Just curious, how come the CWNE was not a practicle lab based exam?
Was it just too difficult to put one togeather and the logistics?
I know we had some threads about this over the years and the issues with trying to conduct and score a wireless based lab, esepcially with RF issues and spectrum analysis.
Thanks for the question. This is a very good one.
The top reasons for this were:
1) Logistics (we would need to have labs all around the world to make it fair for everyone).
2) We're vendor-neutral. Who's gear would we use? If you say, "everybody's" then "everybody" would have to give us piles of equipment for every lab location plus write intense, gradable lab exercises for their equipment. Everything would have to be updated for every vendor all of the time due to constant equipment changes with every vendor.
3) RF problems. Can you imagine having 10+ people doing wireless labs all at the same time? Everyone would be affecting everyone else. :-(
These are the top reasons.
I think the reason you show is not the case if the certification have high quality and reputation. The quality of the certification is more important than how to conduct the lab to get people certified.
Any suggestions for a lab setup to test QoS features (relative to voice) for practice?
Also, it would also be nice to see some traces, maybe someone could be so kind as to post one or a link. ---- Then even though i never see snow would feel like my christmas came early :-)
Rico - traces: http://www.cwnp.com/cwna/capture_collection.html
Is that what you were looking for?
h2usk_online: it's obvious you don't agree with our reasons for not doing a CWNE practical lab exam. Can you please offer suggestions? What exactly did you have in mind for a vendor neutral practical lab exam? In the immortal words of Ross Perot: we're all ears.
Thanks for the response kevin,
I guess that would be the place. It would be nice to see some traces and decodes for QoS (HCF). The 802.11 handbook doesnt have that kind of content on the subject matter, in the way the cwap guide does.
Also, would be most greatful to have some references on troubleshooting and performance in vofi, if anyone has any to share.
I have been learing alot and just wanted to reassert that i think you guys are the best.
Thanks for your posts - they're great. I'm extremely happy to see someone requesting QoS info/traces, etc. The fact that you're requesting this info means that there is a need for it. This information will be in CWNE courseware and in the study guide if one is produced by CWNP directly. Whitepapers on this topic are forthcoming. The problem we have right now is that there aren't (m)any applications supporting WMM-based QoS, and that's where it has to start. Infrastructure equipment already supports it, as do the client devices, but the 802.11e amendment specifies that the MAC layer simply handles what the application layer gives it based on a set of protocols. Additionally, I'd suggest buying a hub if you don't have one already. Much of what happens with QoS happens on the wire, not the wireless medium. 802.11 QoS extensions are complex, but not that full-featured. In a Split-MAC architecture (WLAN controllers with lightweight APs), the most interesting parts of QoS happen at both L2 and L3 on the wire between the AP and the controller. More to follow as soon as we are able to document all of this stuff properly.