Now we can argue what is mission-critical and what isn’t, but for all intents and purposes, a student on campus accessing Netflix from the grassy turf of the quad is to him or her mission critical! BYOD (or whatever you want to call it) has contributed to the dramatic increase of variety of devices that expect to have Wi-Fi access. The dramatic increase in the number of per-user capable Wi-Fi devices (2001 – one device to every five users; 2013 five devices per every user), means that capacity planning, application fidelity, and continuously evaluating the requirements of a Wi-Fi infrastructure are critically important.

Maybe that’s why I find the controller/controller-less conversation so amusing – Enterprise-grade, mission critical Wi-Fi needs control, right? From a historical perspective, controllers were originally introduced to simplify the management of Wi-Fi. As the number of APs deployed increased, the process of going to each AP individually to make configuration changes became an unworkable IT overhead. Controllers therefore provided centralized management, configuration, and visibility to the Wi-Fi. I don’t think any of us would argue that controllers are bad given those criteria.

The argument that I often hear with regards to controllers being a bad idea is that they can become a bottleneck for Wi-Fi traffic. I’ll agree that could be mathematically argued as a possibility, but tunneling traffic through a controller was not the primary reason for the development of the controller. Tunneling traffic through a controller does provide a number of significant benefits including, but not limited to, simplified AP deployment, client authentication management, and negating the need to tag multiple VLANs at the AP Ethernet port (not insignificant step in the deployment of APs).

However, the controller manufacturers figured out a number of years ago that there may be scenarios where tunneling data traffic through the controller may not be the most effective architecture. For example, if the APs and controller are separated by a WAN link, tunneling the traffic through the controller may be less efficient than dropping the data traffic onto the wire at the AP. For Meru this is known as bridged mode, but has also been called Remote AP mode, REAP, etc. So most scalable controller vendors today provide two data plane modes tunneled, and bridge, which can often be combined in a deployment. Therefore if a Wi-Fi vendor only provides bridge mode capability and requires a device to manage those APs (whether you call it a controller or not), a big portion of your potential deployment capabilities are not at your disposal – sounds like a one trick pony to me.

So, to recap, if I require a device to manage APs, I would argue that today, for all intents and purposes, it’s a controller. The majority of enterprise capable solutions offer two data plane modes – tunneled and bridge, which provide maximum deployment flexibility.

Much like Ethernet, each version of the 802.11 Wi-Fi standard increases supported data rates and the availability of 802.11ac has increased that by an order of magnitude. Therefore, given the argument that controllers are data plane bottlenecks appears to be highly compelling or even the perfect scenario for bridge-only data planes (let’s face facts – “controller-less” is bridge mode only in sheep’s clothing). However, having both tunneled and bridged data planes at my disposal provides the ultimate flexibility for 802.11ac. There may be applications or users that I would much prefer to tunnel than bridge. For example I may want to isolate guest users into a DMZ or provide special support and traffic steering for voice applications.

I will continue to argue that making strategic Wi-Fi decisions based primarily on data plane mode is ignoring the still fundamental issue of Wi-Fi; users expect the same experience at work or school than they get at home, regardless of the fact that they are highly mobile and are in environments that may contain thousands of APs supporting thousands of users with an ever increasing device density and throughput demand.

If you agree that a control-plane or controller function is required, the next question is where should that control function reside? Once again, I strongly believe that what the control-plane function provides is much more important than where the function resides. Therefore the model you choose (local, WAN, cloud, private cloud, virtual, AP) should have no bearing on the functionality of your Wi-Fi.

A side effect of increased channel width is reduction in the number of available channels for RF planning. Traditionally, a minimum of three non-overlapping channels are necessary to minimize co-channel interference (CCI); this is not a major concern in that with currently available 5GHz spectrum there are 22-20MHz channels , 10-40MHz channels and only 5-80MHz channels available for planning. HOWEVER, the wider the base channel, the higher the risk of co-channel interference. For example, let’s say that a network was designed around an 80MHz wide design which results in a reduction of options for AP deployment for maximum client density. With a traditional multiple-channel approach, a base 40MHz design would result in more APs to deploy for the higher client density. This approach, for typical Wi-Fi solutions, forces a choice between client density and data rate.

