Aruba wants you to stop buying the AP134-135. 3rd times the charm?

Earlier this month, Scott Calzia, Director, Product Marketing at Aruba posted an article deriding the announcement of an 802.11ac module from Cisco for their flagship Access Point – the 3602. I took umbrage at the article which lead to the following posts and replies between myself and Aruba Product Marketing Manager, Ozer at Aruba: My first postOzers replyMy next replyHis next reply, and now this post.

Before going any further, I certainly acknowledge that this threaded saga of post-reply-post-reply is a difficult one to follow and I believe that further discussion will likely take place on the No Strings Attached Show. There is a good deal of technical discussion and rabbit trailing in the threads between Oz and myself and I some of them are quite tangential but I’m trying to keep topics centered around the original post topics. I welcome further discussion about performance & feature sets that are outside of the original post and if you’d like to have something addressed in further detail, please leave me a comment in the section below! Having said that, it’s hard to thank someone of Ozers caliber for continuing to stay engaged without sounding trite or insincere. I (and many of my readers that prefer offline comments) genuinely appreciate the dialogue and open discussion. Keeping each other honest with an above board, fun and engaging conversation is exactly the point of this.

Onto the meat!

Alright I am back for round 2… I hope this does not last until round 15 :) I gotta tell you I love the “ding-ding” opening! I am glad that we can keep the discussion fun, engaging instead of using anger and personal attacks… Thanks again for accepting my reply, glad to have the discussion going. BTW, you type fast!

Your comment to Aruba blog…
I am assuming it is a side effect of web changes yesterday (new navigation and converging 3 blog pages into 1) but I will check shortly.

Sounds good! It looks like my original post is still ‘awaiting moderation’ but I look forward to having it approved – Mine get auto-approved, pending spam filtration so I’d be interested in hearing from Scott as well!

Regarding 2400…
small typo as you can guess: meant to refer to 2500 series controllers.

Well, that’s what I was thinking Scott meant in his first post. This means that the corrected statement would be (in reference to controllers that support the 3600):

So if you have older 2500, 4000, WiSM or WCS, it is that time to write your Cisco tax check again.

Sadly, this statement is also false since the 2500 WLC does indeed support the 3600. As a side note, the WCS release notes call out support for the 3600 as well. I’ve been asking for some time about clarification of code support for the controllers and how that meshes with the WCS/3600 support, but it does state it and I presume that since WCS supports code release 7.1, Cisco can claim 3600 support. Yes this is slightly ambiguous and not 100% clear but as the Aruba statement sits, it’s incorrect. Cisco isn’t perfect (there, I said it) but, at minimum, checking the release notes is a) easy to do since they don’t change locations and b) should be a requirement before declaring something is incompatible.

Alright back to tech…

Regarding 1250 series AP (since many commented on it)…
Almost a year after 1250 series, 1140 series was announced. I am not claiming that the AP actually physically failed (it obviously worked just fine after you managed to install it) – it was no longer the right AP to install for many, unless you are installing APs in a warehouse or similar challenging environments. Cisco’s promise of “modular AP is the way to go” was no longer. 1140 had better form factor, better price, did not need external antennas, better PoE efficiency. There was almost no reason to install 1250 series in a classroom or a carpeted office space after 1140 series was released. During that timeframe Aruba’s AP-124/125 series won many deals against Cisco 1250 series (support for PoE and better form-factor were big technical reasons) when we get the chance to sit at the table. Market demanded something better than 1250 series.

Well, I don’t think Cisco ever declared that ‘modular was the way to go (forever and ever)’. We all know that manufacturing efficiencies can be achieved with highly integrated component and if you’ll recall, the IEEE ratified the 802.11n spec during that first year – that’s the reason the 1142 came out in short order. The 1252 was a modular goto-market product that addressed a specific need and was very successful at it. Don’t get caught comparing Apples to Oranges here though, the 1252 and the 1142 are not positioned as competitors and the 1252 was still positioned as the de-facto 802.11n Access Point for external antenna support and extended operating ranges well after the 1142 was launched (as you rightly stated). The 1262 is the Access Point that ultimately replaced the 1252, not the 1142. If you needed an Access Point with flexible antenna options that operated in an environment up to 131F, the 1252 was your man. Admittedly, you may not have been at the table for deployments like that since Aruba doesn’t play well in extreme environments (over 122F for the Aruba 120/130), but I was and I continued to sell the 1252 in significant quantities well past the launch of the 1142. I didn’t realize that defending the 1252 was going to be such a popular topic! I suppose it’s easy to mis-construe the past to those that didn’t live it first-hand, but there you have it.

