A Tale of Two Cities: Educause Denver and Interop New York

It was the best of Wi-Fi, it was the worst of Wi-Fi, it was the age of access, it was the age of stagnation, it was the epoch of mobility, it was the epoch isolation, it was the season of enlightenment, it was the season of bewilderment, it was the spring of tranquility, it was the winter of frustration, we had everything that was promised, we had nothing but words, we were all going direct to the Internet, we were all going nowhere (and slowly at that) — in short, the Aruba 802.11n wireless LAN at Educause Denver delivered the goods, the Xirrus arrays at Interop New York....well, read on.

The Educause 802.11n Wi-Fi network ran flawlessly and was smokin’ hot: 800 simultaneous users, 50% 802.11n clients, 50Mpbs delivered in client speed tests.

If you want to know what happened in New York see Jim Frey’s Network World posting, "Internet = InterNOT @ Interop."

If it looks like a skeet, and it flies like a skeet, and its connectivity is comparable to a skeet, then treat it like a skeet.

The Shoe Drops: Brocade Dumps Single-Channel Architecture

Brocade yesterday announced that it will be reselling a new line of wireless LANs. Foundry (now part of Brocade) has been reselling wireless LANs for some time, so aside from a new OEM supplier where is the news?

Well, it turns out that Brocade didn't just select another vendor. It selected a completely different wireless LAN technology.

For roughly three years Foundry has been reselling Meru's proprietary single-channel / virtual-cell architecture. Meru has long made what we consider to be outrageous claims about its proprietary technology - airtime fairness, high throughput, fewer required access points, and so on. The Foundry team has had years of experience understanding the real strengths and weaknesses of Meru's single-channel networks, their 802.11n technology, their network management. They have deployed wireless LANs with virtual-cell technology across a range of customer types - education, healthcare, business. They, better than any single customer, knew the strengths and weaknesses of the vendor and the technology.

The upshot of yesterday’s news? Single-channel wireless LAN technology was rejected by the customer that knew it best.

Changing an OEM supplier is a decision that is never made lightly because it profoundly impacts the customer base and the company's reputation. Customers who invested in the single-channel / virtual-cell architecture are surely asking why Brocade abandoned a network that was supposed to be so innovative. What are the limitations and deficiencies that caused Brocade to change the underlying architecture as well as the vendor? The Brocade announcement is a watershed because it is a repudiation of the proprietary single-channel architecture. It also serves as a cautionary tale that vendor claims that sound too good to be true generally are.

The technology shift from single-channel to a new architecture will likely be very disruptive to Brocade’s customers. Brocade has already removed the Meru-based products from its Web site, and support-related issues will no doubt be unpleasant. But all is not lost.

Aruba wants Brocade’s wireless LAN customers as our customers, and we have a generous trade-in program to ease the pain of the transition to our award-winning adaptive 802.11n networks. Switching to Aruba will be a real step-up for those customers because we have field-proven adaptive wireless management, wireless infrastructure control, remote networking, wireless intrusion detection, policy-based firewalling, and client-to-core security that were never before available from Meru. Our AirWave Wireless Management Suite will manage their legacy Brocade/Meru network from the same console from which they will manage their brand spanking new Aruba wireless LAN.

The transition will be smooth and Brocade’s customers will be stepping up to a more secure, more stable platform from Aruba. And instead of a story line they'll be getting the real deal.

Wired Bondage

The corded desk phone is becoming a rarity in most households, having long since been replaced by the more convenient wireless phone. Wireless phones offer untethered mobility, allowing us to make and receive calls wherever it's most convenient to do so. And we're not sacrificing features in the pursuit of mobility. Wireless phones today offer far more calling, conferencing, called ID, and answering options than corded phones ever did.

And then there's the office phone. Like a throwback in time, when we enter the typical place of work we enter a world of wired bondage. Why is the corded desk phone still so prominent in offices?

Single mode and dual-mode Wi-Fi enabled phones are available, but the small handheld devices don't offer the same user experience as a desk phone. There's something just right about a desk phone's handset that makes it ideal for hands-free talking when a speakerphone just won't do.

Problem is that the desk phone just hasn't made the same strides as the wireless handset. Sure, we've added IP connectivity, fancy displays for Caller ID, phone books that simplify dialing, and even wireless headsets to bring us a small measure of mobility. But the modern desk phone still requires a wired Ethernet port, and typically a Power over Ethernet power source, too.

This megalith with a direct lineage extending back to the telegraph is the last hurdle to the introduction of a wireless network edge. Replace the wired desk phone with an enterprise-class Wi-Fi desk phone and you can eliminate a big chuck of the wiring and edge switching infrastructure, lowering costs and saving electricity to boot. You also gain the freedom to locate the phone where you want it, and to make adds, moves, and changes at minimal expense.

134 years after the creation of the phone gave us the freedom to speak with the world, it today shackles us in wired bondage. It tethers us to Ethernet ports, to expensive infrastructure, to yesterday's way of working. Let's look forward to the day when Wi-Fi desk phones set us free at last.

Who Moved My Packets, Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Cut The Cord

With the ratification of 802.11n just around the corner, it’s a good time to reexamine the fundamentals of Wi-Fi design and determine how this blazingly fast new technology will affect you. Who Moved My Packets is about the design considerations associated with 802.11n data, voice, and video applications.

Let’s start with a discussion about designing for coverage or capacity. For some wireless applications simple connectivity is the biggest issue with which users have to contend. Designing a network for coverage ensures that a Wi-Fi signal can be received at any location in which a Wi-Fi device is likely to be used. Connectivity is the primary objective - bit rate, packet throughout, multi-media support, quality of service, and even redundancy of coverage are secondary considerations.

Consider an indoor application in which Wi-Fi is used to communicate with a pool of bar code scanners for inventory management. The users are few in number, the amount of data transmitted is relatively small. Since the bit rate of an in-building Wi-Fi connection typically falls with distance and in the presence of interference sources, what started as a high speed connection near an access point could drop to 1Mpbs or less just a short distance away. However, even at that low throughput, a network designed for coverage should be sufficient for the application.

Any Wi-Fi network can be designed for coverage, and as a rule, designing for coverage requires far fewer access points. Just crank up the access point power to full, space the access points so that their coverage patterns overlap slightly, and the design part is done. Interference compensation, fair airtime availability, security, and network management are another matter entirely, but they’re outside the scope of this discussion.

A handful of Wi-Fi vendors have made an art of promoting their products as requiring fewer access points. Some Wi-Fi array (multiple access points in one box) and single channel vendors go so far as to tout their “unique” ability to deliver what no other Wi-Fi vendors can accomplish.

It’s all smoke and mirrors. Wi-Fi vendors all use Wi-Fi chip sets from a small pool of IC suppliers, and by regulation the power output of the radios is tightly controller by the government. The distance over which they can transmit, using comparable antennas, is the same. If you pull back the curtain, the secret of their claims is simply that they’re designing for coverage. Nothing more.

In fact, it’s really something less. Why? Because many users need a system that is designed for capacity. In a network designed for capacity, coverage is a given but bit rate, packet throughout, multi-media support, quality of service, and often fault-tolerance are primary considerations.