Some pundits1 have proposed an 802.11ac hybrid solution to attempt maximizing client density and minimizing CCI. This approach could use a 40MHz deployment strategy that uses all 10 available 5GHz channels and allows for maximum AP packing. This approach DOES maximize throughput while minimizing co-channel interference, but employs a complex planning effort with potential added expense for additional APs. These same pundits also state support for 80MHz wide traffic will be on a “best-effort” basis! WHAT?!

I just don’t get it! In this model, a customer purchases brand-new access points to only gain a potential 25% data rate increase for existing clients and only a “best-effort” basis for the highest data rate clients. This approach only provides an incrementally faster (through 256 QAM) 802.11n-class network! Additionally, attempts to utilize the 80MHz wide channels will result in “airtime un-fairness” for these (potentially more expensive) 802.11ac devices.

The best way to realize the promise of 802.11ac higher data rates is to attack the CCI problem head-on. Meru has been doing this in our products from day one! A single channel architectural (SCA) approach must, by definition, manage interference in a consistent manner. The width (or size) of the channel is of little consequence; whether 20, 40, 80, or 160MHz wide, the Meru base architecture doesn’t change. Additionally, deploying an 80MHz network requires the same effort as deploying a 20MHz network – same level of simplicity. Meru’s approach also transparently supports 20MHz, 40MHz and 80MHz traffic under the same airtime fairness mechanism; there is no “best-effort” for Meru’s support of 80MHz (or 160MHz) wide channels.

Don’t design a network with smaller channel size just to work around a base architectural problem. Address the base problem and use the maximum channel size the standard allows to give ALL clients the maximum data rate experience. Meru will give you the best experience with 802.11ac.

1 http://revolutionwifi.blogspot.com/2013/03/safely-using-80-mhz-channels-with.html

What’s more, with the variety of sites found on campus, there are many Wi-Fi ‘micro-climates’ to address, including residence halls (dorms), lecture halls, classrooms, stadiums/gymnasiums, libraries, outdoor spaces, student unions and more.

So recently, Meru Networks conducted a survey of over 6,600 Higher Education IT professionals about their WLAN needs and expectations, and some of the results were surprising.

So here’s an interesting one. We know that dorms and classrooms are a challenge. It’s all a challenge for all the reasons we understand. The interesting thing here is how much more prevalent classrooms and residence halls are than the “high density” areas all of the vendors and testers and everyone else are always touting as the “trouble areas”. We think there are a few reasons for this.

First, schools just didn’t realize just HOW fast and how many devices students were going to bring to their rooms this year. There’s more Wi-Fi in more devices that never had Wi-Fi and that we never would have thought would have had Wi-Fi than ever before. Second, and more importantly, flipped classrooms have turned teaching, and teaching networks, on their heads. Classroom networks, even the advanced ones, had been built with a port or two, assuming that the teacher would present something, that the students would listen and take notes on their laptops, they might e-mail an assignment in, they would connect their laptops to present, etc. etc.  No one thought they would be coming in and collaborating, ALL of them streaming DIFFERENT video both up and down to collaborate, and, oh yeah, based on videos and lessons they all watched last night over the same devices, guess where — residence halls.

By comparison, the other “trouble areas” are easy. You know the number of seats, you can estimate a reasonable number of devices per person, say four, to even oversubscribe, and they are wide open spaces! You need some power for sure, but there is little variability and therefore little anxiety. This is a very interesting dynamic and an area in which Meru’s single channel architecture and channel layering can provide much needed relief. For details on this, get more information on the Meru MobileFLEX architecture from the Meru web site: http://www.merunetworks.com/collateral/white-papers/wp-mobileflex-wireless-network-architectural-overview.pdf

For more information on Meru’s survey, check it out here: http://www.merunetworks.com/collateral/surveys/higher-education-wlan-byod-survey.pdf.

