
Analysis
As enterprises increasingly rely on wireless LANs (WLANs) for mission-critical communication, the challenges
of network design, network management, and problem diagnosis become more complex. WLAN vendor tools
must become more sophisticated in order to meet the everyday administrative demands imposed by a burgeoning,
increasingly sophisticated wireless network. In addition, WLAN vendors must strive to make WLAN networks
more deterministic and predictable by designing WLAN systems that are self-configuring, self-adjusting, and self-
healing.
Use Cases
This assessment compares 12 enterprise WLAN vendors to determine how well they satisfy the requirements for
three common uses cases: network design, network management, and problem diagnosis. Each use case was
defined in such a way as to highlight differences among the vendors rather than trying to be exhaustive in scope.
Network Design
Wireless network design is often more art than science. A countless number of variables can affect WLAN
performance and behavior. Vendors have responded to this complexity in three ways. First, many vendors make
use of increasingly sophisticated network-design tools such as the AirMagnet Planner or the Motorola
LANPlanner. These tools integrate complex three-dimensional (3D) models of various radio and antenna
technologies with environmental factors such as building construction and floor-plan layout to create predictive
network designs.
Most tools require that an administrator import a floor plan. In addition, the administrator must define the building
material and boundaries for the floors, walls, and ceilings (in some cases, the imported floor plan may already
contain some of this information). This can be a time consuming process and, at best, is an approximate model of
the actual environment. Most tools ask the user a series of questions about the design (e.g., “What are the voice
requirements?”). The tools also generate the required number and type of access points (APs) and automatically
place the APs on the floor plan.
The major drawback of these tools is that they create a static model of a dynamic network. Predictive network
designs cannot account for all of the real-time fluctuations in wireless behavior (refer to the overview “
Demystifying Radio Management” for more information on radio management). They provide a good “first cut”
design that enables enterprises to estimate the bill of materials (BOM) cost, create an installation plan, and deploy
a network. However, enterprises that attempt to continually refine their design will quickly reach a point of
diminishing returns.
The second method includes the use of site-survey tools such as AirMagnet Survey or Ekahau Site Survey. Site
surveys measure the signal propagation in the environment (e.g., lecture hall, hospital, or office) using the actual
APs that the enterprise intends to deploy. These tools enable the enterprise to assess the coverage, performance,
and signal strength throughout the actual deployment area and then map this information onto a floor plan.
Enterprises use the site survey to help the network-design tool more accurately reflect real-world environmental
characteristics. Most predictive design tools can import site-survey information. Some design tools can also
perform the survey.
Although a site survey improves design accuracy because it actively measures the nuances of signal propagation,
it also creates a static model of a dynamic network. In addition, site surveys are time intensive and therefore
costly. So, many enterprises do not perform site surveys for the entire enterprise. Instead, they selectively perform
the surveys in areas where they have particularly challenging radio frequency (RF) environments. Refer to the
Gartner document “Critical Components of Any WLAN Site Survey” for more informationon-site surveys.
11
BURTON GROUP 7090 Union Park Center Suite 200 Midvale · Utah 84047 · P 801.566.2880 · F 801.566.3611 · www.burtongroup.com
Kommentare zu diesen Handbüchern