802.11n Wireless Technologyfor the

University of Cincinnati

Senior Design III – Spring 2008Anthony Grismayer

Jason MaloneyKyle Miller

Kurt Scherer

Overview• Project Description• Intended Use• User Profile• Design Protocols• Testing Plan• Deliverables• Proof of Design• Business Recommendation• Summary

Project Description

• UCit needed feasibility research into the new wireless IEEE standard, 802.11n

• Research was a basis for feasibility of providing 100% wireless campus coverage

• 3 Vendors were evaluated:– Aruba Networks, Cisco Systems, Meru

Networks

Intended Use

• Provide recommendation to UCit on 802.11n deployment based on business and technical analysis

• Create OPNET models of UC core network and CAS– Evaluate the suitability of 802.11 suite for

business users

User Profile• UCit: Mark Faulkner

• Future IT-Networking Students

• University of Cincinnati– Students– Staff– Faculty

Design Protocols

• Vendor Scorecard– Hardware / Performance Features:

• AP• Controller

– Security Features• Controller

– Compatibility– Cost/Value Features

Testing Plan• Network Use Cases:

– Hardware:• Buildings Currently With No Wireless Coverage

• Buildings Not Conducive To Wireless Coverage

• Buildings Very Conducive To Wireless Coverage

– Software:• Iperf

– OPNET:• Verify model against existing UC traffic

• Use model to determine suitability of 802.11n wireless against UC’s goals

Deliverables• Site Surveys

– Buildings with no wireless coverage– Buildings not conducive to wireless coverage– Buildings very conducive to wireless coverage

• OPNET Models– OCAS (Expansion of Previous SD Project)– UC Core Network– 802.11 Shared Media Problem

• Scorecard Analysis– Technical– Business

Proof of Design - Scorecard

• Scorecard AP

Proof of Design - Scorecard

Proof of Design – Scorecard Calculations

  Meru Networks Aruba Networks Cisco Networks

Grand Total 107 199 165

Proof of Design - Iperf Setup

Proof of Design – Iperf Result

– Server: iperf –s –w 512k– Client: iperf –c <IP> -w 512k –P4 –i2

Vendor Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Trial 7 Trial 8 Trial 9 Trial 10 Average

Cisco 1 Server 81.00 86.60 90.00 90.60 84.80 88.30 76.30 88.40 83.80 93.00 86.3

Cisco 1 Client 104.00 86.80 90.10 90.80 84.90 88.50 76.50 88.50 84.00 93.30 88.7

Cisco 2 Server 7.91 6.65 7.36 8.38 8.10 7.65 7.37 7.11 5.16 7.19 7.3

Cisco 2 Client 7.90 6.65 7.37 8.38 8.09 7.64 7.37 7.11 5.16 7.19 7.3

Aruba 1 Server 36.40 62.50 54.70 55.50 24.00 46.70 44.30 65.30 81.40 98.90 57.0

Aruba 1 Client 46.80 62.50 54.70 55.60 24.00 46.80 44.40 65.40 81.40 99.00 58.1

Aruba 2 Server 0.660 0.834 0.880 0.831 0.774 1.050 0.548 0.754 0.662 0.626 0.8

Aruba 2 Client 0.660 0.834 0.880 0.831 0.774 1.050 0.548 0.754 0.662 0.626 0.8

Proof of Design – IperfChart Example

Proof of Design - Heatmaps

• 3rd Floor Science Building:

Proof of Design – OPNET Models

• OPNET is a network modeling tool– OPNET generates network simulations that

provide insight into how a specific network topology will operate

• UC Model has three levels of abstraction– Low-level Abstraction– Mid-level Abstraction– High-level Abstraction

Proof of Design –OPNET Demonstration

Business Recommendation

• UC not be an early adopter of 802.11n– Technology needs time to mature– A lot of development needs left in vendors to

meet enterprise requirements• Wireless Network Meshing• Scalability Issues

• If decided to, Aruba Networks is our vendor of choice utilizing “Greenfield” wireless configuration (5Ghz Only)

Summary• UCit has 50% wireless coverage of the

Uptown Campus, needs 100% coverage

• The wireless infrastructure is currently 802.11b/g standard, investigated 802.11n

Summary cont• Generated OPNET models of Uptown

campus as well as OCAS

• Completed main campus site surveys

• Completed business scorecard

• Made final recommendation to Mark Faulkner and UCit

Questions?