nanog mailing list archives
RE: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk () iname com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 07:00:03 -0600
I would have disagree with your point on centralized AP controllers -- almost all the vendors have some form of high availability, and Trapeze's offering, new (and may not yet be G.A) purports to be almost entirely seamless in its load sharing and failover support. Now that dual-band radios in laptops are becoming more prevalent, it's possible to get 30 to 50% of your user population using 802.11a. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of Joel Jaeggli Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:51 PM To: Adrian Chadd Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:Speaking of all that, does someone have a "conference wireless' bcp handy? The sort that starts off with "dont deploy $50 unbranded taiwanese / linksys etc routers that fall over and die at more than 5 associations, place them so you dont get RF interference all over the place etc" before going on to more faqs like what to do so worms dont run riot? Comes in handy for that, as well as for public wifi access points.Everyone I speak to says something along the lines of "Why would I put that sort of stuff up? I want people to pay me for that kind of clue."
I did a presentation a couple of years ago at nanog on high-density conference style wireless deployments. It's in the proceedings from Scottsdale. Fundamentally the game hasn't changed that much since then: Newer hardware is a bit more robust. Centralized AP controllers are beguiling but have to be deployed with high availability in mind because putting all your eggs in a smaller number of baskets carriers some risk... If you can, deploy A to draw off some users from 2.4ghz. Design to keep the number of users per radio at 50 or less in the worst case. Instrument everything...
There are slides covering basic stuff and observations out there. (I'm going through a wireless deployment at an ISP conference next week; I'll draft up some notes on the nanog cluepon site.) Adrian
Current thread:
- RE: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs, (continued)
- RE: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Darden, Patrick S. (Nov 08)
- Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Jeff Kell (Nov 08)
- RE: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs David Schwartz (Nov 08)
- Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Deepak Jain (Nov 08)
- Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Joe Greco (Nov 08)
- Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Christopher Morrow (Nov 08)
- Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Lamar Owen (Nov 09)
- Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 09)
- Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Adrian Chadd (Nov 09)
- Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Joel Jaeggli (Nov 10)
- RE: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Frank Bulk (Nov 12)
- Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Randy Bush (Nov 12)
- Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Joel Jaeggli (Nov 12)
- Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Carl Karsten (Nov 12)
- RE: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs] Frank Bulk (Nov 13)
- Re: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs] Elmar K. Bins (Nov 13)
- RE: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs] Frank Bulk (Nov 13)
- Re: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs] Niels Bakker (Nov 13)
- RE: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs] Frank Bulk (Nov 13)
- Re: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs] Jeff Kell (Nov 13)
- Re: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs] Casey Callendrello (Nov 13)
- Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 09)
- RE: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs Darden, Patrick S. (Nov 08)