When ratified and sanctioned in each country, this new spectrum will have minimal impact on the current 802.11n networks. However, the 802.11ac standard holds the promise of speeds over 1 Gbps per radio and this additional spectrum may have a profound impact on 802.11ac’s commercial success . Data rate increases with “ac” are primarily based on using wider channels; doubling the width of the channel doubles the theoretical data rate. Compared to the maximum of 450 Mbps with today’s 802.11n products, 802.11ac offers a giant leap forward increasing both data rate and network capacity. There is, however, a problem in achieving this promise. Higher data rates result in fewer available channels. With most commercially available  Wi-Fi products it takes at least three, non-interfering channels to successfully deploy an enterprise wireless network.  Prior to this spectrum expansion, there was only the possibility of 2, non-DFS interfering 80MHz channels available in North America for network planning. The expanded spectrum will make it simpler for all Wi-Fi vendors to deploy pervasive wireless networks using 80MHz wide channels. The full promise of the “ac” standard lies in deploying 160MHz channels; wherein lies the challenge.

How will this FCC ruling impact the Wi-Fi market? What are Wi-Fi vendors to do? The best case North American scenario for traditional Wi-Fi vendors will be to utilize up to seven available 80MHz channels in deploying networks. If the DFS spectrum is not accessible, worst case scenario is having only three 80MHz channels available for planning in North America.   All vendors will now have some “breathing” room for deploying Very High Throughput (VHT) 802.11ac wireless networks.

But what about the full promise of 802.11ac with 160MHz channels?  At best, the added spectrum increases the available 160MHz channel from one to two. For most Wi-Fi vendors, this is insufficient number of channels to deploy a pervasive VHT wireless LAN. Meru, however, is in a unique position and will rely on its historic single channel architecture in being able to support both 80MHz and 160MHz deployments.  With two or more like channels available, Meru can double (or triple) the available data rate in a pervasive deployment through channel layering. At best, other vendors will only be able to provide “islands” of high data throughput.

There are a lot of questions to be answered before we see commercial products using this new spectrum allocation. How long will it take for regulatory bodies to sanction using these frequencies? Will there be equal actions taken on the part of other countries to bring a frequency parity into place? Answers to all these questions will take some time, but the promise of more spectrum bringing higher data rate products to the market is exciting. Where most Wi-Fi vendors will only be able to take incremental advantage via supporting this new spectrum, Meru will be aggressive in making sure we are on the forefront of commercializing the full  802.11ac promise by taking advantage of our unique differentiating capabilities.

But assuring application performance in a wireless LAN is about more than throwing bandwidth at the problem. No matter how fast the network, not all applications are equal. Mission-critical applications, such as patient monitoring or stock transaction applications should have priority access to the wireless bandwidth over traffic from guests and personal mobile devices.

Meru is introducing context-aware application layers, or CALs, as we call them. CALs are a game-changer. CALs are a fundamentally different approach than band steering and quality of service on wireless LANs. CALs allow you to create physically isolated wireless superhighways for different classes of applications. This allows you to deliver significantly improved performance and reduce the latency of mission-critical applications.

The key advantage is that with CALs, enabled by Meru’s new MobileFLEX architecture, the underlying RF channels are physically reserved for the CALs, so the most important applications are guaranteed access to the wireless, even though RF is inherently a shared medium. With wireless QoS methods, the priority is established at a higher level, but the clients are still trying to talk over the same shared channel.

CALs can be applied to improve application performance in a variety of use cases. For example, in a hospital, life-critical applications, such as patient monitoring and infusion pumps, can be in a dedicated CAL. A second layer can be devoted to enterprise-grade applications, such as voice, location tracking, and electronic medical records, while a third layer could be used for consumer-grade applications, such as guest access.

