Campus Wireless LAN Survey
June 2004
Introduction: The following survey was created by the EDUCAUSE Net@EDU
Wireless Working Group as part of a project to gather information requested by the
Federal Communications Commission Wireless Broadband Access Task Force GN
Docket No. 04-163. Information was submitted by eleven different universities. This
information can be found immediately following the text of the survey. The answers are
arranged by campus population from smallest to largest and are compiled in two parts:
Part 1 shows results of questions 1-4, Part 2 shows results of questions 5-8. For questions
or comments please contact wwigen@educause.edu. The comments submitted to the
FCC can be found at: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO0406.pdf
1. Describe your campus:
1.1. What is your campus population?
1.1.1. Total faculty and staff?
1.1.2. Total students?
1.1.3. Total students in campus housing?
1.2 Is your campus property contiguous or dispersed among several remote sites?
1.3 Anything else about your particular campus that directly impacts your wireless
program?
2. Describe the decision process to install a wireless LAN:
3. Describe your campus wireless program:
3.1. Is your wireless network 802.11a, b, g, or other?
3.2. Do you have wireless coverage for: (approx. percentage)
3.2.1.
3.2.2.
3.2.3.
3.2.4.
3.2.5.
3.2.6.
3.2.7.
3.2.8.
Dormitory rooms
Dorm common areas
Classrooms
Public areas within classroom buildings
Library common areas
Library stacks
Eating areas
The entire campus
3.3 How many access points have you deployed?
3.3.1
Total on campus now?
Page 1 of 16
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
Additional planned over the next year?
Number serving campus housing now?
Additional planned for campus housing over the next year?
3.4 How many wired users do you have on campus?
3.5 How many WLAN users do you have on campus?
3.6 What brand(s) and mode(s) of equipment do you use for your wireless network?
3.7 What tools are you using to manage and monitor this part of the network?
4
Describe how it is used:
4.1 What is your total wireless traffic for typical days?
4.1.1 Average users/average traffic (bytes/sec)
4.1.2 Peak users/peak traffic (bytes/sec)
4.2 In any given location, if there is wireless and wired connectivity available, is there
a user preference for one or the other? If so, explain. Do you foresee this changing
in the future?
4.3 To what extent has wireless access increased overall Internet usage on your
campus?
4.4 What are the applications currently available over wireless? What do you expect
in the future?
4.5 What are the typical data rates per user:
4.5.1
4.5.2
On the average?
During peak usage?
4.6 What percentage of network traffic is typically symmetric? Asymmetric?
4.7 How have you designed your system to allow for peak usage periods without
degrading performance?
5
Describe the major external barriers to implementation of your wireless network
(regulatory, interference, geographic location etc.):
5.4 What could the federal government do to lower these barriers?
Page 2 of 16
5.5 Are there things the federal government could do (such as rule changes) that
would make adoption of new technologies such as mesh networks, and integrated
licensed/unlicensed devices easier?
5.6 Is there enough unlicensed spectrum available for your current needs? Are you
concerned about future needs? How does this affect planning?
5.7 To what extent has line-of-sight issues been a problem for your network? Would
higher-speed, lower frequency (900 MHz band and below), and/or higher power
transmission be desirable for better non-line-of-sight services?
5.8 What portion of your wireless network uses licensed spectrum and for what
purposes? How is this expected to change in the future?
6
Describe the major internal barriers to implementation (financial, staffing,
political, security, etc.)
6.4 How did you finance the cost of your wireless infrastructure?
6.5 What is your total number of WLAN support staff and total WLAN users?
6.6 Does your faculty want restrictions on wireless in classrooms?
6.7 Have security concerns been a problem?
7
Describe what you have learned since the decision was made to install a wireless
network:
7.1 What is your list of best practices, including things that have worked
exceptionally well?
7.2 What is your list of bad practices, including things you have learned not-to-do?
8
Does your campus participate in a community wireless project or are you
anticipating one in the future? If so,
8.1 What are the major barriers, both internal and external, for that implementation?
8.2 What could the federal government do to lower these barriers?
8.3 Describe any competitive broadband wireless providers in the area.
8.4 What are the security issues?
Page 3 of 16
Updated 9/15/04
EDUCAUSE
WLAN Survey: Part I Questions 1-4
June 2004
Little Priest Tribal
College
1. Campus
Description
Fac &Staff
Students
Total
Housing
Dispersed or
Contiguous
Other
2.Decision
Process
Description
Bryant
75
140
215
0
Contiguous
Bethune-Cookman
College
400
2,743
3,143
2,600
Contiguous
Georgetown
507
2,750
3,257
1,616
Contiguous
Northwestern
4,835
13,614
18,449
5,071
Dispersed
Buildings all connected by Old buildings
fiber except for one by
Tsunami radio bridge
To benefit faculty, staff and New construction and as
Money was available; only Fit overall plan to
students.
requested (with funding)
incorporate new
needed 7 AP for entire
technologies to gain
campus
competitive advantage and
improve the campus
learning experience.
Page 4 of 16
University of
Chicago
7,100
17,000
24,100
5,800
14,620
13,400
28,020
2,300
Contiguous
Contiguous
Two campuses, both selfcontiguous
Large teaching hospital
with separate data network
To benefit faculty, staff and Demand driven; needed
students.
secure system to avoid
rogue access point use;
phase 1 (complete): heavy
usage areas; phase 2 (in
progress): large research
labs; phase 3 (future) office
areas, new construction
(wired and wireless)
Updated 9/15/04
EDUCAUSE
WLAN Survey: Part I Questions 1-4
June 2004
Little Priest Tribal
College
3. WLAN
Description
802.11a, b, g or 50/50
other
Coverage:(%)
Dorm rooms
Dorm commons
Classrooms
Public areas
Library common
areas
Library stacks
Eating areas
Total campus
Access points:
Total access
points
Additional
planned
Housing
(present)
Housing
(planned)
Users:
Wired users on
campus
WLAN users on Only a few
campus
Tools:
Equipment used: Cisco, Belkin, D-Link
Management
Tools:
Bryant
Bethune-Cookman
College
Georgetown
Northwestern
University of
Chicago
802.11g
Began with 802.11b,
adding some 802.11g
802.11b
802.11b and 802.11g
802.11b
n/a
n/a
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
100
25
25
100
10
25
10
20
100
5
15
15
10
80
0
95
75
75
80
100
100
100
100
100
95
100
50
40
100
100
20
80
90
15
Marginal
95
40
7
248
34
300
275
300
0
50
10
100
45
200
n/a
120
12
90
35
60
n/a
10
3
0
5
40
100
4,000
2,000
16,000
34,000
20,000
2,000
75
2,000
5,200
2,000
The diagnostic tools that
come with the access
points
Cisco 1200's AP, Cisco
WLSE, Cisco core
infrastructure
Cisco WLSE
Avaya/Orinco APs
(802.11b and 802.11b/g)
Cisco 350 and 1200 Series Cisco 350 and 1200 Series Cisco 350, 1100 and 1200
APs
APs
APs
A radius server and acces Cisco WLSE
point software
Page 5 of 16
Fedelia's Netvigil,
YellowJacket and Air
Magnet
Fluke wave runner,
Berkeley Varitronics Yellow
Jacket, Georgia Tech.
Lawn System
Updated 9/15/04
EDUCAUSE
WLAN Survey: Part I Questions 1-4
June 2004
Little Priest Tribal
College
Bryant
Bethune-Cookman
College
Georgetown
Northwestern
University of
Chicago
Total wireless
traffic
Average
users/average
traffic
(bytes/sec)
Peak users/
peak traffic
(bytes/sec)
User preference:
wired or wireless
low
n/a
n/a
300 users
n/a
n/a
15/11Mbps
300 users
1100/1-3Mbps
1000/10Mbps
n/a
n/a
50/11Mbps
460 users
1300/3.75Mbps
1500/15Mbps
Wired; very few students
own wireless devices
Wireless due to
convenience. Forecast:
wireless
Wireless due to
convenience. Forecast:
wireless
Wired due to bandwidth.
Forecast: wired
Wireless due to
convenience. Forecast:
wireless
Negligible
No change
Negligible
Minor Increase
Wireless due to
convenience. But wired
may be required for large
downloads.
Negligible
Change in
overall Internet
usage due to
wireless
Applications
available over
wireless
All applications also on
wired LAN
E-mail, web surfing, online All IP applications
E-mail, web surfing, web
portal use; Forecast: same registration and some
webct offerings.
as wired
All IP applications (no
multicast applications)
Web and e-mail; no
restrictions on applications
Forecast: same
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3-5Mbps
1-2Mbps
80%
n/a
n/a
n/a
.1Mbps
.2Mbps
66%
Not an issue
As budget allows
Additional APs
Overall design for high
quality
11Mbps
5.5Mbps
95%
based on network stats
Additonal APs
4. WLAN Usage
Description
Minor Increase
Data rates/user:
On average
Peak usage
% asymetric
traffic
System design
for peak usage
Page 6 of 16
Wired available as
alternative
Updated 9/15/04
EDUCAUSE
WLAN Survey: Part I Questions 1-4
June 2004
Georgia Tech
1. Campus
Description
Fac &Staff
Students
Total
Housing
Dispersed or
Contiguous
Other
2.Decision
Process
Description
Virginia Tech
5,900
16600
22,500
7400
Contiguous
Colorado State
6,600
28,000
34,600
8,500
Contiguous
University of
Maryland
7,000
24,500
31,500
5,900
Contiguous
NYU
12,112
35,329
47,441
11,579
Contiguous
Outdoor areas have many
Some lab areas are
26,000 acre area: wide
supported with laptops and trees that impact signal
range of spectrum
quality.
access points on carts.
applications, including
ITFS, microwave, satellite
teleport, TV/Radio stations,
public safety, medical,
paging, cellular/PCS, and
small airport.
Deployed 802.11
equipment as a trial in the
IT Building; as a result, all
campuses have been
demanding 802.11
Began in conference rooms Planned centrally with
and common areas; next to priority heavy usage areas
and by special request
academic and
administrative buildings;
not in dorm rooms due to
ethernet
Page 7 of 16
To benefit users by offering
an alternative connection;
began with heavy usage
areas
11,000
50,000
61,000
10000+
Contiguous
Strong fiber infrastructure;
25 distinct address spaces
hamper mobility; urban site
demands careful position
of access points on exterior
walls
Interested prior to 802.11;
security was and remains
greatest concern; grew
slowly until a scalable
model was achieved;
started with common
areas; spread as requested
by faculty;
Updated 9/15/04
Georgia Tech
3. WLAN
Description
802.11a, b, g or Mixture of all three.
other
Coverage:(%)
Dorm rooms
0
20
Dorm commons
75
Classrooms
75
Public areas
Library common
100
areas
100
Library stacks
80
Eating areas
Total campus
Access points:
Total access
550
points
Additional
150
planned
Housing
7
(present)
Housing
15
(planned)
Users:
Wired users on
campus
WLAN users on
6200
campus
Tools:
Equipment used: Proxim: Wave POINT-II,
AP-1000, AP-2000, AP1200; Cisco AP-1200
Management
Proxim AP Manager, Web
Tools:
interface, IOS commands;
evaluating Airwave
Management Platform
EDUCAUSE
WLAN Survey: Part I Questions 1-4
June 2004
Virginia Tech
Colorado State
University of
Maryland
NYU
802.11a,b,g: Upgraded to
802.11g summer '04
Primarily 802.11b; new
802.11b (except for a few
installations are 802.11b/g "g" tests)
802.11b converting to
802.11g within a year.
0
0
90
95
100
20
100
75
50
100
2
2
15
80
80
0
5
15
5
40
100
80
50
100
100
25
20
100
Marginal coverage
0
5
850
220
404
360
100
0
0
100
0
18
15
0
0
28
0
12+
25,000
30,000
25,000
24,000
1,450
800
3,000
6,000
increasing daily
Cisco 1200s; Bluesocket
Cisco 340 (7), 350 (74) and Cisco 350 and 1200
1200 (175) Aps
Tivoli Net View, Nagios,
Cisco WLSE, in-house
scripts, MRTG, AirMagnet and a collection of locally
developed management
handheld
tools.
Page 8 of 16
Cisco (end-to-end)
transitioning to 1200 Aps
2 Cisco WLSEs (on
Micromuse Netcool,
Wavelink Mobile Manager, order)
Airmagnet, Sniffer Wireless
Updated 9/15/04
EDUCAUSE
WLAN Survey: Part I Questions 1-4
June 2004
Georgia Tech
Virginia Tech
Colorado State
University of
Maryland
NYU
90/9 Mbps
n/a
50/3.5 Mbps
5.5Mbps
n/a
500/62 Mbps
n/a
100/7 Mbps
12Mbps
n/a
Wired. Forecast: wireless
No preference except in
conference rooms
Wireless due to
convenience. Forecast:
power is more the problem
4. WLAN Usage
Description
Total wireless
traffic
Average
users/average
traffic
(bytes/sec)
Peak users/
peak traffic
(bytes/sec)
User preference:
wired or wireless
Change in
overall Internet
usage due to
wireless
Applications
available over
wireless
Wirless is preferred, unless Laptop and PDA users
high bandwidth required
prefer wireless: desktops
prefer wired. Forecast:
more wireless
Minor Increase
Negligible
<10%
Negligible
All IP applications;
E-mail and web. Forecast: All current network
Web Services, email,
Currently, best effort
resources; Forecast: voice NYUnet; (P2P is blocked)
interactive shell, news, etc. Internet/Intranet. Forecast: Wireless integration with
Univ. portal
voice and multimedia.
Data rates/user:
On average
Peak usage
% asymetric
traffic
System design
for peak usage
n/a
n/a
55%
1.5 Mbps
.5 Mbps
80%
Additional AP's
Upgrading from 802.11 b to Designed for coverage not Designed for coverage not More access points
running on a very low
g
usage; no problems so far usage except in large
power; no problems so far.
lecture halls
2-3 Mbps
<1Mbps
90%
Page 9 of 16
n/a
n/a
90%
n/a
n/a
n/a
EDUCAUSE
WLAN Survey: Part II Questions 5-8
June 2004
5. Describe the major external barriers to implementation of your wireless network:
Little Priest Tribal College
Bryant
Bethune-Cookman College
University of Chicago
Virginia Tech
Colorado State
The lack of need for it by our students who
have no wireless devices.
Building design and signal penetration.
Cost
Channel separation/density is the largest
drawback; also trying to implement two
separate networks superimposed on each
other is nightmare.
Cost recovery
Unable to integrate campus voice and data
services with local cellular/mobile providers
5.1 What could the federal government do to lower these barriers?
Northwestern
University of Chicago
Virginia Tech
Having only 3 non-overlapping channels
available makes deployments difficult; a larger
channel range would help.
Somehow limit/control products in this portion
of spectrum
Continue to promote unlicensed spectrum and
affordable products
5.2 Are there things the federal government could do (such as rule changes) that would make
adoption of new technologies such as mesh networks, and integrated licensed/unlicensed
devices easier?
Little Priest Tribal College
Virginia Tech
Unlicensed devices might help to do a remote
site about 15 miles from main campus.
Lower frequency, higher speed, bands (900
MHz band and below) are needed for outside
NLOS WMAN applications
5.3 Is there enough unlicensed spectrum available for your current needs? Are you concerned
about future needs? How does this affect planning?
Little Priest Tribal College
Bethune-Cookman College
Georgetown
University of Chicago
Not a problem.
Not a problem.
Currently enough unlicensed spectrum for our
needs; the proliferation of additional wireless
products could start to make this a problem; we
would have to make sure all of these new
products are coordinated in a planned
deployment so as not to interfere with the
current/future infrastructure.
Probably yes, but since we are limited to
marketed products, this is an ongoing concern.
Page 10 of 16
EDUCAUSE
WLAN Survey: Part II Questions 5-8
June 2004
Virginia Tech
Colorado State
U of Maryland
Georgia Tech
Currently enough spectrum; may not be
enough for video; no affordable products like
Wi-Fi for 900 MHz; no WiMAX for 900 MHz and
lower bands
Yes, primarily because we have a large,
contiguous campus.
No; but we just utilize what’s available (and
assume more will continue to become
available.); our planning is not affected.
Currently, there is; as more 2.4 GHz devices
are produced, thus may change.
5.4 To what extent had line-of-sight issues been a problem for your network? Would higher
speed, lower frequency (900 MHz band and below), and/or higher power transmission be
desirable for better non-line-of-sight-services?
Little Priest Tribal College
Bethune-Cookman College
Georgetown
University of Chicago
Virginia Tech
Colorado State
U of Maryland
NYU
Georgia Tech
Not a problem
Maybe
Not a problem
Not a problem to date; probably
Big problem for outside and community
wireless networks
Deployed wireless mostly inside buildings, with
very few point-to-point links; if we deploy a
mobile wireless solution (to benefit the
University police) the 900 MHz solution would
help resolve problems with trees, etc.
Not a major problem
6-7 point-to-point currently running; tons of
fiber so lots of option; only one building that
couldn’t be reached.
Not a problem
5.5 What portion of your wireless network uses licensed spectrum and for what purposes? How
is this expected to change in the future?
University of Chicago
Virginia Tech
Colorado State
Georgia Tech
None, now; integration with cellular, etc., will
change this
Mostly unlicensed and that will continue to
increase on campus and possibly to hot spots
and hot zones around town; a regional metro
wireless network is being planned that may
make use of licenses and/or unlicensed band
services.
No licensed spectrum is used for data only
purposes at this time; the University funds
approximately 1,400 cellular devices
(faculty/staff); approximately 90% of students
have cellular phones.
None
Page 11 of 16
EDUCAUSE
WLAN Survey: Part II Questions 5-8
June 2004
6. Describe the major internal barriers to implementation:
Little Priest Tribal College
Georgia Tech
Financial
Financial and staffing; we’re putting up access
points as fast as we can but we’re still not
keeping up with the demand.
6.1 How do you finance the cost of your wireless infrastructure?
Little Priest Tribal College
Bryant
Bethune-Cookman College
Georgetown
Northwestern
University of Chicago
Virginia Tech
Colorado State
U of Maryland
NYU
Georgia Tech
EPSCOR helped with some of the access
points.
Won capital approval as special project.
A combination of grants and internal funding.
Originally a funded project to cover high profile
areas; funded now by departments by request;
included in the cost for new or refurbished
buildings.
35 of the APs were funded centrally; 240
funded by departments, installed and
maintained by IT
It was a budgeted technology enhancement.
Subscription fee and bundled
Most with central capital IT funding; some
college IT funds have been contributed.
Base seed cost; all expansions paid for by
departments.
Funded by central IT organization.
IT department purchases access point out of
budget or special funding; departments fund
the installation of wired ports to support the
APs.
6.2 What is your total number of WLAN support staff and total WLAN users?
Little Priest Tribal College
Bryant
Bethune-Cookman College
Georgetown
Northwestern
University of Chicago
Virginia Tech
Colorado State
U of Maryland
One staff / only a few users
one FTE / 2,000 users
Four support staff / 75 users
The wireless is supported by the current
engineering staff/ 2,000 users
Multiple layers of support; basic support and
network support; none dedicated / 5,200 users
8 support staff who perform all network
installation and repair including wired and
backbone / 2,000 users
5 staff / 6,000 users; integrated with wired LAN
staff so hard to tell.
5 FTE / 1,450 users; None of the staff are
dedicated to wireless only.
3 support / 800 users
Page 12 of 16
EDUCAUSE
WLAN Survey: Part II Questions 5-8
June 2004
NYU
Georgia Tech
<10 staff / 3,000 users
4+ support/ 6,200 users
6.3 Does your faculty want restrictions on wireless in classrooms?
Little Priest Tribal College
One faculty member uses wireless, not an
issue.
Yes
Not yet.
Some requests that we don’t deploy wireless
near their classrooms so that students aren’t
distracted by surfing the internet.
Had it mentioned but never requested; in a
building that is fully covered it is hard to block
access to a classroom and not a study area
that may be right next door.
Yes, some want the ability to turn it off at
certain times.
Some do.
Not at this time.
Under discussion in various forms on campus;
no resolution as yet
Not at this time.
Bryant
Bethune-Cookman College
Georgetown
Northwestern
University of Chicago
Virginia Tech
Colorado State
NYU
Georgia Tech
6.4 Have security concerns been a problem?
Little Priest Tribal College
Bryant
Bethune-Cookman College
Georgetown
Northwestern
University of Chicago
Virginia Tech
Colorado State
U of Maryland
NYU
Georgia Tech
Not yet.
Have not been a problem but the issues were
dominate throughout the planning and design
phase.
No
Yes, we currently run an open network and are
seriously considering a change.
No at this time; we have users tunneled
through a VPN server.
Yes, moderately; of great concern is
“compromised computers”.
Yes, authentication and encryption are issues
No
Yes, authentication is used and VPN is
recommended.
THE BIG CONCERN; currently support 3 types
of clients, hopefully will be supplanted by
802.11i standard.
