General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2191975

    CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

    Locked

    by trtjj ·

    Hi,

    I am building a new infrastructure in a new building. Construction cost on our new floor has skyrocketed. Our CEO wants to move from a hybrid cabled/wireless solution to just a plain wireless solution to save on cable pulls.

    I did not think it would be a wise move. Besides running multiple databases, we will be running
    1. 100 users plus 10 consultants.
    2. IP telephony (wirelessly it would be SIP phones)
    3. Web/ Video conferencing (IP based)
    4. We also have a conference center which will be using teleconferencing, video conferencing etc.
    5. Documenet management systems.
    6. File sharing (PPT, Media files of our conferences).
    7. sharepoint portal
    8. Meeting management software.
    9. Guest VLANs and Guest wireless access.
    10. Exchange
    11. Remote Access (SSLVPN) for mobile users and RDC to users machines.
    12 IPSec VPN to Remote office

    How can I convince the CEO that it is not a good idea to just run wireless. I know QoS isn’t that great with wireless APs and the issues with channels, saturation and interference. Are there any articles or white papers on this?

    I proposed an all cisco environment with 6513, POE, Cat 6 cabling. F5 load balancing over three wan connections, NAC, Cisco wireless AP and WLC, and Cisco phone system.

    Our CEO is comparing us to Starbucks and home networks.

    Thanks for any help

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3264799

      Bandwidth

      by bfilmfan ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      Aggragate all the bandwidth that will be required and then match that against what wireless can provide would be my first suggestion.

      • #3264011

        Bandwidth isn’t the only overhead

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Bandwidth

        a system that is running wireless is also running another program to make your connectivity.

        On Ethernet you have about 25% overhead on the 100base network, just to maintain connectivity and communications.

        On wireless, you are at HALF of that bandwidth right off the bat, and then WiFi has even more networking overhead to connect to the access points.

        Then if you run VPNs for EACH system, you are adding even more overhead as everything has to be encrypted and decrypted on TOP of the existing overhead.

        This is going to really hurt the IP phones, working in this soup he wants you to make. Stress this factor.

        Show him the price of the Baracuda boxes or similar products you will need to be running to secure this wireless solution and show him how it isn’t a cost saver that is worth the hit on performance.

      • #3263940

        Depends on scale

        by rob mekel ·

        In reply to Bandwidth

        We just build an new office. Just 17 storeys high.
        Cost of cabling vs wireless is 50 vs 77 (10 – 15.4) not included tele-mobile servicepoints as on GSM /GPRS /UMTS.
        This is CAT6 cabling (tele/data), QoS for using VoIP for satelite offices) and for the conference rooms (25 with total capacity off 1200 guests) teleconference/videoconference/television/radio and so on.
        LAN bandwith is 100 mbs from every connecting point.
        Extra costs from wifi over cable is more into security of the LAN as anu other costs. This we didn’t calculate as it was clear to us that just the trivial cost WIFI would exceed the cost of cabling.

        But level of costs do change rather quickly so be alert to cost dropping on WIFI.

        Rob

    • #3264784

      How good is your relationship with the CEO

      by jdmercha ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      You could explain in high technical detail, how so much bandwidth is needed for each application. Then explain how the bandwidth from a wireless access point drops off with distance, so that you will need to saturate the building with acess points to get the needed bandwidth.

      Get as technical as you can. Then when the CEO stops you because he doesn’t understand the technical stuff say, “That’s why you hired me. I understand the technical stuff and I know that a 100% wireless solution is not cost effective in our environment.”

    • #3264783

      Shared bandwidth

      by pgm554 ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      Wireless is shared bandwidth.
      So let say you have 100 users and 54 mb of bandwidth (and you don’t get 54 because of over head and how good the signal is))so 100 users and 54 (let’s be optomistic and give 20mb)so each user gets about 200k of bandwidth.

      Yeah,right!

      You can run an office on that-NOT!

      Wieless is good for internet ,email,not production.

    • #3264773

      All wireless is crazy, but you need to lower your wiring costs

      by georgeou ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      I’d say what’s needed is a compromise solution. The CEO’s position is completely unrealistic and expensive, but your proposal is too expensive.

      You can’t do a “pure” wireless environment in this situation. The capacity and quality of service just isn’t there and that doesn’t even factor in the interference issues. A “54 mbps” 5 GHz access point is really a 22 mbps device. A “54 mbps” 2.4 GHz access point is really a 6 mbps device most of the time because it’s going to be forced in to 802.11b operation by all the wireless phones. By the way, you can’t get good Wi-Fi phones unless it’s capable of Spectralink and you have a Spectralink infrastructure. That all costs a lot of money. Then also remember that 6 mbps capacity is shared among ALL the users in range of that Access Point.

      The 6513 is an EXTREMELY expensive device, and it forces longer desktop cable runs. You can cut wiring and Cisco switch costs by a factor of 8 simply by spreading out some smaller switches and then uplink them to 24-port 1U gigabit switch via copper (less than 100 meters) or fiber (above 100 meters). This means you spend 8 times less on the smaller Cisco switches and your desktop CAT-5E or CAT-6 cable runs are shortened by a factor of 2-8 times (not to mention more reliable since they?re shorter).

      Cisco Wireless APs are reliable but the WLC (Airespace controllers) are very expensive. Aruba?s products are less than ? the cost and they have features like a built in firewall which is missing in Cisco?s offering. This is why Aruba won the Microsoft campus deal.

      There are plenty of papers on this but the perspective depends on who?s sponsoring it. My advice is based on years of consulting experience and I?ve designed many cutting edge LAN/WAN/WLANs.

    • #3264749

      Here’s what i would do…

      by akalinowski ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      Explain to the CEO in the most simple manner what impact it would have, security, bandwidth etc.
      oh, and dont forget reliability, a wireless network will go down (for random reasons) before a wired one will.
      i like to explain bandwidth by comparing it to traffic (being in california, its an easy way to do it)

      also i would see who uses more bandwidth in the company and make sure they get wired and lighter users get wireless

      hope that helps.

    • #3264748

      Solution?

      by jmgarvin ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      A) Remind your CEO you ARE NOT Starbucks or a home network. Typically these networks don’t have 110 users at a time on them.

      B) Security could be a major issue. Explain that due to security issues with wireless, your data may be stolen (or worse modified).

      C) VoIP over wireless = NO! Not only will you have a heck of a time getting everything setup properly, but you won’t have enough bandwidth to support your users AND your phones.

      D) Try to price cut a little on your envrionment. You don’t have to go all Cisco or if you want to choose cheaper equipment. Having multiple switches is nice (you can implement VLANs and such later on), plus you have more room to grow than with the 6513. Have the switches feed into a central source and you should be good to go.

      E) If you want to do any packet shaping, wireless will put the kybosh on that. Also load balancing via wireless (depending on your setup) could be difficult at best.

      F) While wireless may be useful for you, an all wireless network with 110 employees is crazy. You might end up with less than 50kb/s per employee!

      Good luck!

    • #3100436

      Just Explain….

      by dawgit ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      …it’s very easy, realy, if you really don’t want it, (for you, there it sounds like a really bad idea) just explain that it will be great when all the employes and neighbours will be able to read his/her e-mails, and listen in on his/her phone (VOIP-SIP) calls. Gee, won’t that be great. 🙂

    • #3100434

      Different tactic

      by prouthier ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      Like to start off by saying I’m a consultant. Not only do I do technology consulting, but I do business process consulting. Your CEO is looking at this from a dollars and cents point of view. You are not going to convince him by using terms such as bandwidth, output, throughput or any other technical terms. You need to build a business case that outlines the inherent dangers of going completely wireless from a dollars and cents perspective.

      Show your CEO articles of how much its cost to recover from a hacked network. Show him articles on how costly it is to wire after the walls have been put up. Not too mention that it reduces the overall worth of his building. Show him soft numbers with regards to a reduction in productivity due to slower speeds and data retrieval. To win over your CEO, you’re going to have to show him the costs if he doesn’t put in a wired network. Bottom line; You need to scare him financially to get it done!

      Also, sometimes it is really hard to get your point across when you are the employee. Sometimes, it is better to go to someone outside of the company to get your point across. If you truly want to help your CEO make the right decisions, you may want to contact a consultant. Unfortunately, your CEO may take his word over yours, but in the long run you will get what you need and the company will be better off for it!

    • #3100386

      What he wants and what he thinks that means

      by raelayne ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      Your CEO wants lower price. He has suggested the “all wireless” solution because he thinks that will lower the price. It’s always, of course, a mistake to let things get to the point where the CEO is making suggestions, because he’s not really knowledgeable enough to do that. What you need to do is recover your authority and position by solving his problem — money — in another way, one that will work.

      Of course, if your CEO wants an all-wireless office so he can move again in a few months, or because he needs it to portray a really high-tech image, or something else, you’ll need to address those needs, too.

      Bottom line: When someone proposes a solution you don’t like, look behind it to the need, and find a better solution.

      • #3265030

        Try to get CEO’s vision

        by drdoravi ·

        In reply to What he wants and what he thinks that means

        As Raelayne said, it is always good to ask your boss and get the big picture, instead of just trying to impress him with your statistics.

        1. Now, since your boss is a CEO, you cannot assume that he gave you some fancy assignment.
        Certainly, he must be looking out for a better tomorrow, from your organization’s point of view.
        May be, he wants to expand the organization much more than what it is right now.

        2. Technical aspects of your assignment, as you have thoroughly worked out, must be put in a very presentable format, with all the other possible alternatives and cost details.

        3. Put forth your ideas to your boss, not to force your ideas on him, but to give him adequate information, for he may ask you a couple of questions, and wish to make a workable plan altogether. Mind you, his time is very valuable for your organization, so keep everything crisp and consize.

        4. Make it a point that the presentation of your ideas don’t irritate him, however realistic they are. After all, you can not risk your job for simple reasons.

        All the best.

    • #3100367

      Compromise based on data classification

      by trdgyrl ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      Risk always gets a good CEOs attention.

      That being said, it could prove useful to you to include a risk-based analysis in your approach. Perhaps pitch a compromised partial hardwired, partial wireless solution BUT base those two “seperate” networks on the data carried on them and the risk each solution presents to the business.

      Many companies are using hybrid hardwired/wireless environments now and as a consultant I have had the opportunity to talk with them about their motivations and solutions.

      First and foremost – engage your senior executives to help identify the risk to the business – they LOVE to do this once you get them talking. It is what their jobs are really all about. Engage them to help identify what data would sink the company if it were lost – think SOX, GLBA, HIPPA, etc. compliance-related risk. Once thay have assisted you to build a map of the critical systems/critical data it will be easy for everyone to understand why THIS data should not traverse wireless networks just yet.

      Provide a completely segmented, internet-access only wireless environment for your visitors if you like. Broadcast the SSID for this one, and don’t setup any encryption either, if your executives don’t mind the idea of paying for
      the folks sitting in their cars in the parking lot surfing on your company’s dime.

      Even setup another internal wireless network that does not process critical data at all.

      Compromise based on the risk assessment.
      Good luck.

    • #3100305

      CEO is looking at convenience and bottom line

      by deadly ernest ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      he does not care about technical performance because he does not understand it – unless he is from an IT etch background, in which case he would already be agreeing with you. You need to simplify your arguement and put dollars on it.

      Prepare a report for him and then deliver it with a short summary, written and verbal. Detail the security issues and the costs of securing the wireless network properly; include the performance and technical stuff and an appendix, not in the main document.

      Set out why wireless is so easily intercepted and thus needs all traffic to be encrypted unless he is happy to have everyone in the world being able to read his traffic. Then cost out the software and maintenance of providing the encryption with the cost and maintenance of the wireless network. Then do a report on the cost of installation and maintenance of the wired network. Let him look at the bottom line cost for both systems with 5 years of maintenance involved – make sure to include staff costs.

      With the security side include some printouts of industry articles on wifi security problems. If he is not convinced the security is required and the costs are cheaper you will never win the point.

    • #3100217

      good work

      by adetunjio ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      you did displace a state of high technical know-how. it shows you know what you are doing and good at it. it is very good for someone to know whatever he engages himself.

    • #3100193

      Security

      by nz_justice ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      The security of a wireless network is pretty shit.

      http://tinyurl.com/jy8qe

      Use info in the URL as an argument to convince your boss. Also try to find an FBI report on the security of wireless networks. The FBI can hack a wireless network in about 12 seconds flat (I can not confirm this). The FBI would only do this to test the security of your wireless network.

      • #3100137

        Great advice . . .

        by paredown ·

        In reply to Security

        On the last big site (for me) we had similar debates over wired versus wireless, and easily won the argument on the security issues alone(think medical records and confidentiality requirements).

        However, I defer to George & the others–your facing a business problem and need to make your case on that basis too. I totaly agree with the idea of distributed switching for all the reasons mentioned, plus it adds some redundancy/easier upgrades when the time comes–and much easier to add the wiring closet space w. HVAC reqs now rather than later–this is (as mentioned) a business case argument for increasing the value of the building as anyone who has had to try and core drill to retrofit a new riser for a backbone knows…

        For sure add the Wireless for guests/conference room area, sep. VLANS to keep them out of other areas. Prev. site we added WAPS in meeting rooms, so people could move from docked laptops to laptops w. wireless for presentations, etc.

        Last time I was involved, I went to every building planning meeting & if you can’t afford the time, delegate to someone–we didn’t win all the arguments, but we limited the negative impact from non-technical savy decisions and–dare I say–helped the users from a business process point of view by adding things like combo copier printers that spool, etc… to reduce network loads…
        Best of luck,
        Dean

        • #3265153

          Cost is the issue, not security

          by georgeou ·

          In reply to Great advice . . .

          I’ll be posting a series of articles on Wireless Security, and I can say for certain that security is not an issue with a well designed network. I’ve always felt it’s possible to have both secured Wireless and Wired LANs at a fraction of the cost if one knows what to buy and how to build it.

        • #3265115

          Speak his language but both are correct

          by dalmatian ·

          In reply to Cost is the issue, not security

          The bottom line is you need to speak his language. A large component of the argument is likely to be cost ($$$) but security and maintenance also factor into the cost, though maybe less directly.

          As you’ve said, a wireless network can be secured IF you know what to buy, how to put it together and how to configure it. If you make a mistake, the weakest link detirmines how secure the network is. How well does the staff understand this, currently and in the future?

          This sort of thing can make a wired network a little more forgiving.

        • #3265019

          I addressed the cost issue

          by georgeou ·

          In reply to Speak his language but both are correct

          My suggestion was to lower the Wired Ethernet cost by a factor of 8. Then be realistic about Wireless costs because of security and QoS requirements. This ignores the fact that Wireless is not fast enough for heavy duty office usage.

      • #3263600

        FBI will hack only to test wireless security???

        by smittysmitty777 ·

        In reply to Security

        Yeah right… If that is true then I live in a gingerbread house with a chocolate icing roof and rock candy windows on Marshmallow Fluff Lane in CandyLand.

    • #3265031

      Maximize Wireless – Minimize Wiring

      by wayne m. ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      If you came back with a proposal that included just one wire, I’m sure your CEO would accept it.

      My impression of the request is that your CEO is asking “What is the minimum amount of cabling absolutely required?” You indicated that the system is already a hybrid, so what are the underlying concerns in shifting the bulk of the system to wireless? Provide a cost estimate for the barebones minimum cable connections with rationale and an estimate for adding cabling later when problems arise.

      If you have time, you might also propose setting up a current staff group as a trial. Get a small office and set it up as pure wireless. This may help demonstrate to the CEO where cabling might be needed and ease your concerns about the capabilities of wireless.

      Negotiation is the key. Look at where wire may be needed on a case-by-case basis. It may be beneficial to minimize costs at this point even if it means reverting some portions from wireless to cable sometime in the future.

    • #3263574

      Something light

      by wfs1946 ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      I’m neither a consultant nor a networking person but I thought maybe you all might find this humorous.

      In planning a building (many years back) the network engineer was working the building plans making sure every office was wired directly to the desktop, a rare thing in the days of wires hanging from the ceiling.

      After many weeks of planning and contruction starting on the building, I was invited to one of the review meetings since I would be maintaining the computer connections after the fact.

      My main question to the engineer was, he had wiring to every possible office in the building, but. . . . . it was going back to nowhere. He had not planned for the server/comm room to be built.

      After much stammering and a very red face, two offices on the plans were eliminated and converted to the server room.

      Talk about wireless communications. . . . .

    • #3263498

      Reply To: CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      by nataraj_vedula ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      U can convince the ceo by :-
      generally wirless connection is of two modes:
      1.connectionless acknowledged
      2.connectionless with no acknowledgement.
      If we use first type of connection ,due to any delay if acknowledgement is not reached to sender then sender need to be in wait state so the whole system b in the wait state.
      Otherwise if ur using second one the sender doesn’t know whther the reciever got the tansacted data r not.

    • #3263465

      I can see a user playing the radio off the internet or watching streaming..

      by reb00t ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      videos from CNN or another website. That alone will bring the network to its knees.

      I’ve setup a wireless network at a location with about 15 computers. With ‘light’ use, it starts to struggle with just PPT sharing and media sharing as the primary usage. Its not bad, but its not the same as a wired solution by far.

    • #2634493

      Not your job

      by frankf ·

      In reply to CEO wants pure wireless environment, I disagree

      If you’re the IT manager for the company, your job in this situation is to present the CEO with solutions, and let him make the decision as to which one the company will go with. Give him exact data on cost, effectiveness, security, reliability, etc. and make sure he is aware of the benefits and pitfalls of each. If he ASKS for your opinion, which most do, then give it to him.
      If he wants you to implement the solution you think is best, do so.

Viewing 17 reply threads