1 university of washingtoncomputing & communications backgrounder for policy discussions on...

22
1 University of Washington Computing & Communications Backgrounder for Policy Discussions on Wireless Terry Gray Director, Networks & Distributed Computing Scott Mah Director, Communication Technologies February 2004

Upload: alan-cecil-carpenter

Post on 18-Dec-2015

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

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

19

University of Washington Computing & Communications

Network Traffic Growth (linear)

20

University of Washington Computing & Communications

Network Traffic Growth (log)

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

22

University of Washington Computing & Communications

Questions? / Comments?