Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
Hi We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high number of devices we are definitely going to encounter. How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout? Thanks in advance!
With that many users I cannot recommend Ubiquiti, Ruckus would be the way to go. On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:58 AM Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high number of devices we are definitely going to encounter.
How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout?
Thanks in advance!
-- Tyler W. Mills Infrastructure and Network Engineer Atlanta, GA.
I've got really great experience with Aruba. Don't know if it fits your budged, though. Rebards, On 19 June 2015 at 08:24, Tyler Mills <tylermills@gmail.com> wrote:
With that many users I cannot recommend Ubiquiti, Ruckus would be the way to go.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:58 AM Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high number of devices we are definitely going to encounter.
How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout?
Thanks in advance!
-- Tyler W. Mills Infrastructure and Network Engineer Atlanta, GA.
-- Bartek Krawczyk
Thanks! Everything is still in planning stage, though. Management is leaning toward Ruckus. Can I get suggestions for authentication and billing systems for wireless users too? Thanks for all the wisdom so far On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 7:54 AM Bartek Krawczyk <bbartlomiej.mail@gmail.com> wrote:
I've got really great experience with Aruba. Don't know if it fits your budged, though.
Rebards,
On 19 June 2015 at 08:24, Tyler Mills <tylermills@gmail.com> wrote:
With that many users I cannot recommend Ubiquiti, Ruckus would be the way to go.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:58 AM Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high number of devices we are definitely going to encounter.
How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout?
Thanks in advance!
-- Tyler W. Mills Infrastructure and Network Engineer Atlanta, GA.
-- Bartek Krawczyk
With that many users I cannot recommend Ubiquiti, Ruckus would be the way to go.
Really ? Considering you are referring to Company Names, each with a full product line of low end to high end products ? I often remind folks that Chevrolet, makes both the Corvette as well as the Chevette.... :) Actual implementations, and deployments suggest that Companies offer products that can serve such an environment when implemented correctly. While they each have their strengths and nuances, the key is proper implementation... Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom ----- Original Message -----
From: "Tyler Mills" <tylermills@gmail.com> To: "Sina Owolabi" <notify.sina@gmail.com>, "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 2:24:00 AM Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
With that many users I cannot recommend Ubiquiti, Ruckus would be the way to go.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:58 AM Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high number of devices we are definitely going to encounter.
How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout?
Thanks in advance!
-- Tyler W. Mills Infrastructure and Network Engineer Atlanta, GA.
8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time.
Aerohive, easily. AP330s would thrive in a setup such as that. On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
With that many users I cannot recommend Ubiquiti, Ruckus would be the way to go.
Really ? Considering you are referring to Company Names, each with a full product line of low end to high end products ?
I often remind folks that Chevrolet, makes both the Corvette as well as the Chevette....
:)
Actual implementations, and deployments suggest that Companies offer products that can serve such an environment when implemented correctly. While they each have their strengths and nuances, the key is proper implementation...
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tyler Mills" <tylermills@gmail.com> To: "Sina Owolabi" <notify.sina@gmail.com>, "nanog@nanog.org list" < nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 2:24:00 AM Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
With that many users I cannot recommend Ubiquiti, Ruckus would be the way to go.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:58 AM Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high number of devices we are definitely going to encounter.
How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout?
Thanks in advance!
-- Tyler W. Mills Infrastructure and Network Engineer Atlanta, GA.
-- Miano, Steven M. http://stevenmiano.com
I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had good luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a packed auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with the presenter). The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz. That's pretty significant because you're limited to 9 x 20 MHz channels or 4 x 40 MHz channels. Keeping the power level down and creating small cells is essential for high density, so with less channels your hands are really tied in that case. Also, avoid the Zero Handoff marketing nonsense they advertise; I'm sure it can work great for a low client residential area but it requires all APs to share a single channel and depends upon coordinating only one active transmitter at a time, so it simply won't scale. I don't have experience with other vendors at large scale or high density. I don't think what you're talking about is really high density anymore though. That's just normal coverage. Wireless is a lot more complicated than selecting a vendor, though. If you know what you're doing even Ubiquiti could work decently, but if you don't even a Cisco solution won't save you. You really need to be on top of surveying correctly and having appropriate AP placement and channel distribution. On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high number of devices we are definitely going to encounter.
How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout?
Thanks in advance!
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had good luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a packed auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with the presenter).
the ietf is repeatedly successful with cisco kit at well over 1,000 users, and i mean very active users, in the ballroom. thanks chelliott. but it is not simple, you need to know what you're doing and few do. one can also screw up with any kit, as nanog keeps demonstrating. randy
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
Huh ???? Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are not accurate ... Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> To: "Sina Owolabi" <notify.sina@gmail.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had good luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a packed auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with the presenter).
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz. That's pretty significant because you're limited to 9 x 20 MHz channels or 4 x 40 MHz channels. Keeping the power level down and creating small cells is essential for high density, so with less channels your hands are really tied in that case. Also, avoid the Zero Handoff marketing nonsense they advertise; I'm sure it can work great for a low client residential area but it requires all APs to share a single channel and depends upon coordinating only one active transmitter at a time, so it simply won't scale.
I don't have experience with other vendors at large scale or high density.
I don't think what you're talking about is really high density anymore though. That's just normal coverage. Wireless is a lot more complicated than selecting a vendor, though. If you know what you're doing even Ubiquiti could work decently, but if you don't even a Cisco solution won't save you. You really need to be on top of surveying correctly and having appropriate AP placement and channel distribution.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high number of devices we are definitely going to encounter.
How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout?
Thanks in advance!
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
Uhm he's not wrong... Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
Huh ????
Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are not accurate ...
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> To: "Sina Owolabi" <notify.sina@gmail.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had good luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a packed auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with the presenter).
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz. That's pretty significant because you're limited to 9 x 20 MHz channels or 4 x 40 MHz channels. Keeping the power level down and creating small cells is essential for high density, so with less channels your hands are really tied in that case. Also, avoid the Zero Handoff marketing nonsense they advertise; I'm sure it can work great for a low client residential area but it requires all APs to share a single channel and depends upon coordinating only one active transmitter at a time, so it simply won't scale.
I don't have experience with other vendors at large scale or high density.
I don't think what you're talking about is really high density anymore though. That's just normal coverage. Wireless is a lot more complicated than selecting a vendor, though. If you know what you're doing even Ubiquiti could work decently, but if you don't even a Cisco solution won't save you. You really need to be on top of surveying correctly and having appropriate AP placement and channel distribution.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high number of devices we are definitely going to encounter.
How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout?
Thanks in advance!
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
FCC Cert claims different. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net ----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh Luthman" <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>, "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 9:16:37 PM Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
Uhm he's not wrong...
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" < faisal@snappytelecom.net > wrote:
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
Huh ????
Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are not accurate ...
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Soucy" < rps@maine.edu >
To: "Sina Owolabi" < notify.sina@gmail.com >
Cc: " nanog@nanog.org list" < nanog@nanog.org >
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM
Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had good
luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a packed
auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with the
presenter).
