My personal experience is that the Ruckus kit outperforms the Cisco Air-O-Net
stuff. This was looking at penetration through concrete walls, co-existence
with other devices, throughput.
YMMV, I’m not a Cisco expert but *did* have a local
certified-up-to-his-eyeballs Cisco dude check what I had done, and he could not
squeeze any better performance out of the Cisco gear either. Maybe they just
want to sell more APs and controllers? Oh, and for this application, the
Ruckus kit came in an order of magnitude cheaper than Cisco would have.
Ruckus is also *way* easier to configure than Cisco. Some of the Cisco folk
that I know think that that is a point in favour of Cisco, as it adds to job
security :-)
paul
> On Jan 29, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Edwards, Jermaine <jedwa...@sonifi.com> wrote:
>
> Ruckus should work fine for you. You need to have a controller and need a
> good RF plan but as far as capacity, throughput, roaming etc they are really
> solid. Of course the best is Cisco but if you can't afford them Ruckus is
> the way to go. I use them in small and very large convention centers and
> hotels with no reservation.
>
> jle
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:55
> To: 'Mike Hammett'; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Recommended wireless AP for 400 users office
>
> It was all users getting randomly disconnected ... the AP's stayed online but
> the traffic would completely halt for 15-30 seconds at a time. Their
> association with the AP would stay in tact ....
>
> Paul
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 10:53 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Recommended wireless AP for 400 users office
>
> Did you figure out why it was dropping out? All of it dropping out? Just some
> APs dropping? Just some users dropping?
>
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Paul Stewart" <p...@paulstewart.org>
> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net>, nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 8:34:46 AM
> Subject: RE: Recommended wireless AP for 400 users office
>
> I had a bad experience with it one time at a tradeshow environment. 6 access
> points setup for public wifi. The radio levels were quite good in various
> areas of the tradeshow however traffic would keep dropping out at random
> intervals as soon as about 300 users were online. It wasn't my idea to use
> UBNT but it definitely turned me off of their product after digging into
> their gear...
>
> Again as someone pointed out, for residential and perhaps SOHO applications
> it can probably work well - and in my opinion it's priced for that market.
>
> Paul
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 8:23 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Recommended wireless AP for 400 users office
>
> What problems have you had with UBNT?
>
> It's zero hand-off doesn't work on unsecured networks, but that's about the
> extent of the issues I've heard of other than stadium density environments.
>
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Manuel Marín" <m...@transtelco.net>
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:06:39 PM
> Subject: Recommended wireless AP for 400 users office
>
> Dear nanog community
>
> I was wondering if you can recommend or share your experience with APs that
> you can use in locations that have 300-500 users. I friend recommended me
> Ruckus Wireless, it would be great if you can share your experience with
> Ruckus or with a similar vendor. My experience with ubiquity for this type of
> requirement was not that good.
>
> Thank you and have a great day
>
>
>
>
