Advice about b & g wireless

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Hello guys,

I have to decide between going b or g on my company (it's an
university, with several buildings) and I am not so sure.
The whole project will cost us a lot (by our vendor proposal), and he
did the proposal based on 802.11b.
He is defending 802.11b 'cause according to him it is the most
stable/reliable/tested standard.
But I am not so sure about spending so much money for getting a
technnology that it is already old.

Any pointers will be greatly appreciated,
Regards,

Tummy

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

In article <7967e19c.0404111536.1a0fee0f@posting.google.com>,
bumba <bumbaahi@yahoo.com> wrote:
:I have to decide between going b or g on my company (it's an
:university, with several buildings) and I am not so sure.
:The whole project will cost us a lot (by our vendor proposal), and he
id the proposal based on 802.11b.
:He is defending 802.11b 'cause according to him it is the most
:stable/reliable/tested standard.

Is the vendor proposing equipment that is upgradable to 11g
by replacing the radio? A lot of the 11g radios use a different
kind of connector, so upgradability varies from model to model.

Is the manufacturer the vendor is proposing still doing active work
on 11b? Have they, for example, promised upgrades to support
802.1x (extendable security?, How about 802.1e [draft] ajd 802.1h [draft],
which have to do with automatic power reduction to reduce interference,
and with automatic channel hopping to reduce interference [not sure
which standard is which offhand.]? Is the manufacturer even promising
WPA ?

What is your vendor proposing in terms of infrastructure management?
Automatic contention reduction? Roaming? Authentication? QoS
(Quality of Service)? VLANs? How is the vendor proposing security
be managed -- surely not by manually changing WEP keys on every
device every couple of weeks?

When there's a problem with the equipment, who will be responsible
for debugging and fixing the equipment -- possibly including
relocating APs? Who will be responsible for installing it?
How is it to be powered -- is the vendor proposing POE (Power over
Eethernt)


The reading I have done suggests that there is an unexpectedly high
overhead in maintaining wireless systems -- interference comes and
goes, rogue access points pop up, trees grow, bookshelves get
put in... If your vendor isn't proposing to take on pretty much
all those problems (with a Service Level Agreement as to how long
until the problem is fixed!) then probably *you* are going to be
stuck trying to deal with whatever the vendor is pushing.

How important is this wireless? Is it the sort of thing where it's
okay if it just works a few days a month?, or okay if transfers
disconnect every 15 minutes (e.g., Windows XP)? If it is something
that you expect to be able to count on, then your vendor should
e talking to you about -regular- site surveys.

If -you- are going to be the one ending up managing the wireless
and everyone is going to be blaming -you- when their connection
fails every time a truck drives by, then I sugest that you look
carefully at "enterprise" wireless solutions, and avoid the
consumer level equipment where possible.

A few months ago, I was facing the 11b/11g question myself, in
the form of "Why not just buy a bunch of inexpensive D-Link or Linksys,
instead of something 5 times the price"? A couple of pieces
set me straight; one in a magazine whose name I don't recall right now
[it's at work]; and the other by reading about Cisco's SWAN plans and
WLSE (Wireless Lan Solution Engine.) The WLSE is expensive, but
if you are looking for something that is much better thought out than
just a simple list of "We learned the hard way: don't put a WPG54G
with a WTG54G", then you should at least read about what -kind- of
features the enterprise-class wireless systems provide.
--
I've been working on a kernel
All the livelong night.
I've been working on a kernel
And it still won't work quite right. -- J. Benson & J. Doll

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

If you're planning on a substantial investment now, I think you should get
bids from a few other vendors before deciding. You really should consider
802.11g carefully. If you put a lot of money into 11 Mbps routers now, and
discover that, two years from now, you really need faster datarates, you'll
be faced with an expensive replacement cycle.

I think your vendor is overrating the "stable/reliable/tested" aspect.
802.11g is now certified by the Wifi Alliance, which tests functionality and
interoperability. You shouldn't buy anything that isn't certified, and
certified 802.11g equipment ought to work at least as well as certified
802.11b equipment. There's been a final 802.11g standard for almost a year
now, and I'm not aware that any design flaws have surfaced in it. Some early
implementations that appeared before the standard was finalized had minor
problems, but these have disappeared with driver upgrades that bring the
equipment into conformance with the final version. Just be sure that you
install the latest microcode/drivers.

802.11b equipment is still cheaper, especially on the secondary market (used
or remaindered equipment), so if money is the overriding factor, you might
go 802.11b only. But if reliability is the issue, I'm not buying your
vendor's argument. For either 802.11b or 802.11g, you will find a much
bigger stability/reliability/useability differential between low-end (cheap)
and high-end (expensive) than you will between network standards.

