Either way, thanks again for sharing your experience.

In response to the claims of 30% less AP’s than a “legacy” deployment I would definitely say false. In moving from a Cisco environment to a Meru implementation we have seen about a 50% INCREASE in the number of AP’s needed to provide 100% coverage in the same areas. I will agree that the lack of the need to do channel planning makes implementation easier, but filling in coverage holes is far from just “dropping them in”.

I have not seen any client issues with airtime sharing, but the density claims are misleading. Since Meru’s WLAN controller takes charge of client associations, the controller will load balance associations in an area. This means a client may be directly underneath an AP but associated to an AP 50 feet away with a low signal strength. Also, the APs may not have density issues themselves, I have seen serious limitations when it comes to overall WLAN controller association density.

Overall in my experience with Meru I can conclude that the planning and implementation of the product is simple and straightforward. The day to day operation and troubleshooting and less than desirable and Meru’s support network is by far the worst I have experienced in my IT career.