Ronald Donaldson

D03554630
TM585
Tahereh Daneshi
DeVry University-Online
Oct. 25th – Dec 21st
December 12th, 2010
 Introduction
(100-User Wireless LAN Design & Implementation Analysis)

This document will endeavor to provide a written analysis concerning the design
and implementation of a wireless LAN (WLAN) for a firm comprised of one hundred
employees. In illustrating the WLAN design, I will make reference to several sources
regarding related content that I’ve found to be pertinent and of practical benefit to both
myself and the reader, not least of which will be “Top-Down Network Design”, by
Priscilla Oppenheimer, an instructional text which describes a method of network design
that’s based upon what can readily be found comparatively evident in the overall
networking community, to be the most logical and efficient sequence of steps necessary
in the creation of a network. Having stated this, it is of value for the reader to know that
the aforementioned sequence of steps, as examined in Oppenheimer’s work, will
correspond closely to the order of WLAN design and management issues that I’ll be
addressing in this document, and can be referenced via the documentation found at the
end of this article, under the same title and author.

The major design and management issues found peculiar to a WLAN involve
those that pertain specifically to the transmission and reception of radio frequency (RF)
waves. For example, the strategic placement of access points, devices designed to send
and receive radio signals between nodes, which leads to the consideration of any physical
materials that will hinder radio signals throughout the WLAN. Protocols and standards
that are related particularly to wireless technology, such as IEEE 802.1, are also worthy
of our attention, as they correlate directly to the diverse characteristics of WLANs.
Physical wiring necessary as well, ultimately, serving to facilitate and support WLAN
communications. Obviously, there are more topics of relative import than can be
mentioned in these few opening lines, save that I will endeavor here to present you with a
wireless network design that is both, optimally scaleable, with regard to accommodating
the demands of its purpose, while likewise serving to meet the feasible potentiality of
future requirements in a manor that is consistent with the most practical and ideal
solution available within the parameters of the prescribed WLAN specifications.
 Problem Statement
(Network Design & Management Concentrations)
After careful and prolonged consideration of the described ‘Terminal Course
Objectives (TCO)’, themselves serving to illustrate the primary elements and principal
divisions of concentration most suitably related to network design, I’ve had trouble only
in choosing which TCOs to omit from the subject matter of central focus, this being due
largely to the overlapping and complementary nature of networking topics in general. At
length, the scope of the following analysis has been refined within the context of TCO-B,
concerning the ideal formulation and configuration of a network that facilitates optimal
performance, as well as TCO-F, regarding the elements of a sound strategy for fostering a
maximum state of security within a 100-user WLAN. Bear in mind that the issues
addressed here will necessarily involve topics specific to other TCOs, as the integrated
nature of their content requires they are at least made mention of, if only in conjunction
to those I’ve chosen. My intention here, however, is to present the most plausible method
and means by which the specified WLAN may be configured, so as to be conducent to
performance and security, as it could be argued that an optimal state of these combined
network attributes will afford management’s efforts with the space necessary from which
to iron out and overcome any additional issues that will inevitably arise.

Analysis
(Network Design Methodology, Variability, & Attribution)

As mentioned in the introduction, the concept flow of this document will follow
the top-down approach to network design. More specifically, as a form of structured
design, the top-down approach is described by Oppenheimer, P, as “focusing on the
requirements, applications, and a logical structure before the selection of physical devices
and products to implement the design.” Consequently, having identified the network as a
WLAN has done a portion of the work already. The idea here is simple, we can’t know
what would be best to use until we know exactly what it is we are using it for, and so the
rationale behind this paper’s organization follows suit. Unfortunately, the greater part of
this WLAN will present the difficult challenge of ascribing value to the majority of
variables that are present. Discouraging as it may sound, there’s a simple means to
overcome this obstacle, which will be discuss below at greater length. With this in mind,
the general sequences of design and concept flow aren’t disrupted, and the underlying
structural current of thought in this document will proceeded naturally, top-down.
 Serving also as a useful guideline to sufficiently understanding the content and the
methodology behind the WLAN’s design, the sequence of decisions made throughout the
top-down approach utilized here coincides also with a more generalized life-cycle-
development process, characterized by the following four steps: of I.) Analyze the
requirements, II.) Develop the logical design, III.) Develop the physical design, and lastly
IV.) Test, optimize, and document the design. (Oppenheimer, P.). While adhering to these
structural aids, (Top-Down Network Design and Life-Cycle-Development-Process) let us
move now within view of the first variables entering into the realm of considerations,
which are found relating to the piecing together of a wireless local area network.

