Check out the antenna gain characteristics and transmit power of the Aruba AP using
802.11a (OFDM) against those specified for Cisco and Meru.
You will see the difference and reason why Aruba can win this round.
It's all in the math.
Latest wireless headlines from Network World:
Wireless LANs face huge scaling challenges
Sprint brings more partners aboard for WiMAX rollout
Sprint's WiMax service to include local features
|
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]
|
|
"almost-finalized standard" ???
Working Group approval is expected in July 2009 and final ratification is expected in Dec 2009. Is that your idea of "almost-finalized?"
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/Reports/802.11_Timelines.htm
Unbelievable
Why would anyone believe these results? Without anyone looking over Aruba's shoulders, they could have done any number of things to engineer the results. At least people like Tolly make sure there is no dishonesty and ensure reproducibility.
Come on, no one gets 3 Mbps. They clearly are doing something to the setup to produce those results, and I am not surprised that they maneuvered to put Meru as the worst, because they are clearly the most afraid of them. Did you see their other whitepaper trying to trash Meru's architecture? The effort is clearly unscientific, like a drug company making a new and expensive painkiller trying to show that aspirin is fatal by comparing aspirin with the infirmed to the new painkiller with the healthy. John Dunn has a follow up article with Meru refuting Aruba, but it is not on Network World yet.
And the Cisco results are just as ridiculous. Cisco is a part of the WiFi tests, and Aruba isn't, so there's no reason to believe that Cisco doesn't actually work better than Aruba. And Cisco has its CCX alliance, as well as a partnership with Intel.
There are client differences now but they will go away with better software tuning on the client and more appropriate TCP settings. It doesn't help anyone for Aruba to try to trump up their own tests.