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

2. 2 University of WashingtonComputing & Communications Outline Generalities Technology Issues Policy Issues Funding Issues Bandwidth Issues

3. 3 University of WashingtonComputing & 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. 4 University of WashingtonComputing & 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. 5 University of WashingtonComputing & 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. 6 University of WashingtonComputing & Communications Agenda for 1/2003 IEEE meeting

7. 7 University of WashingtonComputing & Communications Impact of VOIP over Wireless Separate backbone? Campus-wide roaming? Quality/Reliability expectations?

8. 8 University of WashingtonComputing & 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. 9 University of WashingtonComputing & 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. 10 University of WashingtonComputing & 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. 11 University of WashingtonComputing & 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. 12 University of WashingtonComputing & 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. 13 University of WashingtonComputing & 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. 14 University of WashingtonComputing & 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. 15 University of WashingtonComputing & 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. 16 University of WashingtonComputing & 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. 17 University of WashingtonComputing & Communications Performance Comparison [ from early 2002; Gig Ethernet can now exceed 900 Mbps ] From www.extremetech.com

18. 18 University of WashingtonComputing & Communications Network Device Growth Note: Most dips reflect lower summer use; last one is a measurement anomaly

19. 19 University of WashingtonComputing & Communications Network Traffic Growth (linear)

20. 20 University of WashingtonComputing & Communications Network Traffic Growth (log)

21. 21 University of WashingtonComputing & 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. 22 University of WashingtonComputing & Communications Questions? / Comments?