Need a new WIFI system for my home.

[wnpublic]

6 minutes ago, lippavisual said:

Nope try again troll. 

Your fast reaction tells me there’s far more truth to it than you wish to admit

[Control4Savant]

2 minutes ago, lippavisual said:

Clueless. I can make money on both brands. Honestly, I can make more with UniFi.  But that’s not the point.  The point is Ruckus is set and forget.

How many wireless VoIP systems do you install?  I’m guessing none because you certainly wouldn’t be using UniFi dolt.

Well, Im a Netgear dealer for reasons like 10g video distribution and AVB, their hardware is on price with UBNT with less stock issues. Otherwise yes , I use the same stuff the rest of the modern networking pros and power users do and yes im sure none of us do VoIP… 

[Andrew luecke]

2 hours ago, lippavisual said:

 

Duplicate 

[Andrew luecke]

2 hours ago, lippavisual said:

Clueless. I can make money on both brands. Honestly, I can make more with UniFi.  But that’s not the point.  The point is Ruckus is set and forget.

How many wireless VoIP systems do you install?  I’m guessing none because you certainly wouldn’t be using UniFi dolt.

There's nothing really wrong with unifi even with VoIP (it supports 802.11kvr). I use ubiquiti at home actually (although, obviously I'm technical).

The problem with unifi in my opinion is consistency. Ruckus tests their firmware to a much better standard and offers direct support, whereas, there have been times quality at unifi has dropped (like the time they released a firmware which fried some of the radios). 

Because ubiquiti offloads a lot of the testing to the community, I have noticed at times they've missed obvious bugs. So from that perspective, ruckus is lower risk.

The main consideration imho is a cost vs risk tradeoff imho.

The risk on ubiquiti can be reduced too by centrally managing on behalf of customers and managing the upgrades and such on their behalf but it will obviously always be more risky than ruckus.

So because of the risk alone, ruckus/access networks will always make more sense in a high end premium home but it does have some interesting features too (like the entire network stack is well integrated with each other).

[eggzlot]

I use Unifi APs.  4 in my 3 story house.  Get good coverage everywhere except for 1 small far corner of the master bathroom.  I’ve had to replace 1-2 over time that got bricked.  Customer support is non existent so you are stuck with the community support and for what it’s worth they are super technical people and it’s over my head and I like to think I’m not a noob (studied IT in college and sell IT services now)

i use Cisco switches too.  On a 50 port SG220 model 12 banks died on Wednesday.  Called support Wednesday night - new switch at my door by lunch on Friday for free.  Are the Cisco switches more than Unifi, netgear and others, yes

nothing against Unifi - if I moved I’d likely go to something with better support regarding hardware and coverage.  When it works it’s fine, until it doesn’t work

dont really care about margins.  Just something that works and if there is an issue it’s supported.  Supported by the dealer or a call to the hardware company 

[chopedogg88]

All good points. I tell all my clients this too... Hardware is all relatively the same these days... It's the software and support that differentiates the more expensive products from the consumer level/DiY stuff.  As a result, being a professional who does this for a living I need to use products from companies that will answer the phone when I call and will overnight me a replacement if their is a hardware failure.  My clients don't want to be told they have to buy a new one and wait 2 weeks to get it. 

Edited August 20, 2022 by chopedogg88

[BXTR]

6 hours ago, wnpublic said:

The other old adages about suckers being born every minute, and fools and their money being soon parted, seem to have equal applicability here.  I’m guessing the ruckus margin is really good?

As a huge advocate of Unifi, I must say that you are so completely off base in suggesting that one overpays for Ruckus, it’s hilarious 

The performance is that good… and your ignorance is showing again but please don’t stop entertaining us, court jester 

[wnpublic]

2 hours ago, BXTR said:

As a huge advocate of Unifi, I must say that you are so completely off base in suggesting that one overpays for Ruckus, it’s hilarious 

The performance is that good… and your ignorance is showing again but please don’t stop entertaining us, court jester 

Justifies a 10x price differential, huh.  I bet you sell your customers a lot of these too. https://www.transparentcable.com/products/xl-speaker-cable?gclid=Cj0KCQjwjIKYBhC6ARIsAGEds-JaPEfFDtlYwdLdIzBUPox7p7v0dtia6anZheh1YF1uj7M5meoLNfEaAvGyEALw_wcB  The performance is that good......

[C4 BEAR]

12 minutes ago, wnpublic said:

Justifies a 10x price differential, huh.  I bet you sell your customers a lot of these too. https://www.transparentcable.com/products/xl-speaker-cable?gclid=Cj0KCQjwjIKYBhC6ARIsAGEds-JaPEfFDtlYwdLdIzBUPox7p7v0dtia6anZheh1YF1uj7M5meoLNfEaAvGyEALw_wcB  The performance is that good......

Wow, those are pretty cheap. I prefer these…. https://www.transparentcable.com/products/magnum-opus-speaker-cable

[lippavisual]

21 hours ago, wnpublic said:

Your fast reaction tells me there’s far more truth to it than you wish to admit

Uh no thanks.

[lippavisual]

19 hours ago, Andrew luecke said:

There's nothing really wrong with unifi even with VoIP (it supports 802.11kvr). I use ubiquiti at home actually (although, obviously I'm technical).

The problem with unifi in my opinion is consistency. Ruckus tests their firmware to a much better standard and offers direct support, whereas, there have been times quality at unifi has dropped (like the time they released a firmware which fried some of the radios). 

Because ubiquiti offloads a lot of the testing to the community, I have noticed at times they've missed obvious bugs. So from that perspective, ruckus is lower risk.

The main consideration imho is a cost vs risk tradeoff imho.

The risk on ubiquiti can be reduced too by centrally managing on behalf of customers and managing the upgrades and such on their behalf but it will obviously always be more risky than ruckus.

So because of the risk alone, ruckus/access networks will always make more sense in a high end premium home but it does have some interesting features too (like the entire network stack is well integrated with each other).

I’ve never said UniFi doesn’t work.  The problem with it is it is not truly a controller based Wi-Fi system.  Handoffs suffer extremely and when you have multiple people roaming around, it shows where the trade off is.

[wnpublic]

1 hour ago, lippavisual said:

I’ve never said UniFi doesn’t work.  The problem with it is it is not truly a controller based Wi-Fi system.  Handoffs suffer extremely and when you have multiple people roaming around, it shows where the trade off is.

Uh, not only does "not truly a controller-based Wi-Fi" system make no sense wrt UniFi, but roaming and handoff in an 802.11 session doesn't involve or require a controller.  It's between the client and the APs.  But go on about I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about.  And i'm sure you'll post your data showing the comparative handoff quality.

[ekohn00]

1 hour ago, lippavisual said:

 The problem with it is it is not truly a controller based Wi-Fi system.  Handoffs suffer extremely and when you have multiple people roaming around, it shows where the trade off is.

I don't think you're talking about Unifi.

[Control4Savant]

1 hour ago, ekohn00 said:

I don't think you're talking about Unifi.

He doesn’t know what he’s taking about period.

[LollerAgent]

3 hours ago, wnpublic said:

Uh, not only does "not truly a controller-based Wi-Fi" system make no sense wrt UniFi, but roaming and handoff in an 802.11 session doesn't involve or require a controller.  It's between the client and the APs.  But go on about I'm the one who doesn't know what they're talking about.  And i'm sure you'll post your data showing the comparative handoff quality.

Roaming actually *can* involve a controller and does in many systems (look at Cisco WLC, Ruckus LWAPP, etc).  While Unifi *does* have a controller, it's more passive in the sense that it's not actively participating in the access point/client session.

Edited August 21, 2022 by LollerAgent

[wnpublic]

24 minutes ago, LollerAgent said:

Roaming actually *can* involve a controller and does in many systems (look at Cisco WLC, Ruckus LWAPP, etc).  While Unifi *does* have a controller, it's more passive in the sense that it's not actively participating in the access point/client session.

Thanks.  I thought unifi *was* supporting 802.11v, but I wasn't aware that a lot of clients pay attention to it.  I'll take a look.

[ejn1]

On 8/20/2022 at 11:55 AM, chopedogg88 said:

I have a 5000 sq.ft house and I have full coverage with one Ruckus R610 AP (centrally located)...and that's not even wifi 6.  Their wifi 6 stuff provides even better coverage.  I used to have 3 Unifi AP Pros.

AP Pros are old unifi APs heritage .   There newer line is loads better.  If ruckus cost is an issue,  the new Unifi APs are pretty compelling .

[Andrew luecke]

18 hours ago, LollerAgent said:

Roaming actually *can* involve a controller and does in many systems (look at Cisco WLC, Ruckus LWAPP, etc).  While Unifi *does* have a controller, it's more passive in the sense that it's not actively participating in the access point/client session.

23 hours ago, lippavisual said:

I’ve never said UniFi doesn’t work.  The problem with it is it is not truly a controller based Wi-Fi system.  Handoffs suffer extremely and when you have multiple people roaming around, it shows where the trade off is.

G'day, I'm not a wireless engineer, but I suspect these are common assumptions (Aruba and Meraki are both hardware controllerless examples though which seem to negate that).

In fact, 802.11 specifies that clients handle when and where to roam to. AP's can influence them, but the end decision is by the client.. On IOS the way they roam is actually documented in: https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT203068 

 

IMHO, the big advantage for Ruckus comes down to support, and better QA.. Obviously, Ruckus also beat Unifi to WiFi 6 (by a long shot), so max throughput too is a win for Ruckus.. WIPS on Unifi is TOTAL rubbish (you only get Rogue AP detection. For a multi-millionaire client, being able to identify and defend against wifi attacks is worth it due to the risk. These features alone are worth paying for in many situations. In a callcentre with high density, commercial or industries which have standards which require compliance, also might make sense (Unifi might not comply with standards set for government, and other facilities). Or in industries where wifi is more critical (and downtime is less acceptable)

But, not sure a hardware wireless controller does anything specific for VOIP + roaming (maybe manage QOS a bit better.. not sure if changes to the ARP table would be needed during roaming, but that again wouldn't require hardware controller)..

Would you argue that Meraki and Aruba are also bad at Wireless roaming?

 

Wireless controllers

A wireless controller, is basically just a computer with a few ethernet ports.. Don't forget, Unifi is a full stack too (so, the controller is aware of where clients and AP's are on the main switches, and the hierarchy, etc).. 

• https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/wireless/benefits-upgrading-wireless-controllers.html << So firstly, you'll notice, cisco doesn't even mention roaming as an advantage..
• Controllers main goal is management. Large systems (such as Universities) have hundreds of AP's, which these can assist with, and you want to track tens of thousands of clients simultaneously. You also want fast provisioning, and upgrades to be done quickly without downtime, and maintain client connection reliably. 
• On large systems, you want to identify problems quickly, and ensure there is redundancy rather than setup and maintain a computer to do so.. A controller is "out of the box". It's easy to train people to use them, and there are no external software variables which can affect it. 
• It may also provide better QOS out of the box in some cases due to the inbuilt switch. And maybe do some things with ARP, but, Unifi is full stack, so it could also mess with the ARP tables and routing potentially on the switches too..
• Potentially manage Guest Network management and portal
• Better management of Rogue AP's and such. Unifi also does this.. 
• Security management, deploy firmware efficiently, etc. 
• Don't forget, Meraki and Aruba  also handle Voip well.. They don't need a controller to do so
• In fact, wireless VOIP on Aruba does not mention Hardware controllers: https://www.arubanetworks.com/pdf/WP_SmartphoneVoIP.pdf This mentions 802.11k,v and r.. 

 

From the "actively participating side"

• 802.11k allows AP's and clients to exchange roaming candidates so clients don't need to do a full scan for AP's. Unifi has this
• 802.11v from my understanding tells clients information about load and such of the various AP's. Again, Unifi has this
• 802.11r allows fast connections to other AP's by speeding up negotiation.. Unifi has this...
• WMM QOS (supported, obviously)

So with these combined, clients know where best to roam, know how to maintain a clean connection, and can roam quickly. They seem to be actively involved in the process, as the AP's actively INFLUENCE the client where to roam to. Also, apparently they support PKMID caching (which I never heard of, but is mentioned in: https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT202628 ). So, I suspect the AP's can collaborate, and they definitely can influence the client (they do so via 802.11v already). 

 

Ultimately though, the AP's are just making roaming recommendations (for sticky clients, they might do some dodgy hacks to help). Ultimately, the client decides where to roam from my understanding. Bandsteering as an example just sabotages 2.4ghz to respond after 5ghz, so clients will be more inclined to connect to 2.4 (which shows up first). Whilst one could argue its an active process, its really just a AP messing with it..  

There are plenty of good reasons, to sell Ruckus (as I mentioned in the top paragraph), and there are a lot of advantages to having a hardware wifi controller too. But, unless proven otherwise, I am a bit skeptical that hardware controllers are a requirement for reliable roaming (even VOIP) if the network is properly set up, and the aps are installed in the proper locations. That being said, as mentioned, I'm not a wireless engineer (I spent a few hours researching this though) but was unable to find anything demonstrating that hardware controllers made a difference.. 

[lippavisual]

For you weekend warriors, look at the Ruckus ZoneDirector or virtual controller from Unleashed.  Same with Meraki or Aruba equivalents.

Yes, controller based Wi-Fi does make a difference and I don’t need to explain it. Look it up for yourself.

The controller from UniFi is just a device that configures your network, that’s it.  UniFi does allow roaming between APs but that’s based on the client or set SSI within the network.  The controller does not force handoffs nor maintains them.

[ekohn00]

21 hours ago, LollerAgent said:

Roaming actually *can* involve a controller and does in many systems (look at Cisco WLC, Ruckus LWAPP, etc).  While Unifi *does* have a controller, it's more passive in the sense that it's not actively participating in the access point/client session.

Actually the controllers are functional in establishing and reestablishing a client and done with roaming. And yes it is the same on with the unifi controller. 

[ejn1]

On 8/20/2022 at 12:27 PM, C4 User said:

Thank you @chopedogg88 and so many others that add valuable feedback to this forum. I long ago learned that one gets what they pay for. And rarely does consumer grade stuff compare to top quality stuff. The reality is most consumers simply cannot tell the difference and they don’t know what they don’t know. 

I wouldn't personally call Unifi consumer gear... It is a step up but agree with others it not in the same league as Ruckus.   But it's ALOT less expensive and they have progressed their access point models a lot in recent years plus the Unifi software interface and APP is better than Ruckus.   The gap is shrinking and not sure today I would spend 3-4x for Ruckus in a home setting.  I have Ruckus in a large home and its great.  I have a Unifi UDM in a smaller home with a built in Access Point and it has worked brilliantly.  I had actually picked up an R610 like @chopedogg88 and was going to install in place of the UDM AP and then I didnt do it given the Unifi performance and all in one convenience of the UDM.   My advice is dont get sucked into the Unifi immediate response of it is problematic,  do more research.  its like saying a corvette is a crappy sports car because there is a McLaren option available.   Also, Ruckus tech support is only better if you buy (annually) their paid support otherwise not much better than Unifi.

[Andrew luecke]

2 hours ago, lippavisual said:

For you weekend warriors, look at the Ruckus ZoneDirector or virtual controller from Unleashed.  Same with Meraki or Aruba equivalents.

Yes, controller based Wi-Fi does make a difference and I don’t need to explain it. Look it up for yourself.

The controller from UniFi is just a device that configures your network, that’s it.  UniFi does allow roaming between APs but that’s based on the client or set SSI within the network.  The controller does not force handoffs nor maintains them.