Of course, there is a trend with Cisco’s modular APs – great marketing for Cisco, brings in more dollars. I am just not convinced that it is the right thing for the customer. My humble opinion…

And you’re close to the point here. Yes, it’s good marketing, but it also fills a need (not just Ciscos coffers). It’s easy to beat up on the dog in front declaring missteps or some other ‘lack of vision’ as a defensive strategy, but the 801.11ac module fills a need that we’re seeing more and more in RFP responses and as a growing concern among enterprises. It’s investment protection and people want this today.

Let’s double click on Cisco’s investment protection….

Note that 1st gen 11ac AP does not go above 3 spatial streams (instead of up to 8 defined per 11ac standard) and does not support multi-user MIMO (which is really beneficial for the upcoming 11ac capable smartphones and tablets as you know). My guess is 2nd gen 11ac APs will have up to max of 5 spatial stream support… since putting 8 antennas in an AP may not be that great of an idea since folks want APs that can be carried by hand… alright let’s go through couple of investment scenarios.

Case#1: Case#2: Case#3: Case#4:

(Note: actual cases omitted for brevities sake, but are available in blog post comments here.) There are indeed numerous ways to slice and dice situations to the benefit (or not) of a particular manufacturer. The 802.11ac module is not intended to be the only 802.11ac Access Point Cisco will ever offer (obviously), nor is it intended to address 100% of each and every purchase requirements for every customer. It’s modularity is intended to bridge the gap to a new technology which is why it was developed in the first place. Will it fit every customer? No. Are there customers today that want to make sure they have a low-cost way to move to 3SS 802.11n and upgrade to 802.11ac in the future? Yes. Scott seems to miss this point in his blog post. Aruba does not have a public facing 802.11ac option so it’s only natural that they’re defensive.

Having said that, there is a portion of your Cases that I’d like to address (and maybe move to another blog post-conversation-thread). ‘Spectrum Analysis': Noise awareness has been available and considered in RRM calculations for a long time now but Cisco made the decision to develop the best available spectrum analysis capabilities into their solution. ‘Spectrum Analyzers’ that are coarse noise-floor analysis are less accurate and in Arubas case, require additional licenses. Are the licenses expensive? Not in small quantities, but ask any Aruba customer and they’ll complain about feature set licenses. That’s two things that Cisco does better than anyone – no featurset licenses and the best available spectrum analysis. Can you compromise on those features in your enterprise? Perhaps – that’s for you to know. Can I compromise on those features in my enterprise? No. I need the best and when I go hunting for an X-box controller, finding out that it was a transient bluetooth device after 3 hours of looking is unacceptable. This is the reason that Cisco differentiates this feature in it’s Access Points. Implementing ‘Spectrum Analysis’ without a discreet analyzer is less accurate. Cisco won’t put their name on that for a reason. In her article, Joanie Wexler, Network World, claims, “Indeed, Aruba product manager Peter Lane acknowledged about a 5% throughput drop in cases “where you’re maxing out the throughput of the APs already.” Aerohive’s Matt Gast, director of product management, estimated the performance hit as closer to 30%; however, he recommends turning it on only when there’s a problem.

Ok I think I just got the cross-eye that Scott was talking about in his blog… without having to use the OptiGrab! So investment protection argument by Cisco applies to the last case listed above. My educated guess is we will see more of #1, #2, #3 than #4. Again that’s my opinion… agree to disagree.

I suspect we’re heading down the ‘agree to disagree’ path, but the fact remains, in the market today I have customers that have a vision. Their vision is to support tomorrows technology leveraging todays investments. The only manufacturer that has a solution is Cisco and Cisco is going to advertise the heck out of that since it’s a clear competitive differentiator. They’re going to take heat for it, they’re going to get beat up, they’re going to have it mis-represented to the needs of other manufacturers, but Cisco took a leap that no-one else did. Will Cisco sell modules? Yes. Will they be the only way to get 802.11ac? No. There will always be bigger and better on the horizon? Yes. Those that do proper lifecycle management of their infrastructure can leverage this product to future-proof their investment.

FCC link and conversation omitted because:

This is an interesting point and since I work for a Cisco partner under NDA, I can’t discuss this until products ship and are publicly announced. I hope you understand. :)

Aruba performance tests…
We do not have Android tablets to replace iPads – no reason to – we have 100+ iPads in the TME labs.

