Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC Reviewed
- Thread starter wolf-r1
- Start date
No, ZH is still not supported on the AP-AC
theveterans
Regular Contributor
Can this AP broadcast USA DFS channels?
Kris404
Regular Contributor
Damn.. Tried the basic $69 UAP which I really liked and was set to get AP-AC before finding about no ZH
Now the choices are:
- Airport Extreme Base Station
- Asus RT-AC87U
- Netgear R8000 X6
Damn.. Tried the basic $69 UAP which I really liked and was set to get AP-AC before finding about no ZH
Now the choices are:
- Airport Extreme Base Station
- Asus RT-AC87U
- Netgear R8000 X6
If you care about ZH why are you even looking at routers that don't support anything like ZH in the first place?
sfx2000
Part of the Furniture
ZH as UBNT describes it - presence or absence may not be a big deal...
It's different from other fast-handoff schemes, and there's pluses and minuses when deploying ZH.
More info here...
https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi...stions/UniFi-What-is-Zero-Handoff/ta-p/412719
sfx
It's different from other fast-handoff schemes, and there's pluses and minuses when deploying ZH.
More info here...
https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi...stions/UniFi-What-is-Zero-Handoff/ta-p/412719
sfx
LoneWolf
Senior Member
I'd be seriously interested to see how it fares against the Cisco WAP371-A-K9, seeing as price is similar.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...6&cm_re=cisco_802.11ac-_-33-150-476-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...6&cm_re=cisco_802.11ac-_-33-150-476-_-Product
John Kotches
Occasional Visitor
I recently purchased the Cisco unit you mentioned and it is a solid performer.
In like the ability to build a mesh without a controller but I don't need it yet.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
In like the ability to build a mesh without a controller but I don't need it yet.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
LoneWolf
Senior Member
Thanks.
I have a WatchGuard firewall coming because I got a deal upon passing my certification, and at some point down the road, I'd consider going with a PoE switch and 1-2 access points. I'm sure Ubiquiti probably works okay for home, but I've read multiple reviews that rate their coverage and throughput in multi-user environments as poor relative to others. Hoping that Tim will get a chance to compare at some point, both on those points and regarding what the UI is like.
We reviewed a few Ubiquiti APs about a year ago. Also the OS
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wire...i-unifi-30-enterprise-wi-fi-platform-reviewed
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wire...i-unifi-30-enterprise-wi-fi-platform-reviewed
LoneWolf
Senior Member
The more I read about the Ubiquiti, the more I don't think it's for me.
Sounds like you need to have client software on a PC to manage, keyed to the network. If I do access points for home, I'd rather have a virtual-controller based in firmware, accessible from the UI; a good example of this is Aruba's access points, but they are too pricy for me.
I can't wait to see a review (any review) of the Cisco Cisco WAP371-A-K9. It's the one model I see right now that might do what I want in a reasonable price range, and now that I have a Cisco SG300-10MPP switch, I can power one or two of them from it.
Sounds like you need to have client software on a PC to manage, keyed to the network. If I do access points for home, I'd rather have a virtual-controller based in firmware, accessible from the UI; a good example of this is Aruba's access points, but they are too pricy for me.
I can't wait to see a review (any review) of the Cisco Cisco WAP371-A-K9. It's the one model I see right now that might do what I want in a reasonable price range, and now that I have a Cisco SG300-10MPP switch, I can power one or two of them from it.
John Kotches
Occasional Visitor
LoneWolf:
I would loan my WAP371 to Mr Higgins if he could loan me something in the interim to use as a WAP.
My wife would be really ticked off if we had no WiFiz
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
I would loan my WAP371 to Mr Higgins if he could loan me something in the interim to use as a WAP.
My wife would be really ticked off if we had no WiFiz
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
IT-Bear
New Around Here
Yes, but I thought something like a repeater is usually paired with a highly sensitive antenna that can still pick up the weak signal from a portable.
That way, the high repeater power can be used to transmit long distances, while the highly sensitive antenna can receive from long distances.