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't
support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
That's pretty significant because you're limited to 9 x 20 MHz channels or
4 x 40 MHz channels. Keeping the power level down and creating small cells
is essential for high density, so with less channels your hands are really
tied in that case. Also, avoid the Zero Handoff marketing nonsense they
advertise; I'm sure it can work great for a low client residential area but
it requires all APs to share a single channel and depends upon coordinating
only one active transmitter at a time, so it simply won't scale.
I don't have experience with other vendors at large scale or high density.
I don't think what you're talking about is really high density anymore
though. That's just normal coverage. Wireless is a lot more complicated
than selecting a vendor, though. If you know what you're doing even
Ubiquiti could work decently, but if you don't even a Cisco solution won't
save you. You really need to be on top of surveying correctly and having
appropriate AP placement and channel distribution.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sina Owolabi < notify.sina@gmail.com > wrote:
Hi
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density
network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be
8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time.
We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high
number of devices we are definitely going to encounter.
How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout?
Thanks in advance!
--
Ray Patrick Soucy
Network Engineer
University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526
F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network
www.maineren.net
Their "airMAX" line recently got UNII approval but not their UniFi line to my knowledge: https://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Updates-Blog/airMAX-FCC-UNII-Updates-Lo... 20. Jun 2015 03:36 by faisal@snappytelecom.net:
FCC Cert claims different.
:)
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: > Support@Snappytelecom.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh Luthman" <>> josh@imaginenetworksllc.com>> > To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <>> faisal@snappytelecom.net>> > Cc: "NANOG list" <>> nanog@nanog.org>> >, "Ray Soucy" <>> rps@maine.edu>>
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 9:16:37 PM Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup? Uhm he's not wrong... Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" < >> faisal@snappytelecom.net>>
wrote:
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
Huh ????
Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are not accurate ...
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Soucy" < >> rps@maine.edu>> >
To: "Sina Owolabi" < >> notify.sina@gmail.com>> >
Cc: " >> nanog@nanog.org>> list" < >> nanog@nanog.org>> >
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM
Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had good
luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a packed
auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with the
presenter).
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't
support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
That's pretty significant because you're limited to 9 x 20 MHz channels or
4 x 40 MHz channels. Keeping the power level down and creating small cells
is essential for high density, so with less channels your hands are really
tied in that case. Also, avoid the Zero Handoff marketing nonsense they
advertise; I'm sure it can work great for a low client residential area but
it requires all APs to share a single channel and depends upon coordinating
only one active transmitter at a time, so it simply won't scale.
I don't have experience with other vendors at large scale or high density.
I don't think what you're talking about is really high density anymore
though. That's just normal coverage. Wireless is a lot more complicated
than selecting a vendor, though. If you know what you're doing even
Ubiquiti could work decently, but if you don't even a Cisco solution won't
save you. You really need to be on top of surveying correctly and having
appropriate AP placement and channel distribution.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sina Owolabi < >> notify.sina@gmail.com>> > wrote:
Hi
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density
network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be
8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time.
We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high
number of devices we are definitely going to encounter.
How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout?
Thanks in advance!
--
Ray Patrick Soucy
Network Engineer
University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526
F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network
My equipment that can't do 5.4 with the latest stable or beta firmware says you can't. Hopefully we get 5.1 "soon". :) Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 19, 2015 11:36 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
FCC Cert claims different.
:)
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
------------------------------
*From: *"Josh Luthman" <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> *To: *"Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> *Cc: *"NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>, "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> *Sent: *Friday, June 19, 2015 9:16:37 PM *Subject: *Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
Uhm he's not wrong...
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
Huh ????
Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are not accurate ...
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> To: "Sina Owolabi" <notify.sina@gmail.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had good luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a packed auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with the presenter).
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz. That's pretty significant because you're limited to 9 x 20 MHz channels or 4 x 40 MHz channels. Keeping the power level down and creating small cells is essential for high density, so with less channels your hands are really tied in that case. Also, avoid the Zero Handoff marketing nonsense they advertise; I'm sure it can work great for a low client residential area but it requires all APs to share a single channel and depends upon coordinating only one active transmitter at a time, so it simply won't scale.
I don't have experience with other vendors at large scale or high density.
I don't think what you're talking about is really high density anymore though. That's just normal coverage. Wireless is a lot more complicated than selecting a vendor, though. If you know what you're doing even Ubiquiti could work decently, but if you don't even a Cisco solution won't save you. You really need to be on top of surveying correctly and having appropriate AP placement and channel distribution.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high number of devices we are definitely going to encounter.
How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout?
Thanks in advance!
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
Well, I could certainly be wrong, but it's news to me if UBNT started supporting DFS in the US. Your first screenshot is listing the UAP for 5240 which is channel 48, U-NII-1. The second show 5825 which is the upper limit of U-NNI-3. I don't see any U-NII-2 in what you posted. This forum post may be a bit out of date, but I haven't seen any announcement or information on the forums to indicate the situation has changed, and I'm pretty good at searching: https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/m-p/700461#M54771
From this thread it looks like the ability to configure DFS channels in the US was a UI bug and only showing for ZH anyway. IIRC they actually got in a bit of trouble with the FCC over not restricting the use of these channels enough.
Regardless of whether or not the FCC has cleared UBNT indoor products for U-NII-2 and U-NII-2-extended (and I haven't seen evidence of that yet), until you can configure APs to use those channels in the controller without violating FCC regulations I don't consider them usable. The UAP-AC doesn't seem to support DFS channels at all even without FCC restrictions, which kind of kills the point of AC, only 4 x 40 MHz or 2 x 80 MHz channels doesn't cut it when we're talking about density. Note we're talking about indoor wireless and there ARE some UBNT products for outdoor WISP use that do support DFS and have been cleared by the FCC, but we would only be looking at the UAP-PRO or UAP-AC in this case so maybe that's the point of confusion here. On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
FCC Cert claims different.
:)
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
------------------------------
*From: *"Josh Luthman" <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> *To: *"Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> *Cc: *"NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>, "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> *Sent: *Friday, June 19, 2015 9:16:37 PM
*Subject: *Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
Uhm he's not wrong...
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
Huh ????
Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are not accurate ...
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> To: "Sina Owolabi" <notify.sina@gmail.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had good luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a packed auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with the presenter).
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz. That's pretty significant because you're limited to 9 x 20 MHz channels or 4 x 40 MHz channels. Keeping the power level down and creating small cells is essential for high density, so with less channels your hands are really tied in that case. Also, avoid the Zero Handoff marketing nonsense they advertise; I'm sure it can work great for a low client residential area but it requires all APs to share a single channel and depends upon coordinating only one active transmitter at a time, so it simply won't scale.
I don't have experience with other vendors at large scale or high density.
I don't think what you're talking about is really high density anymore though. That's just normal coverage. Wireless is a lot more complicated than selecting a vendor, though. If you know what you're doing even Ubiquiti could work decently, but if you don't even a Cisco solution won't save you. You really need to be on top of surveying correctly and having appropriate AP placement and channel distribution.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high number of devices we are definitely going to encounter.
How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout?
Thanks in advance!
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
Thanks everybody. I've been corrected on density... I've been informed that it's to be a minimum of 1000 users per building. That's 8,000 users. (8 buildings, not counting walkways and courtyards, admin, etc.) Does this qualify as high-density? On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:33 AM Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
Well, I could certainly be wrong, but it's news to me if UBNT started supporting DFS in the US.
