Would Linus compare the Ruckus Zoneflex R720 to the Netgear Orbi

[ryao]

I expect the Ruckus Zoneflex R720 to outperform the Netgear Orbi in range, performance, maximum connected devices and consistency of latencies, especially in an area that has plenty of wireless congestion, but nobody anywhere seems to be willing to do this comparison. Would Linus do it?

[brwainer]

Those two devices serve entirely different markets / use cases so while you could do a comparison between them on the pure wireless experience, it wouldn't make sense to. The R720 is meant to serve hundreds of clients in a close space, it isn't tuned for covering large areas or a place with lots of walls like a house or apartment (lots of walls means lots of reflections) with small numbers of devices. While the R720 will do excellently, I would expect that of an $800 unit (current street prices if you aren't buying in volume)

[ryao]

The Zoneflex R720 is able to serve a large number of clients in either a small space or a large space. It is versatile enough to be used for either. You simply adjust transmit power based on which you want. Here is a review of the midrange model where someone had a wireless connection on a cellphone at 225 yards away:

 

https://www.evdoinfo.com/content/view/5077/64/

 

My home WiFi uses the Zoneflex R710 (the R720’s predecessor) and the range is amazing. I am able to get a WiFi connection 100m away across the street a house or two over. I am even able to see my AP on a chromebook inside a neighbor’s house around the block at 150m away with not only part of my house, but also part of the adjacent neighbor’s house blocking line of sight. Sadly, the AP is unable to hear the chromebook, such that I could not connect to it during an experiment that I did.

 

That said, it is well known that Ruckus APs are able to replace 2 or 3 conventional APs. My own Ruckus replaced 2x Unifi AC Life APs. However, I did not replace them with the Zoneflex R710. I replaced them with a Zoneflex 7982 that I brought off eBay for an experiment. I later upgraded to the Zoneflex R710 in anticipation of gigabit fiber. That said, the 802.11n Zoneflex 7982 mopped the floor with the Unifi AC Lite APs in coverage and even outperformed a Unifi AC Lite in throughout by more than 50% on 5GHz when more than 40ft away. I had been using a 3 stream client so had the client been a 2 stream client, it would have been closer, but in any case, the 802.11n Zoneflex 7982 beat a 802.11ac Ubiquiti Unifi AC Lite, and on top of that, it currently costs less than the Unifi thanks to the used market. The range on the 802.11n Zoneflex 7982 was no less amazing than the Zoneflex R710 that replaced it, Another guy replaced 3 APs with 1 Ruckus Zoneflex R710 and posted about it on his blog:

 

https://telecomoccasionally.wordpress.com/2016/07/17/back-to-the-land-of-happy-wifi-from-3-x-airport-extremes-to-one-ruckus-r710/

 

Usually, the people doing inrstallations of Wi-Fi APs in enterprise environments will install 2 to 3 times fewer APs when using a Ruckus APs.

 

The idea that Ruckus APs are only good for dense deployments is a myth. It might be true for other enterprise APs, but Ruckus APs are special. Their beamflex+ technology is useful for mitigating interference by emulating low gain directional antennas. It makes them well suited for range and also makes them work well in areas that have congested airwaves.

[beersykins]

Did you just come here to brag about Ruckus or something?

 

Those products don't serve the same market, use cases or budget, so it's a complete waste of time.

 

You could, of course, compile your own test and article, but it wouldn't exactly apply to any consumer purchasing opportunities.

[ryao]

2 hours ago, beersykins said:

Did you just come here to brag about Ruckus or something?

 

I explained why I posted this thread in the first post. I wanted to ask Linus to do a comparison of the mesh solutions with the Ruckus APs. So far, no one has done a comparison. The moment someone does, it should be clear that the APs being marketed to home users to solve issues with wi-fi coverage are overpriced junk. I want a high profile review to show that because I am tired of seeing people get ripped off by consumer grade wi-fi APs that sell for enterprise grade prices. At the very least, they should be held to the same standard to which the enterprise equipment in that price bracket is held.

 

2 hours ago, beersykins said:

Those products don't serve the same market, use cases or budget, so it's a complete waste of time.

The purpose of an AP is to provide Wi-Fi. The purpose of the things people buy for Wi-Fi are to provide Wi-Fi. It seems like the same market to me. The enterprise/consumer distinction is silly, especially since the stuff marketed for home users is usually poorly made junk. There is no reason why businesses should have things that are better quality, cheaper and easier to use than what home users have.

2 hours ago, beersykins said:

You could, of course, compile your own test and article, but it wouldn't exactly apply to any consumer purchasing opportunities.

Several of the Ruckus APs cost less than the solutions being marketed to people. Asus' ROG wireless router costs $470. The Eero costs $399. The Netgear Orbi costs $379 at Costco. You can get a Zoneflex R510 off eBay for $307. The Zoneflex R310 could be purchased off eBay for $155 yesterday, although it is more like $180 today (prices vary). Either of them would probably mop the floor with many of the solutions being marketed to consumers while being cheaper.