Would it not be the same with "long-range" Wifi APs? (again, giving less clout to that 'symmetrical power needed' argument)
Like the other dude already said, isn't it the real-world results that matter? Sure he can get Wifi bars on his laptop all the way out in his truck in the parking lot (so he's receiving signal), but since he can actually connect and download files, does that not mean even at long distance his Wifi AP is working properly?
azazel1024
Very Senior Member
No, repeaters aren't. They generally have 2-3dBi internal antennas, which are actually lower gain than a fair number of routers/APs are that have external antennas.
The reason repeaters work is that they repeat the signal. If you place it halfway between two locations, you might have a loss of 40dB between the basestation and the client, which is a lot. With the router in the middle it might only have a loss of 20dB from the repeater to the basestation and 20dB from the repeater to the client. That can sustain much higher data rates, despite the retransmission penalty of a repeater.
Repeaters are less useful in LOS/open air environments because the path losses are significantly less. There repeaters are generally only use if you can go with two radio options or there is LOS issues between the basestation and client, but the repeater can be LOS.
In the high powered transmitter side of things, the issue is that if the link is too weak on the receive or transmit side, it drives down the other leg too. Get it weak enough and even if the receive or transmit side can still be heard, if the other one can't be, you can't talk (for wifi) at all.
Yes, sometimes high powered transmitters are paired with high gain antennas. Still doesn't change the weakness of the client transmit side. If the transmitter pumps out -25dB of EIRP not including antenna gain and the client is -32dB not including antenna gain...you still have an issue. A 7dBi antena on the base station and 2dBi antenna on the client, you still have -16dB receive side for the client and -23dB receive side for the client, ignoring any attenuation due to distance and obstacles. If both have a radio chain sensitivity of -85dB minimum signal strength required to work (and generally minimum signal strength required varies only a couple of dB from one wifi solution to another, physics and same 802.11 standards and all that) at any speed, the basestation is going to "lose" the client before the client loses the basestation.
So high powered basestations CAN actually help a little bit in SINGLE basestation configurations, as it can boost SINR a little to increase throughput at range, but it generally is NOT going to increase absolute maximum range as the base station still can't hear the client at all and the SINR difference between Tx and Rx can only be so much before the weaker leg drives down the maximum performance/link rate of the other leg.
The issue in multiple AP situations is the fact that in general, it is client driven roaming between access points. The client is looking at RECEIVED signal strength. There is no mechanism with client driven roaming (currently in wide spread use) to look at the basestation/AP receive signal strength from the client to drive roaming. This means that clients are likely to stick with a higher powered access point long after they should have transitioned to another access point.
With emergency responder radios, in a lot of cases the basestation might not need to hear from the emergency responder at all. I mean, it would be nice, but is it necessarily required to dispatch someone? Not necessarily.
The reason repeaters work is that they repeat the signal. If you place it halfway between two locations, you might have a loss of 40dB between the basestation and the client, which is a lot. With the router in the middle it might only have a loss of 20dB from the repeater to the basestation and 20dB from the repeater to the client. That can sustain much higher data rates, despite the retransmission penalty of a repeater.
Repeaters are less useful in LOS/open air environments because the path losses are significantly less. There repeaters are generally only use if you can go with two radio options or there is LOS issues between the basestation and client, but the repeater can be LOS.
In the high powered transmitter side of things, the issue is that if the link is too weak on the receive or transmit side, it drives down the other leg too. Get it weak enough and even if the receive or transmit side can still be heard, if the other one can't be, you can't talk (for wifi) at all.
Yes, sometimes high powered transmitters are paired with high gain antennas. Still doesn't change the weakness of the client transmit side. If the transmitter pumps out -25dB of EIRP not including antenna gain and the client is -32dB not including antenna gain...you still have an issue. A 7dBi antena on the base station and 2dBi antenna on the client, you still have -16dB receive side for the client and -23dB receive side for the client, ignoring any attenuation due to distance and obstacles. If both have a radio chain sensitivity of -85dB minimum signal strength required to work (and generally minimum signal strength required varies only a couple of dB from one wifi solution to another, physics and same 802.11 standards and all that) at any speed, the basestation is going to "lose" the client before the client loses the basestation.
So high powered basestations CAN actually help a little bit in SINGLE basestation configurations, as it can boost SINR a little to increase throughput at range, but it generally is NOT going to increase absolute maximum range as the base station still can't hear the client at all and the SINR difference between Tx and Rx can only be so much before the weaker leg drives down the maximum performance/link rate of the other leg.