A capacity-based network requires that the vendor pay keen attention to internal architecture, algorithmic processing, and packet handling necessary to service deployments with a high capacity requirement: (1) large number of users; (2) users that are densely congregated; or (3) applications using voice or streaming video or business-critical telemetry data. Coverage alone is not sufficient for these scenarios – they require guaranteed bit rate, high packet throughout, and quality of service.

These scenarios are already the norm in education, healthcare, and government applications, and are fast becoming typical in enterprise, retail, and industrial deployments. With the migration of data, voice, and video applications to 802.11n from wired LANs, the need for capacity-based Wi-Fi will skyrocket. Users will expect wire-like performance with virtually unconstrained capacity on their shiny new 802.11n networks.

So the next time you’re given a pitch for a wireless LAN with one half, one quarter, one eighth the number of access points of an Aruba network, ask the vendor if they’re designing for coverage or capacity. And ask for test data to back it up. Doing so will avoid following Maj. T.J. 'King' Kong on a ride that is a mistake from the outset.

The Decline And Fall Of Ethernet (At The Edge)

The first quarter of 2009 witnessed the first ever decline in wired switch port sales, accompanied by sales of laptops exceeding those of desktop PCs. These events herald the advent of the always-connected mobile workforce. A workforce that expects network access to be available everywhere works transpires. An untethered workforce.

According to the PEW Internet & American Life Project, it is not unusual for Americans to use the Internet “constantly” at work. To do so effectively, Americans either need to be equipped with Ethernet extension cords or cut the cord entirely. Why? Because where once we worked at desks all day long, today roughly half of us spend at least 20 percent of our work time away from our primary workplace. That from Yankee Group's Anywhere Enterprise—Large: 2009 U.S. Transforming Infrastructure and Transforming Applications Survey.

We are transitioning into an increasingly mobile workforce. And to stay connected we are turning our backs on traditional wired Ethernet networks and looking to Wi-Fi. According to another Yankee Group report, Make Wireless the Burger of Enterprise LAN Access, Not the Fries, in 2006 about 43 percent of enterprises did not even offer Wi-Fi access. In 2009 that number dropped to just 11 percent. More telling, 45 percent of enterprises expect that by 2012 more than 50% of their work forces will be connected to an office Wi-Fi network.

The transition from wired to Wi-Fi did not come quickly or easily. Many generations of wireless pretenders have attempted to steal the edge access throne from Ethernet – starting with proprietary frequency hoppers and moving through three versions of 802.11 standards-based wireless.

In ascendance now is the real king – 802.11n. The first standards-based wireless to offer performance, security, and value that rivals or bests Ethernet. In difficult economic times, it’s value that sells, and for network access 802.11n wins hands down over wired networks except for a very limited number of power users.

The good news is that selecting an access method is not a binary choice. Users can mix Ethernet and 802.11n access, using the former only where necessary and the latter everywhere else. Indeed, Wave 1 of the Yankee Group survey revealed that forty percent of enterprises have no plans to deploy gigabit Ethernet to the desktop, preferring instead to move to 802.11n Wi-Fi. Following such a “rightsizing” process promises to deliver the greatest value and the lowest access cost per user, while offering a level of mobility a wired network can simply never match.

Just as the Roman Empire succumbed to invasions due to the loss of its greatness, so too is Ethernet edge access fading in the face of a more virtuous technology. So if you’re considering an office network refresh, or have a green field deployment, follow the tide. As Gibbons wrote, “the wind and the waves are always on the side of the ablest navigators.”

The End Of The Beginning: The Final Ratification Of The 802.11n Standard

The long-awaited ratification of the high-speed 802.11n standard is slated to happen in mid-September. And the ramifications are both large and small.

Large in the sense that many enterprises have held back from deploying 802.11n until the standard is formally ratified. The reason? Fear of incompatibility between products compliant with the Draft 2.0 pre-standard and those built to meet the final standard.

Small because Draft 2.0 802.11n was already the de facto standard. In order to ameliorate concerns about potential incompatibilities, the Wi-Fi Alliance last year stated that interoperability was a given between products adhering to the draft and final versions of the standard. The September 2009 ratification will simply render that pronouncement prescient, with the draft morphing into the de jure standard with no significant changes to mandatory specifications.

When implemented "correctly," 802.11n is the first wireless technology that not only gives Ethernet a run for its money, it wins the skirmish, battle, and war. I say correctly because there are wide variations among vendors in how 802.11n channels and bands are managed, the impact of legacy 802.11a/b/g clients, the performance of densely deployed clients, and how secure 802.11n networks can be made against attack.

Wire-like reliability, harmonious client interoperability, exceptional throughput, and military-grade security are all possible – but none is assured. Not without additional engineering built on top of the 802.11n standard.

So to paraphrase Churchill, with the ratification of the 802.11n standard we’ve at last reached the end of the beginning. With the standard in place the impetus will now be on end users to validate vendors’ claims about reliability, interoperability, performance, and security. Conduct bake-offs, put equipment through its paces, ensure the veracity of claimed features and benefits. The results will open your eyes to the realization that the ratification of a standard is just the beginning of the real work.

If you’re interested in learning more about how Aruba is making 802.1n realize its full potential, please see the white paper ARM Yourself to Increase Enterprise WLAN Data Capacity (http://bit.ly/wFj9n) and the technical brief 802.11n Client Throughput Performance (http://bit.ly/bMvT).

Companies That Can't Innovate Replicate...Or Just Whine

A funny thing happened while Aruba was on the way to market with its innovative Virtual Branch Network (VBN) solution and "network rightsizing" initiative - Cisco got hot and bothered.

Just after the VBN solution received the 2009 Best of Interop Las Vegas Award in the Wireless & Mobility category (http://bit.ly/aUocV), Joel Conover, senior manager, network systems at Cisco called the new 600 Series Branch Office Controller "a travesty" (http://bit.ly/KOmNv). He then claimed that Cisco offered the same capabilities with a new product...but only when used behind an expensive Cisco 800 Series ISR Router. Why does Cisco need an expensive WAN router when Aruba VBN does not, even for the entry level $99 list RAP-2?

Aruba's rightsizing initiative promotes the use of Wi-Fi everywhere it can be used, wired networks only where they must be used. Rightsizing is a three step process whereby users assess current wired LAN utilization using a tool like StatSeeker (on average 30-40% of wired ports aren't used at all), consolidate switches and scale service plans/cooling/power consumption to match, and then invest the savings in upgrading the Wi-Fi network to 802.11n. Simple and logical, right? If you can save money you should. If your network is already rightsizied then the most you've invested is some time verifying that's the case.

Customer reaction to rightsizing has been nothing short of amazing. The California State University System identified $30M of savings by shifting from wired networks to Wi-Fi (http://bit.ly/uvjbu).

Cisco, however, had a different reaction.When John Cox published an article in Network World titled "Is it time to cut the Ethernet access cable?" (http://bit.ly/3cG4t) in which he noted that pervasive WLANs leave costly wired ports idle, Cisco flipped. Chris Kozup, ironically titled senior manager for mobility solutions at Cisco, maintained that an Ethernet cable is exactly what everyone needs. Aruba's right-sizing is a "shortsighted message from a wireless-only provider. It's penny-wise and pound-foolish." Using Wi-Fi as the primary form of network access is inflexible and the benefits exaggerated, he said.