 

If you want an amazing bargin, you can get a 802.11n Zoneflex 7962 for $25 to $30 off eBay. The range will match the newer models, although peak throughput won't. It also doesn't support Ruckus Unleashed and doesn't have a patch to fix the KRACK vulnerability in its 802.11r implementation, but that is off by default. A single one of them would mop the floor with a Ubiquiti Unifi AC Lite in multiple metrics, including throughput on 5GHz at sufficient distances.

 

I have relatives using the Zoneflex 7982 in their homes and they love it. It only costs $45 off eBay. Mounting equipment and the 12VDC 2.5mmx5.5mm barrel connector PSU / 802.3af PoE injector are not included, but that is easy to buy if needed. There isn't anyone buying a Ubiquiti Unifi AC Lite that would have trouble dealing with a Ruckus Zoneflex AP and the Ubiquiti APs are really popular.

[brwainer]

5 hours ago, ryao said:

Usually, the people doing inrstallations of Wi-Fi APs in enterprise environments will install 2 to 3 times fewer APs when using a Ruckus APs.

 

The idea that Ruckus APs are only good for dense deployments is a myth. It might be true for other enterprise APs, but Ruckus APs are special. Their beamflex+ technology is useful for mitigating interference by emulating low gain directional antennas. It makes them well suited for range and also makes them work well in areas that have congested airwaves.

I don't know about other industries, but in the hospitality world we install an AP into every guestroom or every other if the rooms are small. Ruckus, Extreme, Cisco, doesn't matter what brand. Noone in an enterprise environment installs a different number and type of AP just because of one brand or another. All the other enterprise brands have their own beamforming under various names - Extreme, Meraki, etc. Saying "you install 2 to 3 times less APs when using Ruckus" should really be "you install 2 to 3 times less APs when using enterprise grade ones".

 

This gets back to my point from my first post - the two devices you are asking for a comparison about serve two different markets and use cases. Linus already did a Ruckus (enterprise) versus non-enterprise review, and there is nothing to gain just because there is some new shiny models on both sides of the divide.

[ryao]

52 minutes ago, brwainer said:

I don't know about other industries, but in the hospitality world we install an AP into every guestroom or every other if the rooms are small. Ruckus, Extreme, Cisco, doesn't matter what brand. Noone in an enterprise environment installs a different number and type of AP just because of one brand or another. All the other enterprise brands have their own beamforming under various names - Extreme, Meraki, etc. Saying "you install 2 to 3 times less APs when using Ruckus" should really be "you install 2 to 3 times less APs when using enterprise grade ones".

People doing AP installations for businesses as contractors claim to install fewer APs when using Ruckus because the APs themselves are able to handle larger areas. It is one of the things that helps Ruckus justify being more expensive than Ubiquiti. I have never seen a hotel that has 1 AP per room. Every hotel where I have stayed had 1 AP per several rooms. That included the Sheraton hotels that hosted LinuxCon.  Which hotels have 1 AP per room? Also, which hotels do 1 Ruckus AP per room?

 

As far as I can tell, the other enterprise brands' beamforming is 802.11 TxBF that implements it by doing a constructive interference with assistance from the client. Ruckus' beamforming predates the 802.11 specifications' introduction of beamforming and uses a custom antenna array to simulate directional antennas. It can be in used in conjunction with 802.11 TxBF because they are not mutually exclusive techniques.

52 minutes ago, brwainer said:

This gets back to my point from my first post - the two devices you are asking for a comparison about serve two different markets and use cases.

This is not the case when price points on the things being marketed to home users exceeds the price points on the enterprise equipment. That crossover has happened with both gaming oriented network hardware and mesh solutions. A single Ruckus AP will work better in the metrics that matter (e.g. latency with concurrent clients) than either of them. Here are examples of some of the worst offenders:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Tri-band-AiProtection-Accelerator-Compatible-GT-AC5300/dp/B071DPCKQ6 ($360)

https://www.amazon.com/eero-Home-WiFi-System-Beacons/dp/B0713ZCT4N ($400)

 

While you can get it cheaper on eBay, here is a Ruckus Zoneflex R310:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Ruckus-Zoneflex-Wireless-901-R310-US02-802-11ac/dp/B01GOAWQRO ($190; regular version that needs to be flashed with unleashed firmwre)

https://www.amazon.com/Wireless-ZoneFlex-Unleashed-Dual-Band-9U1-R310-US02/dp/B01FV0OIJM ($200: unleashed version that is ready to go, but costs $10 more)

 

It should outperform the ROG wireless router in latency, airtime fairness, reliability and range. It would not surprise me if it matched or even beat the mesh solution in range while beating it in latency, airtime fairness and reliability. If the range somehow does not cut it, then you can get a second one and setup a mesh network. It will outperform any consumer grade wifi mesh (2 Ruckus APs vs 3 to 4 consumer mesh APs should be no contest) and you would have the option to convert to wired backhaul. You are paying just about the same amount, but you are getting something that will have fewer problems.

