Cisco enters the mesh market, meaning it's a competitor in the metro-scale municipal market: With deployments in 2006 clearly involving over $100 million in equipment--and possibly much more--Cisco Systems has jumped into the fray. Their mesh access points have two radios to split front-end access to end-users and backhaul.
Nodes communicate with AES encryption, the default option, and they use Adaptive Wireless Path Protocol, Cisco's name for the technology that finds the most efficient route in the mesh. While they make it sound unique, and it may have unique properties, all mesh systems with intelligence have some form of most-efficient-route methodology. Some hardware that advertises itself as mesh uses just wireless distribution system (WDS), a packet-forwarding technology that was part of the original 802.11b spec, and which has no optimization for routes built in.
There's a single mesh AP model, the Aironet 1500. It's a thin access point that uses the Lightweight Access Point Protocol (LWAPP); the devices self-configure when added to a network. The devices are managed via the Wireless Control System (WCS) which is described as running under Windows and Linux. But Cisco also released a new module type for its large enterprise Catalyst 6500 series of switches: each of the modules can operate handle 300 lightweight APs, or a total of 1,500 per switch that's fully populated with modules devoted to APs.
Cisco has already deployed their new APs in parts of Dayton, Ohio, and Lebanon, Oregon, during testing.
There's coverage all over: News.com, eWeek, Wi-Fi Planet, and Red Herring. Interestingly, several Cisco competitors offered briefings early this week and late last week to reporters, which is why most of these articles have healthy context. Cisco wasn't able to announce in a vacuum, partly due to leaked spec sheets that I saw weeks ago and others, months ago.
Cisco: Wireless Mesh
Issues with what I have heard to date:
a. 2 Radios (802.11a and g)will limit its deployment to small to medium size Metro markets and large campus/enterprises. When congestion develops (inevitable), at any Node, they will need to either reroute traffic-constantly, install another complete Node/AP and hope the 802.11g radios will not interfere with each other, or even worse add another Wired gateway link.
b. What will Cisco/Airespace do when the Muni requires the capability to add a Public Safety licensed radio (like the 4.9Ghz or future 700Mhz) to any network deployed or planned?? Do they give up the 802.11g Public access link or do they replace this piece with a Licensed 4.9Ghz Public Safety radio and give up the public/Private unlicensed access where all the revenue is? Or does the Cisco 1500 have space for a 3rd and 4th Radio ? What about adding a 802.16-2004 WiMAX (5Ghz) link to this Mesh network as a Gateway to the Wired network? Will this require another radio separate CPE hanging on the pole next to the 1500 ?
c. When VoiceIP and IPVideo services hit this network, again inevitable, you will see immediate congestion and issues with the single 802.11a radio trying to handle this traffic and it's regular load. By the way Police & Fire vehicles will require an occasional video feed as will high crime area Video Surveillance that will be online 24X7
d. It appears Cisco will also be loading this network up with special Gateway AP/Radio (vague here) and their high $$$ Controllers, along the line of Airespace Central management of dump Node/AP approach to everything. This will prove very costly not to mention complex and keep it out of many networks. There are many innovative OSS and Gateway products out there that will do everything these controllers will do for far less money and work in the standards world.
Of interest: Cisco states that its Controller can handle up to 300+ plus dumb AP, which is okay if ones Mesh product had more than 2 radios and can effectively handle this many AP.
We will see what they come up with when they design their first full Metro Wireless Mesh.
Of interest is how many hops before they will need another wired connection.
KEY: This is something all the Muni will need to make sure they address in their RFP. There is a big cost to add additonal wired or even wireless connections between these Mesh Nodes/AP and the wired network as the network gets bogged down. Mesh provider should be held responsible for any additonal gateways they need to add once they design the net and install it.
Customers should question any technology that requires them to install a wired or wireless gateway/connection every 2-3 Hops.
Jacomo