Wireless network is treated as “off-campus” –
only secure protocols allowed; greater problem
is virus- infected laptops connecting to network
Page 13 of 16
EDUCAUSE
WLAN Survey: Part II Questions 5-8
June 2004
7. Describe what you have learned since the decision was made to install a wireless network:
Little Priest Tribal College
It is not that hard to do; it is very convenient;
we will always make wireless available in new
buildings
7.1 What is your list of best practices, including things that have worked exceptionally well?
Little Priest Tribal College
Bryant
Bethune-Cookman College
Georgetown
Northwestern
University of Chicago
Virginia Tech
Colorado State
U of Maryland
NYU
Our wireless access is so simple and so
complete, it is a best practice; the less
expensive access points work just as well as
the more expensive Cisco access points.
Include the student community in the overall
process; give them a voice; process seems to
speed up when students are the advocates.
Installation isn’t that hard; keep it simple; a high
level of security isn’t always needed at some
locations.
Good site surveys; provide exceptional
coverage in all areas that are to be covered;
advise users that wireless is an adjunct to the
wired network.
Statically set the channel on the AP rather than
letting the APs auto scan; a site survey for all
installs.
Every installation is different, so you must do a
survey; provide coverage where needed so
that rogues are less likely; remove rogues;
require authentication to use the wireless
network; maintain the ability to identify both
compromised machines and users violating
policy; quarantine infected machines.
Site surveys; assess asbestos and lead paint
issues in advance
Use VPN to insure authentication and privacy
(via encryption).
Use Siteplanner for design.
Realize that education environment is
extremely tough compared to corporate;
compromises are constant; always think
backwards and think legacy equipment; have a
uniform methodology to connect to the
network, including guests; don’t skimp on
number of APs; low power/high density works
well; set the user expectation bar---cell phone
comparison works well.
Page 14 of 16
EDUCAUSE
WLAN Survey: Part II Questions 5-8
June 2004
7.2 What is your list of bad practices, including things that you have learned not-to-do?
Bethune-Cookman College
Georgetown
University of Chicago
Virginia Tech
Colorado State
NYU
It’s not always necessary to outsource
installation; don’t buy a 2nd access point when
another card and an external antenna might do
the trick.
Originally recommended certain wireless NICs;
we no longer do that.
Make few or no assumptions about topology
requirements; do a survey!
Sloppy work.
Have had occasional problems with users
bridging wired and wireless LANs; still looking
for a good solution to prevent this. (Cisco APs
do run IOS but *do not* allow routing between
the wireless and wired sides.)
Don’t depend solely on proprietary solutions.
8. Does your campus participate in a community wireless project or are you anticipating one in
the future?
Little Priest Tribal College
Bryant
Bethune-Cookman College
Georgetown
Northwestern
University of Chicago
Virginia Tech
Colorado State
U of Maryland
NYU
Georgia Tech
I hope to make the college the leader in an
effort to connect to the entire community into a
wireless network.
Not at this time.
None anticipated
No
No
No
Yes, do participate and anticipate more in the
future
Exploring the possibility
No
No and not in near future, enough existing
hotspots available in neighboring areas
Partner with wireless ISP to provide wireless
service in ‘public’ areas of the campus such as
retail, library and continuing ed buildings.
8.1 What are the major barriers, both internal and external, for that implementation?
Little Priest Tribal College
Virginia Tech
Colorado State
The major barriers are political; we hope the
college can become the leader with the ability
to bring the community together enough to set
aside political issues and do what is right for
the community.
Cost and right of way.
Access to towers, municipal fiber, separating
entities’ wireless traffic into routable VLANs
Page 15 of 16
EDUCAUSE
WLAN Survey: Part II Questions 5-8
June 2004
Georgia Tech
How to provide public ISP service in some of
the same locations as we provide Georgia
Tech wireless network without interfering; use
multiple SSIDs on AP; separate VLAN for
public ISP traffic; hand-off to ISP who handles
billing etc.
8.2 What could the federal government do to lower these barriers?
Little Priest Tribal College
Virginia Tech
Help us increase our bandwidth; we can use
that as a vehicle to support non-profit
community projects.
Promote development of lower cost
WMAN/WiMAX technologies for unlicensed
bands.
8.3 What are the security issues?
Little Priest Tribal College
Virginia Tech
Colorado State
Georgia Tech
Security will need to be tight once we set up a
community-wide wireless network; we will need
to lead and be the key player.
Authentication, encryption, VLANs,
performance impact, cost
Eavesdropping, masquerading, denial of
service, rogue APs, airborne viruses
Insulated from their security issues because
their traffic does not touch anything on our
network.
Page 16 of 16