As may be the case, but there is a huge discrepancy in your ‘internal tests':

You claim to be file transfers to iPads, but don’t list them in your ‘Clients used for testing’. (continued below)

No change in video resolution for Aruba WLAN compared to Cisco WLAN

Aruba uses Active Transcoding in their tests. Cisco does not. This has the net effect of reducing the resolution of the stream for every client and is a mis-representation of the Aruba test. Cisco tackled this head on using the full resolution streams and shined. Aruba changed the parameters and represented it as the same tests. (continued below)

– it is the same exact infrastructure, testbed. Again no reason to. Enabling and disabling RF scanning, IDS, spectrum/CleanAir does not make any difference for either vendors.

I’d love to tackle this first hand. In the interest of full-disclosure, I have an AP-135 and attempted to enable spectrum analysis, but was unable to since at the time it wasn’t supported in ‘Instant’ configuration. I look forward to seeing this development come to market unless of course you want to get me an Aruba 200 controller (and licenses) to play with. :) If it doesn’t impact the performance of the tests, turn them on and prove it to us (continued below)!

Aruba TMEs ran those tests for weeks. We should talk about “maximizing airtime” in another opportunity – Aruba’s RF engineering focuses on this topic nowadays than ever. For instance, a test for you to consider running on Cisco WLAN… start with 5 smartphones on 11n 2.4GHz radio. Record TCP download throughput. Repeat with 10, 15, 20 smartphones. Then add TCP upload traffic into the mix and record total throughput. Results are interesting.

Would love to discuss this more, but as you pointed out, we should tackle that in a separate thread – this is getting long winded as it is! :)

Miercom = independent… really? Cisco TMEs run these tests in their labs, publish it on the website URL that you shared and it just happens that a separate set of engineers who work for Miercom happened to run the same set of tests – not less or more – and come up with exactly the same set of test results. Independently. Without being paid any consulting fees by Cisco. Really? :) I firmly believe that something like Network World Clear Choice test reports are independent – and I cannot see how Miercom follows the same model.

(this is the continuation you were looking for) The reason I suggest a Miercom report instead of publishing ‘internal Aruha test results’ is that Arubas tests seem fraught with inconsistencies and, in my book, this calls into question the validity of their test process and results. Put another way, how can we be sure your data is accurate if you’re testing iPads without listing them as clients and pulling shady transcoding  shenanigans, calling it the same as full-resolution media streams. Is that an extreme opinion? Perhaps, but independent reporting should clean up those rough edges and level the playing field.

NSA podcast show is a great idea! Let’s do it. I will email Blake.

ps. Happy to chat about ISRs and ISE more down the road!

Deal on both fronts! Looking forward to visiting Aruba during Wireless Tech Field Day 3!

-Sam

Post Script:

Several folks have either outright asked offline or insinuated a handful of statements about this thread which I’d like to address:

You’re just flanning the flames for readership to make money. I do not monitize my blog with ads. I do not make revenue from it in any way shape or form and pay for it out of my own pocket.

You’re being spoon-fed responses by Cisco. I am not. My blog is mine and mine alone. My thoughts are my own and (with the exception below) are not generated by anyone else. If I get data from other sources, I will do my best to list those sources clearly.

You work for a Cisco reseller and have ‘the inside scoop’ which sways your opinions. Well, yes. I do indeed work for one of the largest Cisco resellers in the US. This does give me insight and access to hardware that others may not have and since it does, I do consider myself ‘up on the solution’. My employer does not endorse or influence my blog with the exception of discussing NDA information. I am bound by my employer to not discuss NDA information outside of the scope of the agreement and I continue to abide by that.

About these ads

2 Responses to Aruba wants you to stop buying the AP134-135. 3rd times the charm?

  1. Rob Simkins says:

    Judging by the fact that Aruba have now pulled their ridiculous article from their site. I think they realised they crossed the line in what is acceptable vendor comparison and what is FUD. Maybe they would have got away with it too… Well said Sam

    At the end of the day Cisco offer stop gap APs as an option. Customers aren’t stupid and will skip them if they want to. Nice to have the choice though.

    In my eyes the 3600 .11ac module will support MU-MIMO and that is the key feature

  2. Pingback: First look: Cisco 802.11ac module for the AP3600 | SC-WiFi

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 39 other followers

%d bloggers like this: