4 ms·

Enterprise Wi-Fi at home: Reflecting on almost three years with pro gear

58 points by mikece 8y ago

samcheng 8y ago
I've recommended Ubiquiti to a few friends and neighbors looking to extend Wifi coverage to the back yard or outbuilding or garage. It works quite well, particularly if you have a wired uplink and PoE switch. I use it in a couple of offices as well, but it seems like the pros are switching to Meraki due to the better (remote, cloud-based) configuration tools... Do any IT professionals make the case for Ubiquiti over Meraki?
- msh 8y ago
  Meraki seems significantly more expensive than ubiquity.
  - secabeen 8y ago
    Yep. Ubnt has no maintenance or licensing costs. I have myself and two relatives on it, with no problems, and over 100 APs at work. They just work. Only issue I've had is there is an emerging issue with the PoE negotiation chip on some UAC-AC-PRO APs. We've worked around it with passive POE, which just works, but it could become a bigger issue going forward.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lwhalen 8y ago
  I've gotten a fair amount of pushback on deploying Meraki specifically because of its cloud-based configuration tools. The SMB sites I deploy wifi to push back on their config living 'in the cloud', and the annual Meraki subscription ('you mean the service just turns off if we don't keep paying?') doesn't sit well either. I love Ubiquiti for its ability to be cloud-based for the folks who would want it, but completely private/internal for the folks who prefer it that way too.
vlan3333 8y ago
If you have budget, I would recommend trying an Aruba instant access point. It supports local and remote management, clustering, poe, and can prioritize traffic based on application or specifically voice traffic. The local management also has a web gui. Disclaimer: I work for Aruba.
- 2bluesc 8y ago
  The UniFi products have QoS, POE, remote management, etc. Looks like Arbua is a little simpler with the clustering and integrated local management (vs local UniFi cloud key, UniFi hosted, or self-hosted controller). For the price of a UniFi UAP AC-Lite it's hard to beat the price (~$80) for 2x2 MIMO dual band (most cell phones and laptops aren't more then 2x2 these days, so 3x3 without MU-MIMO seems like a waste IMHO). What I'm really curious about is other then management features and adding radios that follow the latest RF features (i.e. MU-MIMO) that are made available by Qualcomm/Atheros and others, what really differentiates APs? Can you speak to this about how Aruba (or others) differentiate itself in actual RF performance?
  - vlan3333 8y ago
    Aruba access points are built for higher density and longer range deployments. One of the RF management features is called ClientMatch, which helps ensure WLAN performance is not compromised in noisy or high density environments. Most homes don't have more than 20-30 devices on the WiFi. Most Instant access points can handle about 50-60 devices at a time. In my own home, the 5 Ghz band is primarily used due to the open layout and there's a lot less interference on that band in my neighborhood. I'm just using one Instant access point (IAP-215) to cover about 2500 sq ft. From a hand wavy and extremely generalized assessment, RF performance between the major enterprise vendors (Cisco Meraki/Aerohive/Ruckus/Aruba) differs by about 10%. If you design your network to the environment and devices used, you can achieve a highly performing network with any of major vendor. The deciding factor usually comes down to training personnel have with the equipment, relationships, and budget. Most RF engineers will probably sneer at the above statement, but there's some truth to it. Other Useful Information The Aruba Instant platform does not require a hardware controller - instead it uses a virtual controller that's homed to a master Access Point with automatic fail over to slave Access Points in the cluster. You can also mix and match any Instant AP model within the same cluster. New Aps should automatically join as soon as they are powered up and plugged into the local network (on the same VLAN). There's no additional licensing needed for local management. Access points purchased through an official retailer come with a lifetime warranty. Application recognition and content filtering is not available with Ubiquity. You can't prioritize traffic or restrict traffic on the WiFi based on specific content – for example, prioritize traffic for voice over YouTube or Facebook. In enterprise environments, WiFi calling has become important due to adopting Skype. Aruba also offers 3rd party support and integration via Airwave and ClearPass. Overkill (IMO) for a home.
lsllc 8y ago
I'm a big fan of Ubiquiti gear, I have set up a number of sites with Unifi, very easy to set up & manage and performance is excellent. Also impressed with airMAX, have used nanostation/nanobeam to build a number of short-haul point-to-point links where trenching fiber was too expensive. In general, I use EdgeMax for routing/switching rather than the Unifi branded switches/routers, although the hardware is identical, EdgeMax is infinitely more configurable. Although the single-pane-of-glass for Unifi is very nice, UNMS is getting pretty good these days -- I just wish they'd merge UNMS with the UniFi controller and _stop_ using Java for the UniFi backend (thankfully they did not use Java for UNMS).
2bluesc 8y ago
I setup UniFi APs at a start-up. The APs worked great from 10 people to about 50 people on ~3x APs. The UniFi gear replaced 3-6 Eeros in the 10-15 person days that really struggled, I was shocked that the Eero experience was so rough. We've moved to a new office the new IT team has moved to Cisco. In addition to the UniFi AP I had purchased 3 Ubiquiti EdgeSwitches: 2x 24 port, and a 16x POE. The first EdgeSwitch Lite-24 port switch died due to hardware errors ('unit 0 MMU CBP packet header memory asserted') while causing all kinds of chaos. And it appears the second EdgeSwitch Lite-24 took a dump this week (similar amount of chaos), (un)fortunately I no longer babysit the IT stuff so I haven't dug in to it.

