Aruba vs. Cisco -- Wireless Video Delivery in Noisy RF Environments

Aruba goes head to head with Cisco (Aruba's AP 105/ 125 vs. Cisco's AP 1140/3500) to demonstrate superior wireless video delivery in noisy RF environments. With a few tablets and smart phones trying to access unicast video in a noisy environment, this is a test case to which every enterprise, university and health care organization will relate.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• ARuba
• Cisco
• Video
• Wireless
• AP
• 105
• 125

[ArubaNetworks]

Thanks for your interest and comments on our videos. The recommended and default noise wait time is 120 seconds -- we went with low settings for both vendors to highlight how aggressive both can be with those settings. Cisco was set to the most aggressive value, and Aruba was set to a relatively low 15 seconds. The Cisco 3500 was noise aware, while the Cisco 1140 was not. All of Aruba’s APs, including legacy a/b/g APs are noise-aware.

[jchinyou12]

Uhm... Maybe I'm just not seeing well tonight but does anyone else notice that with the Aruba gear there was no video disruption and with the Cisco 3500 series there was no disruption?

i.e. I don't see the point of this test. Can someone post the times where the disruption happened on the Cisco stuff???

[chatturux]

Not sure why you show the cli on the aruba and the gui on the cisco. should be consoled in to the ap to compare apples to apples.

[eyeofhorus70]

@kiliasov - I think one point is that, per usual, Cisco is a forklift upgrade.

[ryanadzima]

What was the source of interference that was used?

[kiliasov]

@ArubaNetworks soo what was exactly the point of comparing Aruba AP to 1140 that does not support noise detection?

[eyeofhorus70]

@fgirard01 - Uh oh, a Cisco fanboy jumps in. Notice how Cisco doesn't allow you to comment on their videos? Wonder why.

[florwj]

EDRRM feature has to be enabled - it is not by default .

[wd8nvr]

So the question remains, with 120 sec wait time, how well does it react to noise? My guess is that it will be minimum of 120 sec, correct? That means a phone call is dropped. Cisco 3500 seems to do it in less than 30 sec with DEAFULT settings (what I have seen in person). Lets see this test run with both Cisco and Aruba set to recommended values, or better yet, DEFAULT values (which I would assume would both be the recommended). Let see what REAL WORLD testing is!

[wd8nvr]

I thought the recommended Noise Wait time for the Ap105 and AP125 was 120 Sec? (That is - or at least was- the default time). So why is this setting not the recommended setting? Or maybe the better questiosn is, why is the default not set to 15 sec? What happens in real world when set to 15 seconds? Even Spectralink recommends a Noise wait time of 120 sec. Makes me suspect of 'fixing' the test to be less than real world testing and to enhance the actual performance.