 

That said, even their EoL 802.11n equipment that you can purchase for $29 off eBay (although you probably can get it for $25) will outperform almost anything as far as home user needs go (once the rather spartan standalone firmware is flashed to it):

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/lot-Ruckus-ZoneFlex-Wireless-Access-Point-7962-Dual-Band-802-11n-901-7962-US01/392062701407

 

I should add the caveat that the PSU is sold separately on Ruckus APs because 802.11af PoE injectors can be used to power it instead. The PSUs are cheap though:

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Ac-adapter-fit-12V-Ruckus-ZoneFlex-R700-7982-7962-Wireless-Access-Point-AP-901-R/382267960445

 

In comparison, the things being marketed to end users are a rip off. I think that making people aware of these options would put pressure on Asus, Eero, Netgear, etcetera to improve their things so that meet some sort of minimum quality standard while charging les

52 minutes ago, brwainer said:

Linus already did a Ruckus (enterprise) versus non-enterprise review, and there is nothing to gain just because there is some new shiny models on both sides of the divide.

A review where he says "look at this $1000 that you probably will never buy" is a very different review from "look at this enterprise AP that is both better and costs less than the one you would likely buy". It didn't do the mesh network comparison either. Usually people would think that there is no point, but these have extremely special antenna technology that makes them a fantastic alternative to deploying a consumer mesh network. If for some reason you still need a mesh network, you can deploy a second one in a mesh network, but I have never heard of anyone needing more than 1 in his house.

 

Speaking of which, given all of the hype that went into the Killer Wireless NIC, I would think that people would be interested in a solution that is not snake oil. The cheap $29 Zoneflex 7962 AP that I linked actually improves latencies while the far more expensive Killer Wireless NIC that people buy might as well do nothing. If you were for some reason stuck on wi-fi and could repurpose an EoL piece of hardware for better gaming performance for a fraction of the cost of new equipment, wouldn't you want to know about it?

 

Citing Linus' existing review as a reason not to do the one I suggested misses the point, which is to tell people how they can get better equipment while spending less. There is also the secondary objective of forcing manufacturers to face competition from the enterprise market as long as they insist on entering enterprise territory in their pricing. The end result would be better for everyone.

 

Speaking of Linus' existing review, the AP that it mentioned is now EoL and can be purchased for $285 off eBay:

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Ruckus-Wireless-Zoneflex-R700-Indoor-Wireless-Access-Points-901-R700-US00/282997764768

 

Considering what you get, it is a far better deal than any of the gaming equipment that is being marketed to people.

[leadeater]

31 minutes ago, ryao said:

People doing AP installations for businesses as contractors claim to install fewer APs when using Ruckus because the APs themselves are able to handle larger areas.

Aruba is better so I'd rather see that or Aruba vs Ruckus than random home AP vs one many many times the price, list price not used price.

 

31 minutes ago, ryao said:

I have never seen a hotel that has 1 AP per room. Every hotel where I have stayed had 1 AP per several rooms.

Hotels skimp out on APs because high speed file transfers and fast local access isn't required, all they do is give metered and bandwidth restricted internet access so you can get away with less APs.

[brwainer]

40 minutes ago, ryao said:

People doing AP installations for businesses as contractors claim to install fewer APs when using Ruckus because the APs themselves are able to handle larger areas. It is one of the things that helps Ruckus justify being more expensive than Ubiquiti.

Ubiquiti is not an enterprise wireless solution nor do they claim to be. All of the actually enterprise wireless brands cost more or less the same as Ruckus (except Meraki but then you’re paying for something a bit different)

[ryao]

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Aruba is better so I'd rather see that or Aruba vs Ruckus than random home AP vs one many many times the price, list price not used price.

 

First off, this is a pleasant surprise. I noticed yesterday that you had quoted me in one of your posts:

Now I get to quote you back.

 

Anyway, are Aruba APs cheaper than the APs being sold to home users? The fact that using an enterprise solution (Ruckus in specific because that is the one that caught my attention) is cheaper than using one of the high end wi-fi solutions marketed to home users / gamers is the entire reason I posted this thread. It wasn't to suggest comparing a random home AP to an enterprise AP that costs more, but to suggest comparing a home AP to an enterprise AP that is both better and costs less.

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Hotels skimp out on APs because high speed file transfers and fast local access isn't required, all they do is give metered and bandwidth restricted internet access so you can get away with less APs.

This has been my experience.

[ryao]

17 minutes ago, brwainer said:

Ubiquiti is not an enterprise wireless solution nor do they claim to be. All of the actually enterprise wireless brands cost more or less the same as Ruckus (except Meraki but then you’re paying for something a bit different)

Ubiquiti is not enterprise grade, but people who have not used real enterprise equipment tend to view them as such. I recall Ruckus being significant cheaper than Cisco (not just Meraki, although Meraki has a terrible pricing model), but upon looking up street pricing on Cisco, it seems that you are right.

 

Anyway, ruckus solved my Wi-Fi issues and I have since observed that there are fantastic deals on Ruckus equipment on the used market, with even the new lower end models not being that bad of a deal compared to the pricing that Asus, Netgear and others are charging. I thought it was ridiculous when pricing for a consumer AP went above the $80 threshold. The >$400 prices that they charge these days on the better marketed options are ridiculous. At those prices, they deserve to be forcibly compared against enterprise equipment and made to compete with them. At the very least, the Zoneflex R700 that Linus reviewed should mop the floor with "gaming" Wi-Fi AP/router combinations while costing less at $285 on the used market:

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Ruckus-Wireless-Zoneflex-R700-Indoor-Wireless-Access-Points-901-R700-US00/282997764768 ($285)

https://www.amazon.com/Tri-band-AiProtection-Accelerator-Compatible-GT-AC5300/dp/B071DPCKQ6 ($460)

 

Having observed Ruckus equipment firsthand, I expect it to put mesh network solutions to shame too, but if the other enterprise vendors have similarly priced equipment that gets similar range, by all means, they should also be used in comparisons demonstrate the issue of the consumer solutions being overpriced and under-engineered.