And yet....Cisco itself released a report stating that its own employees average 90 minutes per day of additional productive time using Wi-Fi (http://bit.ly/UNHQd). So why is Cisco so aggressively pushing wired LANs on customers?

The answer to both questions can be found in Cisco's business model, which depends on profits generated from selling overpriced wired routers and wired ports. The big R&D bucks go to the wired side of the house, which is perhaps one reason why Cisco's lackluster wireless LANs are missing innovative features like application awareness and adaptive response to changes in local RF conditions.

Cisco's focus on wired LANs and lack of wireless innovation has resulted in two consistent forms of behavior: attempts to replicate features found in Aruba's innovative products (Cisco's new band steering feature and the changes in their newest network management console appear to be almost exact replicas of Aruba features); and whining, as exemplified in the articles above.

If you want real innovation, look to companies that identify problems and deliver creative solutions. Replicators and whiners need not apply.

802.11n Performance: Radios vs. Streams

Many organizations pride themselves on being at the cutting edge of technological innovation, the first to deploy a vendors newest innovation. Indeed, >50% of organizations surveyed will evaluate other wireless vendors’ products within the next 12-18 months. Being the first to catch the hottest new innovation carries with it the risk of being burned, and a little due diligence can go a long way in making sure that a buying decision is prudent.

Take for example the matter of 802.11n performance. 802.11n performance is based in part on both the number of radio chains and the number of spatial streams. The two are often confused...at the buyers peril. The number of radio chains corresponds with the number of transmitters or receivers, and is typically denoted as “m x n” where m is the number of transmitters, and n the number of receivers. m x n need not necessarily be symmetrical, and some 802.11n access point can dynamically adjust the numbers, e.g., a 3x3 radio can operate in 3x3, 2x3 or 1x3 mode depending on configuration, mode and power profile.

While multiple transmitter and receiver chains can be used to improve the signal quality, the big increases in data rates associated with multiple input-multiple output (MIMO) access points are more dependent on the number of spatial streams. Using 1 stream, the maximum 802.11n data rate per radio, assuming 40MHz bandwidth, is 150Mbps. Using 2 streams that number doubles to 300Mbps, and so on. The number of spatial streams is typically denoted by S in “n x m : S.” There are as yet no 3 stream access points on the market, though several access points have 3 receiver and/or transmitter chains.

By way of example, Aruba's AP-124 and AP-125 Access Points are 3x3:2 devices. In contrast, Cisco's 1140 and 1250 series access points have a dual transmitter, triple receiver design and are 2x3:2 devices. If you're looking for the best performance, Aruba's 3x3:2 access points are your best bet.

Saving Energy and Money By Extending the Battery Life of Mobile Devices

The battery life of Wi-Fi capable mobile devices can be extended by enabling the Wi-Fi radio to enter a low-power “sleep” mode during period when the device neither needs to transmit or receive data. The longer the sleep time, the lower the battery drain. The difficulty is ensuring that sleep mode does not interfere with network performance, i.e., the device can wake-up in a timely manner.

Mobile device drivers and radio firmware employ a variety of pre-set times and trigger events to optimize entry into, and termination of, sleep time. The techniques employed typically vary by device and applications. For example, scanners typically have longer pre-set sleep times than laptops because the latter is assumed to have greater access to a recharger. The IEEE 802.11 standard includes a mandatory power save polling (PSP) feature whereby the Wi-Fi access point with which the device is associated must buffer data for that device while it is sleeping. Once the device awakens, the buffered data are delivered.

Following the transaction the device can return to the sleep mode if no additional data are to be sent or received. The PSP mechanism includes additional provisions that enable the access point to override sleep times and force the device to wake up at shorter intervals (called DTIM interval) even if there is no traffic to send or receive.

Battery life can be compromised as a result of two primary issues. Network performance problems, such as the failure to respond to ARP requests within the allocated time, or insufficient buffer storage within an access point, can reduce the DTIM interval and cause a mobile device to wake-up more often than necessary.

Additionally, broadcast and multicast Wi-Fi traffic chatter can prevent a mobile device from entering sleep mode, keeping it awake to check lest any of the chatter include packets intended for the device. In both scenarios battery life is compromised because the sleep mode cannot be utilized as intended.

To address these issues some vendors have implemented proprietary power-saving solutions that require software clients (Cisco CCX) or firmware hooks (Symbol). There are two fundamental issues with these approaches: they limit the range of available devices by locking customers into using only devices embedded with the proprietary technology; they require that the customer implement strict revision control over the client software and firmware to avoid incompatibilities or performance differences that exist between revisions.

Aruba has taken a standards-based approach to extending battery life by using infrastructure controls to manage off-the-shelf mobile devices without recourse to proprietary software or firmware. Three standards-based infrastructure controls are leveraged to equal or exceed the battery life achievable with proprietary solutions:

• Proxy-ARP: Mobility Controllers answer all ARP requests for devices with their radios in sleep mode, permitting longer DTIM intervals than could be supported if access points alone managed these requests;

• Long DTIMs: Long DTIM intervals are enabled by a battery boost feature, set by SSID, that permits the conversion of multicast / broadcast frames to unicast frames without having to buffer every DTIM period. Client devices can define their own DTIM periods thereby extending battery life without negatively affecting network performance;

• Multicast suppression: Mobility Controllers employ real-time packet inspection to identify and block network chatter (multicast traffic) that would negatively affect mobile devices. As a result, mobile devices able to remain in sleep mode longer and conserve additional power.

This three-pronged approach to power saving allows for longer sleep times on mobile devices such as scanners and voice handsets. Longer operating service from a single charge can have significant logistics and cost benefits, requiring fewer mobile devices, battery packs, and /or charging stations. Additionally, battery service life will be extended since service time is inversely related to the number of charge cycles.

Aruba’s standards-based approach also frees customers to use any Wi-Fi certified mobile device on the market, with the assurance that its battery life will be maximized regardless of make, model, form-factor or application. Eliminating sole-sourced products in favor of a procurement process based on price and/or performance can yield significant cost savings.

You Get What You Pay For: Meru Pays Novarum For Performance Not Seen By Customers

Novarum recently published a test report claiming that Meru Networks’ 802.11n wireless LAN delivers higher throughput, better power efficiency, and superior airtime fairness than either Aruba or Cisco. The report is available from Novarum's Web site.

At a high level – setting aside all technical details – the report’s findings are at odds with the experience of many prospects and installed-base customers. Meru deployments have been removed from, or Meru lost head-to-head technical evaluations (“bake-offs”) at, the following schools among many others:

• University of Tennessee – replacement and bakeoff
• C-2 Raytown School District - replacement
• Norwood School - replacement
• Francis Xavier Warde School - replacement
• Drexel - bakeoff

The EDUCAUSE Board (http://ised-l.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html) has been rife with postings about issues with Meru’s 802.11n network. See for example the posting from Jomar McDonald, Director of Technology, The Frances Xavier Warde School.

