Slashdot Mirror


Duke Wireless Problem Caused by Cisco, not iPhone

jpallas writes "Following up to a previous Slashdot story, it now turns out that the widely reported problems with Duke University's wireless network were not caused by Apple's iPhone. The problem was actually with their Cisco network. Duke's Chief Information Officer praises the work of their technical staff. Does that include the assistant director for communications infrastructure who was quoted as saying, "I don't believe it's a Cisco problem in any way, shape, or form?""

9 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Most Don't understanding networking by henryhbk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many network IT folks just understand how to change settings on routers (what you learn to do in a "certification" course on a router) and understanding networking. Networking is more than just some router settings, and understanding the organic interdependent flowing nature of a network is critical to debugging problems. Just knowing something is causing a problem, and blaming the most recent change as the cause (as opposed to some underlying problem that this change simply brings to light). A senior IT official should, even if he doesn't know the exact problem, know that weird entworking problems are often way more complex than they seem, and should not jump to knee-jerk conclusions (especially based on some 1994 anti-mac bias about networking)

  2. Re:idiots by nosilA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I used to work with the "hair trigger IT moron." He has a CS degree from one of the best CS schools in the country, he has been running college networks since 2000, and he does, in fact, know what he's doing.

    I will admit though, that he has been known to get ahead of himself. When he looked at the logs and saw a bunch of iPhone MAC addresses spewing garbage, but no other devices are, he assumed that it's an iPhone problem. The quote in Network World is unfortunate, but he is no "hair trigger IT moron." He continued working on getting to the root of the problem and solved it yesterday.

  3. To be fair.... by Vacuous · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To be fair, who hasn't had an issue where you were SURE it wasn't one thing, when it actually was. I would imagine most of you, like me, have seen issues where you still can't explain how you fixed it.

  4. Obviously a Cisco Problem All Along by smack.addict · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The sick thing is that it was OBVIOUS it was a Cisco problem from the start. If you make the assumption that the iPhones are somehow defective, it's still a Cisco problem because any defective behavior from an iPhone would be indistinguishable from malicious behavior from a student. The fact that the iPhone was involved really was a non-issue all along.

    It was terribly irresponsible of them to go off blaming Apple and, worse, absolving Cisco of responsibility.

  5. Re:idiots by eipo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your assumption at the skill of the network folks at Duke is sadly mistaken. The people at Duke are very intelligent and experienced group of folks that detected a problem on the network that seemed to be related to the iPhone. In turn they contacted BOTH Apple and Cisco and began running dumps to try to figure out what was going on. In the beginning it did appear to be caused by the iPhone and only after a lot of testing and help from Cisco was the true problem discovered. They had Cisco network that functioned perfectly until iPhones started popping up, it wasn't a far stretch to suspect the new device introduced into a working system.

    The only thing they did poorly was fail to realize how much the techie world is hot and bothered over ANY news about the iPhone. Had the cause seemed to have been the the latest Crackberry this would have never sweep through the iPhone loving media/techie-verse this quickly.

    So come off your superiority complex a bit and cut them some slack. They managed to detect and solve this issue within a week on a massive University network with half the tech world breathing down their collective necks. It wasn't the work of inexperienced MIS folks but group of talented network professionals that had the misfortune of publicly grappling with the iPhone juggernaut and half million know-it-alls on forums like this.

  6. Re:More information? by physicsnick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Given the widespread use of Cisco". So Windows must be pretty good too, right? You misunderstood. I wasn't implying anything about the quality of Cisco routers.

    Suppose Duke University (and only Duke university) suddenly has problems with all of their Windows boxes. Do you think it's a Windows problem? Given the widespread use of Windows compared to the isolated nature of the problem, it's far more likely that they themselves configured something incorrectly, otherwise all universities should be encountering similar problems.

    This isn't to say that there aren't such problems; just as you said, both Cisco and Windows have widespread flaws that affect all universities. But for THIS particular problem, it's more likely to be just a misconfiguration, simply because of the fact that it's localized to Duke.
  7. Re:idiots by EGSonikku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps they should have waited a week then and not announced prior to discovering the true issue that the iPhone was at fault.

    --
    - "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
  8. Jumping to conclusions by faloi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems to be all the rage at Duke. One would think they'd learn from their past mistakes.

    --
    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
  9. Re:More information? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cisco is the Microsoft of networking gear. Their stuff is complete crap compared to the alternatives in every category. It's also overpriced. I think you hit the nail on the head. Alternatives in every catagory. Which means you have 500 different vendors. From core routers, to access switches to firewall appliances, to Content/Caching engines to telephony to wireless, heck Cisco even makes storage switches. If there's a nework problem, you call up ONE company. You sign one large support contract, makes it very easy to have 'one neck to choke' when there's an issue.

    When you build a server (not a hobbiest linux box at home) would you rather buy all the parts (cpu, ram, disk, etc..) from ONE vendor, or would you rather buy each component from someone else? You'd call up IBM/hp/dell/sun and order a server, so when the ram breaks you call the same vendor as when the CPU breaks.

    While cisco gear may not be the best in every catagory, the solution as a whole is pretty good and there's not a networking vendor that can provide an 'end to end' solution. Plus there's something to be said for being able to put firewall/content/PoE/WAN modules in a single chassis.

    Integration and consolidation does save power.