The issue in multiple AP situations is the fact that in general, it is client driven roaming between access points. The client is looking at RECEIVED signal strength. There is no mechanism with client driven roaming (currently in wide spread use) to look at the basestation/AP receive signal strength from the client to drive roaming. This means that clients are likely to stick with a higher powered access point long after they should have transitioned to another access point.
With emergency responder radios, in a lot of cases the basestation might not need to hear from the emergency responder at all. I mean, it would be nice, but is it necessarily required to dispatch someone? Not necessarily.
azazel1024
Very Senior Member
What it really boils down to is that bigger antennas are almost always better than higher transmit power if all you can do is modify ONE end of the basestation/client setup. If you can change both, then higher transmit power for both basestation and client is almost always better (as it drives down SINR, where as a bigger antenna MIGHT amplify noise/interference, even as it amplifies the signal...so the data rate/range performance may increase more per dB increase in Tx power than per dB in antenna gain).
However, other than bridges, you generally don't have the option to increase the Tx power of both sides. That and you also get in to amplifier distortion.
However, other than bridges, you generally don't have the option to increase the Tx power of both sides. That and you also get in to amplifier distortion.
So I've been rereading this thread seeking more clue.
I have a job in an upscale house for 4 internal & 1-2 external AP's. Others have recommended UniFi but there is this sorta swiss cheese type data. Some things never mentioned to my confusion.
Thoughts/questions:
Comments?
I have a job in an upscale house for 4 internal & 1-2 external AP's. Others have recommended UniFi but there is this sorta swiss cheese type data. Some things never mentioned to my confusion.
Thoughts/questions:
- Router? What's that? All the discussions I've read eschew mentioning what router would drive the flock, providing NAT if not DHCP. I infer it will not be from Ubiq. That's OK, I'll get a ZyWall. But the silence bothers me.
- Going dual freq, but the AP-AC has 2 older marginal reviews here, re: 5Ghz. Any sign things have improved?
- There's no dual-freq outdoor unit with antenna options.
- I like the no-single-point-of failure approach but demand control/monitoring. The manager seems to run under OSX 10.6 so but I have no device to test with....
- Wonder what I should use for a print server.
- If not UniFi - what's the next step up?
Comments?
LoneWolf
Senior Member
LoneWolf:
I would loan my WAP371 to Mr Higgins if he could loan me something in the interim to use as a WAP.
My wife would be really ticked off if we had no WiFiz
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
Heck, *I'd* loan you something if you upgraded the WAP371 to the latest firmware and lent it to him. It wouldn't be amazing (probably 2x2 2.4GHz draft-N with DD-WRT), but I'd do it.
Antenna gain benefits both ends of the equation - it adds the same dB gain to a transmitted output as to the received signal...
azazel1024
Very Senior Member
Whatever router you'd want. Want to stick with Ubiquity? Edge Light. Want to go with something else, that works too.
No idea on this one
Yes, that is the case. Outdoor units tend to be one of three things. "basic" 11g and inexpensive. "basic" 11n 1/2 stream 2.4GHz only and probably 10/100 ports still and inexpensive, anything better and REALLY expensive. You can of course roll your own by taking "any old router" and putting it in a weather proof box either with the antennas run to the outside...or not. Or you can mount the router/AP inside and have the antennas run to the outside too (that is what I do for an outdoor AP).
No idea on the manager. It is Java based and as far as I know it'll run on OSX and Windows (maybe/probably Linux as well). Doesn't need to be left up, only for initial configuration and monitoring.
Do you/your client need a print server? If so, plenty of network USB print server boxes that are pretty cheap. Or get a cheap router that has USB print serving capability and hook it up as only a print server. Or get a network printer (they aren't that expensive) and attach it directly.
On your final, what do you need or want? Within reason, the next step up if you want things like zero hand-off and such forth is pretty much Cisco and a heck of a lot more money.
I guess I seek more reassurance/peace of mind than I've found so far reading up on UniFi. For example, their own store's search function does not show me what "Edge Light" is. {I would call their site chaotic, at best...}
And this remark. And this saga.
I'm also looking at ZyXEL's line.....whom I've dealt with before on firewalls.
Similar threads
