Slashdot Mirror
A WiFi-Only Office Network?
periol wonders: "I'm the sysadmin for a firm in mid-town Manhattan that is moving to a larger workspace six months from now. The new space is on one floor (100+ users to begin, 200 capacity) and is completely stripped. We've been playing around with the idea of completely wireless office, with no ethernet except to the access points (probably running over VPN for security). Email and files are all accessed locally over the network, and there is a web application hosted off site. Does anyone have experience with this kind of setup? My calculations are that we would need one access point per 15 computers, but I don't know what kind of issues we'll run into along the way. Will we run into unexpected periods of network downtime with a wireless-only setup like this?"
"unexpected periods of network downtime"?
no.
Expect them.
200 users in a small space over wireless = problems.
Tv's first started wireless and are now wired.
Telephones started out wired and are now wireless.
Wireless networking is a step backwards from a switched hardware fabric. Productivity will be much faster when a file, such as a large presentation, can be trasmitted and delivered in gigabits a second, instead of potentially single digit megabits.
http://tf2.digitaljedi.com
If they are depending on the medium itself for security then they would have the same problems if they were using ethernet. Most if not all encryption protocols ASSUME that the medium can be listened to by outsiders, and for most internet traffic that is the case. That is why all your important communications should be secure end to end. Granted a wireless network can make it easier for man in the middle type attacks, but a properly setup PKI should help mitigate those issues.
An insecure wireless network can allow someone to ciphon bandwidth and potentially abuse the connection in your name, but that is a different set of issues.
Hell, I'll cable it for $20K... I generally work on $70 per RJ45 outlet, although that doesn't include a switch and doesn't cover very long runs (generally more than 30 meters).
"Wires where you need it. Wireless where you'd like it." "It" being network access, of course. Wireless should be treated as a convenience in an office environment. It is not reliable. Especially in a high density place like Manhattan. You never know when someone is going to stomp on your channel space. And with all those radios (enough for 1 per 15 people), it will happen. Another consideration is performance.
I don't care what kind super-duper-double-data wireless standard you run, it'll never perform like a good ol' fashioned 100Mbit full duplex switched network. And you won't have the option to go 1000Mbit where you need it unless you do some ad hoc wiring, which always turns out bad.
Just spend the cash to wire the office properly with good labeling and patch panels. You won't regret it. There really isn't any room for debate here. You'd be a fool to go all wireless.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
A friend of mine worked there (BB) as a consultant for a while. He said the wireless was absolute shit. Dropping the signal happened with alarming regularity (Verified by watching him constantly drop off of AIM).
I can't imagine trying to do anything that required an constant open session (SSH, etc.)
For that price, do you certify to cat5 spec and provide documentation on each drop to that effect?
I could care less if some hacker uses a crappy dsl line to screw around, it's not connected to our network
You'll care when your ISP suspends your DSL line because of excessive spamming activity.