58 points by mikece 8y ago

I've recommended Ubiquiti to a few friends and neighbors looking to extend Wifi coverage to the back yard or outbuilding or garage. It works quite well, particularly if you have a wired uplink and PoE switch. I use it in a couple of offices as well, but it seems like the pros are switching to Meraki due to the better (remote, cloud-based) configuration tools... Do any IT professionals make the case for Ubiquiti over Meraki?

msh 8y ago
Meraki seems significantly more expensive than ubiquity.
- secabeen 8y ago
  Yep. Ubnt has no maintenance or licensing costs. I have myself and two relatives on it, with no problems, and over 100 APs at work. They just work. Only issue I've had is there is an emerging issue with the PoE negotiation chip on some UAC-AC-PRO APs. We've worked around it with passive POE, which just works, but it could become a bigger issue going forward.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lwhalen 8y ago
I've gotten a fair amount of pushback on deploying Meraki specifically because of its cloud-based configuration tools. The SMB sites I deploy wifi to push back on their config living 'in the cloud', and the annual Meraki subscription ('you mean the service just turns off if we don't keep paying?') doesn't sit well either. I love Ubiquiti for its ability to be cloud-based for the folks who would want it, but completely private/internal for the folks who prefer it that way too.

vlan3333 8y ago

If you have budget, I would recommend trying an Aruba instant access point. It supports local and remote management, clustering, poe, and can prioritize traffic based on application or specifically voice traffic. The local management also has a web gui. Disclaimer: I work for Aruba.

2bluesc 8y ago
The UniFi products have QoS, POE, remote management, etc. Looks like Arbua is a little simpler with the clustering and integrated local management (vs local UniFi cloud key, UniFi hosted, or self-hosted controller). For the price of a UniFi UAP AC-Lite it's hard to beat the price (~$80) for 2x2 MIMO dual band (most cell phones and laptops aren't more then 2x2 these days, so 3x3 without MU-MIMO seems like a waste IMHO). What I'm really curious about is other then management features and adding radios that follow the latest RF features (i.e. MU-MIMO) that are made available by Qualcomm/Atheros and others, what really differentiates APs? Can you speak to this about how Aruba (or others) differentiate itself in actual RF performance?
- vlan3333 8y ago
  Aruba access points are built for higher density and longer range deployments. One of the RF management features is called ClientMatch, which helps ensure WLAN performance is not compromised in noisy or high density environments. Most homes don't have more than 20-30 devices on the WiFi. Most Instant access points can handle about 50-60 devices at a time. In my own home, the 5 Ghz band is primarily used due to the open layout and there's a lot less interference on that band in my neighborhood. I'm just using one Instant access point (IAP-215) to cover about 2500 sq ft. From a hand wavy and extremely generalized assessment, RF performance between the major enterprise vendors (Cisco Meraki/Aerohive/Ruckus/Aruba) differs by about 10%. If you design your network to the environment and devices used, you can achieve a highly performing network with any of major vendor. The deciding factor usually comes down to training personnel have with the equipment, relationships, and budget. Most RF engineers will probably sneer at the above statement, but there's some truth to it. Other Useful Information The Aruba Instant platform does not require a hardware controller - instead it uses a virtual controller that's homed to a master Access Point with automatic fail over to slave Access Points in the cluster. You can also mix and match any Instant AP model within the same cluster. New Aps should automatically join as soon as they are powered up and plugged into the local network (on the same VLAN). There's no additional licensing needed for local management. Access points purchased through an official retailer come with a lifetime warranty. Application recognition and content filtering is not available with Ubiquity. You can't prioritize traffic or restrict traffic on the WiFi based on specific content – for example, prioritize traffic for voice over YouTube or Facebook. In enterprise environments, WiFi calling has become important due to adopting Skype. Aruba also offers 3rd party support and integration via Airwave and ClearPass. Overkill (IMO) for a home.

lsllc 8y ago

I'm a big fan of Ubiquiti gear, I have set up a number of sites with Unifi, very easy to set up & manage and performance is excellent. Also impressed with airMAX, have used nanostation/nanobeam to build a number of short-haul point-to-point links where trenching fiber was too expensive. In general, I use EdgeMax for routing/switching rather than the Unifi branded switches/routers, although the hardware is identical, EdgeMax is infinitely more configurable. Although the single-pane-of-glass for Unifi is very nice, UNMS is getting pretty good these days -- I just wish they'd merge UNMS with the UniFi controller and _stop_ using Java for the UniFi backend (thankfully they did not use Java for UNMS).

2bluesc 8y ago

I setup UniFi APs at a start-up. The APs worked great from 10 people to about 50 people on ~3x APs. The UniFi gear replaced 3-6 Eeros in the 10-15 person days that really struggled, I was shocked that the Eero experience was so rough. We've moved to a new office the new IT team has moved to Cisco. In addition to the UniFi AP I had purchased 3 Ubiquiti EdgeSwitches: 2x 24 port, and a 16x POE. The first EdgeSwitch Lite-24 port switch died due to hardware errors ('unit 0 MMU CBP packet header memory asserted') while causing all kinds of chaos. And it appears the second EdgeSwitch Lite-24 took a dump this week (similar amount of chaos), (un)fortunately I no longer babysit the IT stuff so I haven't dug in to it.