Mobility has taken flight in schools and hospitals, in hotels and sports arenas, in open-air cafes and fine restaurants. More people use multiple tablets, laptops, and smartphones, often at the same time than ever before, and that trend will never stop. Email, Internet, and video are mainstays, of course, but increasingly people use their tablets and smartphones to make phone calls, use business applications, and collaborate with coworkers.

No one can deny the convenience and productivity of being mobile, but it’s putting massive new pressures on wireless LANs. In response, Meru Networks created MobileFLEX, a unified architecture that gives you the choice and control you need to address the growing requirements imposed by the unstoppable growth of mobile devices, bandwidth intensive applications, and users on your organization’s wireless LAN.

The MobileFLEX architecture enables IT to provide users with the reliable, predictable access to the applications and content they need to stay productive, while preparing the infrastructure to support the next generation of applications. The richness of MobileFLEX capabilities include forward-looking support for 802.11ac, support of service discovery tools like Apple® Bonjour, and innovative new Context-aware Application Layers (CALs).

We believe CALs are a game-changer. The power of Meru’s innovative wireless virtualization, coupled with the MobileFLEX architecture enables you to create CALs. CALs allow applications to be dynamically assigned to physically different access points and/or channels based on context. As an example, using CALs, a life-critical application such as patient monitoring or an infusion pump can be assigned its own dedicated channel layer. Moreover, CALs can be overlaid on existing wireless LAN networks from competing vendors. You can dedicate your mission-critical applications to one CAL, voice traffic to another, and BYOD and guest access to yet another. Using CALs, enabled by MobileFLEX, helps ensure that each application has the performance that it needs—even over a dynamic and shared wireless infrastructure.

MobileFLEX consists of five building blocks:

• FLEX Access for unified, flexible access. We offer multiple RF layer deployment options so you can optimize performance and user experience based on the individual context—including application, user, device, or location. In addition, Meru now supports the conventional multi-channel approach to RF channels in which neighboring access points use different channels. In addition, Meru continues to offer our innovative single channel, virtual cell, virtual port, and virtual layers, so you can tailor your wireless performance to a variety of use cases, whether they are bandwidth-intensive applications, high density environments, or voice.
• FLEX Control for flexible wireless LAN deployment options. You can deploy a Meru wireless network using mobility controller appliances or virtualized controller software running on VMware. Both physical and virtual controllers can be deployed in a centralized mode, ideal for headquarters and large campuses, or distributed mode, better suited to remote/home offices. In addition, Meru includes a new Apple® Bonjour gateway service, so that your users can use AirPrint® to print from their iPads and other iOS devices. They can also use AirPlay® to stream media to Apple TV® and other devices.
• FLEX Management for integrated and comprehensive network and security management across wired and wireless networks.
• FLEX Policy for simple, consistent access control and support for BYOD and guest access management. FLEX Policy eliminates the administrative burden of providing guest access and supporting BYOD on-boarding, and it works on any mobile device—across iOS, Android and Windows platforms—and on wired and wireless networks.
• FLEX Solutions to support the next-generation of applications. Applications are increasingly being mobilized. Meru has validated a joint Meru-LanSchool® classroom management solution, to make it easier for schools to move to digital learning environments. Configuration and deployment of Microsoft Lync® unified communications and other applications are also simplified on Meru.
• Learn how the MobileFLEX architecture can help you deal with the exploding requirements of enterprise wireless LANs. http://www.merunetworks.com/collateral/brochures/brochure-mobileflex-unified-wireless-network-architecture.pdf

MobileFLEX lays the groundwork and sets the tone for everything you will see and hear from Meru in coming years. It is both architecture and idea framework – a prescription for advanced mobility and the first lines drawn on a whiteboard for many customized solutions in education, healthcare, hospitality and any organization for whom mobility is growing in importance. We truly look forward to working with you on it and through it moving forward.

