EDITOR'S NOTE: Windows & .NET Magazine welcomes feedback from readers about the magazine. Please send comments to letters @winnetmag.com and include your full name, email address, and daytime phone number with your letter. We edit all letters and replies for style, length, and clarity.
The Answer to VoIP Security?
I read John D. Ruley's "Voice over IP" (August 2003, InstantDoc ID 39520) with interest. Is the author aware of any companies actively pursuing or trying wireless Voice over IP (VoIP) for internal telephony needs? Is WiFi security the key barrier to adoption of wireless VoIP? If security is the problem, is 802.11i the answer? Thanks to the author for sharing his perspective—and an excellent article!
—Scott B. Deutschman
sbdeutschman@starpower.net
Thanks for writing. I don't know of any companies using wireless VoIP for internal telephony, but based on the activity in newsgroups, I think companies are interested in pursuing it. (To see a list of related newsgroups, go to http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&edition=us&q=wireless+VOIP&btnG=Google+Search.) Wireless security is a big concern regardless of your application, but I don't think VoIP presents any special risk. Of course, any factor that slows Internet traffic, such as the recent SoBig and MSBlaster virus-related traffic, could potentially interfere with VoIP performance. You could probably mitigate the effects of a traffic slowdown by implementing a Quality of Service plan that gives VoIP traffic precedence over file downloads or email. I'm not sure that 802.11i is a total solution to wireless security, although the book "Real 802.11 Security: Wi-Fi Protected Access and 802.11i" (Edney and Arbaugh, Addison-Wesley, 2004) makes a powerful case for 802.11i. I think the best way to ensure wireless security is to employ an educated wireless network administrator who understands and uses all the security tools available, including 802.11i, the Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) standard, or media access control (MAC) address filtering. The most (theoretically) secure hardware in the world is no good if you leave the default settings.
—John D. Ruley
More Wireless Support
In Letters to the Editor: "Going Wireless" (August 2003, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 39609), Michael Abramovitch writes that only the Symbol Technologies' Wireless Networker CompactFlash (CF) card is available for Windows desktop machines. I have D-Link Systems' D-Link DCF-660W CF wireless network card that Windows 2000 supports on a notebook computer. The required driver is available on D-Link's drivers FTP site at ftp://ftp.dlink.com/wireless/dcf660w/drivers. (The windows driver is DCF660WK_DRIVERS_101.EXE.) Although the D-Link Web site states that no driver for Win2K is available, a D-Link technical support representative told me about the FTP site. In my case, I've found that the DCF-660W wireless card is more compatible with many Windows programs than some other PC Card wireless cards that I've tried.
—David Rounds
drounds@jvlnet.com
The Real Cost of SAN and NAS
I was interested in Mark Smith's examination of Network Attached Storage (NAS) and Storage Area Network (SAN) usefulness in "SAN and NAS: Better Together" (July 2003, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 39189). However, I think the SAN and NAS vendors have done an excellent job of obscuring the true costs of these technologies. Direct Attached Storage (DAS) gets little respect these days, but it is still an extremely cost-effective solution for most small to mid-sized IT organizations that are Windows-centric. We have a Dell (Clariion) SAN, but after living with it for a couple of years, I have yet to see reduced costs, either in purchase price, maintenance costs, or administrative costs. I seldom see realistic implementation costs in articles about SANs. The fibre channel drives are typically double the cost of equivalent SCSI drives. Fibre channel HBAs are typically about $2000 to $3000 per server (for redundant host bus adapters—HBAs). Fibre switches are about $750 to $1000 per port, and redundant configurations require two ports per server and two switches (minimum) per SAN.
The added complexity of SANs is a significant concern. Typically, only a few people in an IT organization will be able to master the nuances and details of SAN configuration. And although the storage vendors talk a good game about the system being redundant, we have found many instances where the recommendation is to "restart the SAN" after maintenance. If I have many clients/servers depending upon a massive central storage device, they are all affected by any downtime on that device.
Using low-cost NAS technology for disk-to-disk backups is useful. However, it doesn't replace tape for archiving because tape is designed to retain data for decades. Tape cartridges can also be easily taken offsite to provide protection against physical disasters. I understand that special requirements can mandate the choice of a NAS or SAN. However, I think DAS is not getting credit for continuing to be a cost-effective solution for many IT shops.
—David Martin
dmartin@ci.las-vegas.nv.us
Prev. page
[1]
2
next page 