Your first screenshot is listing the UAP for 5240 which is channel 48, U-NII-1. The second show 5825 which is the upper limit of U-NNI-3. I don't see any U-NII-2 in what you posted.
This forum post may be a bit out of date, but I haven't seen any announcement or information on the forums to indicate the situation has changed, and I'm pretty good at searching:
https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/m-p/700461#M54771
From this thread it looks like the ability to configure DFS channels in the US was a UI bug and only showing for ZH anyway. IIRC they actually got in a bit of trouble with the FCC over not restricting the use of these channels enough.
Regardless of whether or not the FCC has cleared UBNT indoor products for U-NII-2 and U-NII-2-extended (and I haven't seen evidence of that yet), until you can configure APs to use those channels in the controller without violating FCC regulations I don't consider them usable.
The UAP-AC doesn't seem to support DFS channels at all even without FCC restrictions, which kind of kills the point of AC, only 4 x 40 MHz or 2 x 80 MHz channels doesn't cut it when we're talking about density.
Note we're talking about indoor wireless and there ARE some UBNT products for outdoor WISP use that do support DFS and have been cleared by the FCC, but we would only be looking at the UAP-PRO or UAP-AC in this case so maybe that's the point of confusion here.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
FCC Cert claims different.
:)
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
------------------------------
*From: *"Josh Luthman" <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> *To: *"Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> *Cc: *"NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>, "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> *Sent: *Friday, June 19, 2015 9:16:37 PM
*Subject: *Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
Uhm he's not wrong...
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
Huh ????
Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are not accurate ...
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom
From: "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> To: "Sina Owolabi" <notify.sina@gmail.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had good luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a packed auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with the presenter).
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz. That's pretty significant because you're limited to 9 x 20 MHz channels or 4 x 40 MHz channels. Keeping the power level down and creating small cells is essential for high density, so with less channels your hands are really tied in that case. Also, avoid the Zero Handoff marketing nonsense
----- Original Message ----- they
advertise; I'm sure it can work great for a low client residential area but it requires all APs to share a single channel and depends upon coordinating only one active transmitter at a time, so it simply won't scale.
I don't have experience with other vendors at large scale or high density.
I don't think what you're talking about is really high density anymore though. That's just normal coverage. Wireless is a lot more complicated than selecting a vendor, though. If you know what you're doing even Ubiquiti could work decently, but if you don't even a Cisco solution won't save you. You really need to be on top of surveying correctly and having appropriate AP placement and channel distribution.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high number of devices we are definitely going to encounter.
How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout?
Thanks in advance!
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
I don't think there's an actual standard for density, at least I am not aware of one. Independent of the vendor you use, this guide should be valid at 80% of implementations: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-1250-serie... On Meraki's website there's a case study of an entertainment venue that has about 2,000 users per night, so I am assuming 1,000 which is your cause should be doable. On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks everybody. I've been corrected on density... I've been informed that it's to be a minimum of 1000 users per building. That's 8,000 users. (8 buildings, not counting walkways and courtyards, admin, etc.) Does this qualify as high-density?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:33 AM Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
Well, I could certainly be wrong, but it's news to me if UBNT started supporting DFS in the US.
Your first screenshot is listing the UAP for 5240 which is channel 48, U-NII-1. The second show 5825 which is the upper limit of U-NNI-3. I don't see any U-NII-2 in what you posted.
This forum post may be a bit out of date, but I haven't seen any announcement or information on the forums to indicate the situation has changed, and I'm pretty good at searching:
https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/m-p/700461#M54771
From this thread it looks like the ability to configure DFS channels in the US was a UI bug and only showing for ZH anyway. IIRC they actually got in a bit of trouble with the FCC over not restricting the use of these channels enough.
Regardless of whether or not the FCC has cleared UBNT indoor products for U-NII-2 and U-NII-2-extended (and I haven't seen evidence of that yet), until you can configure APs to use those channels in the controller without violating FCC regulations I don't consider them usable.
The UAP-AC doesn't seem to support DFS channels at all even without FCC restrictions, which kind of kills the point of AC, only 4 x 40 MHz or 2 x 80 MHz channels doesn't cut it when we're talking about density.
Note we're talking about indoor wireless and there ARE some UBNT products for outdoor WISP use that do support DFS and have been cleared by the FCC, but we would only be looking at the UAP-PRO or UAP-AC in this case so maybe that's the point of confusion here.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
FCC Cert claims different.
:)
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
------------------------------
*From: *"Josh Luthman" <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> *To: *"Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> *Cc: *"NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>, "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> *Sent: *Friday, June 19, 2015 9:16:37 PM
*Subject: *Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
Uhm he's not wrong...
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
>The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
Huh ????
Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are not accurate ...
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom
From: "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> To: "Sina Owolabi" <notify.sina@gmail.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had good luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a
auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with the presenter).
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz. That's pretty significant because you're limited to 9 x 20 MHz channels or 4 x 40 MHz channels. Keeping the power level down and creating small cells is essential for high density, so with less channels your hands are really tied in that case. Also, avoid the Zero Handoff marketing nonsense
----- Original Message ----- packed they
advertise; I'm sure it can work great for a low client residential area but it requires all APs to share a single channel and depends upon coordinating only one active transmitter at a time, so it simply won't scale.
I don't have experience with other vendors at large scale or high density.
I don't think what you're talking about is really high density anymore though. That's just normal coverage. Wireless is a lot more complicated than selecting a vendor, though. If you know what you're doing even Ubiquiti could work decently, but if you don't even a Cisco solution won't save you. You really need to be on top of surveying correctly and having appropriate AP placement and channel distribution.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sina Owolabi < notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high number of devices we are definitely going to encounter.
How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout?
Thanks in advance!
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
Rafael, At some scales, the WiFi standard alone will not cut it... Research on MERUNETWORKS virtual cell tecnology. I have done a trial with them. All the others are far behind on density. Check their case studies. Em 20/06/2015 13:02, "Rafael Possamai" <rafael@gav.ufsc.br> escreveu:
I don't think there's an actual standard for density, at least I am not aware of one. Independent of the vendor you use, this guide should be valid at 80% of implementations:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-1250-serie...
On Meraki's website there's a case study of an entertainment venue that has about 2,000 users per night, so I am assuming 1,000 which is your cause should be doable.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks everybody. I've been corrected on density... I've been informed that it's to be a minimum of 1000 users per building. That's 8,000 users. (8 buildings, not counting walkways and courtyards, admin, etc.) Does this qualify as high-density?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:33 AM Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
Well, I could certainly be wrong, but it's news to me if UBNT started supporting DFS in the US.
Your first screenshot is listing the UAP for 5240 which is channel 48, U-NII-1. The second show 5825 which is the upper limit of U-NNI-3. I don't see any U-NII-2 in what you posted.
This forum post may be a bit out of date, but I haven't seen any announcement or information on the forums to indicate the situation has changed, and I'm pretty good at searching:
https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/m-p/700461#M54771
From this thread it looks like the ability to configure DFS channels in the US was a UI bug and only showing for ZH anyway. IIRC they actually got in a bit of trouble with the FCC over not restricting the use of these channels enough.