[leadeater]

32 minutes ago, ryao said:

This has been my experience.

It's true for hotels but in say a school there is almost always an AP per classroom. I've deployed and managed both Ruckus and Aruba plus others and gone around with proper heat-mapping software and the long and the short of it is correct AP placement and orientation matters more than which specific enterprise AP you use

 

22 minutes ago, ryao said:

Having observed Ruckus equipment firsthand, I expect it to put mesh network solutions to shame too, but if the other enterprise vendors have similarly priced equipment that gets similar range, by all means, they should also be used in comparisons demonstrate the issue of the consumer solutions being overpriced and under-engineered.

While buying used enterprise APs is actually going to give better wireless coverage it's not always the best path forward, some people actually want something new and under warranty others may not care. Then there are other issues like getting access to firmware (usually login is required to support portal) or buying the correct sub version of the AP that is allowed to work without a controller, you could legit end up buying a paper weight if you don't have a controller.

 

This is why so many people recommend Ubnt to people that want better than the typical expensive home AP, they are cheap and A LOT better and can even be managed properly if that is required through Cloud Key.

 

Basically I'd only recommend IT people buy used enterprise equipment, they know what to buy and probably have access to  the support portals anyway, that's how I get round it for mine.

[ryao]

27 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's true for hotels but in say a school there is almost always an AP per classroom. I've deployed and managed both Ruckus and Aruba plus others and gone around with proper heat-mapping software and the long and the short of it is correct AP placement and orientation matters more than which specific enterprise AP you use

The heat maps here suggest that Ruckus does a better job:

http://www.3kgroup.ee/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/comparatif-unleashed-instant-aruba.pdf

 

I see what you mean, although it also isn't always possible to have ideal placement, especially in home environments. In home environments, I find that other people dictate to me where I am allowed to install equipment and it is never optimal. With Ruckus' APs, I have literally placed it on one side of a house (twice, including in mine) and had it cover not only the entire house, but also the yard, the street and possibly also parts of adjacent homes. I did this in homes that previously required multiple access points

27 minutes ago, leadeater said:

While buying used enterprise APs is actually going to give better wireless coverage it's not always the best path forward, some people actually want something new and under warranty others may not care. Then there are other issues like getting access to firmware (usually login is requires to support portal) or buying the correct sub version of the AP that is allowed to work without a controller, you could legit end up buying a paper weight if you don't have a controller.

It is not just coverage. The APs don't crash or hang. There are few if any compatibility issues. Things just seem to be problem free.

27 minutes ago, leadeater said:

This is why so many people recommend Ubnt to people that want better than the typical expensive home AP, they are cheap and A LOT better and can even be managed properly if that is required through Cloud Key.

I used to use Ubiquiti and it did an okay job, but one day, I tried Ruckus and it did such a good job that I took my Unifi AC Lite APs offline and gave them away. With the Unifi APs, I would have an AP hang once a month. The signal strength was simultaneously both good enough and bad enough for iOS devices moving around the house to latch onto 1 AP and refuse to roam to the second, which was a pain. Ubiquiti's solution of kicking clients that had signal strength drop below a certain threshold was a hack that I didn't want to do because:

1. It would mean kicking devices that are only visible to 1 AP and unable to roam to the second should I or someone else be using them outdoors.
2. It is the wrong metric to make roaming decisions. Since downloads dominate, the signal strength seen by the client device is the one that requires a roaming threshold be set. In Apple's case, they set this too low and sadly, there was no way to fix it other than an AP with longer range or trying to adjust positioning in ways that would upset other people in my home.

I solved the first issue with the ping watchdog on a toughswitch, but the second issue involving iOS' refusal to roam (and any other miscellaneous issue that I forgot to mention) went unsolved until I switched to Ruckus. I had brought an EoL model to investigate their marketing claims because I felt that it might solve the second issue. It not only worked, but worked in such a way that I could have put it in the farthest off corner of my house and still have decent coverage. It also solved what seemed to be an intractable situation at my uncle's house where I would be told every year or so around Christmas that his Wi-Fi was bad, do something to improve it and not hear back again until Christmas because he didn't want to bother me about X problem he found a week later. I gifted a Ruckus Zoneflex 7982 to him 18 months ago and since then, I no longer hear about him having wi-fi issues.

27 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Basically I'd only recommend IT people buy used enterprise equipment, they know what to buy and probably have access to  the support portals anyway, that's how I get round it for mine.

