole IPhone name disput between Cisco/Apple was supposed to result in better compatability testing, obviously that wasn't the case............
By Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 07/16/2007 - 10:02pm.
Why not set up a MAC ACL on the Cisco AP to drop packets from Apple's OUI? Nothing wrong with a policy that bans a particular vendor's devices from the WLAN if they're shown to be defective.
By Deepak Thomas (not verified) on Tue, 07/17/2007 - 10:25am.
Won't that block Apple Mac users as well? (I am obviously assuming that Apple is not using separate MAC address blocks with different OUIs for its Mac products and iPhones).
Maybe if they turned on
Maybe if they turned on Appletalk the problem would subside.....
Maybe time for Cisco to rethink their approach
Like so many compatibility scenarios from the past it doesn't surprise me that the fingers would point to Apple first when they should point to Cisco and their Edic of how networks should run.
Cisco Wireless
Cisco has widespread issues with their microcell architechture Wireless Lan Gear. In typical Cisco fashion, what they sell and what their wireless LAN solutions deliver, even with the Controller based solution with the Aerospace acquisition is inferior in a pervasive environment. Cisco got into the wireless business via acquistion, and it's clearly not a best in class solution.
totally agree with you!
totally agree with you!
I'm agree with you!
I'm agree with you!
Probably irrelevant but
It's basically ridiculous to try to troubleshoot someone's network when you don't have the first clue what equipment they are even running, but if nothing else this announcement is interesting:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20070724-arp.shtml
QA nah we don't need that..........
Great speed to market Apple! They might want to look at how their mobility groups are set up on the controller side. I thought the whole IPhone name disput between Cisco/Apple was supposed to result in better compatability testing, obviously that wasn't the case............
Why not set up a MAC ACL on
Why not set up a MAC ACL on the Cisco AP to drop packets from Apple's OUI? Nothing wrong with a policy that bans a particular vendor's devices from the WLAN if they're shown to be defective.
Won't that block Apple Mac
Won't that block Apple Mac users as well? (I am obviously assuming that Apple is not using separate MAC address blocks with different OUIs for its Mac products and iPhones).
Why is it assumed that Apple's at fault?
There's no other network reporting this. UNC down the road has no such problem.
I'm hearing that it may be Duke's too-flat network setup.
Post new comment