To Cable, or Not to Cable
-
I feel like that article was so bad, getting quoted in it was a bit like a name and shame. I'm sure much of it was taken out of context to make minor quotes like "don't deploy it if you don't need it" or whatever were used to build up the general insanity and on their own didn't imply the craziness that resulted. But, still.
-
I feel like this article could easily have been written about using Windows, WSUS, or other assumed, but actually optional, technologies pretty easily as well.
-
I'm actually reading this post over WiFi right now.
-
-
|can|———string———|can|
I win security!
-
I'm pretty sure I got cancer (Wirelessly) reading that article and the responses.
-
@storageninja said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
I'm pretty sure I got cancer (Wirelessly) reading that article and the responses.
I would never had even read it if you had not mentioned how bad it was earlier this morning.
-
@scottalanmiller said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
@storageninja said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
I'm pretty sure I got cancer (Wirelessly) reading that article and the responses.
I would never had even read it if you had not mentioned how bad it was earlier this morning.
It did make me realize that a LOT of people don't understand the OSI layer model, and how security at a higher level can completely mitigate any breach at a lower level.
-
@storageninja said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
@scottalanmiller said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
@storageninja said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
I'm pretty sure I got cancer (Wirelessly) reading that article and the responses.
I would never had even read it if you had not mentioned how bad it was earlier this morning.
It did make me realize that a LOT of people don't understand the OSI layer model, and how security at a higher level can completely mitigate any breach at a lower level.
Yes. I was shocked by the total dependence on media security and the assumption that if you could access the network itself that all was lost. It explains so much about to many other posts, though.
-
@scottalanmiller I'm curious, which AP were you thinking of in this video? By the nature of how radio and wifi work, I don't expect any kind of performance after around 15-20 active clients per radio (most AP have a minimum of 2 radios). Yes, keyword is active. You can have thousands of clients per AP radio if most of them aren't doing anything.
-
@travisdh1 said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
@scottalanmiller I'm curious, which AP were you thinking of in this video? By the nature of how radio and wifi work, I don't expect any kind of performance after around 15-20 active clients per radio (most AP have a minimum of 2 radios). Yes, keyword is active. You can have thousands of clients per AP radio if most of them aren't doing anything.
None in particular. APs are dirt cheap, so you can always add more. I only mentioned around that number per machine. You can have roughly one AP for every user for the cost of Ethernet drops, anyway!
-
@scottalanmiller said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
@travisdh1 said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
@scottalanmiller I'm curious, which AP were you thinking of in this video? By the nature of how radio and wifi work, I don't expect any kind of performance after around 15-20 active clients per radio (most AP have a minimum of 2 radios). Yes, keyword is active. You can have thousands of clients per AP radio if most of them aren't doing anything.
None in particular. APs are dirt cheap, so you can always add more. I only mentioned around that number per machine. You can have roughly one AP for every user for the cost of Ethernet drops, anyway!
Yep. Or if you're building didn't get structured wiring put in when it was built, it's much cheaper to run a cable to each AP than it is 2 to 4 cables per room! Which is exactly what my plan is for next year just before the Sophos license runs out, and cheaper for more radios (much less APs) than another year of a license.
-
@travisdh1 said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
@scottalanmiller said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
@travisdh1 said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
@scottalanmiller I'm curious, which AP were you thinking of in this video? By the nature of how radio and wifi work, I don't expect any kind of performance after around 15-20 active clients per radio (most AP have a minimum of 2 radios). Yes, keyword is active. You can have thousands of clients per AP radio if most of them aren't doing anything.
None in particular. APs are dirt cheap, so you can always add more. I only mentioned around that number per machine. You can have roughly one AP for every user for the cost of Ethernet drops, anyway!
Yep. Or if you're building didn't get structured wiring put in when it was built, it's much cheaper to run a cable to each AP than it is 2 to 4 cables per room! Which is exactly what my plan is for next year just before the Sophos license runs out, and cheaper for more radios (much less APs) than another year of a license.
That's one of the many places where the original article just didn't make sense. Their assumed "wired is free, wireless is expensive" pricing just doesn't hold up. That can be true, if one is already paid for and one isn't, but that's about equally likely to be either one.
-
And over the years I've dealt with a lot of companies that had cabling problems and needed cables ripped out of the walls and fixed at great expense. That can get expensive really quickly.
-
The only thing I would not run over wifi is VoIP phones, not because of security but stability on the network.
-
@dbeato said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
The only thing I would not run over wifi is VoIP phones, not because of security but stability on the network.
I'd be hesitant to do SAN or database connections over Wifi, too
-
@scottalanmiller said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
@dbeato said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
The only thing I would not run over wifi is VoIP phones, not because of security but stability on the network.
I'd be hesitant to do SAN or database connections over Wifi, too
Yeah, sorry I missed that
-
@dbeato said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
@scottalanmiller said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
@dbeato said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
The only thing I would not run over wifi is VoIP phones, not because of security but stability on the network.
I'd be hesitant to do SAN or database connections over Wifi, too
Yeah, sorry I missed that
LOL, there are lots of infrastructure things I'd not do on wifi. But the original article was pretty much written from an "all IT is the end user" perspective as if there was no tech involved anyway.
-
@scottalanmiller said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
@dbeato said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
The only thing I would not run over wifi is VoIP phones, not because of security but stability on the network.
I'd be hesitant to do SAN or database connections over Wifi, too
There's some new wireless about that I wouldn't be afraid to use as interconnects with servers, but it's not wifi. mm wave beamforming and 40Gb/s if I remember right.
-
@scottalanmiller said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
@dbeato said in To Cable, or Not to Cable:
The only thing I would not run over wifi is VoIP phones, not because of security but stability on the network.
I'd be hesitant to do SAN or database connections over Wifi, too
Can't speak to SAN over WiFi, but databases over Wifi will suck big time -- even if your wifi is reliable.
