Ubiquiti WiFi vs... everyone
-
Re: Unifi WAP nanoHD - pre order
I was just thinking about WiFi improvements with Ubiquiti over the last couple years. They've really come a long way.
This question is directed at those who have to write off Ubiquiti because of certain lacking features; whether that is for enterprise size environments or not (thousands of users).
Anymore, Ubiquiti allows for multiple SSIDs, captive portal, multi-radio, RADIUS, high AP count per controller, reporting (maybe a little limited), and zero hand off... what else is missing for some decision makers other than level of support?
-
The biggest pushback I've received against ubiquiti seems to come from people who are "brand" certified.
Sunk cost investors, who seem too without any technical reason other than Ubiquiti not being thier chosen brand, say no.
From a technical point of view, noone has been able to say "we can't use it because of ____"
-
Zero handoff is something that you should never use with a really, really, good reason.
The UBNT implementation of it was bad 2 years ago. Not looked into it since.
So if that is something truly required, I would do a lot of research.
Normally devices will just roll between access points without a need for zero handoff.
-
@jaredbusch said in Ubiquiti WiFi vs... everyone:
Zero handoff is something that you should never use with a really, really, good reason.
The UBNT implementation of it was bad 2 years ago. Not looked into it since.
So if that is something truly required, I would do a lot of research.
Normally devices will just roll between access points without a need for zero handoff.
Agreed - I remember turning on zero handoff a couple of years ago and bringing an environment to its knees. With proper AP placement (i.e. not too close together and not too far apart), you can solve a ton of problems.
-
Sure:
-
The vendor itself doesn't provide phone support. I was talking to an Aruba sales guy last week on the plane and he was laughing about this when I mentioned I was using it at my house now. That's a non-starter for a lot of people (yes their forums are fine and I get why they do it as it causes support case deflection).
-
Cisco Clean Air, and the like can operate better in some crazy RF hostile environments.
-
Security integration like NAC with dynamic VLAN. In compliance shops, or people who care about edge security this is a thing. Other SDN integration might matter to some.
-
Opaque finances. SEC investigations in Feb, long term lack of a CFO. Really bizarre stuff for a public company. There is a crazy short squeeze going on right now something's going to blow. Networks are labor and capital intensive with little return on investment if you have to rip and replace.
-
-
@storageninja said in Ubiquiti WiFi vs... everyone:
Sure:
-
The vendor itself doesn't provide phone support. I was talking to an Aruba sales guy last week on the plane and he was laughing about this when I mentioned I was using it at my house now. That's a non-starter for a lot of people (yes their forums are fine and I get why they do it as it causes support case deflection).
-
Cisco Clean Air, and the like can operate better in some crazy RF hostile environments.
-
Security integration like NAC with dynamic VLAN. In compliance shops, or people who care about edge security this is a thing. Other SDN integration might matter to some.
-
Opaque finances. SEC investigations in Feb, long term lack of a CFO. Really bizarre stuff for a public company. There is a crazy short squeeze going on right now something's going to blow. Networks are labor and capital intensive with little return on investment if you have to rip and replace.
I'm guessing that you're talking about Ubiquity in your point list.
I'm looking at two quotes for Ubiquity and Aruba side by side and there's a difference between the quotes of over $800 per device. Hell, even the POE injector from Aruba is more than 3 times higher than the one from Ubiquity.
Am I missing something obvious?
-
-
@jaredbusch said in Ubiquiti WiFi vs... everyone:
Zero handoff is something that you should never use with a really, really, good reason.
The UBNT implementation of it was bad 2 years ago. Not looked into it since.
So if that is something truly required, I would do a lot of research.
Normally devices will just roll between access points without a need for zero handoff.
I had issues in the past (Ruckus) where devices would disconnect before reconnecting to a new AP. With their mesh enabled it went away immediately. Rolled through like 3 patches before someone said anything.
I didn't get a chance to see UBNT back then as I was only messing with Cisco (pre-Meraki), Ruckus, Aerohive, Aruba, etc.
What is garbage about UBNT zero hand off that I should know about?
-
@bbigford said in Ubiquiti WiFi vs... everyone:
What is garbage about UBNT zero hand off that I should know about?
You get stuck with a single channel for that SSID. Can't use the full spectrum.
That makes GI WIFI sad.
-
@storageninja said in Ubiquiti WiFi vs... everyone:
@bbigford said in Ubiquiti WiFi vs... everyone:
What is garbage about UBNT zero hand off that I should know about?
You get stuck with a single channel for that SSID. Can't use the full spectrum.
That makes GI WIFI sad.I haven't had a need for channel hopping. If more throughput is needed, I've bonded channels but just kept the hand off on the same channel.
In very high density areas with users who roam a campus, what kinds of issues have you had with an SSIF having to be on one channel in that case?
-
@bbigford said in Ubiquiti WiFi vs... everyone:
In very high density areas with users who roam a campus, what kinds of issues have you had with an SSIF having to be on one channel in that case?
The average college student has something like 8 IP address's. It's not uncommon to have someone with an iPad, a cell phone, and a laptop. Imagine a room of 300 people all shouting in 3 languages. That's campus WIFI for you.
-
@bbigford said in Ubiquiti WiFi vs... everyone:
@jaredbusch said in Ubiquiti WiFi vs... everyone:
Zero handoff is something that you should never use with a really, really, good reason.
The UBNT implementation of it was bad 2 years ago. Not looked into it since.
So if that is something truly required, I would do a lot of research.
Normally devices will just roll between access points without a need for zero handoff.
I had issues in the past (Ruckus) where devices would disconnect before reconnecting to a new AP. With their mesh enabled it went away immediately. Rolled through like 3 patches before someone said anything.
I didn't get a chance to see UBNT back then as I was only messing with Cisco (pre-Meraki), Ruckus, Aerohive, Aruba, etc.
What is garbage about UBNT zero hand off that I should know about?
Also Zero Hand off does not work with any of the AC series of Access Points.
-
This isn't wifi related but a big downside for us is the largest 10 gig switches are only 16 port. For a site with 40 Gb core and 10 Gb everywhere it's a big limitation.
-
Also like @StorageNinja mentioned, NAC isn't available either. We currently use ISE but need something to work with some NAC solution.
-
@storageninja This isn't entirely true anymore. You now have the option for phone support through Ubiquiti's "elite support."
-
@frodooftheshire said in Ubiquiti WiFi vs... everyone:
@storageninja This isn't entirely true anymore. You now have the option for phone support through Ubiquiti's "elite support."
Not for devices already purchased though.
-
@dbeato I know. That's why I said it wasn't "entirely true." If he's looking at a new deployment he would have the option to purchase support. I should have clarified though.
-
@stacksofplates said in Ubiquiti WiFi vs... everyone:
This isn't wifi related but a big downside for us is the largest 10 gig switches are only 16 port. For a site with 40 Gb core and 10 Gb everywhere it's a big limitation.
I wouldn't buy 10Gbps ports in 2018. 25Gbps or 100Gbps. Cost is the same for 25Gbps with how the ASICs and optics work.