Will 2.4GHz survive the onslaught of 5GHz? We were all excited in 1997 when 802.11 (not “b” or “g” or “n”, just “11”) was launched using the ISM 2.4GHz frequency band. This was the ‘Industry, Scientific, and Medical’ band and was virtually unused by any other major technology. This meant that within a building, you could deploy this technology on up to three channels (count them, 1, 6, & 11) with virtual impunity – no interference.

Life was great! Only a few devices were commercially available and none for the consumer at all. These were the glory days for Wi-Fi! We all felt the freedom to move about the building without problems (usually) and stay connected to the network. However, this wireless technology was addictive and over the next few years, everyone jumped on the bandwagon; going wireless was the thing. Very quickly we found ourselves in a world with conflicting technologies were taking advantage of this un-licensed band like 2.4GHz cordless phones, Bluetooth devices, Zigbee and other products all clamoring for a limited wireless spectrum.

A solution was quickly found: use the 5GHz band! It is wider with more potential channels to use and less interference. However, we now find ourselves in 2013 with 100’s of millions of 2.4GHz devices (yes, including iPhones) with no way of reaching the promised land of 5GHz.

More and more new devices (laptops and tablets) take advantage of the 5GHz band, but what about the bulk of the wireless  2.4GHz devices in daily use? How do we continue to use them? Companies like to maximize their investment in equipment and depreciate this over five to seven years. What will be the scene over the next few years in regards to spectrum utilization?  Imagine if you will usage of wireless spectrum as a wave motion. At first there was almost no one using the calm 2.4GHz frequencies, but it quickly became a torrent of devices competing for the limited spectrum creating a “high tide” of congestion. Just like the tides of the ocean, those congested 2.4GHz devices will soon gain a brief breather as the tide now shifts to the 5GHz band. Whew!

Many analysts predict a mass-migration of devices to the 5GHz band, abandoning the 2.4GHz band. This shift is driven faster by the emerging 802.11ac standard which ONLY supports the 5GHz band. As this transition occurs, there should be a decrease in congestion in the 2.4GHz band relieving some of the angst in daily use of such devices. Meru can also lighten this load even further through its support of “channel layering”. Because of Meru’s single channel architecture, only one channel is required to provide coverage in a wireless LAN. If more bandwidth is needed, a second (or third) channel can be overlaid on the network to double (or triple) the 2.4GHz capacity.

So, don’t worry about having to replace your old wireless devices too soon. Careful planning of your wireless LANs and use of Meru’s channel layering can extend the useful life of all your wireless devices – 2.4GHz and 5GHz. We have your back!

Earlier in December, BBC Technology correspondent – Rory Cellan-Jones – visited Essa Academy and wrote of his visit to the school. He said: “I was here because this school has been a pioneer in giving every child a mobile device and then building its delivery of lessons around that.”

The senior leadership team at Essa had a very, very clear vision. They value personalized learning, individual learning opportunities, students not being confined to the classroom, not being confined to the school, and therefore the use of mobile devices and, in the case of Essa, Apple technology was absolutely critical to them.

“The Meru system allows for this 21st century learning experience, both for students and for staff as well. For that reason, I’m really grateful and extremely happy that we’ve installed the Meru Solution.” – Abdul Chohan, Director at Essa Academy

We are proud to have Essa Academy as our customer and we will continue to work with them to enable the use of technology throughout the school.

When 802.11n was launched, the world learned about “MIMO” – Multiple Input-Multiple Output. This radical idea used multiple antennas to transmit/receive wireless data in parallel for higher data rates. Previous generations of Wi-Fi devices might have had a single ‘transmit and receive’ antenna (termed “diversity”) to ensure a higher quality of connection, but 802.11n extended the concept to one of multiple transmit and multiple receive antennae. In the most ambitious commercial 802.11n solutions available today, one could triple the effective data rate by having three transmit and three receive antenna active over one AP/Client link. Well, the idea caught on and now, MIMO finds its way into most laptop or desktop computers.