Regardless of whether or not the FCC has cleared UBNT indoor products for U-NII-2 and U-NII-2-extended (and I haven't seen evidence of that yet), until you can configure APs to use those channels in the controller without violating FCC regulations I don't consider them usable.
The UAP-AC doesn't seem to support DFS channels at all even without FCC restrictions, which kind of kills the point of AC, only 4 x 40 MHz or 2 x 80 MHz channels doesn't cut it when we're talking about density.
Note we're talking about indoor wireless and there ARE some UBNT products for outdoor WISP use that do support DFS and have been cleared by the FCC, but we would only be looking at the UAP-PRO or UAP-AC in this case so maybe that's the point of confusion here.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
FCC Cert claims different.
:)
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
------------------------------
*From: *"Josh Luthman" <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> *To: *"Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> *Cc: *"NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>, "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> *Sent: *Friday, June 19, 2015 9:16:37 PM
*Subject: *Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
Uhm he's not wrong...
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
>>The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
Huh ????
Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are not accurate ...
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom
From: "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> To: "Sina Owolabi" <notify.sina@gmail.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had good luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a
auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with
presenter).
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz. That's pretty significant because you're limited to 9 x 20 MHz channels or 4 x 40 MHz channels. Keeping the power level down and creating small cells is essential for high density, so with less channels your hands are really tied in that case. Also, avoid the Zero Handoff marketing nonsense
----- Original Message ----- packed the they
advertise; I'm sure it can work great for a low client residential area but it requires all APs to share a single channel and depends upon coordinating only one active transmitter at a time, so it simply won't scale.
I don't have experience with other vendors at large scale or high density.
I don't think what you're talking about is really high density anymore though. That's just normal coverage. Wireless is a lot more complicated than selecting a vendor, though. If you know what you're doing even Ubiquiti could work decently, but if you don't even a Cisco solution won't save you. You really need to be on top of surveying correctly and having appropriate AP placement and channel distribution.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sina Owolabi < notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi > > We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density > network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be > 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. > We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high > number of devices we are definitely going to encounter. > > How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout? > > Thanks in advance! >
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
That's interesting, I will take a look. Thanks! On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Marco Teixeira <admin@marcoteixeira.com> wrote:
Rafael, At some scales, the WiFi standard alone will not cut it... Research on MERUNETWORKS virtual cell tecnology. I have done a trial with them. All the others are far behind on density. Check their case studies. Em 20/06/2015 13:02, "Rafael Possamai" <rafael@gav.ufsc.br> escreveu:
I don't think there's an actual standard for density, at least I am not aware of one. Independent of the vendor you use, this guide should be valid at 80% of implementations:
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-1250-serie...
On Meraki's website there's a case study of an entertainment venue that has about 2,000 users per night, so I am assuming 1,000 which is your cause should be doable.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks everybody. I've been corrected on density... I've been informed that it's to be a minimum of 1000 users per building. That's 8,000 users. (8 buildings, not counting walkways and courtyards, admin, etc.) Does this qualify as high-density?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:33 AM Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
Well, I could certainly be wrong, but it's news to me if UBNT started supporting DFS in the US.
Your first screenshot is listing the UAP for 5240 which is channel 48, U-NII-1. The second show 5825 which is the upper limit of U-NNI-3. I don't see any U-NII-2 in what you posted.
This forum post may be a bit out of date, but I haven't seen any announcement or information on the forums to indicate the situation has changed, and I'm pretty good at searching:
https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/m-p/700461#M54771
From this thread it looks like the ability to configure DFS channels in the US was a UI bug and only showing for ZH anyway. IIRC they actually got in a bit of trouble with the FCC over not restricting the use of these channels enough.
Regardless of whether or not the FCC has cleared UBNT indoor products for U-NII-2 and U-NII-2-extended (and I haven't seen evidence of that yet), until you can configure APs to use those channels in the controller without violating FCC regulations I don't consider them usable.
The UAP-AC doesn't seem to support DFS channels at all even without FCC restrictions, which kind of kills the point of AC, only 4 x 40 MHz or 2 x 80 MHz channels doesn't cut it when we're talking about density.
Note we're talking about indoor wireless and there ARE some UBNT products for outdoor WISP use that do support DFS and have been cleared by the FCC, but we would only be looking at the UAP-PRO or UAP-AC in this case so maybe that's the point of confusion here.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
FCC Cert claims different.
:)
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
------------------------------
*From: *"Josh Luthman" <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> *To: *"Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> *Cc: *"NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>, "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> *Sent: *Friday, June 19, 2015 9:16:37 PM
*Subject: *Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
Uhm he's not wrong...
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
>>>The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
Huh ????
Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are not accurate ...
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> > To: "Sina Owolabi" <notify.sina@gmail.com> > Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM > Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup? > > I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had good > luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a packed > auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with the > presenter). > > The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't > support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz. > That's pretty significant because you're limited to 9 x 20 MHz channels or > 4 x 40 MHz channels. Keeping the power level down and creating small cells > is essential for high density, so with less channels your hands are really > tied in that case. Also, avoid the Zero Handoff marketing nonsense they > advertise; I'm sure it can work great for a low client residential area but > it requires all APs to share a single channel and depends upon coordinating > only one active transmitter at a time, so it simply won't scale. > > I don't have experience with other vendors at large scale or high density. > > I don't think what you're talking about is really high density anymore > though. That's just normal coverage. Wireless is a lot more complicated > than selecting a vendor, though. If you know what you're doing even > Ubiquiti could work decently, but if you don't even a Cisco solution won't > save you. You really need to be on top of surveying correctly and having > appropriate AP placement and channel distribution. > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sina Owolabi < notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density > > network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be > > 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. > > We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high > > number of devices we are definitely going to encounter. > > > > How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout? > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > > > -- > Ray Patrick Soucy > Network Engineer > University of Maine System > > T: 207-561-3526 > F: 207-561-3531 > > MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network > www.maineren.net >
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
Compared to the old model of just providing coverage, it's definitely higher density. I think the point I was trying to make is that the old high density is the new normal, and what most on list would consider high density is more along the lines of stadium wireless. I wouldn't really focus on the term too much, though. It's just a distraction from the real question. The answer as always is "it depends". Without detailed floor plans, survey information, and information on what kind of demand users will place on the network, there is really no way to tell you what solution will work well. If you need to service residential areas or hostel units you might be better off looking at some of the newer AP designs that have come out in the last year or so targeting that application, like the Cisco 702 or the Xirus 320. The general design of these units is that they're both a low-power AP and a small switch to provide residents with a few ports to plug in if they need to. This allows you to have one cable drop to each room instead of having to run separate jacks for APs and wired connections. The units are wall-mount and if you have a challenging RF environment this design can be really effective. I've never run Xirrus personally, but I think they were used for the last NANOG conference. On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks everybody. I've been corrected on density... I've been informed that it's to be a minimum of 1000 users per building. That's 8,000 users. (8 buildings, not counting walkways and courtyards, admin, etc.) Does this qualify as high-density?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:33 AM Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
Well, I could certainly be wrong, but it's news to me if UBNT started supporting DFS in the US.
Your first screenshot is listing the UAP for 5240 which is channel 48, U-NII-1. The second show 5825 which is the upper limit of U-NNI-3. I don't see any U-NII-2 in what you posted.