I have recommended Ruckus equipment to people in /r/homenetworking on reddit. The few that took my advice were happy with it. I think people would rather have pain upfront during installation rather than pain after installation. Pain after the installation never happens at a convenient time. However, in the case of models with the unleashed firmware preinstalled, it does not seem painful to setup. The unleashed firmware is even able to download updates from ruckus' website through its web GUI. It is pleasure to use.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, ryao said:

The heat maps here suggest that Ruckus does a better job:

http://www.3kgroup.ee/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/comparatif-unleashed-instant-aruba.pdf

Of course a Rucks white paper is going to show their's as better . The same Aruba one will too. Thing is the AP205 shown in that isn't the equivalent AP, that's the AP235. Main difference between the two is Rucks is easy and Aruba is complex AF.

 

The default radio settings on Aruba also aren't optimized for Mac devices, you can get significant improvement in coverage with some simple tweaks and you'll double the effective maximum range for good throughput.

 

Think the heat-map software used is Netspot which is also a bit finicky at drawing out the coverage areas, I'd like to see the sample points used as that makes a huge difference.

[ryao]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

Of course a Rucks white paper is going to show their's as better . The same Aruba one will too. Thing is the AP205 shown in that isn't the equivalent AP, that's the AP235. Main difference between the two is Rucks is easy and Aruba is complex AF.

 

The default radio settings on Aruba also aren't optimized for Mac devices, you can get significant improvement in coverage with some simple tweaks and you'll double the effective maximum range for good throughput.

 

Think the heat-map software used is Netspot which is also a bit finicky at drawing out the coverage areas, I'd like to see the sample points used as that makes a huge difference.

It is not just the white paper that says it. Search results for “Aruba vs Ruckus” have people saying that Ruckus does better in range. You are the first person that I have seen to say otherwise. The heat map was the only result that was not anecdotal though.

 

Anyway, if Aruba can match Ruckus in both price (especially in the used market) and range, then it should be a better fit for home users than the junk that is being marketed to people. It really bothers me to see manufacturers of consumer grade equipment overcharge and underdeliver because people don’t realize that the enterprise options can do a better job at a lower cost. Their insulation from competition from enterprise equipment manufacturers despite charging enterprise prices is ridiculous.

[Lurick]

2 minutes ago, ryao said:

Anyway, if Aruba can match Ruckus in both price (especially in the used market) and range, then it should be a better fit for home users than the junk that is being marketed to people. It really bothers me to see manufacturers of consumer grade equipment overcharge and underdeliver because people don’t realize that the enterprise options can do a better job at a lower cost. Their insulation from competition from enterprise equipment manufacturers despite charging enterprise prices is ridiculous.

It's all about perception. People see enterprise and they get scared. It's not plug and play so most people get confused easily and can't be bothered to take a few minutes to learn a little about the product. It's part of the same reason we have all these exploits on gear because people don't update their firmware. They just don't care

 

Plus, you can't go down to Best Buy or another local store and pick most of this stuff up so a lot of people don't want to go the extra step of finding something better.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, ryao said:

Anyway, if Aruba can match Ruckus in both price (especially in the used market) and range, then it should be a better fit for home users than the junk that is being marketed to people. It really bothers me to see manufacturers of consumer grade equipment overcharge and underdeliver because people don’t realize that the enterprise options can do a better job at a lower cost. Their insulation from competition from enterprise equipment manufacturers despite charging enterprise prices is ridiculous.

A lot of the expensive home AP are typically routers and modems as well, few tend to just be APs, so that adds to the cost of those devices. They are more costly than they should be but they do more than just give wireless as well.

[ryao]

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

A lot of the expensive home AP are typically routers and modems as well, few tend to just be APs, so that adds to the cost of those devices. They are more costly than they should be but they do more than just give wireless as well.

You have a point about routers, but I don’t think you are correct about modems. I practically never see such units and almost never hear about them in /r/homenetworking. Thankfully, people seem to know to avoid them for the most part.

 

That said, people with a router/switch/AP combination units rarely need anything more than a new AP, so buying a new AP, disabling the old one and using their old router/switch combination unit for routing and switching makes sense. If they really need a router and a switch, it is still cheaper to buy an enterprise AP, a prosumer router and just about any switch than it is to buy some of these combination units.

 

Seriously, if I were to splurge, I could get an Edgerouter Lite-3, a cheap tplink 8 port switch and a Zoneflex R700 while still paying less than I would for Asus’ high end gaming router, despite getting a far better result. I could look up the numbers, but I’d expect to save at least $50 over it.

[ryao]

17 minutes ago, Lurick said:

It's all about perception. People see enterprise and they get scared. It's not plug and play so most people get confused easily and can't be bothered to take a few minutes to learn a little about the product. It's part of the same reason we have all these exploits on gear because people don't update their firmware. They just don't care

 

Plus, you can't go down to Best Buy or another local store and pick most of this stuff up so a lot of people don't want to go the extra step of finding something better.

People watching Linus’ videos or reading reviews at sites like SNB shop online. If they are told in the review that the hardware is cheap on eBay, they will go there. Not being carried at a local store is usually not a problem for that crowd.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, ryao said:

Anyway, if Aruba can match Ruckus in both price (especially in the used market)

Well Aruba costs more and you need a login to get firmware (at least before the HPE buyout, not sure now) so it's not really an option for people that don't have one. Also it's very common to find controller only variants on ebay so it's a buying disaster waiting to happen.

 

Not a good choice but if a video were to be done I'd like to see Aruba in it because it's one of the top premier brands for very large and complex networks, ones that Ruckus can't do which is the main reason to move up to Aruba from Ruckus.

 

Almost all those enterprise wireless brands have good options and plenty on the used market, they all compete very closely anyway so it'll come down to the best unit for it's price at the time and most importantly off support access to resources like firmware, which is why Aruba just isn't an option

 

One down side to Ruckus is the units from around 2010-2013 really don't like bad quality power, had a school with about 40 of them that would regularly screw up and require a power cycle due to bad power (country school).

 

Aruba was also the first wireless brand to support Apple Airplay (and other services) across subnets which was fantastic. We put wired AppleTVs on every projector and TV screen in a school and all computers on wireless could see them and connect to them but we were able to maintain security around them and give them internet access more easily and securely, no more cables to connect to screens! (way before TVs integrated Apple Airplay). I was actually the first Aruba customer to do that and funnily enough they didn't even know it could be done that way, they even had the gall to question me as to why I did it that way and not over wireless because the LAN is "untrusted and less secure" lol, they inadvertently broke support for wired to wireless Apple services so I had to log a support case which lead to that discussion.

 

We would typically put Ruckus in to schools with up to 500 students then above that depending on requirements would do Aruba, there's a lot of security type stuff you gain which gives you more flexible options to cater for odd things that bigger schools have.

 

I like the better flexibility of Aruba and personally I have no problems dealing with the more complex setup due to that, and I have support portal access.

 

Here's a small taste of the 'wonderful' Aruba interface.

Spoiler

 

Menus in menus, with sub menus with every option you can dream of. Info overload for most people. This is where you need to go to optimize Aruba to get the best out of the APs, the defaults are not good or weren't back when I was managing Aruba wireless networks. Rucks defaults are much better, you don't have to tweak to get the best out of them.

 

The main difference between Ruckus and most other wireless brands is they focus on the antennas to get get the best signal quality possible where others do a lot of complex compensation on the CPU to augment the signal. Ruckus APs have a better base starting point due to that so require less expensive processors in the APs which makes them cheaper. It is a better way to do it but both is best so I'd personally like to see a Ruckus and Aruba hybrid where the best of both are added to make one 'perfect AP'.

[leadeater]

50 minutes ago, ryao said:

You have a point about routers, but I don’t think you are correct about modems. I practically never see such units and almost never hear about them in /r/homenetworking. Thankfully, people seem to know to avoid them for the most part.

If you have cable internet or don't have fibre then you will require a modem. Most countries around the world before GPON and EPON came in all used xDSL so 3 in one devices were common and for the most part still are. Now when you get fibre you get an ONT installed in the house which removes the requirement for a modem so 2 in one devices are becoming more common.

 

Edit:

Note US is the only place where separate modem was the norm and that was due to cable.

 

Edit 2:

Plus you're forgetting the main point which is a single device is a single configuration point, one web interface to deal with and that has a huge appeal to most people. Simplicity through less equipment and it 'feels' less imposing and complicated to the uninitiated.

[ryao]

25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well Aruba costs more and you need a login to get firmware (at least before the HPE buyout, not sure now) so it's not really an option for people that don't have one. Also it's very common to find controller only variants on ebay so it's a buying disaster waiting to happen.

That is what I thought. In the case of Ruckus, basically all of their products are able to operate without a controller, but you need their standalone or unleashed firmware to be flashed to it before it can operate that way. Some models marked as unleashed come with the unleashed firmware preinstalled, but you won't find those in the used market. Flashing them is relatively easy and painless though because they provide a really convenient web GUI.

 

I heard that some really old ruckus products (e.g. 802.11g) could not be used without a controller, but those are so old that they aren't worth buying, even on the used market.

25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Not a good choice but if a video were to be done I'd like to see Aruba in it because it's one of the top premier brands for very large and complex networks, ones that Ruckus can't do which is the main reason to move up to Aruba from Ruckus.

 

Almost all those enterprise wireless brands have good options and plenty on the used market, they all compete very closely anyway so it'll come down to the best unit for it's price at the time and most importantly off support access to resources like firmware, which is why Aruba just isn't an option

This is basically why I find Ruckus to be a great option for home users.

 

25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

One down side to Ruckus is the units from around 2010-2013 really don't like bad quality power, had a school with about 40 of them that would regularly screw up and require a power cycle due to bad power (country school).

Supplying bad power to sensitive electronics is simply asking for trouble. The power needs to be fixed, either with a line conditioner or a double conversion UPS unit.

 

With that out of the way, were you using PSUs instead of PoE? Also, did you end up replacing the Ruckus units with some other brand to verify that Ruckus was sensitive to the power issues like this?

 

The notion of equipment being sensitive enough to bad power that it is blatently obvious that the power is bad sounds like a good thing to me. If it were a subtle problem that took a long time to manifest, you would end up with a mysterious issue that would be very hard to track down.