۞ Analyzing the Requirements ۞

The top-down method of design begins with an analysis of the business and
technical goals that are associated with the network. Here there is ample breathing room
as, the only specifications that have been mentioned are the size of the network, (100
employees) and the fact that it utilizes wireless technology as a pivotal means of data
transmission. A note before moving on; I’ll not be attempting to speculate about the
nature of the firm’s operations, which my client desires to implement the WLAN for.
However, it may be beneficial to use examples to illustrate certain technical ideas.
Having said that, in addition to the established attributes of size and wireless capability,
further dimensionality to the network is provided by the chosen TCOs upon which we
will focus, i.e., performance and security. With no recourse to the client’s intended use of
this network, performance and security will shape the WLAN in the most literal sense of
their potential application. For example, in the interest of performance, every provision is
made to ensure the best possible performance of the WLAN within the specified
parameters. This will present certain challenges in regards to the second priority of
security, which will also be given precedence over anything not explicitly pertaining to
either itself or performance. In other words, ease of use and budget will be of secondary
importance, and will only be accommodated insomuch as they relate to either
performance or security. So too will follow, in the order of priority, all other issues.
 Already, we have run into several resultant if not discrete contrasts between the
central and decisive variables identified. In response to the first major phase of the top-
down design model, researching the client has been cut short by the fact that we don’t
know a great deal about what the network will be used for, nor do we have details
concerning the organization in general. What we do know however is that despite the
unnamed specifics, it can be assumed that the business is either a remote and relatively
isolated branch of a larger organization, or a relatively small company being comprised
of only one hundred employees. Also, we know that wireless communications are
essential, so in the absence of precise details to characterize the nature of those
communications, our network must offer the most scalable and proficient solution to the
entire range of potential wireless applications and environmental contexts.

In my calculations regarding which applications and services will be running over

the WLAN, I can do little more than assume in each instance, that the equivalent of a
‘worst case scenario’ is true. Provisions must be made for a state of exemplary
performance to exist under even the most demanding of circumstances, but also with
recourse to multiple applications of similar demand, which may require contrasting and
thus difficult criteria, which will in turn end up forcing the pressing trade-off decisions of
performance between applications. Though the model of reference here is the ‘worst case
scenario’, for determining the priority of decisions which force trade-offs in performance
between applications, I will endeavor to lean in the direction of what is most typical or
commonly demanded, but only where necessary will the priority of any one characteristic
be held above another, as in the anticipated instance of security vs. performance. In this
case I must succumb to assigning TCOs themselves with priorities, and will do so
according to the order in which I chose them (performance than security). So out of
necessity, where a single solution that allows for both optimal performance and security
on a one hundred user WLAN cannot be implemented, I will resort to the next best thing.
In either case, the primary objective for design and implementation here is to be prepared
for anything, and to provide ideal performance and security in the face of it. At last, in
addition to providing a design sufficient for optimal performance and security, due
considerations for the future of the WLANs requirements must be taken into account,
which includes those topics pertaining to continued optimization through expandability.
 ۞ Developing the Logical Design ۞

The primary difficult in designing a WLAN for an organization without having

reference to the physical location and its characteristics is that there is little that can be

done in the way of a site survey. To help remedy this difficulty, as I’ve already

mentioned, I must to an extent assume there will be significant interference by both

materials within the infrastructure, as well as an existing potentiality for interference

outside of the complex. To that extent, by accounting for such obstacles, the degree to

which actual sources of interference are eventually found to impede upon wireless signals

will be kept at a minimum.