This forum post may be a bit out of date, but I haven't seen any announcement or information on the forums to indicate the situation has changed, and I'm pretty good at searching:
https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/m-p/700461#M54771
From this thread it looks like the ability to configure DFS channels in the US was a UI bug and only showing for ZH anyway. IIRC they actually got in a bit of trouble with the FCC over not restricting the use of these channels enough.
Regardless of whether or not the FCC has cleared UBNT indoor products for U-NII-2 and U-NII-2-extended (and I haven't seen evidence of that yet), until you can configure APs to use those channels in the controller without violating FCC regulations I don't consider them usable.
The UAP-AC doesn't seem to support DFS channels at all even without FCC restrictions, which kind of kills the point of AC, only 4 x 40 MHz or 2 x 80 MHz channels doesn't cut it when we're talking about density.
Note we're talking about indoor wireless and there ARE some UBNT products for outdoor WISP use that do support DFS and have been cleared by the FCC, but we would only be looking at the UAP-PRO or UAP-AC in this case so maybe that's the point of confusion here.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal@snappytelecom.net
wrote:
FCC Cert claims different.
:)
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
------------------------------
*From: *"Josh Luthman" <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> *To: *"Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> *Cc: *"NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>, "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> *Sent: *Friday, June 19, 2015 9:16:37 PM
*Subject: *Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network
setup?
Uhm he's not wrong...
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
>The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
Huh ????
Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are not accurate ...
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom
From: "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> To: "Sina Owolabi" <notify.sina@gmail.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had good luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a
auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with the presenter).
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz. That's pretty significant because you're limited to 9 x 20 MHz channels or 4 x 40 MHz channels. Keeping the power level down and creating small cells is essential for high density, so with less channels your hands are really tied in that case. Also, avoid the Zero Handoff marketing nonsense
----- Original Message ----- packed they
advertise; I'm sure it can work great for a low client residential area but it requires all APs to share a single channel and depends upon coordinating only one active transmitter at a time, so it simply won't scale.
I don't have experience with other vendors at large scale or high density.
I don't think what you're talking about is really high density anymore though. That's just normal coverage. Wireless is a lot more complicated than selecting a vendor, though. If you know what you're doing even Ubiquiti could work decently, but if you don't even a Cisco solution won't save you. You really need to be on top of surveying correctly and having appropriate AP placement and channel distribution.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user
density
network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high number of devices we are definitely going to encounter.
How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout?
Thanks in advance!
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
I'd be grateful for any information on how to calculate for large scale wifi deployment On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 2:01 PM Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
Compared to the old model of just providing coverage, it's definitely higher density. I think the point I was trying to make is that the old high density is the new normal, and what most on list would consider high density is more along the lines of stadium wireless. I wouldn't really focus on the term too much, though. It's just a distraction from the real question.
The answer as always is "it depends". Without detailed floor plans, survey information, and information on what kind of demand users will place on the network, there is really no way to tell you what solution will work well.
If you need to service residential areas or hostel units you might be better off looking at some of the newer AP designs that have come out in the last year or so targeting that application, like the Cisco 702 or the Xirus 320.
The general design of these units is that they're both a low-power AP and a small switch to provide residents with a few ports to plug in if they need to. This allows you to have one cable drop to each room instead of having to run separate jacks for APs and wired connections. The units are wall-mount and if you have a challenging RF environment this design can be really effective.
I've never run Xirrus personally, but I think they were used for the last NANOG conference.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks everybody. I've been corrected on density... I've been informed that it's to be a minimum of 1000 users per building. That's 8,000 users. (8 buildings, not counting walkways and courtyards, admin, etc.) Does this qualify as high-density?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:33 AM Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
Well, I could certainly be wrong, but it's news to me if UBNT started supporting DFS in the US.
Your first screenshot is listing the UAP for 5240 which is channel 48, U-NII-1. The second show 5825 which is the upper limit of U-NNI-3. I don't see any U-NII-2 in what you posted.
This forum post may be a bit out of date, but I haven't seen any announcement or information on the forums to indicate the situation has changed, and I'm pretty good at searching:
https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/m-p/700461#M54771
From this thread it looks like the ability to configure DFS channels in the US was a UI bug and only showing for ZH anyway. IIRC they actually got in a bit of trouble with the FCC over not restricting the use of these channels enough.
Regardless of whether or not the FCC has cleared UBNT indoor products for U-NII-2 and U-NII-2-extended (and I haven't seen evidence of that yet), until you can configure APs to use those channels in the controller without violating FCC regulations I don't consider them usable.
The UAP-AC doesn't seem to support DFS channels at all even without FCC restrictions, which kind of kills the point of AC, only 4 x 40 MHz or 2 x 80 MHz channels doesn't cut it when we're talking about density.
Note we're talking about indoor wireless and there ARE some UBNT products for outdoor WISP use that do support DFS and have been cleared by the FCC, but we would only be looking at the UAP-PRO or UAP-AC in this case so maybe that's the point of confusion here.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
FCC Cert claims different.
:)
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
------------------------------
*From: *"Josh Luthman" <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> *To: *"Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> *Cc: *"NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>, "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> *Sent: *Friday, June 19, 2015 9:16:37 PM
*Subject: *Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network
setup?
Uhm he's not wrong...
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
>>The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
Huh ????
Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are not accurate ...
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom
From: "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> To: "Sina Owolabi" <notify.sina@gmail.com> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had good luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a
auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with the presenter).
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz. That's pretty significant because you're limited to 9 x 20 MHz channels or 4 x 40 MHz channels. Keeping the power level down and creating small cells is essential for high density, so with less channels your hands are really tied in that case. Also, avoid the Zero Handoff marketing nonsense
----- Original Message ----- packed they
advertise; I'm sure it can work great for a low client residential area but it requires all APs to share a single channel and depends upon coordinating only one active transmitter at a time, so it simply won't scale.
I don't have experience with other vendors at large scale or high density.
I don't think what you're talking about is really high density anymore though. That's just normal coverage. Wireless is a lot more complicated than selecting a vendor, though. If you know what you're doing even Ubiquiti could work decently, but if you don't even a Cisco solution won't save you. You really need to be on top of surveying correctly and having appropriate AP placement and channel distribution.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sina Owolabi < notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi > > We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density > network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be > 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time. > We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high > number of devices we are definitely going to encounter. > > How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout? > > Thanks in advance! >
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
On 20 Jun 2015, at 9:37, Sina Owolabi wrote:
I'd be grateful for any information on how to calculate for large scale wifi deployment [snip]
While it is vendor specific (and therefore subject to certain biases) I’ve found the Aruba VRD (Validated Reference Design) documentation fairly clear and applicable to many high-density environments. It covers theory, planning, and engineering. http://community.arubanetworks.com/t5/Validated-Reference-Design/Very-High-D... I’m certain that Cisco, Xirrus, Ruckus, Ubiquiti, Areohive, etc. also have papers on the topic that (hopefully) have the same basic theory concepts applied to their specific configuration syntax and special sauces. I’ve had good experiences with Aruba with high-density auditorium usage on several occasions, though I tend to turn off some of the proprietary features to keep things simple. There are also some less-formal slide decks on the same topic from Aruba that are a bit redundant but more conversational: http://www.wlanpros.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Ultra-High-Density-WLAN-D... http://community.arubanetworks.com/aruba/attachments/aruba/tkb@tkb/86/3/2012... JT
And Aruba also did a kick-ass wireless installation at the new Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara. Here is a White Paper on it: http://arubanetworks.com/wp-content/uploads/stadiumRFfund.pdf -Mike On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 10:51 AM, John Todd <jtodd@loligo.com> wrote:
On 20 Jun 2015, at 9:37, Sina Owolabi wrote:
I'd be grateful for any information on how to calculate for large scale
wifi deployment
[snip]
While it is vendor specific (and therefore subject to certain biases) I’ve found the Aruba VRD (Validated Reference Design) documentation fairly clear and applicable to many high-density environments. It covers theory, planning, and engineering.
http://community.arubanetworks.com/t5/Validated-Reference-Design/Very-High-D...