 

That said, most of the Ruckus APs that I have deployed used PoE and power has largely not been a problem. However, I did have issues with a tp-link PoE injector where it would not (or only rarely) supply power after a power cycle if an ethernet cable was plugged into it. Things had to be connected in this order for it to be happy:

1. It had to be connected to power.
2. The ethernet cable had to be plugged into the device.
3. The PoE power had to have the cable plugged into it *LAST*.

A power cycle would ensure that all 3 occurred simultaneously as far as it was concerned, which made it refuse to supply power at least 9 times out of 10. It was a huge pain. I ended up giving it away to an uncle who does IT to power a Zoneflex 7982 that I also gave to it. He had problems with it after a power outage, so he ended up buying a UPS for it. It hasn't given him a problem since then, although this is through no fault of Ruckus. He also loves his Wi-Fi.

25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Aruba was also the first wireless brand to support Apple Airplay (and other services) across subnets which was fantastic. We put wired AppleTVs on every projector and TV screen in a school and all computers on wireless could see them and connect to them but we were able to maintain security around them and give them internet access more easily and securely, no more cables to connect to screens! (way before TVs integrated Apple Airplay). I was actually the first Aruba customer to do that and funnily enough they didn't even know it could be done that way, they even had the gall to question me as to why I did it that way and not over wireless because the LAN is "untrusted and less secure" lol, they inadvertently broke support for wired to wireless Apple services so I had to log a support case which lead to that discussion.

That is neat. They must have a mdns daemon setup to relay broadcasts between subnets. This sort of thing feels like a potential security hazard if not done properly though. In my house (which uses enterprise technologies, including a RADIUS server), all apple devices are placed on the same VLAN, specifically because of AirPlay. Being able to relay broadcasts between subnets would be an improvement if I could finely control which subnets are allowed to share broadcasts and had strict firewall rules, but there is no way that I would expect a home user to do any of this. They would just have a single LAN with management interfaces readily accessible (which is problematic given that untrusted javascript code runs in web browsers).

25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

We would typically put Ruckus in to schools with up to 500 students then above that depending on requirements would do Aruba, there's a lot of security type stuff you gain which gives you more flexible options to cater for odd things that bigger schools have.

 

I like the better flexibility of Aruba and personally I have no problems dealing with the more complex setup due to that, and I have support portal access.

 

Here's a small taste of the 'wonderful' Aruba interface.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Menus in menus, with sub menus with every option you can dream of. Info overload for most people. This is where you need to go to optimize Aruba to get the best out of the APs, the defaults are not good or weren't back when I was managing Aruba wireless networks. Rucks defaults are much better, you don't have to tweak to get the best out of them.

 

The main difference between Ruckus and most other wireless brands is they focus on the antennas to get get the best signal quality possible where others do a lot of complex compensation on the CPU to augment the signal. Ruckus APs have a better base starting point due to that so require less expensive processors in the APs which makes them cheaper. It is a better way to do it but both is best so I'd personally like to see a Ruckus and Aruba hybrid where the best of both are added to make one 'perfect AP'.

This is consistent with what I have read online about Aruba having more features than Ruckus with Ruckus having better antenna technology (sometimes mistakenly called radio technology). A Ruckus-Aruba hybrid sounds like it would be awesome. However, Ruckus seems better for home users to me for a few reasons:

1. They do not need dedicated controllers.
2. Configuration is simpler.
3. The units have lower base starting points
4. Range is better.

Some of those attributes might be a disadvantage in the enterprise space versus Aruba, but they are really good for the home user space. I did find the simpler configuration infuriating at first because until roughly a year ago, the Ruckus Unleashed firmware would not allow configuration of different SSIDs for 2.4GHz and 5GHz, despite the barebones "standalone" firmware making it trivial to do. They fixed that, although it is more complicated than I would like. However, the simultaneous use of 2.4GHz and 5Ghz for the same SSID is perfect for the average home user.

[leadeater]

29 minutes ago, ryao said:

Supplying bad power to sensitive electronics is simply asking for trouble. The power needs to be fixed, either with a line conditioner or a double conversion UPS unit.

Can't do that over an entire school with multiple buildings, if you have bad power you often just have to live with it (line conditioners don't really work, not cheap ones). There's better ways to install the equipment than what was done too, it was taken over. The company that did it used PoE injectors per AP, problems went away with PoE switches that could give actually clean power always.

 

Sometimes the switches would have issues but not as often and it's far quicker to pull the power out of one problem switch than 15 PoE injectors.

 

29 minutes ago, ryao said:

That is neat. They must have a mdns daemon setup to relay broadcasts between subnets. This sort of thing feels like a potential security hazard if not done properly though. In my house (which uses enterprise technologies, including a RADIUS server), all apple devices are placed on the same VLAN, specifically because of AirPlay.

That's what it is, more an interceptor than a relay as you configure who can see those Airplay devices through user policies. You can even restrict which services are allowed to be used so you could allow say Airplay screen mirroring but not allow printing.

 

https://community.arubanetworks.com/t5/Controller-Based-WLANs/What-is-the-concept-of-Airgroup-How-does-it-work-and-what-are/ta-p/185272

[ryao]

47 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If you have cable internet or don't have fibre then you will require a modem. Most countries around the world before GPON and EPON came in all used xDSL so 3 in one devices were common and for the most part still are. Now when you get fibre you get an ONT installed in the house which removes the requirement for a modem so 2 in one devices are becoming more common.

