Aruba or Meru

We are currently looking over some of the wireless lans systems on the
market and have pretty much narrowed it down to Meru or Aruba. We are
looking for site wide wireless with the plan to go to VoIP at some
time.. I feel that both have their strong points. I like Arubas
security features and Remote AP Module. Meru's strong point seems to be
the "virtual cell".

Looking for some advice. What do you all think? Meru or Aruba

Thanks for your imput

kdw

"kdw" <k.willey@nvrh.org> hath wroth:

>We are currently looking over some of the wireless lans systems on the
>market and have pretty much narrowed it down to Meru or Aruba. We are
>looking for site wide wireless with the plan to go to VoIP at some
>time.. I feel that both have their strong points. I like Arubas
>security features and Remote AP Module. Meru's strong point seems to be
>the "virtual cell".
>
>Looking for some advice. What do you all think? Meru or Aruba

Personally, I prefer Symbol for wireless switches. Aruba is fine but
I have zero experience. I can't advise which is appropriate for your
unstated applications topology, and price point.

Meru got caught screwing with the 802.11 duration value in the 802.11
header. See:
<http://www.networkcomputing.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=194400865>
Specifically:
<http://www.networkcomputing.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=194400865&pgno=5>
"The 802.11 standard defines the CTS-to-Self duration value as being
long enough to cover one following data frame (often in the range of
300 microseconds), but Meru inflates this value outside of the 802.11
standard to as high as 2,500 microseconds, thereby protecting multiple
sequential data frames and monopolizing airtime."

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> "kdw" <k.willey@nvrh.org> hath wroth:
>
> >We are currently looking over some of the wireless lans systems on the
> >market and have pretty much narrowed it down to Meru or Aruba. We are
> >looking for site wide wireless with the plan to go to VoIP at some
> >time.. I feel that both have their strong points. I like Arubas
> >security features and Remote AP Module. Meru's strong point seems to be
> >the "virtual cell".
> >
> >Looking for some advice. What do you all think? Meru or Aruba
>
> Personally, I prefer Symbol for wireless switches. Aruba is fine but
> I have zero experience. I can't advise which is appropriate for your
> unstated applications topology, and price point.
>
> Meru got caught screwing with the 802.11 duration value in the 802.11
> header. See:
> <http://www.networkcomputing.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=194400865>
> Specifically:
> <http://www.networkcomputing.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=194400865&pgno=5>
> "The 802.11 standard defines the CTS-to-Self duration value as being
> long enough to cover one following data frame (often in the range of
> 300 microseconds), but Meru inflates this value outside of the 802.11
> standard to as high as 2,500 microseconds, thereby protecting multiple
> sequential data frames and monopolizing airtime."
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Thanks Jeff
Yes, I read the article on the Meru/Cisco test a week ago. I asked one
of Meru's sales reps about it and asked him to send me documentation on
the companies response. Have not seen the documentation as of yet. His
personal response was the testers did not have a good understanding of
802.11 standards. No, I am not that gullable. I was intrigued by Meru's
1 channel virtual cell as it could address some of the issues I have in
this installation. Our buildings walls are not very RF friendly thus we
have had to place APs in all most every room making channelization and
client hand-offs a real problem. While we are in a rural area with no
other surrounding WLANs so monopolizing airtime migh not be an issue
however, the company we choose needs to establish a "trusting work
relationship" and as of right now at least, I am having second
thoughts about trusting a company which as you said; "got caught
screwing with the 802.11 duration value."

Please let me know if you hear anything else
kdw

"kdw" <k.willey@nvrh.org> hath wroth:

>Yes, I read the article on the Meru/Cisco test a week ago. I asked one
>of Meru's sales reps about it and asked him to send me documentation on
>the companies response. Have not seen the documentation as of yet. His
>personal response was the testers did not have a good understanding of
>802.11 standards. No, I am not that gullable.

The official response was something like "Cisco does not understand
802.11". Nice try.

>I was intrigued by Meru's
>1 channel virtual cell as it could address some of the issues I have in
>this installation.

See:
<http://www.extricom.com>
which has a similar system called "blanket coverage".

>Our buildings walls are not very RF friendly thus we
>have had to place APs in all most every room making channelization and
>client hand-offs a real problem. While we are in a rural area with no
>other surrounding WLANs so monopolizing airtime migh not be an issue
>however, the company we choose needs to establish a "trusting work
>relationship" and as of right now at least, I am having second
>thoughts about trusting a company which as you said; "got caught
>screwing with the 802.11 duration value."

Well, what you're apparently looking for is a seamless roaming system.
You don't need a centralized ethernet switch to do that but it is
easier that way. At this time, roaming is essentially controlled by
the client, not the access point. The assorted marketing buzzword
infested solutions transfer control to the access point. It can do
that by simply reporting a lousy SNR from the wireless client, which
will force the wireless client to scan for a different access point.
There are other tricks, but that's the easiest. I'm not sure this is
a critical requirement as there are clients that are becoming smart
about roaming. Intel Proset and Broadcom 4.x client have settings
that adjust how agressive a client should be sticking to one
particular access point. Also, my experience with assorted small
offices show that few wireless clients really move around. If your
offices are really that RF hostile that the signal is lost when moving
between rooms, you have the ideal situation, where the client simply
re-associates on loss of signal when going from one room to another.

>Please let me know if you hear anything else
>kdw

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

kdw,

I represent Meru and many other wireless vendors. Meru will work for
you as long as you do not mind the slight standards incompliance.
Honestly, are you planning on having a great deal of roaming prior to
VoIP, either will work.

Meru touts a 2.19ms handoff, which in actuality doesn't mean much more
than we're faster at dropping packets when roaming. With the SIP
protocol, there's a packet about ever 20ms. If a vendor can get under
50ms, you won't drop a VoIP call and/or wont hear the "click" often
associated with roaming on cell networks.

I'd love to discuss this with you at length. Please feel free to give
me a call. I'm happy to offer advice and assistance where needed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Christopher M. Hutchison, CEO
NetSteady Communications, Ltd.
Phone: 614-255-5575
Mobile: 614-853-0091
Skype: wifi_chris

http://www.netsteady.cc