I’m certain that Cisco, Xirrus, Ruckus, Ubiquiti, Areohive, etc. also have papers on the topic that (hopefully) have the same basic theory concepts applied to their specific configuration syntax and special sauces. I’ve had good experiences with Aruba with high-density auditorium usage on several occasions, though I tend to turn off some of the proprietary features to keep things simple.
There are also some less-formal slide decks on the same topic from Aruba that are a bit redundant but more conversational:
http://www.wlanpros.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Ultra-High-Density-WLAN-D...
http://community.arubanetworks.com/aruba/attachments/aruba/tkb@tkb/86/3/2012...
JT
-- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
I recently visited that installation. It's quite impressive and we are employing the "down-low" AP placement strategy on another high density project. The scheme uses human RF attenuation to enable closer AP spacing, which in turn supports a higher channel re-use ratio. -mel beckman
On Jun 21, 2015, at 10:03 PM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> wrote:
And Aruba also did a kick-ass wireless installation at the new Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara. Here is a White Paper on it:
http://arubanetworks.com/wp-content/uploads/stadiumRFfund.pdf
-Mike
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 10:51 AM, John Todd <jtodd@loligo.com> wrote:
On 20 Jun 2015, at 9:37, Sina Owolabi wrote:
I'd be grateful for any information on how to calculate for large scale
wifi deployment
[snip]
While it is vendor specific (and therefore subject to certain biases) I’ve found the Aruba VRD (Validated Reference Design) documentation fairly clear and applicable to many high-density environments. It covers theory, planning, and engineering.
http://community.arubanetworks.com/t5/Validated-Reference-Design/Very-High-D...
I’m certain that Cisco, Xirrus, Ruckus, Ubiquiti, Areohive, etc. also have papers on the topic that (hopefully) have the same basic theory concepts applied to their specific configuration syntax and special sauces. I’ve had good experiences with Aruba with high-density auditorium usage on several occasions, though I tend to turn off some of the proprietary features to keep things simple.
There are also some less-formal slide decks on the same topic from Aruba that are a bit redundant but more conversational:
http://www.wlanpros.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Ultra-High-Density-WLAN-D...
http://community.arubanetworks.com/aruba/attachments/aruba/tkb@tkb/86/3/2012...
JT
-- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon@gmail.com
They also have an awesome DAS installation there as well. On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
I recently visited that installation. It's quite impressive and we are employing the "down-low" AP placement strategy on another high density project. The scheme uses human RF attenuation to enable closer AP spacing, which in turn supports a higher channel re-use ratio.
-mel beckman
On Jun 21, 2015, at 10:03 PM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> wrote:
And Aruba also did a kick-ass wireless installation at the new Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara. Here is a White Paper on it:
http://arubanetworks.com/wp-content/uploads/stadiumRFfund.pdf
-Mike
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 10:51 AM, John Todd <jtodd@loligo.com> wrote:
On 20 Jun 2015, at 9:37, Sina Owolabi wrote:
I'd be grateful for any information on how to calculate for large scale
wifi deployment
[snip]
While it is vendor specific (and therefore subject to certain biases) I’ve found the Aruba VRD (Validated Reference Design) documentation fairly clear and applicable to many high-density environments. It covers theory, planning, and engineering.
http://community.arubanetworks.com/t5/Validated-Reference-Design/Very-High-D...
I’m certain that Cisco, Xirrus, Ruckus, Ubiquiti, Areohive, etc. also
have
papers on the topic that (hopefully) have the same basic theory concepts applied to their specific configuration syntax and special sauces. I’ve had good experiences with Aruba with high-density auditorium usage on several occasions, though I tend to turn off some of the proprietary features to keep things simple.
There are also some less-formal slide decks on the same topic from Aruba that are a bit redundant but more conversational:
http://www.wlanpros.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Ultra-High-Density-WLAN-D...
http://community.arubanetworks.com/aruba/attachments/aruba/tkb@tkb/86/3/2012...
JT
-- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon@gmail.com
-- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
This has all been a very huge help, and I am thankful for all the insights and reading material. I fee expert already! On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 6:14 AM Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> wrote:
They also have an awesome DAS installation there as well.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
I recently visited that installation. It's quite impressive and we are employing the "down-low" AP placement strategy on another high density project. The scheme uses human RF attenuation to enable closer AP spacing, which in turn supports a higher channel re-use ratio.
-mel beckman
On Jun 21, 2015, at 10:03 PM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> wrote:
And Aruba also did a kick-ass wireless installation at the new Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara. Here is a White Paper on it:
http://arubanetworks.com/wp-content/uploads/stadiumRFfund.pdf
-Mike
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 10:51 AM, John Todd <jtodd@loligo.com> wrote:
On 20 Jun 2015, at 9:37, Sina Owolabi wrote:
I'd be grateful for any information on how to calculate for large scale
wifi deployment
[snip]
While it is vendor specific (and therefore subject to certain biases) I’ve found the Aruba VRD (Validated Reference Design) documentation fairly clear and applicable to many high-density environments. It covers theory, planning, and engineering.
http://community.arubanetworks.com/t5/Validated-Reference-Design/Very-High-D...
I’m certain that Cisco, Xirrus, Ruckus, Ubiquiti, Areohive, etc. also
have
papers on the topic that (hopefully) have the same basic theory concepts applied to their specific configuration syntax and special sauces. I’ve had good experiences with Aruba with high-density auditorium usage on several occasions, though I tend to turn off some of the proprietary features to keep things simple.
There are also some less-formal slide decks on the same topic from Aruba that are a bit redundant but more conversational:
http://www.wlanpros.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Ultra-High-Density-WLAN-D...
http://community.arubanetworks.com/aruba/attachments/aruba/tkb@tkb/86/3/2012...
