Friday | 10 July, 2009
CSO
Two wireless LANs better than one, Carnegie Mellon says
802.11n wireless net decision explained by university
John Cox (Network World) 12/12/2007 09:13:22

CMU anticipates four major integration issues with its dual-WLAN approach.

Issue 1: integrating network architectures

One reflects the different architectures of the two vendors, Aruba with its centralized approach, Xirrus with a more distributed model. "We'll need to come up with a reasonable compromise between the two models," McCarriar says. For now, CMU plans to monitor traffic patterns on the two networks, and see how the gradual growth of 802.11n clients impacts the different architectures.

Issue 2: integrating authentication models

Each vendor has its own "captive" Web portal to capture a wireless user logging on, and its own authentication methods, though both are based on the 802.1X standard, which CMU is adopting for Wireless Andrew 2.0. CMU has had its own authentication portal for years. How can these be rationalized into a consistent experience for users? The geographic separation of the networks will be an advantage, because it will minimize the chance of clients physically roaming from one WLAN to the other.

CMU is exploring two options. One is co-development work with Xirrus, creating code that would let users share authentication keys between the two networks. The second option exploits Aruba's push to apply the more granular and strong wireless security controls to wired clients. McCarriar thinks it might be possible to bring all clients through the Aruba portal, which would act in effect as a front-end to Xirrus' authentication.

Issue 3: roaming

But roaming itself will be an issue, as users moving from dorms to classrooms for example, McCarrier acknowledges. How will user information, including authentication, be shifted from one Aruba to Xirrus and back again, without forcing a complete break and re-association and re-authentication? Right now, that's an unknown.

Issue 4: integrating management

As with authentication, CMU has its own home-grown network management and monitoring systems. And of course, so do the two WLAN vendors. "The big thing I'm worried about is aggregating statistics between the two platforms," McCarriar says. "That will mean some [code] development." The current idea will be to explore how to pull relevant monitoring and management data from the two brands of equipment into CMU's existing system.

Radio frequency site surveys will occupy the IT team and vendors until early 2008. Deployment is expected to start shortly after, as fast as both companies can deliver 802.11n products, and be completed by the end of 2008.

Comments

Post new comment

Login or register to link comments to your user profile, or you may also post a comment without being logged in.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Enter the fully qualified URL, eg. http://www.example.com/
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Additional Resources
Newsletter Subscription
Sign up for our CSO Online newsletters!
RSS Feeds
Syndicate content Syndicate content
 
Whitepaper

Extensible Threat Management

Unified threat management (UTM) spawned a new era of IT security. The promise of these integrated security appliances proved to be an exceptional and efficient way of securing commercial networks. However, businesses today face an inflection point, dictated by changing market trends and new technologies that demand more of today’s UTM. Hence the need is for eXtensible threat management (XTM) solutions, the next generation of UTM appliances.

Sponsored Links