Here are some reasons you might want to go with 802.11g:

1. If there are few or no 802.11b clients, 54 Mbps max datarate.

2. Same range as 802.11b, but better signal quality in the presence of
multipath echo.

3. Backwards compatibility with 802.11b clients.

4. WPA authentication/encryption support (some 802.11b gear still doesn't
support it, or supports it only with a performance hit).

5. Better upgrade path. For example, WPA is an intermediate step to 802.11i,
the final security standard, which includes AES encryption. There is also an
upcoming quality-of-service standard. It is very unlikely that vendors will
put a priority on any enhancements for legacy 802.11b equipment. They will
also put far less effort into supporting or fixing legacy boxes.

"bumba" <bumbaahi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7967e19c.0404111536.1a0fee0f@posting.google.com...
> Hello guys,
>
> I have to decide between going b or g on my company (it's an
> university, with several buildings) and I am not so sure.
> The whole project will cost us a lot (by our vendor proposal), and he
> did the proposal based on 802.11b.
> He is defending 802.11b 'cause according to him it is the most
> stable/reliable/tested standard.
> But I am not so sure about spending so much money for getting a
> technnology that it is already old.
>
> Any pointers will be greatly appreciated,
> Regards,
>
> Tummy

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

In article <Xns94C8CC91E6972nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130>,
Lucas Tam <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote:
:bumbaahi@yahoo.com (bumba) wrote in
7967e19c.0404111536.1a0fee0f@posting.google.com:

:> He is defending 802.11b 'cause according to him it is the most
:> stable/reliable/tested standard.

:I think the vendor is just spouting BS - I can't think of a reason not to
:go with Wireless G.

Which one? There's about 6 different ways of accelerating 11g connections
at the moment, and most of them are incompatable. 11g is changing
rapidly adnd there will be a shakedown to reduce the number of
incompatabilities.

There have also been a couple of very poor 11g pieces of equipment
released by some of the well-known vendors. Especially the Linux
based versions. Lots of reports of serious problems with
some of the best known (and most 'pushed') models. And lots of reports
along the lines of "You have to read the fine print -- this
product *does* do wireless bridging, but we only ever said it would
bridge to these two specific models (oh, and we discontinued both
of them.)

The consumer market in 11g devices is, ah, "innovating rapidly".
Which is a fine situation for a home lab for geeks with too much time
on their hands, but it's not what you put into a serious business
(like a university)... not unless said business has a bunch of geeks
with too much time on their hands sitting around.

If you want to wireless and reasonable reliability in the face of
the users popping in and out with a variety of devices, then
consumer-level 11g isn't ready for that yet: you want
enterprise-level equipment. There's more enterprise level equipment
in 11b than 11g (more time for it to have evolved), but
enterprise-level 11g does exist.
--
I've been working on a kernel
All the livelong night.
I've been working on a kernel
And it still won't work quite right. -- J. Benson & J. Doll

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

In article <Xns94C8D7ACC2F5Anntprogerscom@140.99.99.130>,
Lucas Tam <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote:
:roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote in news:c5colf$5k1$1
:@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca:

:> Which one? There's about 6 different ways of accelerating 11g connections
:> at the moment, and most of them are incompatable. 11g is changing
:> rapidly adnd there will be a shakedown to reduce the number of
:> incompatabilities.

:You can always run the equipment in standard wireless G mode.

I suggest you read the Need To Knows at tomsnetworking.com .
The standards are ambiguous in places, and there are portions of the
standards that are optional, which not all vendors are chosing to
impliment. For example, if I correctly remember a factoid I read
yesterday, then the 54 Mbps signaling rate is itself optional: there's
a lower signalling rate which is the mandatory one.

Running your equipment in "standard wireless G mode" promises some
minimal compatabilities, yes -- but the compatability guarantees
don't apply at full speed.
--
"Mathematics? I speak it like a native." -- Spike Milligan

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

I would suggest that the mind set should be, which is the more "Mature" b or
g? We used to run a WISP on b at ranges of up to 34 KM at 11 MB never an
issue and the cost was great! We tried G, and it was too costly, it did not
perform the way that it was "portrayed" and it simply was disappointing.
For my money I would choose b, it simply works and I have yet to hear of a
WISP that uses G. It is simply not quite ready. I believe it will come but
not yet. Especially not for a production environments.

Just my 2 cents.

Michael

"bumba" <bumbaahi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7967e19c.0404111536.1a0fee0f@posting.google.com...
> Hello guys,
>
> I have to decide between going b or g on my company (it's an
> university, with several buildings) and I am not so sure.
> The whole project will cost us a lot (by our vendor proposal), and he
> did the proposal based on 802.11b.
> He is defending 802.11b 'cause according to him it is the most
> stable/reliable/tested standard.
> But I am not so sure about spending so much money for getting a
> technnology that it is already old.
>
> Any pointers will be greatly appreciated,
> Regards,
>
> Tummy