 All research, white papers and information I found confirmed that the roaming mechanisms had nothing to do with a hardware controller. Hence why you'll need to explain why they're better, or provide some mechanisms which they use to better roam. 

I did hours of research, and the burden of proof is on you now...

Don't forget, 3 years ago, we had a similar debate in regards to broadcasts/multicasts being broken on unifi. Nobody wanted to provide links. Turned out that ultimately I discovered enough to determine, it was based on misconception.  People were confusing pimsd for normal broadcasting. Ultimately, c4 clarified the do not use network list.. 

I also can't find anything mandatory in the standard to be able to tell clients they must roam to a specific AP. They can just follow recommendations. All a hardware wifi controller could do is tell the ap to send a fake 802.11v report or disassociate the connection. But this would simply force more roaming and make it less reliable in a low density environment. 

 

[Jeff W]

I'll add some real world experience.  My vote is for Ruckus Wireless.

The R600/610 was mind blowing good.  The range and speed capabilities at this time were second to none.  They could also handle a TON of traffic too.  The R650's seem to have less range than the previous models though (that's a discussion for another day/thread).

In theory the wireless clients are supposed to make the choice of which AP they choose based on several factors.  But there are lots of wireless clients that once they get a signal they hold on to it for dear life, even if there is a better AP with more signal.  

I have a client who did not want to upgrade their wireless cameras, it was supplied by a ISP, they couldn't get out of the contract and just decided it was easier to keep them for the time being.  These cameras quickly became the bane of my existence!  I installed three access points in a house.  staggered across three floors for optimal coverage.  I had two of these wireless cameras that despite having an AP installed within 10 ft inside the garage they insisted of connecting to an access 3 stories below them, in the dirt, in the basement level of this house.  The physics were just dumb that it could see and connect to the wrong APs.  When they would connect to the garage access point they had -65db signal or better, when they connected to the basement AP they had -90db or worse.  They'd stop responding to pings, they wouldn't function but they just never switched back to a good AP.  For whatever reason these stupid wireless cameras would always hop over to the worst signal for no reason.  

Ruckus Wireless has a feature called Smart Roaming (it's available on unleased and ZD).  It's designed for sticky clients like the example from above.  It's works on a range of 1 - 10.  We started with a recommended level of 3 and slowly worked our way up to 5 before the wireless cameras would get kicked off the weak AP's and switch back to the AP's next to them. 

In unleashed, you have to use the CLI to find it though, it's buried deep in the controls.  it's not available through the web GUI.

There's lots of examples of wireless clients not following standards and being sticky wireless clients.  Apple products sometimes aren't the best either.  Just because they say the follow the standards doesn't mean it actually happens in real world examples.  

Bottom line, when you have sticky wireless clients, The ruckus Unleashed and/or Zone Directors can force the wireless clients off the network and re-authenticate to better APs.  The controller can monitor and force wireless clients to roam between access points if/when configured.  

 

 

[LollerAgent]

5 hours ago, ekohn00 said:

Actually the controllers are functional in establishing and reestablishing a client and done with roaming. And yes it is the same on with the unifi controller. 

I don't think so.  Link?

[zaphod]

On 8/19/2022 at 8:41 PM, C4 BEAR said:

I currently have a Ruckus Zone Director 1100 and 8 AP's in my home. I have had this system for a long time. It used to be fantastic, but as FIOS has offered faster speeds (which I got) the wifi doesn't seem to be able to take advantage of those speeds.

I have noticed that even thought I have 1 gig up and 1 gig down internet service...I only get these speeds on my hard-wired devices. My iPhones only get about 200-250 up and down.

How does moving from 200 up/down to 1Gig change your experience on an iPhone, other than looking better on a Speedtest?  Watching Netflix uses 15 Mbps for 4K video.  Maybe if you are downloading lots of songs onto your phone or downloading video from Netflix or other streaming services.  But most people just stream on demand these days and 200 is more than enough for that. 

Are you sure it is worth spending a few thousand to get faster Wifi that may not really improve your actual experience?