Recent press articles have explored the reasons why customers are replacing Meru networks with Aruba adaptive 802.11n networks. One such case is Mike Morisy’s Search Networking article, “From Cisco to Meru to Aruba, school finally finds right WLAN” (http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid7_gci1352631,00.html#).

No one can dispute that performance differences exist between different wireless LANs, however, the dichotomy between the findings of the Novarum report and what customer’s experience in the real world is startling. A little digging into the research methodology employed in the Novarum report highlights casts a bright light on the reasons for this schism. Novarum is a paid consulting firm – a writer for hire, as it were – and given the fact that their findings are completely at odds with what we (along with other vendors) see in actual deployments in the industry, one has to believe that the results they publish are heavily influenced by the source of the funding. For example, a 2007 Novarum report – also commissioned by Meru – saw Aruba’s AP-70 Access Points tested with their antennas closed and in the wrong planar orientation relative to the clients. Novarum claimed that the network was set-up in accordance with Aruba’s guidelines, however, that proved not to be the case with the antenna position and a host of other critical parameters.

Fast forward to the newest Novarum report. The methodology issues are different from the 2007 report but just as significant with respect to their denigration of performance:

• The tests used just one single access point from each vendor - hardly an environment conducive to measuring wireless LAN capacity – and Meru access points were operated at full power but the other access points were not;

• Commercially available software releases were used for the Aruba and Cisco devices (Aruba 3.3.2.10 and Cisco 5.2.178) but Meru used a special test code that is not available to its customers. This inobtainium code was no doubt crafted to perform special tasks, just for the test, that would otherwise be unnatural acts in a commercial deployment;

• Encryption was disabled, despite a mandate by most customers to cipher communications. Encryption has been demonstrated to degrade the performance of Meru wireless LANs;

• Only two client types were used, one being a plug-in adapter, this despite the plethora of clients in real world deployments. The performance of Meru wireless LANs has been previously demonstrated to degrade in the presence of commonly used clients that were excluded from this test;

• Screen shots show major misconfigurations of Aruba’s controller. Aruba utilizes a technology called Adaptive Radio Management (ARM) to optimize wireless LAN performance, and in the test the ARM traffic management profile for fairness was created but not assigned to the Aruba access point under test. The voice traffic DSCP (ToS) tag was also incorrectly set to a value of 56. Other errors abound;

• Meru’s own installation guide states that 3X3 MIMO operation cannot be supported over 802.3af power over Ethernet, and that both radios have to back down to 2X2 MIMO. Therefore it is possible that a single radio was used during power measurements of the Meru access point, and the same was done for the Cisco 1250 access point – providing nothing more than that one radio consumes less power than two.

Occam’s razor - entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem – states that the explanation of any phenomenon should be parsimonious with respect to assumptions about observable predictions. The Novarum report is nearly forty pages long, but the most fundamental underlying assumption – that the competing equipment was set-up properly, fairly, and in accordance with the manufacturers’ guidelines – was violated. The results – all of the results – were thereby nullified, the paper wasted.

One assumes one gets what one pays for: Meru got a test report in exchange for paying Novarum. Readers, however, got nothing of value. Caveat emptor.

At Aruba we appreciate and encourage head-to-head testing by our customers before they choose a WLAN. It is only in these real-world scenarios, running the applications and equipment that are intended to be used, that one can best evaluate the performance of a network. We also appreciate the value of thorough testing done by industry experts. However, when you can’t replicate a test in the real world - as is the case with the Novarum report – then the testing procedure is flawed and/or skewed.

Green IT: Wireless Saves Money, Helps The Planet

Earlier postings on this blog highlighted the environmental downsides of wired LANs, and the benefits of using a Wi-Fi network as the primary means of accessing an enterprise network. For many readers, however, money is where the rubber meets the road. Is it possible to champion Green IT by shifting to Wi-Fi AND save money?

As a staunch advocate of both Green IT and wireless, Aruba felt it should validate what it preaches by rightsizing its own enterprise network - eliminating as much of the wired LAN as possible, replacing it with a wireless network, and then assessing the savings, if any. Under the leadership of our Senior IT Director, Murali Mahalingam, we did just that - we rightsized Aruba’s IT infrastructure. In the process we not only dramatically lowered expenses but also increased employee productivity and reduced the company’s resource footprint.

The first step was to review the performance of both our wired and wireless LANs to determine which best satisfied the majority of our application requirements while offering the lowest cost method of network access. The wireless LAN (WLAN) was determined superior on both counts. As a result we deployed high-speed 802.11n WLANs for >90% of our 500+ employees, and used a traditional wired LAN only for those employees who needed Gigabit Ethernet speeds in excess of the capability of the WLAN.

A single WLAN was configured for data and voice applications for use by all Aruba employees located at our corporate headquarters, remote, branch offices, and home offices. We averaged roughly 15 users per wireless access point. We also provided this solution to the road warriors in our sales force, all of whom connect to the network while traveling.

We also enable true mobility for users by providing wireless connections for voice clients (such as Wi-Fi connected desk phones from snom) and dual-mode Wi-Fi/cellular handsets for all employees at our corporate headquarters, remote, branch offices.

Finally, we replaced virtual private network (VPN) clients and secure tokens with Aruba’s Remote Access Point (RAP) technology for all road warriors and employees who work remotely from home offices. RAP is a low-cost solution that combines a wireless access point with VPN security and policy enforcement firewall. The beauty of RAP is that it does not require any software to be installed on the laptop, PDA, smart phone or other devices with which it is used. RAP is also plug-and play: following initial provisioning by the IT department, no further management or configuration of the RAP is needed. Instead, the employee simply plugs the RAP into a local network (or plugs in a 3G cellular modem) and RAP automatically establishes a secure tunnel with our primary or back-up data center, establishes the corporate SSID, and initiates a secure session for both data and voice (including corporate phone extension calling).

These steps enabled us to simplify our wiring closets by converting a large portion of wired ports to wireless. As a result we needed many fewer data switches. This reduced data room power consumption, increased operating time from our back-up battery uninterruptible power supply (UPS), and reduced cooling loading on our air conditioning system. The net result has been a lower utility bill and a reduction in the tons of CO2 emissions per year associated with equipment cooling.

We were also able to lower cabling and IT support costs associated with office adds, moves, and changes. These might seem incidental, but for many enterprises the costs and wasted cabling quickly add up. For example, we recently merged a nearby engineering center for our AirWave division into our corporate headquarters facility. By leveraging our wireless network instead of installing 2-4 new cable drops per relocated employee, we used 10km less Category 5 copper cable.

From a sustainability perspective, cable insulation, cable management/trunking systems, and wiring device accessories like plugs and boots, are make of PVC, polyethylene, polypropylene, synthetic rubber, MIC, nylon, and phenol formaldehyde. Each of the constituent chemicals has an impact on the environment when the part is made, when it’s used, should it catch fire, and when it is discarded. For example PVC is a commonly used insulation material, and contains lead and other toxic chemicals. Not only does it require special handling at the disposal site – something it rarely receives – but it produces highly toxic chemicals when burned. Polyethylene, polypropylene, synthetic rubber, and nylon are only slightly less toxic. See The Green Building Handbook for more details about the environmental impact of wiring according to energy consumption, resource consumption, global warming, acid rain, ozone depletion, toxicity, photochemical smog, occupational health, recycling impact, and hormone disruption

In terms of expense reduction (read monetary savings), we were able to reduce corporate telecom expenses by using voice-over-Wi-Fi at our headquarters, remote offices and home office locations. When a user goes home and turns on his/her laptop, they are automatically logged into the corporate LAN via RAP. Their Wi-Fi enabled mobile phone will auto-register and support corporate VOIP calls instantly with no additional set up. A user with a Wi-Fi enabled mobile phone can dial a 4-digit extension number to call colleagues in a branch office anywhere in the world at no cost. Additionally, the user can make external calls leveraging the corporate IP PBX. Both of these benefits decrease billable cell phone usage, lowering our telecommunication expenses.

