cpu needed to NAT 45mbs

Tue Nov 13 04:55:40 UTC 2007

Thank you for all the advice - it was nice to see 20 replies that all basically 
agreed (and with me too.)  If only the 6 people involved in this project were such.

On Wifi for 1000:

I have tried to make sure everyone involved in this PyCon Wifi project has read 
  http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/ppt/joel.pdf - too bad some have read it and 
don't get it.  I think it will be OK, because someone else wrote up the plan, 
which is basically to use http://wavonline.com/vendorpages/extricom.htm

If anyone would like to see it in action,  I am sure something can be arranged. 
  (you are welcome to come look at it, but I would think would want to actually 
peek under the hood and see some stuff in real time, etc.  )  March 13-16 in 
Chicago.

Carl K

Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Frank Bulk wrote:
>> I would have disagree with your point on centralized AP controllers --
>> almost all the vendors have some form of high availability, and Trapeze's
>> offering, new (and may not yet be G.A) purports to be almost entirely
>> seamless in its load sharing and failover support.
> 
> I have a few scars to show from deploying centralized ap controllers,
> from several vendors including the one that you mention above. Hence my
> observation that they must be deployed in a HA setup in that sort of
> environment...
> 
> We you lose a fat-ap, unless cascading failure ensues you just lost one
> ap... When your ap-controller with 80 radio's attached goes boom, you
> are dead. So, as I said if you're going to use a central ap controller
> for an environment like this you need to avail yourself of it's HA features.
> 
>> Now that dual-band radios in laptops are becoming more prevalent, it's
>> possible to get 30 to 50% of your user population using 802.11a.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On Behalf Of Joel
>> Jaeggli
>> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:51 PM
>> To: Adrian Chadd
>> Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; nanog at merit.edu
>> Subject: Re: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs
>>
>> Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Speaking of all that, does someone have a "conference wireless'  bcp
>>>> handy?  The sort that starts off with "dont deploy $50 unbranded
>>>> taiwanese / linksys etc routers that fall over and die at more than 5
>>>> associations, place them so you dont get RF interference all over the
>>>> place etc" before going on to more faqs like what to do so worms dont
>>>> run riot?
>>>>
>>>> Comes in handy for that, as well as for public wifi access points.
>>> Everyone I speak to says something along the lines of
>>>
>>> "Why would I put that sort of stuff up? I want people to pay me for
>>> that kind of clue."
>> I did a presentation a couple of years ago at nanog on high-density
>> conference style wireless deployments. It's in the proceedings from
>> Scottsdale. Fundamentally the game hasn't changed that much since then:
>>
>> Newer hardware is a bit more robust.
>>
>> Centralized AP controllers are beguiling but have to be deployed with
>> high availability in mind because putting all your eggs in a smaller
>> number of baskets carriers some risk...
>>
>> If you can, deploy A to draw off some users from 2.4ghz.
>>
>> Design to keep the number of users per radio at 50 or less in the worst
>> case.
>>
>> Instrument everything...
>>
>>
>>> There are slides covering basic stuff and observations out there.
>>>
>>> (I'm going through a wireless deployment at an ISP conference next week;
>>> I'll draft up some notes on the nanog cluepon site.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>
> 
> 