Joanie, Thank you very much for the last paragraph of this article pointing out that there are alternatives to placing controllers in every location. My company, Dimension Data, has deployed many large wireless LANs with centrally placed controllers managing many remote locations. This is especially true in K-12 public school systems. I don't think that Mr. Colakovic did as much research as he should have.
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
Joanie, Mr. Colakovic is
Joanie, Mr. Colakovic is also off the mark on the PoE requirements. Siemens has announced a dual-radio, 3x3 MIMO access point that requires no more than 802.3af PoE.
Also, Siemens' WLAN solution can be configured so that remote APs will continue to operate and provide service even if the connection to the central controller is interrupted.
In Reponse to: First Industrial's Design Decision
Dear Readers:
Before you are too hard on Mr. Colakovic at First Industrial, consider a couple of things. First, he researched his solution with a number of WLAN providers and resellers alike. At the time of his evaluation, there weren't as many flexible configuration options for branch offices as there are today. Most at the time required a local WLAN controller, although there were low-end ones available.
In terms of power for 11n, this is controversial. A number of WLAN vendors have said they can run two 11n radios (one in 2GHz, one in 5GHZ), fully optimized, which is true if they stick to the basic Atheros chipset reference design, which uses about 10 Watts of the 12.95W power budget. However, not all mfg's stick to the full reference design: for example, some don't use Atheros' optional network processor or Ethernet chip. Building one's own processor/Ethernet interface--presumably for product differentiation and benefit--could add power requirements, just as adding other fancy features, such as specialized routing or IDS security, could.
So, depending on the vendor's design, the offering may or may not fall within the power budget of today's 802.3af standards (12.95W sustainable across 100 meters). In addition, there are still pieces to be added to 802.11n - such as new QoS features - so the ultimate power requirements of a *STANDARD* 802.11n implementation are not yet fully known.
Watch for Wednesday's newsletter, which will describe some other options for branches, as well. As always, thanks for reading and commenting!
--Joanie
Joanie, pick up any copy of
Joanie, pick up any copy of the Atheros MB81 and MB82 data sheets and you'll see the required power is nowhere near 10 watts.
Dear Anonymous: The chipset
Dear Anonymous:
The chipset model numbers you mention are company-internal numbers. Externally/commercially, they are known as the AR5008 (launched in 2006) and the AR9001 family (launched last year; e.g., AR9160).
FYI, the 10-Watt power consumption number was told to me by Atheros CTO Bill McFarland on Feb. 12, 2008. He said the 11n chips mentioned use "around 10 WATTS for full-mode operation, dual concurrent configuration, with 2.4GHz and 5GHz simultaneously running."
Best, Joanie
Joanie, the model numbers I
Joanie, the model numbers I mentioned are for a complete mini-PCI radio card, not just the chip.
Atheros DVT (design verification testing) reports for those designs show average power consumption to be about 3 watts / reference design.
"...with 2.4GHz and 5GHz simultaneously running."
Sounds like Mr. McFarland was referring to a fully-functional access point, including uProcessor, RAM, etc. 10 watts for just the chips is not correct.
Hi Joanie - As someone that
Hi Joanie -
As someone that works for one of the two major wireless companies, the article's two title purposes (controller-less model and non-802.11n) aren't really news. Most companies are not deploying N today, although the interest has picked up. In fact, most companies aren't deploying controller-based AP networks today, so I don't think that this is some earth-shattering idea. Nor is a distributed architecture; as an example, one of our customer has APs in 2,200 retail stores, without any controllers on-site, and no 802.11n (nor plans to add).
Speaking frankly, reading the article seems very much like an (unintentional) advertisement for Aerohive. As someone that monitors the industry, I'm sure you've noticed lately the large PR push that AeroHive has been making. And with the recent PR-related problems with Meru (creating a false press release about a huge network that doesn't exist), it's critical that the media be accurate and balanced when discussing the industry. Some of the published statements by Colakovic are flat-out wrong, while others are gross exaggerations.
Thanks for your continued efforts at covering a fast-growing market.
The point of a case study is
The point of a case study is to provide a venue in which one enterprise shares ideas, strategies, thought processes and potential gotchas with their IT peers in other organizations who can benefit from hearing about their experiences. To say that any case study "reads like an advertisement" for a given vendor demonstrates a lack of understanding about how trade press journalism works.
Generally, a case study profiles a particular IT or network project, which often centers around a particular vendor. Similarly, I've written case studies about organizations using any number of vendors' products over the years--wireless and otherwise--as have most trade journalists. This one happened to be about an Aerohive installation.
As for the newsworthiness of articles, breaking news is not my primary function as a NWW contributor. My articles, including case studies (which I try to write 1-2x per month) have really just one criterion: That they are of potential interest/benefit to someone in an IT department. By no means am I required to write "earth-shattering" articles in every column, to use your words.
That said, in my view, amid all the hype about pre-11n and the past five years' of vendors hyping their controller-based architectures, it seemed "balanced" at this juncture to write a story about an IT shop that is holding out for 11n standards and choosing a newer architecture that bucks the controller-based trend. I give all the vendors I talk to ample opportunity to provide me with interesting case studies (just ask 'em). The fact that many have difficulty coming up with such reference customers is a sign that 1) they don't have such stories to tell and/or 2) customers are shy about getting badmouthed in commentary like yours. Can you blame them?
In that spirit, I'd appreciate your being more professional in the future when referring to the customers who have expended their time and energy to tell me their stories. Feel free to aim your salvos at me, but please don't accuse my interviewees of being wrong or exaggerating: they chose what they did after much investigation and with sound reasons. In this case, it was to save a boatload of money and avoid the effect of WAN outages on branch users.
The WLAN market is extremely cutthroat, and I have no problem with you taking me to task on any mistakes I might make, which I will correct quickly. But please allow NWW to exercise is own newsworthiness judgement and please don't use the commentary section of this newsletter to promote your own marketing agenda. That goes for others of you, too, and you know who you are. Oh, and please include your name and company on your commentary. This section isn't meant to be an avenue for "anonymous" Wi-Fi vendors to trash their competitors.
Thanks for reading and writing. --Joanie
It's all good! Network Neutrality
Keep it up Joanie. As Tiger Woods and Barack Obama say, "it is all good". You are giving a fair and balanced (FOX News -like coverage) to the WLAN industry. Some readers "player-hate" especially when it comes from them losig a sale or their stock underperforming.
Besides: I am vendor-neutrally certified through the CWNP program at Planet3.
Can you do an article on them some time?
Post new comment