Off-site meetings at shows and partner events are also less expensive since a single RAP provides all attendees with access to the corporate network. Some RAP models include 3G cellular connections, allowing low-cost cellular to be used in lieu of expensive convention/hotel Ethernet for WAN connectivity. No client software or IT overhead is required to handle such meetings.

Additional savings were achieved with respect to our work with business partners. For example, Aruba’s offshore SAP Managed Services Team, based in India, was set up in less than one day for about 20 shared-service resources. Only a one-time set up of all user accounts was required on the wireless controller. RAP devices were shipped to the SAP consultant in India, who had only to plug them into a local WAN to obtain secure access to our SAP implementation and voice over Wi-Fi calling. We’re current expanding this model to other Aruba business partners and hundreds of remote and mobile workers.

As a result of this project, Aruba reduced the utilization of costly wired ports by overlaying wireless LAN access for the majority of our work force. We reduced the number of closet switches and lowered power and cooling requirements up to 20%. Employee office moves no longer require IT support as the users can now sign-on to a single corporate SSID from anywhere in the world using wireless access. Deploying a wireless office saved on upfront, non-refundable costs such as a cubicle wiring - this has reduced IT network administration costs by 10-15%. Mobile employees can now connect their laptops to the corporate LAN without local IT assistance, regardless of the county in which they’re operating. This eliminates the need for local IT network administrators in branch offices. Nor is IT assistance required to install VPN clients, issue secure tokens, or deal with VPN misconfiguration and client problems. By deploying RAP devices with build in VPN capabilities, we actually gained more control and insight into remote clients for trouble-shooting purposes.

Assumptions
Total # of network users: 500
Size of existing facilities (in square feet): 60,000
Average number moves/add/changes per year, per employee: 0.50

Estimated Cost of the legacy wired network
Number of switch ports required to support current users: 1,200
Number of access layer switches required for current usage: 26
Annual Capital Expense to support the 'Wired Edge': $182,888
Annual Operating Expense to support the 'Wired Edge': $83,417
Total annual cost of the 'Wired Edge': $266,305

The New 'Rightsized Network'
Number of switch ports decommissioned after Rightsizing: 675
Number of switches decommissioned after Rightsizing: 14
Annual reduction in costs through Rightsizing: $149,796

3-Year Cost Assessment
Reduction in 'Rightsized Network' Costs (3 years): $449,389
Total 3-year cost savings through Rightsizing: $398,546

Savings Summary (Projected savings over next 3 years)
Savings from “Network Rightsizing”: $398,546
Savings from reduced IT support costs: $200,000
Savings from increased use of Vo-FI calling: $600,000
Savings from power, cabling and cooling costs: $ 50,000
Total projected savings over 3 years: $ 1,248,546

Is it possible to champion Green IT by shifting to Wi-Fi AND save money? You bet. Aruba’s IT infrastructure is living proof that Green IT can both save money and help the planet.

Plastic and the All-Wireless Workplace

When IT engineers discuss the “all-wireless workplace,” they don’t intend the phrase to be taken literally. Electric power, fire/life safety systems, and heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) systems all rely on wire cabling for their operation. So, too, do the high speed cores of data networks, where a combination of 10 gigabit Ethernet and even higher speed fiber optic cabling serve as highways for data, voice, and video packets. These cabling applications are unlikely to disappear in even the distant future.

Rather, the phrase “all-wireless” refers to the means by which users access a data network. Wireless LANs used to be considered a nice-to-have overlay on top of a primarily Ethernet –based wired LAN. No longer. The advent of high-speed adaptive 802.11n wireless LANs has stood the structured-cabling world on its head.

Consider that a typical corporate user is outfitted with 3-4 Ethernet ports. That’s four closet switch ports, possibly multiple power-over-Ethernet (PoE) injectors, four cable runs up to 100 meters each, and a four jack plastic wall plate. Per person.

In contrast, twenty users can be serviced simultaneously by a single 802.11n access point – fed by a single gigabit Ethernet drop and PoE injector – thereby eliminating roughly 80 Ethernet cables, switch ports, and wall outlets. Across even a small enterprise the savings will be substantial.

It’s no wonder that noted Burton Group industry analyst Paul Debeasi in 2007 penned a much-cited report titled 802.11n: The End of Ethernet? in which he notes that 802.11n and its successor products will erode the switched Ethernet market. Or that industry analyst Yankee Group noted in a report titled It’s the Economy, Stupid: Yankee Group’s 2009 Predictions that by the end of this year 802.11n will cause a slowdown, followed by a decline, in wired network switch port sales.

The movement from wired to all-wireless network access will have significant cost and environmental ramifications – and will be the subject of many future posts. For now let’s investigate just one facet of the cable displacement movement – plastic.

Cable insulation, cable management/trunking systems, and wiring device accessories like plugs and boots, are make of plastic. PVC, polyethylene, polypropylene, synthetic rubber, MIC, nylon, phenol formaldehyde. Cabling systems are virtual chemistry sets, and each chemical has an impact on the environment - when the part is made, when it’s used, should it catch fire, and when it is ultimately discarded.

In The Green Building Handbook authors Tom Woolley and Sam Kimmons have been kind enough to list and rank the environmental impact of wiring according to energy consumption, resource consumption, global warming, acid rain, ozone depletion, toxicity, photochemical smog, occupational health, recycling impact, and hormone disruption…among other factors.

It should come as no surprise that the manufacture of copper cable has a substantial impact on energy consumption, resource consumption, global warming, ozone depletion, etc. In fact, virtually every component of a structured cabling system – the cable, cable insulation, cable management, plugs, sockets, wall plates, and cable ties – requires considerable energy to create and consumes vast amounts of non-biological resources.

However, the dirty little secret is the toxicity of the plastics used in these parts. PVC is a commonly used insulation material, and contains lead and other toxic chemicals. Not only does it require special handling at the disposal site – something it rarely receives – but it produces highly toxic chemicals when burned. Polyethylene, polypropylene, synthetic rubber, and nylon are only slightly less toxic.

The Green Building Handbook includes a well laid-out table on page 60 where you can study in greater detail the environmental damage done during the life-cycle of a wiring system. Just remember that every time an Ethernet system needs to be expanded, moved, or replaced, the environmental toll rises. This handbook should be mandatory reading for every IT manager!

Adaptive 802.11n is a high speed way to make the world a better place sooner. For the sake of the planet, the all-wireless workplace cannot arrive soon enough.