To be accurate, cable internet requires a modem too. As for EPON vs GPON, EPON is used for last mile in countries such as Singapore, China, Japan and South Korea while GPON is used just about everywhere else. Supposedly, DOCSIS piggbacks on it for fiber-coaxial hybrid networks, but that is never exposed to home users.

 

I have seen integrated integrated router/switch/AP/EPON combination units firsthand in relatives' apartments in China. They are extremely popular there, although separate units are avaliable. Their internet infrastructure was terrible, but I was particularly enamored by the EPON technology used there. You can literally use anything at the end of the cable (e.g. a standalone ONT or even a SFP transceiver) as long as you program the LOID into the transceiver and put the PPPoE credentials into your router. Programming it into a SFP transceiver is unfortunately a pain and not possible without a dedicated programmer if you are relying on a media converter like I tried to do when setting up internet at a relatives' place there.

 

While I am on the topic of their internet connectivity, here are my issues with the infrastructure:

1. Nearly all peering/transit links between ISPs within the country are saturated. The only things that could make full use of a 230Mbps down 23Mbps up internet connection's download were speedtest.net using the ISP's own test server and in rare instances, Steam, although that would be for less than 1% of the duration of a download.
2. The CPE is heavily backdoored and once you have access to an advanced interface for technicians, it is blatantly obvious. There are features for remote administration that are enabled. There is also a dyndns updater that is updating a non-existent domain name with information.
3. There is no encryption used at all, such that neighbors should be able to snoop on download traffic with promiscuous mode, although I did not try. I realize that PPPoE's encryption is broken, but they could at least make it look like they were trying.
4. There is no IPv6 and you can't get it because the GFW doesn't support IPv6 and hell will feeze before they let their citizens access the internet without the GFW.
5. International traffic latencies are terrible due to terrible routing. Packets going to Hong Kong is routed to an area north of Beijing while data going to South Korea or Japan is routed through Hong Kong. It is as if they are trying to make latencies terrible. What is sad is that I noticed when doing traceroutes from Shanghai to NY using a shell on a router at a relative's apartment around June one year that they had fixed this. By the time I visited in the Fall, things were broken again.
6. International communications have high packet loss (5% to 15%). While some would blame the government on this, my evaluation is that it occurs naturally without any need for the government to lift a finger. There is just too much demand and not enough supply to the entire region. This is demonstrated by machines in South Korea and Japan exhibiting the same high packet loss.

47 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Edit:

Note US is the only place where separate modem was the norm and that was due to cable.

Integrated units and DOCSIS modems are not mutually exclusive:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Motorola-SBG6580-SURFboard-eXtreme-Wireless/dp/B07BGX6S5W

 

While they aren't popular here, that is partly because every single person with a clue about technology will tell anyone asking about it to avoid these at all costs. Also, originally, DOCSIS ISPs didn't provide a router because you were expected to plug your sole computer into the modem. I think the same was true for DSL.

 

I don't know how things developed elsewhere, but I'd be surprised if they had integrated units back when homes had a single machine that used wired ethernet to connect to broadband modems.

47 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Edit 2:

Plus you're forgetting the main point which is a single device is a single configuration point, one web interface to deal with and that has a huge appeal to most people. Simplicity through less equipment and it 'feels' less imposing and complicated to the uninitiated.

Although I don't recommend that they be used this way, the ruckus unleashed devices are able to function not only as an AP, but also as a router and a switch. The routing functionality is rudimentary though.

 

For anyone who needs better Wi-Fi, having another point of configuration for an added AP isn't much of a hassle and it isn't that hard to turn off the wifi on the existing hardware to force everything to use the new AP. This isn't too much to expect from people who are asking for help on online forums and/or are reading/watching hardware reviews.

[ryao]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Can't do that over an entire school with multiple buildings, if you have bad power you often just have to live with it (line conditioners don't really work, not cheap ones). There's better ways to install the equipment than what was done too, it was taken over. The company that did it used PoE injectors per AP, problems went away with PoE switches that could give actually clean power always.

 

Sometimes the switches would have issues but not as often and it's far quicker to pull the power out of one problem switch than 15 PoE injectors.

A PoE switch is the right way to do this. I have never seen a PoE injector that worked as well as a PoE switch (with the exception of passive PoE, provided you don't plug any non-compatible devices into it). Not that I have tried very many, but the ones that reportedly were high quality cost enough that I could buy a low-end PoE switch for the same amount of money that it would cost.

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That's what it is, more an interceptor than a relay as you configure who can see those Airplay devices through user policies. You can even restrict which services are allowed to be used so you could allow say Airplay screen mirroring but not allow printing.

 

https://community.arubanetworks.com/t5/Controller-Based-WLANs/What-is-the-concept-of-Airgroup-How-does-it-work-and-what-are/ta-p/185272

Nice. I set this up once for printing, but my network has changed enough that I need to revisit it, plus the mdns daemon was running on a 1U supermicro server, which was incredibly wasteful. I will probably use a RPi the next time I set it up.