JT
-- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon@gmail.com
-- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon@gmail.com
Well now. Being scared is part of the insight :-) And until I see a "No!!! Don't do it!!" post... On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 7:10 AM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
This has all been a very huge help, and I am thankful for all the insights and reading material. I feel expert already!
then you should be very scared
randy, who has been doing it for years and knows he is a weenie
I've actually never made it out to a NANOG conference, so I'm not sure. I was just told this by peers who attended. On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I've never run Xirrus personally, but I think they were used for the last NANOG conference.
and how did that work out? [ though i do not know it was the xirrus units ]
randy
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
Ive used Xirrus for a few festivals and hack-a-thons and they worked great. Ive also used UBNT UniFi with great success at numerous events, mainly at the old SF Mint (completely made out of Granite and concrete) and RF penetration was awesome. Cisco is nothing to write home about and is over priced. Ive never used Ruckus but it looks to be expensive for what it does. I'd stick with UBNT and Xirrus. -Mike On Jun 20, 2015 3:55 PM, "Ray Soucy" <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
I've actually never made it out to a NANOG conference, so I'm not sure. I was just told this by peers who attended.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I've never run Xirrus personally, but I think they were used for the last NANOG conference.
and how did that work out? [ though i do not know it was the xirrus units ]
randy
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
Ive used Xirrus for a few festivals and hack-a-thons and they worked great.
Ive also used UBNT UniFi with great success at numerous events, mainly at the old SF Mint (completely made out of Granite and concrete) and RF penetration was awesome.
Cisco is nothing to write home about and is over priced. Ive never used Ruckus but it looks to be expensive for what it does.
I'd stick with UBNT and Xirrus.
having been in the back seat for many deployments over the years with all sorts of kit, i have seen great and reliable pretty large deployments of all of the above (well, xirrus only once). i have seen embarrassing messes with all of the above. i have concluded that the critical component is the engineer. randy
On Jun 20, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I've never run Xirrus personally, but I think they were used for the last NANOG conference.
and how did that work out? [ though i do not know it was the xirrus units ]
My understanding is that the most recent NANOG had issues with clients picking channels sequentially vs by signal strength. There may have been other issues but when all devices use 149 because that's the first they can and they get link that's not good. If people know of tricks to solve this when there are 600-1000 devices per room i am certain the NANOG eng team would love to know about it. -jared
My understanding is that the most recent NANOG had issues with clients picking channels sequentially vs by signal strength. There may have been other issues but when all devices use 149 because that's the first they can and they get link that's not good.
If people know of tricks to solve this when there are 600-1000 devices per room i am certain the NANOG eng team would love to know about it.
not really; they're in denial. why did san antonio work; the only nanog in 4 or more which did? why does ietf work? wireless is ugly. few know how to deploy at scale. it's just not easy. randy
My understanding is that the most recent NANOG had issues with clients picking channels sequentially vs by signal strength. There may have been other issues but when all devices use 149 because that's the first they can and they get link that's not good.
If people know of tricks to solve this when there are 600-1000 devices per room i am certain the NANOG eng team would love to know about it. not really; they're in denial. why did san antonio work; the only nanog in 4 or more which did? why does ietf work?
wireless is ugly. few know how to deploy at scale. it's just not easy.
randy If people are curious what Cisco does for their 3x a year Cisco Live events (last week in San Diego there was 35TB of data transferred over
On 6/20/2015 11:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote: that network), there's a panel discussion about how they deploy things and what tools they use for it. https://www.ciscolive.com/online/connect/sessionDetail.ww?SESSION_ID=76483&backBtn=true That's the session from Milan 2014, may require a free account to view the slides and video. The session from San Diego is at https://www.ciscolive.com/online/connect/sessionDetail.ww?SESSION_ID=83806&backBtn=true Doesn't look like they've finalized the slides and video for that session yet though. In Milan they deployed 325 APs across 6 controllers (3 HA pairs). From experience at the US Live events, there's 10-15K people in the main hall during keynotes, there's probably close to 100 APs in that room alone with the stadium antennas for the density needed. There's a LOT of people trying to tweet during and this year periscope the keynote speeches. If people are interested, I know a couple of the Cisco folks tend to lurk on this and other lists and can probably provide more details if asked nicely. Jeremy "TheBrez" Bresley brez@brezworks.com
My understanding is that the most recent NANOG had issues with clients picking channels sequentially vs by signal strength. There may have been other issues but when all devices use 149 because that's the first they can and they get link that's not good.
we're lucky those mean vicious bad clients don't also come to ietf, wwdc, crisco live, ... oh wait ... you are blaming the customer as if you worked for a telco. oh wait ... :)
If people know of tricks to solve this when there are 600-1000 devices per room i am certain the NANOG eng team would love to know about it.
clue: with 600-1000 geeks there are gonna be 2k-4k devices. randy
So....ultimately, what's the answer? A huge number of low cost, low power WAPs? Eager readers want to know. :) On Jun 20, 2015 10:30 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:
My understanding is that the most recent NANOG had issues with clients picking channels sequentially vs by signal strength. There may have been other issues but when all devices use 149 because that's the first they can and they get link that's not good.
we're lucky those mean vicious bad clients don't also come to ietf, wwdc, crisco live, ... oh wait ...
you are blaming the customer as if you worked for a telco. oh wait ... :)
If people know of tricks to solve this when there are 600-1000 devices per room i am certain the NANOG eng team would love to know about it.
clue: with 600-1000 geeks there are gonna be 2k-4k devices.
randy
So....ultimately, what's the answer? A huge number of low cost, low power WAPs? Eager readers want to know. :)
what was unclear about the following? Randy Bush wrote:
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup? To: Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:20:33 +0900 ... having been in the back seat for many deployments over the years with all sorts of kit, i have seen great and reliable pretty large deployments of all of the above (well, xirrus only once). i have seen embarrassing messes with all of the above. i have concluded that the critical component is the engineer.
A lot. It's a good point, but not very helpful to those engineers trying to design said infrastructure. On Jun 20, 2015 11:45 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:
So....ultimately, what's the answer? A huge number of low cost, low power WAPs? Eager readers want to know. :)
what was unclear about the following?
Randy Bush wrote:
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup? To: Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:20:33 +0900 ... having been in the back seat for many deployments over the years with all sorts of kit, i have seen great and reliable pretty large deployments of all of the above (well, xirrus only once). i have seen embarrassing messes with all of the above. i have concluded that the critical component is the engineer.
Waaay to many variables to answer the question. Each deployment is different and requires proper engineering and experience... -Mike On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 11:50 PM, Mike Hale <eyeronic.design@gmail.com> wrote:
A lot. It's a good point, but not very helpful to those engineers trying to design said infrastructure. On Jun 20, 2015 11:45 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:
So....ultimately, what's the answer? A huge number of low cost, low power WAPs? Eager readers want to know. :)
what was unclear about the following?
Randy Bush wrote:
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup? To: Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:20:33 +0900 ... having been in the back seat for many deployments over the years with all sorts of kit, i have seen great and reliable pretty large deployments of all of the above (well, xirrus only once). i have seen embarrassing messes with all of the above. i have concluded that the critical component is the engineer.
-- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
On 06/20/2015 11:56 PM, Mike Lyon wrote:
Waaay to many variables to answer the question. Each deployment is different and requires proper engineering and experience...
And a good description of the problem, too, as I learned the hard way trying to work with the IT people for a Ruckus installation at a convention hotel. They just couldn't believe that 300 people could max out their system when congregated into the main meeting room with two (2) access points. They had "Bill Gates Syndrome": no group will ever exceed 1000 devices. (cf: "No one will ever need more than 640KB of DRAM") Last year, the group AVERAGED four devices each. The problem didn't abate when the group spread out throughout the hotel, either. Just the symptoms changed.
Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net> writes:
... They just couldn't believe that 300 people could max out their system ... Last year, the group AVERAGED four devices each.
A *camping* event that I go to, that is by and large not a technology-oriented consituency, averaged 2.6 devices per attendee. -r
No wonder IPv4 is depleted. People's shoes have a MAC address nowadays... On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net> writes:
... They just couldn't believe that 300 people could max out their system ... Last year, the group AVERAGED four devices each.
A *camping* event that I go to, that is by and large not a technology-oriented consituency, averaged 2.6 devices per attendee.
-r
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
So....ultimately, what's the answer? A huge number of low cost, low power WAPs? Eager readers want to know. :)
what was unclear about the following?
+1
Randy Bush wrote:
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup? To: Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:20:33 +0900 ... having been in the back seat for many deployments over the years with all sorts of kit, i have seen great and reliable pretty large deployments of all of the above (well, xirrus only once). i have seen embarrassing messes with all of the above. i have concluded that the critical component is the engineer.
It is totally possible to build a good wifi setup if you know what you're doing. David Lang regularly builds a good setup out of commodity parts and openwrt at SCALE, and talks to the basic issues here: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/lisa12/lisa12-final-32.pdf I wish we had more clued people working on wifi. And that conference organizers/hotels/corps/institutions realized that having people that knew what they were doing on the wifi was a valuable service for geeky conferences, at least. SCALE2015 went excellently, I'm told. I have some measurements of the nanog network from the SF conference this past month. pretty terrrible... -- Dave Täht worldwide bufferbloat report: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/bufferbloat And: What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast
What gear was used at the last NANOG in SF? Was it indeed Xirrus? -Mike On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
So....ultimately, what's the answer? A huge number of low cost, low power WAPs? Eager readers want to know. :)
what was unclear about the following?
+1
Randy Bush wrote:
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup? To: Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:20:33 +0900 ... having been in the back seat for many deployments over the years with all sorts of kit, i have seen great and reliable pretty large deployments of all of the above (well, xirrus only once). i have seen embarrassing messes with all of the above. i have concluded that the critical component is the engineer.
It is totally possible to build a good wifi setup if you know what you're doing.
David Lang regularly builds a good setup out of commodity parts and openwrt at SCALE, and talks to the basic issues here:
https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/lisa12/lisa12-final-32.pdf
I wish we had more clued people working on wifi. And that conference organizers/hotels/corps/institutions realized that having people that knew what they were doing on the wifi was a valuable service for geeky conferences, at least.
SCALE2015 went excellently, I'm told.
I have some measurements of the nanog network from the SF conference this past month. pretty terrrible...
-- Dave Täht worldwide bufferbloat report: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/bufferbloat And: What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast
-- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.lyon@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
What gear was used at the last NANOG in SF? Was it indeed Xirrus?
yes. but i would not blame the gear
I would blame some of the gear. Very bad bufferbloat (up to 1.5 sec of latency) on the download direction. http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/nanog/nanog_down.png More flent.org data in that dir for your bemusement. -- Dave Täht worldwide bufferbloat report: http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/bufferbloat And: What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast
On Jun 21, 2015, at 1:28 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
My understanding is that the most recent NANOG had issues with clients picking channels sequentially vs by signal strength. There may have been other issues but when all devices use 149 because that's the first they can and they get link that's not good.
we're lucky those mean vicious bad clients don't also come to ietf, wwdc, crisco live, ... oh wait …
I’ll say the difference about IETF is a lot more planning goes into it. The people are on-site much earlier than for a NANOG and there are few last minute rushes. While there are larger plenary meetings at IETF, most are in smaller rooms but are packed with chairs and laptops/devices.
you are blaming the customer as if you worked for a telco. oh wait ... :)
Duh. Always blame the customer, step 1 success. step2 (vendor/cisco tac): have you tried turning it on and off again? step3 maybe it’s fixed in the latest code
If people know of tricks to solve this when there are 600-1000 devices per room i am certain the NANOG eng team would love to know about it.
clue: with 600-1000 geeks there are gonna be 2k-4k devices.
Yup. This is a given. - Jared
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
The UniFi UAP-AC unit has not been cleared for DFS but looks like the UAP Outdoor has. I own a few UAP-AC v2's and I can confirm with the latest firmware (3.2.12) there is no support for DFS channels. Source: https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/td-p/697319 -- James Hartig
On Jun 20, 2015, at 7:27 PM, James Hartig <jameshartig@gmail.com> wrote:
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
The UniFi UAP-AC unit has not been cleared for DFS but looks like the UAP Outdoor has. I own a few UAP-AC v2's and I can confirm with the latest firmware (3.2.12) there is no support for DFS channels.
Source: https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/td-p/697319
UBNT went through much of 2013-2015 without many devices passing tests outside the ISM band. They seem to have changed who they do testing with, and combined with the rule changes at the FCC and correspondingly IC they were not equipped to handle that until this year it seems. They still have a huge backlog of DFS certifications which seem to be slowly getting approved as they pass testing. - Jared
They've been getting 5150 - 5250 approval. DFS, IIRC, has yet to happen. Well, in their AirMax line, of which the UniFi will be similar internally. They didn't have any problem with their airFiber line, which is completely FPGA. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net> To: "James Hartig" <jameshartig@gmail.com> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 7:05:51 PM Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup? On Jun 20, 2015, at 7:27 PM, James Hartig <jameshartig@gmail.com> wrote:
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
The UniFi UAP-AC unit has not been cleared for DFS but looks like the UAP Outdoor has. I own a few UAP-AC v2's and I can confirm with the latest firmware (3.2.12) there is no support for DFS channels.
Source: https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/td-p/697319
UBNT went through much of 2013-2015 without many devices passing tests outside the ISM band. They seem to have changed who they do testing with, and combined with the rule changes at the FCC and correspondingly IC they were not equipped to handle that until this year it seems. They still have a huge backlog of DFS certifications which seem to be slowly getting approved as they pass testing. - Jared
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sina Owolabi <notify.sina@gmail.com> wrote:
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be 8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time.
Hi Sina, Quick terminology note: "high density" means you want 500+ users in a conference hall. That's a very different solution space than 1000 users spread across 8 buildings. High density solutions are concerned with many nodes not stomping on each other in a small space as users wander about. Yet cables connecting all the access points together are short and cheap. Your situation is different. With users spread out, you have less of a signal stomping problem and more of a signal reach problem through various construction materials. Cross-building connections are expensive and few enough users wander between buildings to need to maintain their IP address when they do. If you ask your vendors to show you high-density solutions you may not get what you're looking for. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
participants (23)
-
Bartek Krawczyk -
Dave Taht -
Faisal Imtiaz -
James Hartig -
Jared Mauch -
Jeremy Bresley -
John Todd -
Josh Luthman -
Marco Teixeira -
Mel Beckman -
Mike Hale -
Mike Hammett -
Mike Lyon -
Rafael Possamai -
Randy Bush -
Ray Soucy -
Rob Seastrom -
Sina Owolabi -
Stephen Satchell -
Steven Miano -
tqr2813d376cjozqap1l＠tutanota.com -
Tyler Mills -
William Herrin