Network Management: The Achilles Heel of Wireless LAN Vendors

Purchasing a single, all-encompassing wired + wireless + network management network solution from single vendor is, at first blush, very alluring - one purchase order, one source of service, one throat to choke. However, the reality of that decision can be very painful. Gartner analyst Mark Fabbi took on this subject in a 2006 report titled Vendor Influence Curve: A Model for Dealing with Major Vendors, when he wrote that no single vendor offered best-in-class products across the board. Relying on a single vendor deprives a user of the best available solution.

This is especially true in wireless network management. Long the backwater of wireless LAN vendors, whose focus on the physical layer generally comes at the exclusion of network management and human-machine interface design, network management is the Achilles heel of most wireless LAN vendors. That is the reason why a vendor's own management tool is usually not the best available for that vendor's own devices.

What then should users look for in a management tool? Focus on how feature-rich the tool is, how intuitive it is to use, and how well it integrates with both legacy and new wireless gear. A feature-rich management solution should address the limitations of proprietary platforms, and deliver a broad suite of options that would not otherwise be available, including:

• Automated device discovery across any network infrastructure (WAN or LAN) of products from multiple vendors;
• Group-based policy definition for the efficient management of large networks;
• Centralized configuration for all wireless vendors' devices to eliminate manual processes and the opportunity for human error;
• Compliance audits to enforce security policies at all times;
• User-based monitoring of all wireless vendors' devices for real-time information and rapid trouble-shooting;
• Diagnostics and alarms for fast problem resolution;
• Integrated reporting package that encompasses all wireless vendors' devices for intelligent planning and performance measurement;
• Automated RF management to continuously optimize Wi-Fi performance;
• Role-based allocation of management and support duties.

The solution is a comprehensive, vendor-neutral network management system.

Vendor-neutral network management is a relatively recent market development but one that is expected to become de rigueur. According to Daniel Corsetti, IDC’s former senior analyst for enterprise networks, vendor-neutral network management is the wave of the future because a single, consolidated management console has distinct operational advantages:

• From one integrated easy-to-use console, all wireless LAN users, devices, and intrusion attempts can be seen at a glance;
• Users can select from which wireless LAN vendor(s) they purchase products, today or tomorrow, based on price/performance instead of a vendor's head-lock;
• Device configurations can be remotely managed, policies set, and RF settings and firmware adjusted, across a building or across continents - lowering IT overhead and reducing operating costs.

Vendor-neutral management systems can also extend the usable life of legacy wireless LAN infrastructure by an average of 1 to 2 years, a 20-40% increase in service life based on typical infrastructure replacement schedules.

A single-console overview of the wireless network makes a heterogeneous, multi-vendor network appear homogeneous - simplifying training, problem recognition, and fault remediation. Management tools earn their keep when a problem arises: the swift detection of a problem source, analysis of its impact on users, and recommendations for fault resolution are the defining characteristics of a great management system. Managing a single vendor network without access to network-critical data is a recipe for disaster. So is managing a multi-vendor network with multiple management tools.

Users of the vendor-neutral AirWave Wireless Management Suite report up to a 75% reduction in problem resolution time and a 40% reduction in support calls. The AirWave tool supports a broad range of wireless hardware including products from Cisco (Aironet, Airespace, and earlier models), HP ProCurve/Colubris, Aruba, Proxim, Symbol, Enterasys, Juniper, LANCOM, Trapeze/Belden, Nomadix, Avaya, Enterasys, Alcatel, and others. The suite also supports “intelligent” and “thin” APs, mesh devices, point-to-point, and WiMAX outdoor networks.

So the next time you're confronted by a vendor pushing a proprietary management tool, remember Mark Fabbi's words and walk on by. Look instead for a best-in-class, vendor-neutral management solution - you'll save money and retain control over your network.

Voice-Over-Wi-Fi Options for the All-Wireless Workplace

Pervasive WLANs can and will be leveraged to remove dependence on wiring to desktop phones, and to enable mobility inside the enterprise for employees who are frequently away from their desks. Just a there exist different classes of enterprises and users, so too are there different voice over Wi-Fi solutions - no one solution will be dominant across the enterprise.

A recent article by Michael Finneran in the No Jitter blog provides the catalyst to explore these solutions in greater depth. Finneran suggests that UMA, a carrier-based FMC architecture, is not suited for the enterprise, in part because it has no integration with the PBX or UC network. We agree that UMA is not suitable for all employees, but there is certainly a segment of users in most enterprises that would benefit from UMA, and indeed we believe certain types of organization could profitably convert to UMA en masse.

The “right” form of FMC depends on how the telephony service is used. If the objective is to support users who roam within a building, single-mode Wi-Fi phones can do the job. Phones from Polycom (formerly Spectralink), Cisco, and others that were been developed for distinct vertical markets (retail, manufacturing, healthcare) are increasingly finding their way into schools, universities and even mainstream enterprises. Most of these phones support WPA2/802.1X security, and because they are designed for an enterprise environment their inter-access point handover performance and PBX integration is good.

If the objective is to support users on the move within and outside buildings, the right solution depends on the current PBX infrastructure, the user’s needs, and the budget. One option is to simply use a cellular phone whenever there is a strong enough signal. While not usually cost-effective, and lacking any form of PBX integration, it may be sufficient for some users. The other options involve some form of FMC.

The simplest, most comprehensive and most widely-used form of FMC today is UMA. There are perhaps 2 million UMA phones in use, compared to perhaps 2,000 – 20,000 for alternative, PBX-anchored FMC solutions. The UMA phone automatically switches to Wi-Fi when it detects good reception from a suitable access point, returning to cellular when it loses a usable Wi-Fi signal. When on Wi-Fi, the phone sets up an IPSec tunnel over the Internet to a gateway at the cellular carrier’s site: all signalling and media traffic is carried through this tunnel, so it never interacts with the enterprise WLAN or PBX.

UMA is simple, it works well, a reasonable range of handsets includes Nokia, Windows Mobile from various vendors and BlackBerries, and it meets the basic needs of the outside-the-building employee. Build-it-yourself Wi-Fi coverage, a single phone number, good cost savings are available with no behavioral changes on the part of the user. UMA does not integrate with the PBX, but that’s the reverse side of simplicity. At just the incremental cost of the phone, plus an optional $10/month, UMA is certainly the low-cost FMC solution. For the many employees who today use their cellphone for nearly every call, UMA is a good answer.

The second indoor-outdoor solution is a dual-mode phone operating in ‘two-number’ mode, i.e., a Nokia E-series such as an E71 or a Windows Mobile smartphone. The VoIP capabilities of these phones (particularly Nokia) are extensive. The E71 includes a full SIP stack on top of a Wi-Fi interface with the best inter-access point handover performance available today. It can be integrated with any SIP-capable PBX over an enterprise WLAN using the most stringent Wi-Fi security, WPA2/802.1X.

Very little behavioral adaptation is required. When someone calls your cellular number, the phone rings. When someone calls your PBX number, your phone rings when you are in WLAN coverage, otherwise it goes to enterprise voicemail. Most modern voicemail systems with an email notification feature will then push the voice message to the phone over the cellular network. Outgoing calls can be directed via the PBX when Wi-Fi is connected, or revert to cellular. The user gets one device that works as a cellphone + PBX phone inside the enterprise, and as a smartphone with e-mail when roaming away from the enterprise.

The shortcomings of the ‘two-number’ solution are that there is no single-number option (is that too obvious?), it requires a SIP-capable PBX, and it often requires a per-extension SIP license fee from the PBX vendor. And because there’s no handover between Wi-Fi and cellular, if you walk out of the building during a call, the connection is going to drop. But assuming that the PBX and WLAN are ready, this solution can be yours for the price of the phone, with no additional monthly charges. If users are prepared to give up their desk sets and switch to an E71 or equivalent, this option can be very cost effective.

As we have rolled-out an all-wireless workplace within Aruba, we have found that some employees prefer to use a desk phone while working in the office, but a cell phone-like device while roaming. A desk phone provides a large, easily-read display of calling name/number, one-finger dialing won’t push the phone across the desk, the handset can be cradled on the shoulder, and there’s typically a speakerphone function with good acoustics. All of these are problematic with a cell phone form factor…unless manufacturers release more docking stations with a corded handset or headset. While we introduced a number of Aruba employees to softphone applications on their PCs, most still prefer a separate device, either in deskphone or mobile phone form. Even so, we would acknowledge that softphones in general appear to be enjoying some popularity in enterprise settings.

All Aruba employees are given a Remote Access Point (RAP) device for use at home, providing direct access to the corporate servers and PBX without requiring any client software. Effectively this provides inside-the-firewall access when WPA2/802.1X is used. The RAP can be used with a dual-mode phone, or with a wired deskphone on the second Ethernet port to get PBX dial-tone while at home. This solution has proven exceptionally useful to employees and addresses 99% of the needs of remote workers for voice and data communications. It is possible to combine this approach with other FMC solutions such as extension-to-cellular to access PBX features when cellular-only coverage is available, and with full-fledged single-number solutions.

Full FMC solutions Agito, DiVitas, and others provide comprehensive single-number reach with cellular/Wi-Fi handover. But their penetration of enterprises may be gradual. Firstly, their solutions require a software client on the phone. They also require a data centre server that communicates with the PBX, to allow simultaneous call legs over Wi-Fi and cellular, with coordinated switching for handover. Further, these solutions are expensive, ranging from $100 - $400 a seat, and CIOs will have to consider how much the soft-dollar productivity benefits worth in hard cash, and if this level of functionality is considered business-critical when less expensive, slightly less capable alternatives are available?

These issues are typical of early-stage technology. While they will be addressed over time as customers field systems and report their experiences, we see them as significant obstacles to market acceptance in the near future.

When FMC in any or all its forms can deliver benefits that exceed its costs, it will succeed in penetrating the enterprise. We believe that no one FMC architecture is suitable for all applications: rather the right architecture must be selected from a palette of choices, and it is incumbent upon the wireless LAN vendor to offer a canvas on which the different colors of FMC can be rendered. This is a daunting technical challenge which only Aruba, Cisco, and possibly Motorola could hope to undertake.

In this note we have covered the range of voice over Wi-Fi and FMC solutions available in conjunction with enterprise WLANs. These range from wireless deskphones and softphones through single-mode and dual-mode cellular/Wi-Fi devices. The latter can bridge the cellular and PBX worlds in various modes, ranging from single-number cellular-only (UMA) to the converged device (but separate network) two-number solution to full seamless single-number handover with a comprehensive FMC solution.

One of the advantages of UMA in particular its simplicity. It might be a 70% solution, but the remaining 30% is so fraught with complexity that it sometimes looks ideal by comparison. We believe many enterprise users and CIOs are ready to embrace an inexpensive single-number solution even if it is not integrated with the PBX.

Pervasive wireless enterprise phone systems are inevitable: the business case for rightsizing out wired in favor or wireless solutions is too compelling. From the environmental aspect alone, eliminating wired phone cable drops, plastic wall plates, and wired desk sets represents a major opportunity to reduce an enterprise’s carbon footprint while reaping considerable monetary savings.

The means to that end is less clear. We believe there will be no “big-bang” solution to FMC, a single creation writ whole in one fell swoop. Enterprises will eventually reach the goal by taking small steps and achieving incremental improvements. UMA looks like a promising next step on the stairway - the riser is short and manageable because of the availability of robust adaptive wireless LANs, the tread deep and wide because of the prevalence of suitable handsets. The open question is how big a stretch is necessary to reach the next tread.

Wired+Wireless Don’t Connect

The all-wireless workplace is wreaking havoc among cable and wiring device manufacturers, accustomed as they were to years of fast growth due to Ethernet overbuilding. The salad days are over and the stark new world is one with fewer wired ports and more wireless users. Like other businesses, cable and wiring device companies need to grow to survive. To do so they have to find new, expanding market opportunities. Were you such a manufacturer, how would you cope? Hold that thought.

The economic turmoil roiling the economy is also impacting the networking market, putting immense pressure on smaller niche players. Within the wireless world a Darwinian cleansing is in full swing. Aruba and Cisco, the two leading enterprise wireless LAN vendors, have pulled away from the pack, leaving the remaining vendors to fight for business, recognition, funding.

Where only a year ago an IPO looked like a viable exit path for many of those vendors, that door is now firmly closed. Bridge loans, where available, are anathema to existing investors who are rightfully fearful about losing alpha position to new creditors should the venture go belly up. Even venture capital partners are taking a very hard line with portfolio companies, refusing to invest new funds and telling companies to spend every dollar/yen/euro/yuan as if it were their last – because it might well be. Were you a niche wireless LAN vendor, how would you cope?

The confluence of interests between the cable and wiring device vendors – in search of a growing market but at risk of misstepping in a new field in which they are not expert – and weak wireless LAN vendors panicked for an exit strategy - makes for strange bedfellows. And poor strategy. The reason the weak wireless LAN vendors are in such poor shape is because their products / architecture / messaging / support was/were not up to snuff; something a new owner can't change that overnight or without significant investments. Instead of sliding down the drain and out of the gene pool, struggling wireless LAN vendors are being scooped up in nets trolled by cable and wiring device manufacturers that believe they’ve caught a bargain. Sadly for them, and their shareholders, the results prove otherwise.

On 16 July 2008, upon completing the acquisition of Trapeze Networks, John Stroup, Belden’s President and Chief Executive Officer, was quoted in a press release as saying:

“Belden’s strategy is to provide our customers with the world’s most reliable signal transmission solutions for mission-critical applications, encompassing wireless systems as well as optical fiber, copper cable, and related connectivity products. Mobility is a requirement among our enterprise customers, and today’s wireless technology provides the performance and security that make wireless an indispensable component of the enterprise network. The acquisition of Trapeze Networks uniquely positions Belden to address the enterprise market with a full complement of signal transmission solutions. We are eager to introduce Trapeze Networks’ technology to Belden’s enterprise customers.”

Fast forward to yesterday when Belden announced its 4th quarter and full year 2008 results, including the Trapeze wireless division they acquired on a trolling expedition. Customers just aren't buying into the wired+wireless synergy story, this despite Belden being a first class cable manufacturer. Belden's operating loss in 2008 was $342.2 million, and the net loss was $361.0 million, $8.08 per diluted share. The earnings report stated that Trapeze revenues for the 12 month period were only $13.7M, resulting in an operating loss of $54M.

