Re: [PLUG] dd-wrt wrt54gl pdq

["Keith C. Perry via plug" <plug@lists.phillylinux.org>]

Brent,

Yea **if** you can run the wire that is always the way to go but you can also run wire to the AC-M units too (they come with a PoE passthrough power supply but you can run them via PoE directly).  All that means is that you'll have higher total throughput because those units are going to handle handoff better than non-mesh units.  They also should support multicasting better since 802.11s was designed with that in mind.  On non-mesh or remote unit connections, I routinely get wireline speeds to the internet.

Awhile back, we caught an issue with a Comcast client service- "...oh wireless is never as fast as wired".  Once he "confirmed" nothing was wrong with the modem all of a sudden the Unifi AC Pro units, which were **behind** the client router (a Unifi Edgerouter) showed the same download speed (100Mbs+) as the wired computers.  Meanwhile, the wifi **on** the Comcast modem could only handle about 80% of the available download bandwidth.

That made me smile...


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. 
Managing Member, DAO Technologies LLC 
(O) +1.215.525.4165 x2033 
(M) +1.215.432.5167 
www.daotechnologies.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "brent timothy saner via plug" <plug@lists.phillylinux.org>
To: plug@lists.phillylinux.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 4:29:35 PM
Subject: Re: [PLUG] dd-wrt wrt54gl pdq

On 9/10/19 12:17 PM, Keith C. Perry via plug wrote:
> I would highly second, third, forth and fifth Uniquity Unifi.  I moved
> by to them about 3 year ago and there is not way I could go back to the
> Buffalo DD-WRT units (I use them for VPN routers and they work great for
> that).  Ubiquity is linux based and somewhat hackable but I've never had
> the need to manipulate it that way.

sixth'd. i stan Ubiquiti Unifi WAPs *so hard*. instant enterprise 802.11
at consumer/hobbyist pricepoint. make sure you have a box or VM to run
the controller software, as that's where they *really* shine. but the
radios in them are fantastic; great coverage.

> 
> To fill in gaps, I would recommend the Unifi AC-Mesh (UAP-AC-M-US)
> product.  It was designed for this purpose as well as building
> out coverage in asymmetric or non-continguious ways (e.g. along a path
> or targeted areas like individual rooms).  They're not expensive (less
> that $100)
> 
> https://unifi-mesh.ui.com/#home
>
personally, after trying to deploy a city-wide mesh, i'm done with
ad-hoc. half-duplex/simplex sucks. if you don't mind running the
cabling, i'd recommend throwing an ethernet backbone behind each WAP
right to a switch and running the mesh on that. but if you'd rather not,
ubiquiti does have some nice meshing ad-hoc (though that's like saying
"yeah, if i were to be shot, i'd rather be shot in the foot" ;).

their firmware's pretty well designed. just don't expect normal speeds
if you want to use 802.11ac with your client devices and an entirely
wireless backbone.

> I'm not sure how well they work with other existing systems but I put
> one into a previous Unifi deployment and it took a low / no converage
> area to 30% - 50% of the internet bandwidth.
> 
> 

should be just fine; i haven't placed with Unifi meshing but IIRC it
just uses the standard 802.11s ad-hoc mode for the wireless links.


___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug