1 university of washingtoncomputing & communications backgrounder for policy discussions on...
TRANSCRIPT
1
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Backgrounder for Policy Discussions on Wireless
Terry GrayDirector, Networks & Distributed Computing
Scott MahDirector, Communication Technologies
February 2004
2
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Outline
• Generalities
• Technology Issues
• Policy Issues
• Funding Issues
• Bandwidth Issues
3
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Wireless is...• Addictive (users love it)• Seductive (appears to be cheaper/easier than it is)• Expensive to scale to an enterprise-class solution• Encouraging enclaves, balkanization• Rapidly changing technology• Hard to control• Hard to secure• Either parasitic upon, or synergistic with,
overall campus network infrastructure• Best seen as needing to parallel history of deployment of
Internet at the UW• Becoming mission-critical
4
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Key Issues
• Central vs Departmental wifi coexistence
• Technical standards
• Unauthorized access points
• Security policies (protecting others)
• Access control policies (who can use?)
• Funding and accounting policies
• Rented space, student-owned equipment
5
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Technology Issues• Standards
– IEEE 802.11a, b, e, f, g, h, i (and more!)– IEEE 802.1x, LEAP, PEAP, TLS, TTLS
• Monitoring, management• RF propagation, interference, pwr mgt• Security, access control• Performance, QoS• Availability, Reliability• Convergence
6
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Agenda for 1/2003 IEEE meeting
5.81.33.51.522.021.521.522.022.55.06.56.51.57.01.0
802.11 Working Group Meetings
802.11 Wireless Next Generation Standing Committee
802.11 Chair's Advisory Committee
Task Group G (802.11b Data Rates >20 Mbit/s)Task Group F (Inter-Access Point Protocol)Task Group E (MAC Enhancements - QoS)
802.11 / 15 /18 / 19 New Members Orientation Meeting
Joint 802.11 / 802.15 / 802.18 / 802.19 Opening Plenary
802.11 High Throughput Study Group
Task Group I (Enhanced Security Mechanisms)Task Group H (Spectrum Managed 802.11a)
Joint 802.11 / 15 / 18 /19 Lead Co-ord Ad-Hoc
Task Group K (Radio Resource Measurements)
Joint 802.11 / 802.15 Publicity Standing Committee
Task Group J (4.9 - 5 GHz Operation in Japan)
7
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Impact of VOIP over Wireless
• Separate backbone?
• Campus-wide roaming?
• Quality/Reliability expectations?
8
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Policy Issues
• Access control• Departmental/private nodes• Who, if not C&C under U-TAC policy
direction, owns/controls RF spectrum?• Who defines standards and minimum security
and coexistence policies?• Who enforces standards & minimum security
and coexistence policies?• How will an extensible, scalable and
sustainable model be established
9
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Central vs. Departmental Tensions• C&C not out front (we’d say not able to be :-)
• Inconsistent access policies (private enclaves)
• Inconsistent or non-existent security provisions
• Inconsistent or incompatible technology
• Inconsistent upgrade & maintenance policies
• 24-7 management
• Integration with central network infrastructure
• Integration with central authentication infrastructure
• Risks to central net infrastructure and nearby hosts
10
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Private Wireless Nodes on the Campus Net
• Rationale:– Central service not available– Central wireless service too expensive (can plug
cheap wireless access point into campus net)– Central service sometimes more inconvenient for
visitors– Central service is an attractive nuisance – Very special research requirements– Special security requirements
11
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Funding Issues
• Central, departmental, subscription (voluntary or mandatory), STF...
• One-time ‘Capital’ always easier to find than operating $$
• Recharge strategies incent rogue systems
• Dealing with rogue access points dramatically increases operational costs and security dangers/costs
• Department & STF deployments drive costs they don’t pay (‘coping and cleanup is an unfunded mandate’)
12
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Cost Factors
• Degree of convergence– wired and/vs. wifi data vs. wifi telephony
• Security & access control
• Technology immaturity, churn• Management & accounting features (exact
parallel to routers and e-net switches etc, but harder!)
• User support
• Scaling (+ and - economies of scale)
• Sustainability
13
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Essential Capital Cost Elements
• Physical facilities (e.g. power, cooling, pathways, equipment space and antenna space)
• Wireless Access Points (WAPs)• Dedicated subnets for wireless (wired Ethernets
to WAPs, switches, routers, security boxes, etc.)
• Access point management system
• Authentication system
• Authentication management system
14
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Operational Cost Elements• UW Staff
– Design– HW Installation and SW Configuration/updating– Monitoring and reporting– Troubleshooting– Security incident handling (harder w/wireless)– User Support– Sustaining underlying ‘wired’ net. infrastructure
• Vendor– Maintenance & Upgrades (firmware, SW and HW)
15
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Case Study: MGH (a new and very well wired facility)
• Size: 99,000 ASF
• Classrooms: 27 + 12
• Floors: 4
• Access Points: 36
• Initial Cost: $94,000
• Initial Cost per Classroom: $2,500
16
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Bandwidth Consequences• Wireless implies many more computers, PDAs, hybrid
cell/802.11 devices, etc.• Steady growth (or maybe even spike, esp. with ‘net
generation’ students) in network devices• Bandwidth needs track:
– users– usage– apps and objects– capacity
• Wireless capacity constrains types of apps (for now)
17
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Performance Comparison [from early 2002; Gig Ethernet can now exceed 900 Mbps ]
From www.extremetech.com
18
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Network Device Growth
Note: Most dips reflect lower summer use; last one is a measurement anomaly
21
University of Washington Computing & Communications
Outcomes to Avoid
• Unrealistic security expectations
• Department wireless deployments that...– Confuse users re: who supports what– Interfere with or destabilize campus network– Create extra threats to others– Balkanize net services w/conflicting policies– Drive U-wide costs no one is underwriting
• Non-scalable or non-sustainable models