The fact is that not all wireless LANs are created equal – the 30 January 2009 posting in this blog highlights that point. Acquiring companies and customers alike that compare competing solutions side-by-side, mano-a-mano, and check performance across a wide range of clients and with a range of interference sources will see the differences. Marketing literature is not a sound basis for comparison. Or acquisition.

As for wired+wireless double-play strategies, consider this. Most enterprises use Cisco wired networks at the core, but the largest enterprises use Aruba wireless LANs as an overlay. Why do they do this when Cisco offers a wired+wireless solution? Gartner analysts Mark Fabbi and Alan Mac Neela summarized it best in Exploiting the Enterprise Networking Commoditization Curve when they noted that networks are not homogeneous systems but rather building blocks. They recommend that users select the best building blocks for each element of the network – core, edge switching, wireless LAN, etc. – and resist pressure to buy a single-vendor solution. Why? Because no one single vendor excels across the range of building blocks. Aruba excels at building wireless LANs. Niche wireless LAN vendors don't, a sad lesson that Belden is learning the hard way.

So set aside the false promise of wired+wireless synergies and look instead for best-in-class building blocks. That way you'll catch the genuine article.

Wireless LAN Architecture

This year is the tenth anniversary of the 802.11 Wi-Fi standard. A true success story, 802.11 has completely transformed how we access data networks. What had been a market filled with islands of proprietary wireless implementations has morphed into a community of standards-based vendors.

The "micro-cell" architecture at the heart of 802.11 blankets the coverage area with radio signals operating at different channels, like a colorful patchwork quilt. As Wi-Fi clients - laptops, smart phones, PDAs, barcode scanners - roam, they maintain connection with the network by moving between adjacent cells. This architecture was modeled after the overwhelmingly successful micro cell architecture employed universally throughout the cellular industry.

Standards-based Wi-Fi clients have a well defined set of characteristics, allowing them to properly associate and interoperate with standards-based Wi-Fi infrastructure. Interoperability can be validated by independent, third-party testing organizations - such as the Wi-Fi Alliance - providing end users with peace of mind that products work as expected. Component vendors - such as Wi-Fi radio IC manufacturers - can produce a common set of part in high volume, driving down the cost to users.

That is not to say that all Wi-Fi networks are identical. There are very significant throughput, security, ease-of-use, scalability, and life-cycle cost differences between solutions from different vendors. Adaptive Wi-Fi solutions - ones that optimize performance automatically as the RF environment changes - offer significant advantages over less capable non-adaptive networks, for instance. However, even these different solutions all start from a standards-based Wi-Fi micro cell architecture. Client interoperability is a given.

Not so with the handful of vendors that have bucked the standards trend and opted to deliver proprietary Wi-Fi networks. The most egregious example is the so-called single channel architecture. Instead of making the best use of all available Wi-Fi channels, the single channel architecture operates all of the clients and infrastructure on a single channel. The argument is that doing so allows clients to be switched instantaneously by a central controller between radios covering adjacent areas as the client roams. This is stated to be especially important for voice communications, where a fast transfer improves the user experience, and cellular networks are held up as an existence proof of this assertion.

What goes unstated is that cellular networks migrated to a micro cell architecture because they could not otherwise scale network size. The coverage and fast switching "issues" cited by single channel vendors actually aren't issues at all - they've all been solved by adaptive micro cell networks.

Worse yet, by forging a proprietary solution the single channel vendors have gone against the tide with regard to client interoperability. Wi-Fi clients expect to move between cells operating on different channels, and many operate erratically when they hear multiple signals from different radios on the same channel. For example, the Frances Xavier Warde School noted that their single channel network was unable to work with Intel-based clients (http://www.arubanetworks.com/company/news/release.php?id=142), a horrific situation given the prevalence of these devices.

The other issue with single channel architectures is the inability of independent analysts to understand the limits and integrity of underlying architecture. The vendors hold close-to-the-vest the "secret sauce" that makes these networks function, and the revisions they make to add features over time.

A case in point. One single channel vendor offers two completely different ways of broadcasting the identity of radios with which the clients associate, one called shared bssid and the other per-station bssid. Shared bssid broadcasts the same radio name from all radios, a characteristic that in part is responsible for confusing Intel clients. Per-station bssid sends a different name from each radio on a client-by-client basis, putting considerable burden on the controller that has to track all of the name/client associations. Per-station bssid and shared bssid scale differently, work only with select radios within the vendor’s product line, and have very different performance limitations.

It seems inappropriate to ask a customer to understand the ramifications of these different approaches. Especially when adaptive micro cell architecture doesn't so burden the customer and offers superior performance.

As we celebrate the 10 year anniversary of the 802.11 Wi-Fi standard, and watch as the adoption of adaptive micro cell Wi-Fi networks grows apace, one can only wonder why anyone would choose a proprietary alternative. Does anyone remember the Wang word processor? There's a reason why it disappeared from the landscape, and no doubt it's only a matter of time - perhaps a very short time - before the same fate meets the single channel architecture.

Welcome to the Green Island News

We are today witnessing the coalescence of multiple technology breakthroughs into products that herald a fundamental shift in where and how we work:

* High-speed 802.11n wireless LANs and portable computing platforms make it feasible to deploy an all-wireless workplace free from the constraints of wired Ethernet access ports;

* Multi-core processors and hardware-based encryption accelerators make possible high-throughout wireless LAN access points and controllers capable of handling the volumes of encrypted traffic, and the wide range of applications, expected in an all-wireless workplace;

* Energy efficient semiconductors and power supplies make possible products that perform more functions but consume less energy than previous alternatives;

* Infrastructure-based controls and Quality of Service can deliver the reliability and determinism required by a broad range of applications, from computer connectivity to telephony and streaming video;

* Identity-based security with central encryption, strong authentication, and access control policies enable roaming users to be correctly identified, regardless of where or how they access the network, thereby enhancing mobility in ways not possible using legacy security mechanisms.

What lies before us is a workplace in which users have greater mobility to choose where they work, copper cabling takes a backseat to Wi-Fi as the primary access method, and information technology (IT) infrastructure does more but uses less power. “All-wireless” as used in this context is a metaphor for a workplace that affords secure mobility to its users. That workplace could be in a traditional office or campus, at home, or on the road.

Our newfound mobility will have profound environmental, economic, human, and social effects. Sustainability (in terms of energy and resource consumption), user efficiency and productivity, space/architectural/urban planning, and the total cost of network/facility ownership will all be impacted. Additionally, unfettered mobility will result in a wide range of new applications and jobs - perhaps even whole new categories of employment - not previously anticipated or conceivable.

The objective of The Green Island News is to discuss the technology and companies behind this sea change, and to explore the micro- through macro-level impact of the all-wireless workplace. The scope is very broad, the topics very wide. The perspective will be one of an industry insider looking outwards, and hopefully will cast a different light on the subject than one finds in the popular press.

If you're interested in research on Green Island-related topics, please consider participation in The Green Island Project. For details please see www.arubanetworks.com/company/green_island.php.