
November 11, 2010
Cisco's shortfall an omen for rest of tech world

July 14, 2010
Cisco introduces home energy touch-controller

June 15, 2010
Microsoft dumps Cisco wireless for Aruba
Microsoft is taking out around 5,000 Cisco Aironet access points, and upgrading to an Aruba wireless switch system which will use five thousand thin access points to support 25,000 simultaneous WLAN users, in 277 buildings round the world.
The announcement will be a disappointment to Cisco, as its purchase of Aruba's rival Airespace was supposed to offer an upgrade path for customers like Microsoft who needed a centrally-managed wireless LAN system.
"This will surprise many spectators - including myself," said Richard Webb, wireless anayst at Infonetics Research. "People said that WLAN was a done deal, and large customers would automatically go to Cisco. They'll have to view Aruba in a new light, and some people will be raising eyebrows at the money Cisco paid for Airespace."
In fact, Cisco's efforts to integrate Airespace and provide an upgrade path have been lacklustre, while Aruba and its other main rival, Trapeze, have continued to innovate.
Although Aruba probably offered a very competitive price (no price has been revealed for the deal), Webb said that the deal must have been based on technical merits. "Microsoft isn't buying on price," he said. "The company is not short of money, so if Aruba weren't on the table in terms of technology, no amount of discount would have got the deal."
Security features such as Aruba's firewall and IDS may have been big factors, he said. Indeed, as we reported here a year ago, Microsoft has already been using Aruba for security. Aruba and Microsoft are also stressing support for voice on Wi-Fi, as well as guest networks that lets the office WLAN double as a hotspot for visitors.
Microsoft had extensive tests carried out by wireless test house Iometrix, and the University of New Hampshire's inter-operability lab, which covered security, scalability and performance - the results of which Aruba has promised to put on its site.
Microsoft plans to make some offices "wireless only", and will integrate the WLAN with its Network Access Protection Architecture that protects the network from infected clients. The WLAN will also support a guest access system which will allow visitors to Microsoft buildings to use the Internet.
Aruba is also keen to suggest that, as a result of this contract, it will have close links into Microsoft's future products. "Aruba plans to work with Microsoft to develop and test future software products to ensure they operate simply and easily over wireless networks," says its release. "Consequently, Aruba customers can be assured the best possible interaction and unprecedented interoperability between Microsoft products and Aruba mobility systems."
Original Source: Techworld.Com
March 5, 2010
Cisco makes companies more smartphone friendly

May 4, 2009
802.11n throughput testing for Aruba AP 125
Our test setup consists of two MacBook Pro’s each running the iperf network utility (via MacPorts) with manually configured IP addresses. To establish a baseline, we first connected to RLAB, a network that is already established on our Aruba infrastructure. This is an 802.11g only isolated wlan that also allows client to client connectivity.
Connected to "RLAB" to get a baseline, the airport sees an RSSI of –49 which is typical of a very good connection and shows a transmit rate of 54 as would be expected. Here are the iperf stats using the default settings:
Macintosh-214:~ donwright$ iperf -s
------------------------------------------------------------
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 256 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
Tested first with RLAB (802.11g standard wlan)
[ 4] local 10.10.10.4 port 5001 connected with 10.10.10.3 port 49335
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.0-10.1 sec 8.45 MBytes 7.04 Mbits/sec
This seems low, but maybe that’s an iperf thing, which is kind of confusing since they use the capital M for megabits. If I take this at face value and move on, the increase with 802.11n does show up.
Connecting to my 802.11n "VennLab" shows a similar RSSI of 50, but with a Transmit Rate of 300, a 6X increase. This increase seems to be validated in the iperf tests below which average about a 6X jump to 50 Mbits/sec.
