Recommendations of the CCFIT Wireless Working
Group
Wireless Working Group members:
Matt Bishop (chair), Rob Kerner, Dave Klem, Bob Ono, Julie Saylor
IET/CR representatives:
Steve Aguirre, Peter Blando, Diane Bahr, Ron Burt, Sandra Duncan, Rodger Hess, Zack
O’Donnell, Mark Redican, Amy Slavich
Executive Summary
Based on wireless networking being considered an integral part of the campus
network, this report presents a proposed priority listing of buildings and areas on campus
for rolling out wireless coverage in order to provide state-of-the-art, near-ubiquitous
coverage of the campus. The areas are organized into four groups: high benefit at low,
medium, and high cost, and other locations.
Introduction
Last year, a task group established by CCFIT developed a report on the current state of
wireless networking at UC Davis, and made recommendations to guide the expansion of
wireless throughout the campus. Among its recommendations was a basis for prioritizing
the deployment of wireless throughout campus areas and buildings.
The charge to this group included applying that basis to the campus, and making
specific recommendations about where and in what order wireless should be deployed.
This report provides that recommendation, as well as a proposal to incorporate the
funding for this plan into the basic rates for campus telephone and wired network
services.
Definitions
This report uses several terms the meaning of which may be unclear, or which in
common language may have several meanings. For clarity, we define them here.
Wireless access. Connecting to another computer or network using an 802.11 wireless
network.
Access point (AP). An “access point” is a device that listens for attempts to connect to
a wireless network, and if the connecting user and/or device are authorized to use the
wireless network, communicates with the device. APs are normally connected to a wired
network, and act as a bridge between the wireless device(s) and the wired network.
NAM. A network access module (NAM) is a point at which a device can be connected
to the campus wired network. It is typically the jack in the wall that one connects to the
network port on the physical computer.
October 8, 2007
Page 1 of 11
Recommendations of the CCFIT Wireless Working Group
Density. Density is to the number of people in an area that the wireless network
serves. The more people present in a given area, the higher the density. This is relevant
because each AP has a limit to the number of wireless connections that it can handle.
Hence, one may need to deploy multiple APs to handle an area of high density when,
were the same area low density, a single AP would suffice. Typically, we look at density
per square foot.
Cost. Cost is the amount of money needed to provide wireless coverage for a given
area. This includes the cost of the APs and NAMs. It does not include any remodeling
costs.
Current State of Wireless Network Coverage at UC Davis
The wireless network coverage on campus is currently inadequate for both the
demands of the campus and as an infrastructure supporting the research and education
missions of UC Davis. Key problems include limited coverage, no standardization in
provision of services or security among the organizational units providing wireless
services, lack of support for voice and video services over wireless, and lack of control
over the radio frequencies used by wireless networks. Campus constituencies have
requested more wireless coverage, better security and performance, and a quicker
procedure to provide guest access
This state of affairs has many causes. One is the funding model. Currently,
departments provide funding for their own wireless networks, in some cases with
supplementary funding from IET. A second cause is the deployment model. If
departments deploy and/or manage their own wireless access points, then IET has no
control over them. If departments contract with IET to deploy and/or manage their access
points, then IET incorporates the department wireless network into the campus wireless
network that IET manages. This enables IET to provide security services, monitoring,
maintenance, and troubleshooting of those portions of the network. Unfortunately, most
wireless access points on campus are not managed by IET and serve limited
constituencies.
As a result, wireless coverage is limited for the general campus users. Further, the lack
of central control means that performance cannot be guaranteed, and security cannot be
effectively enforced outside those wireless services provided by IET. Lastly, the set of
wireless services cannot be standardized because each wireless provider (department)
supports its own set of services, which may differ from those supported by IET. Moving
to a centrally managed wireless service provided by IET would address these
inconsistencies and would provide secure, standardized wireless services throughout
campus.
Making wireless as pervasive and uniform as possible is a campus goal. The current
deployment model is for departments either to provide their own wireless services or opt
into the centrally managed service from CR. This decentralized model has created a
balkanized set of wireless services that are not uniformly available to all campus wireless
users. It has resulted in a patchwork of spaces with wireless coverage, while most areas
on campus have no coverage at all, including widely shared areas such as classrooms,
conference spaces and meeting rooms. Department wireless deployments typically serve
October 5, 2007
Page 2 of 11
Recommendations of the CCFIT Wireless Working Group
only department needs and are not available to the general campus population.
Therefore, the availability of wireless services is extremely limited for the general
campus user. Additionally, this distributed approach to wireless deployment and
management prevents guarantees of network performance and effective policing and
enforcing of security requirements for wireless access to the data network outside of the
wireless services that IT manages.
Last year, the CCFIT Wireless Task Group prepared recommendations for the short
term and long term deployment of wireless throughout the campus. A summary of these
recommendations and the progress made so far is in Appendix A.
The current task group was formed to answer the question: in what order should areas
be covered by wireless?
Deployment Principles
We drew the general principles for determining the ordering from the report of the
Wireless Task Group last year. They are:
1. Whenever a new building is to be built, or an existing one to be remodeled, part of
the design procedure and cost is to go through a comprehensive wireless design
analysis to determine how many APs are needed to cover the building with
wireless, and where those APs are to be located.
2. Public safety areas where wireless would contribute to safety should have the
highest priority.
3. Some areas have high benefit and low cost; these should be done as quickly as
possible.
4. The next priority should be where we have existing coverage. This means
persuading units running their own wireless to fold it into CR’s network, or
decide they cannot and figure out how to make them compatible with CR’s
network. This includes compatibility with respect to security and management
issues.
5. Other areas, such as common areas, education areas, departments not now on
wireless, administration areas, recreation areas, existing buildings, and research
labs.
6. Adding wireless to residence halls could be an attraction for students living in the
campus residence halls, but that would be paid for from student housing fees. Any
proposals for changes in services and costs for student residence halls would be
jointly developed by Student Housing and IET.
Funding Principles
The key principle for the expansion and upgrade of campus wireless services is that
the wireless network is an integral part of the campus data network and not a separate
network or an adjunct service; therefore, funding for installation of wireless network
infrastructure should not be distinct from funding for wired network.
October 5, 2007
Page 3 of 11
Recommendations of the CCFIT Wireless Working Group
IET is gathering feedback on a six-year strategic telecommunications upgrade plan
that integrates wireless into the centrally-managed network service, provides nearubiquitous coverage throughout the core campus, and spreads the upgrade cost over six
years, starting in FY 2007-2008. When the campus adopts an upgrade plan and
corresponding funding plan for the proposed six-year telecommunications upgrade it
should be in accord with the principle stated above. Therefore, the equipment and
installation funding should automatically include the costs of wireless and the ongoing
funding should include wireless in the campus telecommunications rate structure. IET is
currently working with ORMP to develop an optimal funding model for the
telecommunications upgrade.
Integrating wired and wireless services will not only improve wireless accessibility,
but will also leverage wireless services as an alternative to wired services. The
installation of an individual wireless NAM and AP is about twice as expensive as the
installation of an individual wired NAM because of the additional labor and equipment
associated with the AP. However, a wireless AP can serve multiple clients, resulting in
lower per client installation and annual costs for wireless services. This has the potential
to reduce costs for the wired network electronics, which would offset the cost increases
related to investment in wireless electronics.
Criteria for Determining Priorities
The subgroup worked from the principles described above. We focused on buildings
and outside areas, and in many cases noted that covering the buildings allowed us to add
antennae outside the building to cover much of the outside areas.
We determined the ordering of the buildings by looking at the cost per square foot to
cover the building (“cost”), and the number of square feet that are expected to be
occupied with high to medium density (“benefit”). We chose the second measure to
represent “benefit” because “density” is directly related to the number of people, giving
those people the benefit of the wireless service. We then modified the order as indicated
by the needs of public safety (based on input from the UCD Police and Fire Departments)
and the existing wireless coverage.
We list some issues common to multiple parts below:
1. We considered whether providing wireless in a building enabled us to provide
coverage of external areas. The working group identified several outside areas that
students, staff, and faculty congregate in, or that had specific reasons to warrant
wireless coverage. Many of these areas are adjacent to buildings, and directing
antennae at those areas from adjacent buildings can help cover these areas. We
examined buildings for this, and in some cases changed the ordering to reflect this
coverage. We indicated where this was done in the parts below.
2. For public safety, buildings with a relatively high level of transient traffic, such as
students and visitors, were given a high ranking; buildings with more stable traffic
were given a lower ranking. Both the police and fire departments were consulted;
none suggested any changes.
October 5, 2007
Page 4 of 11
Recommendations of the CCFIT Wireless Working Group
3. We calculated density as follows. “Low density” areas are expected to have no more
than one AP per 2500 square feet; office space and some outdoor areas are examples.
“Medium density” areas are expected to have no more than one AP per 1000 square
feet; laboratories and library stacks are examples. “High density” areas are expected
to have one AP per 250 square feet; lecture halls, conference rooms, and classrooms
are examples.
4. We calculated cost based only on the deployment of APs and activation and
maintenance of NAMs. In particular, we did not factor in the difficulty of installing
new NAMs to provide full coverage of the building. Doing so may increase the cost,
especially as many of the buildings have asbestos in their walls, or may require
additional APs to work around barriers to wireless connectivity (such as metal
elevators or other sources of electromagnetic interference
The following recommended ordering1 is divided into 4 parts. The first 3 parts are all
of high benefit to the campus. A detailed description for the criteria used to place
buildings in each part is given.
Part 1 - Low Cost
Providing wireless coverage to these locations will deliver quality coverage to the largest
number of campus constituents at the lowest cost (under $4 per square foot). The areas
that fall into this category were selected using the following criteria:




They have large aggregations of users with an expected low cost per square foot to
deploy.
They have existing (but not full) coverage, that can be added at low cost
They can be the site for exterior access points that will serve outdoor aggregation
locations at a low cost
They are the site of frequent very large aggregations of people (sports and
recreational venues, exterior student social spots, etc.) that assure adequate coverage
for business and public safety needs
The areas are:
Shields Library
Mondavi Food and Wine
King Hall2
Bainer Hall
Genome and Biomedical Sciences Building
Veterinary Medicine Teaching Hospital
Life Sciences Addition Briggs
Storer Hall
Freeborn Hall
1
As IET discovers other factors such as required structural modifications and asbestos removal, the
proposed ordering presented here should be revisited in light of the new information.
2
As King Hall is scheduled to be remodeled, we recommend handling this as part of the remodeling
October 5, 2007
Page 5 of 11
Recommendations of the CCFIT Wireless Working Group
Silo
Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts
Roessler Hall
University Club
Giedt Hall
Part 2 –Moderate Cost
Providing wireless coverage to these locations will deliver quality coverage to the largest
number of campus constituents at a cost noticeably higher than those locations in Part 1
(between $4 and $8 per square foot). The areas that fall into this category were selected
using the following criteria:



They have large aggregations of users with an expected moderate cost per square foot
to deploy.
They have existing (but not full) coverage, that can be added at moderate cost
They can be the site for exterior access points that will serve outdoor aggregation
locations at a moderate cost
The areas are:
Briggs Hall—moved up due to the concentration of students in the classrooms
Wellman Hall—moved up due to the concentration of students in the classrooms
Olson Hall—moved up due to the concentration of students in the classrooms
Chemistry—moved up due to the concentration of students in the classrooms
Memorial Union—moved up due to the ability to have outside antennae cover the
Quad and other outside areas
Tupper Hall
Haring Hall
Meyer Hall
Kemper Hall
Buehler Alumni and Visitor Center—moved up due to its use for visitor meetings and
alumni events
Plant and Environmental Sciences Building
Academic Surge Building
Social Sciences and Humanities Building
Hutchison Hall
Wickson Hall
Physics-Geology Building
Chemistry Annex
Young Hall
Everson Hall
Kleiber Hall
Hickey Gym—moved down because people in this building tend to be in motion in
athletic events or other activities and hence are less likely to use wireless.
October 5, 2007
Page 6 of 11
Recommendations of the CCFIT Wireless Working Group
Part 3 –High Cost
Providing wireless coverage to these locations will deliver quality coverage to the largest
number of campus constituents at a cost noticeably higher than those locations in Part 2
(over $8 per square foot). The areas that fall into this category were selected using the
following criteria:

They have large aggregations of users with an expected high cost per square foot to
deploy.
The areas are:
Mrak Hall
Sciences Laboratory Building
Activities and Recreation Center (ARC)
Part 4 –Gaps
Providing wireless coverage to these locations will deliver quality coverage to “fill in the
gaps” between covered buildings and areas, thereby providing wireless access in most
areas of the campus. Covering these locations does not provide as much direct benefit as
the areas in the other three parts. Covering these areas provides the ability for a user to
transition seamlessly from one area to another, thereby providing the ubiquity and full
indoor and outdoor coverage commensurate with a modern university campus that
supports wireless connectivity. The areas that fall into this category were selected using
the following criteria:

They are between locations in the above phases.
The areas are:
Gap 1: Hunt and Parsons; this will cover the bus terminal and tennis courts
Gap 2: Veihmeyer
Gap 3: Asmundson, Cruess
Gap 4: Kerr
Gap 5: Sproul, Voorhies
Gap 6: Hart, Robbins, temporary buildings
Gap 7: trailers, temporary buildings, UNEX
Gap 8: Parking trailer, Vegetable Crops
Gap 9: Art, Music, Wright
Gap 10: South Silo, Surge, temporary buildings
Gap 11: Campus data center, Crocker, Engineering Unit 3, temporary buildings
Gap 12: Western Human Nutrition (USDA Building)
Gap 13: Medical Sciences, Schalm
Gap 14: others
The map in Appendix B shows these areas. We ordered these gaps by probable density,
and based on that suggest the following priority:
Higher priority among the gaps: 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13
Lower priority among the gaps: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 14
October 5, 2007
Page 7 of 11
Recommendations of the CCFIT Wireless Working Group
As Gap 12 consists of a building under the control of the US Department of Agriculture,
it is omitted from this list.
Wireless Policy Review
In addition to the above priority ordering, we recommend that the policies relating to
wireless networking be reviewed to ensure they are consistent with campus decisions and
actions on expanding the wireless network.
Summary of Recommendations
The above order for prioritizing the building out of wireless throughout the campus
reflects the expected use of wireless based on population density and estimated cost.
Factors that may change the ordering, but the details of which are as yet unknown or that
were not considered, are identified in this report.
Two such factors bear mentioning here. First, we did not consider structural issues
within the buildings in calculating the cost. Specifically, we do not know the cost of
asbestos removal should new conduits need to be added, nor did we analyze each
building to determine whether metallic obstructions such as elevator shafts would require
more wireless APs than a straightforward calculation based on area and estimated density
would indicate. The condition of each individual building may affect the order given
above when the actual cost of adding wireless is factored into the funding model.
Second, we did not analyze any financial information. This could affect how the
campus chooses to fund the building out of wireless, and indeed how it chooses to build
out the wireless portion of the network. The condition of each individual building is a
component of this factor. We did not have this information, and those conditions may
affect the funding model.
This last point is critical. Wireless service should be considered a basic service, like
telephone or power, and the funding model should reflect that. The wireless portion of the
network should be seen as just a part of the campus network that uses a different
transmission medium than the wired portion, and not as a separate network.
October 5, 2007
Page 8 of 11
Recommendations of the CCFIT Wireless Working Group
Appendix A. Summary of Recommendations from the CCFIT
Wireless Task Group Report, June 2006
Short Term:

IET, with knowledge of the campus strategic plan and knowledge of campus and IET
demands for limited campus and IET resources, should take the lead on working with
the campus to develop a plan for wireless network growth and maintenance.
o Progress to date: As noted above, IET is in the final stages of developing a
six-year strategic telecommunications upgrade plan that incorporates
deployment options and costs for expanding wireless coverage throughout the
campus. Costs for equipment, installation and on-going operation and
maintenance have been characterized with detailed coverage and cost
estimates for all buildings on campus that currently receive network services.

Whenever a new building is to be built, or an existing one to be remodeled, part of the
design procedure should be to go through a comprehensive wireless design analysis to
determine how many APs are needed to cover the building with wireless, and where
those APs are to be located. If the APs are a priority in the project, it is least
expensive to install them in conjunction with the installation of the wired network.
o Progress to date: In 2006-2007, campus construction standards and practices
were revised to include a comprehensive wireless design analysis for all new
construction and remodels. As part of construction planning, IET prepares a
wireless network design to optimize coverage throughout a building. Cabling
is installed in new buildings and remodeled spaces to enable the cost-effective
deployment of APs in accord with the wireless design. At this point a
problem arises: APs are installed when construction budgets allow, but
frequently AP installation costs are shifted out of the construction budget and
into the post-construction work to be funded by individual departments,
despite the fact that it is much more cost effective to install the wireless APs
at the time of construction. If wireless is truly treated as an integral part of the
network, AP installation will be treated like phone line or wired network
installation and therefore would not be shifted out of the construction budget.
Long Term:

Wireless should be expanded to cover as much of the campus as financially and
practically feasible, given competing campus priorities.
o Progress to date:

In September 2007, IET deployed a wireless network service called
“MoobilenetX”. This service uses the IEEE 8.02.1x protocol for
authentication and provides encrypted traffic between the computer
wireless card and the wireless access point. The use of the IEEE 802.x
protocol for authentication increases the efficiency of authentication
and the flow of traffic. Although IET strongly encourages the campus
community to switch to the secure MoobilenetX service rather than
October 5, 2007
Page 9 of 11
Recommendations of the CCFIT Wireless Working Group
use Moobilenet, it is not required.


IET has earmarked some funds for the expansion of wireless services
in FY 07-08. IET also continues to partner with departments to
expand wireless services as opportunities permit. Recent efforts to
improve and extend wireless coverage include AP installations in
Mrak Hall, Shields Library and Vet Med 3A.

As noted under the short-term goals, the proposed telecommunications
upgrade plan includes wireless as an integral part of the network.
A stable mechanism for funding deployment and maintenance of wireless throughout
the campus should be developed.
o Progress to date: IET is currently working with ORMP to develop funding
plans to support telecommunications upgrades, which includes wireless as an
integral part of the telecommunications structure.

UC Davis should operate a closed campus network, accessible to all members of the
campus community, and their guests.
o Progress to date: Centrally managed wireless services are available only to
campus affiliates and registered guests. An on-line guest registration form has
been deployed to generate guest accounts and automatically notify the guests
and sponsors. Wireless networks managed by departments may use this
method, or may substitute their own processes for guest access.

CR should manage the network centrally, with a mechanism built in to accommodate
departments that have special needs (up to and including managing their own wireless
network).
o Progress to date: With input from campus clients and constituents, IET has
developed, and is currently deploying, a centrally managed wireless solution
that incorporates features and services that accommodate the vast majority of
department needs. Such features and services include: encrypted wireless
sessions, enhanced authentication, wireless access to department local area
networks and improved processes to enable guest access. This centrally
managed solution can co-exist with department managed wireless networks.

UC Davis wireless networks should be operated consistent with campus security
policies.
o Progress to date: The centrally managed wireless solution provides security
enhancements that exceed current campus security policies. Department
managed wireless networks are required to adhere to PPM 310-17.

A work group composed of interested parties should work with IET and the campus
to determine priority of deployment throughout the campus.
o Progress to date: This report provides recommendations and priorities for
campus wireless deployment.
October 5, 2007
Page 10 of 11
Recommendations of the CCFIT Wireless Working Group
Appendix B. Map of the Gaps in Part 4
October 5, 2007
Page 11 of 11