The first consideration arising are the various protocols, addressing schemes, and

routing solutions. Beginning with standards, IEEE 802.11n, the latest and greatest

wireless standard, was designed as an improvement of the previous 802.11g standard, by

the implementation of ‘MIMO technology’ by which a wireless networks could improve

transmission bandwidth by being able to support more than one antenna’s signal at a

time, in addition to bearing more resistance from interference. (Mitchell, B). I will be

implementing a wireless mesh network for this WLAN, as in addition to support for as

many as seventy routing protocols, the mesh topology also permits for the most ideal

configuration for connectivity and thus performance. This brings me to the routing

protocol OSPF, appearing to me a prime candidate for wireless performance combined

with security. (Webopedia). OSPF provides support for the currently underway

conversion to Ipv6, which caters to the networks future, provides smart topology

detection for loopless packet routing, perfect for a wireless mesh network. (Webopedia).
 WAN, WLAN providers are nearly a dime a dozen. I’ve found a good listing of

WAN providers with links to their sites at Clarity-Consulting.com, and have potentially

narrowed the search down to between D-link, Cisco, and Intel. One more variable I

haven’t considered yet, which needs to be addressed before moving on is security. WPA2

is currently the latest and best wireless encryption algorithm available, which supports

both Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), as well as TKIP, in addition to 128-bit

dynamic key encryption, which basically means that the encryption key isn’t static, or

doesn’t stay the same forever. (Hughs, A.). Having identified the components of the

logical design, it’s now time to move onto the physical design.

۞ Developing the Physical Design ۞

To begin this section, my recommendation for a service provider is going to be D-

Link, if for no other reason than my own personal history of satisfaction with both their

products and their service, not to mention the difference between those service providers

I’d previously narrowed my search down to basically offer the same deals. I’m also going

to be using D-link hardware form the network. For access points, I’ll be using the D-link

DAP-2590, a little costly by the way of access points, but worth every penny. The DAP

comes with two antennas for optimal coverage and was benchmarked at 14 times faster

than the fastest 802.11g router. (D-Link.com). I’ll also be using D-Link network storage,

print servers, and switches. In addition to the hardware security implementation of the D-

link firewall, there will ofcourse be detailed security policies set in place to complement

the technology.
 Recommendation for Implementation
Obviously, there are countless ways to configure a wireless network, but

ultimately, the components and protocols I have included in this paper should serve to

meet the requirements of performance and security in such a way as to facilitate an

optimal level of each, while at the same time providing space for future expansions and

altercations. I sincerely hope that everything you wished to be present here, in fact is, but

either way, it was a real experience endeavoring to put this WLAN together.
 References

Clarity-Counseling.com Listing of Service Providers. Retrieved on Dec. 12th 2010 from,

http://www.clarity-consulting.com/wireless_solution_providers.htm#WLAN

D-Link.com. Network Hardware. Retrieved Dec 12th 2010 from,

http://www.dlink.com/category/productcategories/?cid=17

Hughs, A. (2010). Wireless Security Protocols. Ehow.com. Retrieved Dec 12, 2010, from

http://www.ehow.com/list_6691649_wlan-security-protocols.html

Oppenheimer, P. (2004). Top-Down Network Design. Indianapolis, IN: Cisco Press.

Mitchell, B. “Wireless Standards” About.com. Retrieved Dec. 12th 2010 from,

http://compnetworking.about.com/cs/wireless80211/a/aa80211standard.htm

Webopedia. (2010). Wireless Mesh Networks. Retrieved Dec 12th, 2010 from,

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/wireless_mesh_network_WMN.html

Webopedia. (2010). Open Shortest Path First. Retrieved Dec 12th, 2010 from,

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/O/OSPF.html