[ 4] local 10.10.10.4 port 5001 connected with 10.10.10.3 port 49336
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 57.5 MBytes 48.2 Mbits/sec
[ 4] local 10.10.10.4 port 5001 connected with 10.10.10.3 port 49337
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 56.1 MBytes 47.0 Mbits/sec
[ 4] local 10.10.10.4 port 5001 connected with 10.10.10.3 port 49338
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 64.4 MBytes 53.9 Mbits/sec
[ 4] local 10.10.10.4 port 5001 connected with 10.10.10.3 port 49339
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
![]() |
Click to enlarge: Benchmarking of Aruba throughput 802.11n |
November 20, 2008
Motorola vs Aruba - Patent infringement
I consider, it is a weird story to hear Motorola also has the capability to offer better wireless solution. As far as I’m concern, the most well known wireless leader being debated among the wireless administrator is between Cisco and Aruba. I don’t agree if someone said that, Motorola-Symbol is another competitor in the wireless market share. Solution from Trapeze, 3Com, Meru or Orinoco which I can considered much better compared to Motorola-Symbol solution. For me, it is a wired story when Motorola sues Aruba for alleged patent infringement. My favorite wireless products rank is listed as below according to its best features offered to the end-users.
1. Aruba
2. Cisco
3. Trapeze/3Com
4. Meru
5. Orinoco
6. Motorola
7. Belkin
8. Colubris
9. Linksys
November 4, 2008
The Forrester Wave NAC, Q3 2008 Report not totally reflect the real NAC competition
In Forrester’s 73-criteria evaluation of network access control (NAC) vendors, we found that Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Bradford Networks, and Juniper Networks lead the pack because of their strong enforcement and policy. Microsoft’s NAP technology is a relative newcomer, but has become the de facto standard and pushes NAC into its near-ubiquitous Windows Server customer base. Cisco’s and Juniper’s NAC solutions are anchored by mature, standalone appliances with top marks for manageability and ease of use. Bradford has pushed into the enterprise space with one of the most scalable overlay solutions. Symantec, McAfee, and StillSecure are all close behind with software-based solutions, which we predict will ultimately win as the best NAC architecture. Mirage Networks’ unique out-of-band system provides superior deployment flexibility and just edges out Nevis Networks, which operates as a secure inline switch with built-in threat prevention. HP ProCurve Networking rounds out the bunch with an approach that marries appliance with Ethernet switches.
I think Forrester forgot to include a few good product in their benchmarking evaluation such as InfoExpress, Consentry and Fortinet. To counter this report, I believe base on my previous experience evaluating NAC requirement, Cisco NAC and Microsoft NAC are not the answer for a comprehensive ubiquitous NAC solution. The way they deploy their NAC Architecture, would not solve major wireless architectural problem. These two devices depend on port base security. Meaning that, any traffic in-out activity from that NAC switch port can be analyzed and monitored only via that physical port. Imagine that if you have 1000 devices in your company. You have to replace all your conventional switches to this NAC switches. My estimation, you need to deploy about 42 NAC appliances to monitor and control every access in your network.
I would prefer a solution provided by Juniper, Bradford, InfoExpress and Consentry. These NAC able to solve many issues logged by WLAN architecture. Their solutions are more.. and more comprehensive for ubiquitous network.
To address many complicated issues in the NAC management of heterogeneous WLAN network, I would prefer solution from InfoExpress, Consentry and Bradford. The deployment architecture of these NAC are less dependent on proprietary configuration. Juniper solution too dependent on their JUAC that requires Odyssey Client. My concent is... the Odyssey client is too complicated to manage for non-IT literate (Non-IT savvy) user. I need to find a solution that could minimize the complexity on the end-user site when deploying NAC appliance. In order to make the Juniper NAC to perform well, every user must install Odyssey client on their devices (Laptop). Does all wifi enable device support odyssey client ? SmartPhone, PDA, PSP and many other wifi devices is not really workable with Odyssey. Can we install Odyssey Client on Windows Mobile Platform or Symbian or etc ?... These are the issues that we need to consider before we deploy NAC in our wireless environment.
So, which solution is less proprietary dependent and workable with many platform ? This time I would prefer a solution from InfoExpress, Consentry and Bradford. Two products were not evaluated in the Forrester report. How about Bradford ? since Forrester has discussed much about Bradford in their report, no point for to me to discuss about Bradford... then, I will highlight my review for InfoExpress and COnsentry. Generally, Consentry has similar features offered by Bradford. There are some minor differences which I think not really important to discuss. In general Consentry can act as a proxy radius to control the access for each user account. It also workable for inline deployment.
InfoExpress offers more unique solution compared to other NAC, especially for heterogeneous ubiquitous network. InfoExpress perform dynamic NAC solution which similarly follow the concept "Man in the middle attack". The total concept and approach they implement for dynamic NAC (DNAC) is very impressive. They are the first introducing DNAC solution and this method meet many end-user requirement especially to protect back-door attack via wireless connection.
The other NAC which include in Forrester report is more to AntiVirus NAC such as McAfee and Symantec. These type of NAC cannot be compare apple-to-apple with Juniper NAC, Cisco NAC or Microsoft NAC because they fall into different categories. AntiVirus NAC has different objection compared to port base NAC or the real network based NAC. If your look at the other NAC features, their can integrate with other third party antivirus server or appliance such as BigFix to update and control antivirus.
My conclusion, I don't understand why Forrester not include InfoExpress and Consentry in their evaluation report. That's why the Q3 2008 report produced by Forrester does not showing the actuall scenario about NAC technology available in the market. The evaluation criteria chosen to identify the market leader in NAC seems like biased to certain products only.
I would to see is there head-to-head evaluation between Cisco, Juniper, InfoExprees, COnsentry and Bradford in solving network access on real ubiquitous network.
March 14, 2008
Aruba secures endpoints with NAC interop and product.
By Frank Bulk
Aruba Networks most recent announcement regarding NAC interoperability verification and a product announcement repeat a common anthem of this vendor's emphasis on security.
The three major NAC groups are Cisco, Microsoft NAP, and the Trusted Computing Group (TCG); the first two are clearly vendor driven, while the last is standards-based and enjoys broader industry support. Unable to drive a standard of its own, Aruba has not hitched itself to any single group, but has verified NAC interoperability with three technology industry heavyweights: Cisco, Juniper, and Microsoft. Working with network equipment market share leader Cisco is almost a de facto requirement, and Microsoft is Aruba's largest customer, if not most significant. This shouldn't be considered Aruba's first fore into NAC: they have partnerships with Bradford, FireEye, Fortinet, InfoExpress, Snort, and as well as Symantec (via Sygate, though this is end-of-sale).
In addition to their partnerships, Aruba has also announced a new appliance for "targeted industries". To date Aruba has built most of the products it sells, preferring to partner where necessary. Ash Chowdappa, director of mobility management system, stated in a briefing, that Aruba will wait until the NAC market shakes out before considering to develop something internally. This time around Aruba OEMed their Aruba Endpoint Compliance System (ECS) appliance from a vendor that has significant success in the higher education market.According to Chowdappa, higher education is Aruba's number one vertical, and they expect ECS to gain traction in healthcare and hospitality, markets where there are significant numbers of guest users. Aruba makes the point that many NAC vendors are targeted toward managed devices such as desktops and laptops, while ECS is able to deal with unmanaged and transient devices such as Vo-Fi phones, and the occasional Sony Wii, that may not be able to run an agent. For devices in this latter group Aruba's ECS can work in tandem with their mobility controller to implement more restrictive traffic policies leveraging Aruba's stateful firewall. And this appliance isn't restricted to just wireless products, as the appliance can take trunked wired traffic, such as guest VLANs, and enforce policy on those, too.
Aruba is making the right moves in offering its customers multiple NAC options resulting in great stickiness for their core wireless LAN products. One of the challenges that Aruba faces is that organizations may look first to their wired networking equipment vendor for a NAC product, giving Cisco a natural leg up. Aruba appears to have chosen to OEM a mature product that integrates with systems in both mediums, and with eventual implementation of 802.11n, may take a larger and larger portion of IT's mindshare and networking budget.
July 19, 2007
iPhone may be disrupting the cisco based wireless network
Duke University Office of Information Technology engineers have detected a series of wireless-network disruptions. They have reported nine such episodes since the problem was discovered late last week. Each event lasted no longer than 10 minutes and most users would have noticed no difference in their wireless service, though disruptions may have caused access delays or sluggish internet performance for isolated users.
Technicians have tracked the source of the disruption to people whose iPhones are registered to access Duke’s wireless network but cannot attribute the cause of the disruptions to the devices and are working with colleagues from Apple, makers of the iPhone, and Cisco, the vendor for Duke’s network equipment, to pinpoint the cause of the problem.
Their investigation continues. OIT will update this report as new information becomes available.