But do all popular wireless devices receive benefit from 802.11n’s MIMO? No. In today’s mobile business world, the vast majority of Wi-Fi devices are handheld smart phones or tablets and the popularity of these devices show no sign of flagging.

By design, such devices only have one transmit and one receive antenna; kind of a SISO or Single Input-Single Output model. These devices, however, are not completely hampered by this limited design and are able to benefit from the 802.11n data rates which are higher than what was previously achievable under 802.11a (150Mbps versus 54Mbps). This wireless data rate of 150Mbps is typically sufficient to satisfy the demands of most applications executing on today’s mobile handsets.

One may pose the question, “will there ever be a MIMO handset”? Probably not! Can you imagine six antennae sticking out of your favorite smartphone? This, most certainly, would be clumsy to use and very difficult to put in your pocket.

So, without the additional antenna, there is another windfall benefit from 802.11n – incrementally better battery life. The higher data rate affords the device the ability to ‘get on and off’ the network faster with the end result of less demand on the battery.

Will a SISO device be of value in support of the new 802.11ac standard? Yes. Even with a single antenna pair, the 802.11ac data rates achieved by a SISO device can approach 433Mbps! SISO won’t fade into history and it will proudly stand beside its big MIMO brother.

Transportation planners have a concept called “induced demand” for thinking about the growing demand for roadways.  This concept, which is an extension of the law of supply and demand, amounts to a variation of “build it and they will come.”  When planners add lanes to a freeway, people will use more of that resource by taking jobs farther from home, working at home less often, diverting their routes, and simply choosing to travel by car when they might have otherwise chosen to go by public transit.  That’s because the added capacity effectively lowers the cost to the driver of choosing to travel by that particular roadway. When the effective cost goes down, drivers consume more of the resource.

The same concept applies to wireless networks. Because higher rates of throughput allow end users to do more things with wireless, well, they want to do more things with wireless. They also want to do those things more often, with a multitude of difference devices. Department heads find that more wireless capacity expands the boundary of what is possible, and they demand applications that fill this capacity.  As wireless has evolved, this self-reinforcing trend has taken on a life of its own.

Organizations adopted 802.11n to accommodate the more intensive use of wireless technology, similar to adding lanes to the freeway. Since the introduction of that standard, the demands placed on wireless bandwidth have continued to increase. Game-changing devices like the Apple iPad, for example, have fundamentally changed end-user expectations about wireless technology and led to the advent of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD). Everywhere they go, end users expect flawless wireless service. Many organizations are finding themselves up against a capacity ceiling.

Fortunately, a new standard is within view on the horizon: the 802.11ac wireless standard. It promises a quantum leap forward in capacity, but many organizations are uncertain about how to time their investment in the new standard.  Since most popular client devices operate only on the 2.4 GHz frequency band, and the new standard will support only the 5GHz frequency band, devices will need to evolve to take advantage of 802.11ac.

No one knows yet how soon those 5GHz clients will be available in volume, but when they are it’s a sure bet that users will expect to connect them to the wireless network right away.  Optimizing your upgrade cycle requires navigating this uncertainty and finding ways to hedge that risk. Not every wireless network architecture is well-suited to the new standard, and organizations will want to be proactive in considering possible limitations of their current vendor’s core technology.  With the introduction of 802.11ac expected within months, now is the perfect time to reassess your wireless infrastructure. As with any element of your IT strategy, it pays to have both a short-term and a long-term plan.

As you consider your timeline for rolling out 802.11ac, here are five questions to ask your wireless LAN vendor:

• How well-suited is your fundamental architecture to 802.11ac?
• How will your solution deal with the limited number of non-overlapping channels provided at the highest data rates?
• What are your latest high-capacity wireless access points and controllers to help bridge the gap until 802.11ac goes mainstream?
• How can you help me hedge against the uncertainty related to the pace of 802.11ac adoption?
• What resources can you provide to help me understand the implications of the new standard?

What are your plans for adopting 802.11ac?  Take our poll and share your thoughts.

Click here for more information on 802.11ac.