Context

Attendees were technical and technical management staffs with (in general) specific knowledge of campus experience. All campuses but Berkeley plus LBL and UCOP participated in the session.

General Points

Most sites are in pilot mode. No widespread implementations.
Unanimity that central IT management of the overall service is needed.
Unanimity that wireless Enet is a complementary service to wired Networking, not a replacement.
No campus articulated any sense of a "killer application" driving wireless Enet deployment.
Campuses feel the need to get control of the service before the problems of unmanaged implementations become overwhelming.
No campus has a fully developed wireless services plan, or a funding model (although UCR may be close) for ongoing wireless support.
To date, neither Cisco nor Lucent 802.11 products have been production service quality; frequent software revs, each of which created problems when implemented.
There was consensus that WEP wasn't adequate to provide needed level of security, although campuses with experience had only deployed 40 bit encryption. Unanimous desire to stall deployment until 802.1x or equivalent solutions are available, which is expected this quarter.
The wireless discussion listserv that Mark Wison had established at UCR will be used to continue information sharing wireless-rg@listproc.ucr.edu

No campus is currently planning to develop campus-wide wireless service (but see UCSD, below).
Strong feelings that check-out of cards (as opposed to wireless equipped laptops) not a good services model.

Specific Comments

UCD(?) students deploying wireless Enet to get around ResNet policy restrictions.
UCSD As part of its California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology research grant, UC San Diego IT staff is preparing a cost estimate for campus-wide wireless network deployment. Microsoft estimate of $1/sq ft for in-building wireless to be checked for what it covered and reported to group.
UCR Has used $200K/year of ongoing new IT funding for wireless NW infrastructure in public areas. Half is for support services; half for infrastructure. Pilot with their SOE showed that widespread in-building coverage was very costly; SOE accepted limitation to public areas.