|
||||||||||||
IntroductionI've been participating in some wireless LAN designs lately.
This has lead to writing a seminar which I'll present at "Cisco U"
sessions in Herndon, VA and Columbia, MD, on February 3-4, 2005. This
seemed like a useful topic to also cast as an article, or more
likely, several articles. Which explains my choice of this month's
topic! I don't normally include dates in the body of articles, since
that makes old material rather blatant, even where still applicable. In
this case, however, WLAN design practices are rapidly changing and
hence some indication of date is highly necessary. Let me also caution
the reader that this is my own particular take on the subject, not
Cisco's or anybody else's. Just some ideas that have been jelling over
time, that I hope you'll find helpful! In case you're thinking, "What about the Cisco Airespace
acquisition?", yes, that's a good question. I'm waiting to see how
Cisco positions the WLAN product sets. It seems like Airespace might be
a good Small-Medium size business contender, for position in between
Linksys (SOHO) and large Enterprise. Simplicity of installation and
management are attractive. Either that, or Cisco bought them for
customer base and technology, especially management software.
Scalability while preserving simplicity seems to be the open question
when comparing to the designs using the Wireless Services Module
(WLSM). More below.
Why Wireless LAN (WLAN) Design?Several things alerted me. First, I've seen some non-Cisco materials equating WLAN design to doing a site survey and assigning WAP locations. That's the obvious thing you have to do, but certainly isn't everything. Second, there are a lot of capabilities in the Cisco WAP's, something I don't see the trade press catching onto. Yes, because of that, they can get complex to configure, too. In doing designs recently, I've seen that sites may not have thought past the "wireless for mobile users" stage, i.e. where they want to be in 1 or 2 years. That can affect the design. Third, we've seen some work or queries which sounded to me like resellers or in-house staff doing rather minimal installations. There seems to be a certain amount of attitude that "it's like putting a Linksys in your home". Unfortunately, it's not that simple.RequirementsGood design takes into account present and near-term future customer requirements. A list of factors to consider when determining WLAN requirements follows.
DesignsOne good place to start is with current design approaches. That lets us understand their strengths and weaknesses, since we can compare different models. This also seems like a good starting point because I've got some diagrams we can discuss -- always better than pure prose (1:1000 ratio).The first approach is simple but costly. Put WAP's and perhaps
guest wired ports in conference rooms into a separate physical
infrastructure . Dedicated wiring, separate switches on each floor,
etc. This is not cheap, duplicates internal cabling and infrastructure,
and increase overall management complexity. This is sometimes
accompanied by having employees use IPSec to access the corporate
network via the VPN concentrator and/or firewall. That creates a
potential throughput bottleneck, since you pay solidly for each Mbps of
IPSec throughput you want. This design was popular when WLAN
authentication and encryption couldn't be trusted. It still may be used
by law firms, financial organizations, and folks who worry
significantly about liability, accidents allowing outsider access to
internal network, etc. My personal take is that if you use this design,
you should probably also really control physical access and wired
ports, e.g. use 802.1x for wired network access. Note that a multi-floor building can use different WAP VLAN's for each floor, although to do that it helps to have a firewall that does trunking. If you want core routing, you can use VRF-Lite (MPLS-style VRF interface-specific routing tables without the MPLS). The alternative is to run a L2 trunk from the core out to the firewall.
You can also substitute some sort of authentication and access
control device for the firewall, sort of dedicated firewall with some
other features. WLAN switches play to this space, although some
apparently do some form of L2 or L3 tunneling back to central WLAN
switches. (Questions to ask: how is that configured? Automatic? L2 or
L3? What protocol? How do I scale it up if I need to?) Note that a number of WLAN switch vendors do not seem to have
central switch location/tunneling, in which case you scale around a L3
core by adding multiple WLAN switches as access control points. If you
do that, there's cost. Also, can they be centrally managed, or does
each have to be individually managed and configured? Another good question: if the WAP is not authenticating and
doing encryption, what protects the authentication? What preserves
confidentiality of NIC to WAP traffic? My last question for a vendor of such a device: is it a
switch, a web authentication box, a firewall, a NAT point, an IDS, what
is it? It's convenient having them in one box. Why should I think the
vendor has any particular expertise at them? Why do I want to duplicate
elements I probably already have elsewhere in my infrastructure (cost
to buy, cost to manage)? Vendors in this space include: BlueSocket, Vernier, Airespace,
Enterasys WAP's, Cisco BBSM, Cisco IOS web auth-proxy, Cisco Perfigo,
etc. This approach is still necessary for these in-line
authentication, ACL, and/or pre-scanning boxes to be effective.
Of these, it appears Airespace has some simple way (DHCP
attributes perhaps? Or initial manual setup?) for its "simple" WAP's to
find a central WLAN switch and tunnel through a network, possibly at
L3. The posted whitepapers do not provide sufficient technical detail.
That's presumably something Cisco ownership will rectify, eventually. I've always been puzzled as to why vendors don't want to tell
me what they're doing, as in open access to good tech docs about their
product. Let's see, they've finally got me where they want me, taking
my scarce time to look for information on their product, and they
instead turn me off? Some of these vendors point to simple ACL's or other controls
on user traffic. This reads like a template for the relevant group of
users is applied to traffic to/from each user, substituting the user
address as source or destination, as appropriate. Details probably vary
by vendor, and online details seem to be mostly lacking, not that I've
expended a whole lot of effort trying to find them. I've been dubious
about this approach. It seems like it would work reasonably well
for small to medium networks, so maybe I'm suffering from large
network-itis. My concern about this form of access control is that it
seems to lead to one huge ACL that controls everything each user might
ever try to access. That's easy to do for guests (block internal
network, allow Internet). It gets progressively harder in bigger
networks. It's usually simpler to have local policy enforcement nearer
destinations, e.g. an ACL for who is allowed to get to servers, applied
to control access to just those servers. But to do that, you need
source address to tell you about class of user. Something to consider
when thinking about using such boxes in a design. It recently dawned on
me that different users could be re-DHCP'd or NAT'ted into different
address pools, which would give the kind of distinctive source
addresses I'd prefer. Whether these authentication and access control
boxes can do that is an open question. That brings us to a more recent model, which I'm calling the
infrastructure model. The key to this design is the perception that
strong encryption to/from the WAP buys strong authentication, and
that with the two of them, authentication controls and confidentiality
are at least as good as for the wired network.
If your security risk level is not too high for this, and if
you have simple roaming needs, this is a great model. All encryption is
localized, so doing this can stand up to the heavy loads of wired
replacement, in terms of throughput. This model scales with L3 in the
core and distribution. What it doesn't do is fast L2 or L3 roaming. It
also does not accomodate guests, contractors, consultants well,
assuming you want to provide Internet access to such users, if you have
L3 core and distribution switches. It also assumes reasonably current
drivers and operating systems, which is an issue some colleges would
rather not deal with. SummaryI plan to continue this article next month, with a look at some other design approaches, some of the nifty things the Cisco WAP's can do. We'll also talk about the Cisco WLSM blade and what purposes might cause you to want to use it in your WLAN design. I also plan to mention Bradford Campus Manager briefly. If you can't wait, you'll find the PDF of my seminar slides at WLAN Design seminar slides.Some of my previous WLAN postings:
Some useful WLAN-related links:
Your comments, questions, and suggestions for future articles are of course welcome! See below to decipher my email address.
Dr. Peter J. Welcher (CCIE #1773, CCSI #94014, CCIP) is a
Senior Consultant with Chesapeake NetCraftsmen. NetCraftsmen is a
high-end consulting firm and Cisco Premier Partner dedicated to quality
consulting and knowledge transfer. NetCraftsmen has ten CCIE's, with
expertise including large network high-availability routing/switching
and design, VoIP, QoS, MPLS, IPSec VPN, wireless LAN and
bridging, network management, security, IP multicast, and other
areas. See
http://www.netcraftsmen.net for more information about
NetCraftsmen. Pete's links start at
http://www.netcraftsmen.net/welcher . New articles will be posted
under the Articles link. Questions, suggestions for articles, etc. can
be sent to pjw
<at> netcraftsmen <dot> net (formatted this
way to fool email harvesting software). 2/1/2005 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||