Hi
We are profiling equipment and design for an expected high user density
network of multiple, close nit, residential/hostel units. Its going to be
8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time.
We are looking at Ruckus and Ubiquiti as options to get over the high
number of devices we are definitely going to encounter.
How did you do it, and what would you advise for product and layout?
Thanks in advance!
With that many users I cannot recommend Ubiquiti, Ruckus would be the way
to go.
I've got really great experience with Aruba. Don't know if it fits
your budged, though.
Rebards,
Thanks! Everything is still in planning stage, though. Management is
leaning toward Ruckus.
Can I get suggestions for authentication and billing systems for wireless
users too?
Thanks for all the wisdom so far
With that many users I cannot recommend Ubiquiti, Ruckus would be the way to go.
Really ?
Considering you are referring to Company Names, each with a full product line of low end to high end products ?
I often remind folks that Chevrolet, makes both the Corvette as well as the Chevette....
Actual implementations, and deployments suggest that Companies offer products that can serve such an environment when implemented correctly. While they each have their strengths and nuances, the key is proper implementation...
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
8-10 buildings with possibly a over 1000 users at any given time.
Aerohive, easily. AP330s would thrive in a setup such as that.
I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had good
luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a packed
auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with the
presenter).
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't
support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
That's pretty significant because you're limited to 9 x 20 MHz channels or
4 x 40 MHz channels. Keeping the power level down and creating small cells
is essential for high density, so with less channels your hands are really
tied in that case. Also, avoid the Zero Handoff marketing nonsense they
advertise; I'm sure it can work great for a low client residential area but
it requires all APs to share a single channel and depends upon coordinating
only one active transmitter at a time, so it simply won't scale.
I don't have experience with other vendors at large scale or high density.
I don't think what you're talking about is really high density anymore
though. That's just normal coverage. Wireless is a lot more complicated
than selecting a vendor, though. If you know what you're doing even
Ubiquiti could work decently, but if you don't even a Cisco solution won't
save you. You really need to be on top of surveying correctly and having
appropriate AP placement and channel distribution.
I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had
good luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a
packed auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with
the presenter).
the ietf is repeatedly successful with cisco kit at well over 1,000
users, and i mean very active users, in the ballroom. thanks chelliott.
but it is not simple, you need to know what you're doing and few do.
one can also screw up with any kit, as nanog keeps demonstrating.
randy
The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz.
Huh ???
Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are not accurate ...
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
Uhm he's not wrong...
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
Hi Sina,
Quick terminology note: "high density" means you want 500+ users in a
conference hall. That's a very different solution space than 1000
users spread across 8 buildings.
High density solutions are concerned with many nodes not stomping on
each other in a small space as users wander about. Yet cables
connecting all the access points together are short and cheap.
Your situation is different. With users spread out, you have less of a
signal stomping problem and more of a signal reach problem through
various construction materials. Cross-building connections are
expensive and few enough users wander between buildings to need to
maintain their IP address when they do.
If you ask your vendors to show you high-density solutions you may not
get what you're looking for.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
FCC Cert claims different.
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
Their "airMAX" line recently got UNII approval but not their UniFi line to my
knowledge:
https://community.ubnt.com/t5/airMAX-Updates-Blog/airMAX-FCC-UNII-Updates-Lower-Band-Activation-Process/ba-p/1265946
20. Jun 2015 03:36 by faisal@snappytelecom.net:
My equipment that can't do 5.4 with the latest stable or beta firmware says
you can't. Hopefully we get 5.1 "soon".
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
Well, I could certainly be wrong, but it's news to me if UBNT started
supporting DFS in the US.
Your first screenshot is listing the UAP for 5240 which is channel 48,
U-NII-1. The second show 5825 which is the upper limit of U-NNI-3. I
don't see any U-NII-2 in what you posted.
This forum post may be a bit out of date, but I haven't seen any
announcement or information on the forums to indicate the situation has
changed, and I'm pretty good at searching:
https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/m-p/700461#M54771
From this thread it looks like the ability to configure DFS channels in the
US was a UI bug and only showing for ZH anyway. IIRC they actually got in
a bit of trouble with the FCC over not restricting the use of these
channels enough.
Regardless of whether or not the FCC has cleared UBNT indoor products for
U-NII-2 and U-NII-2-extended (and I haven't seen evidence of that yet),
until you can configure APs to use those channels in the controller without
violating FCC regulations I don't consider them usable.
The UAP-AC doesn't seem to support DFS channels at all even without FCC
restrictions, which kind of kills the point of AC, only 4 x 40 MHz or 2 x
80 MHz channels doesn't cut it when we're talking about density.
Note we're talking about indoor wireless and there ARE some UBNT products
for outdoor WISP use that do support DFS and have been cleared by the FCC,
but we would only be looking at the UAP-PRO or UAP-AC in this case so maybe
that's the point of confusion here.
Thanks everybody. I've been corrected on density... I've been informed that
it's to be a minimum of 1000 users per building.
That's 8,000 users. (8 buildings, not counting walkways and courtyards,
admin, etc.)
Does this qualify as high-density?
I don't think there's an actual standard for density, at least I am not
aware of one. Independent of the vendor you use, this guide should be valid
at 80% of implementations:
On Meraki's website there's a case study of an entertainment venue that has
about 2,000 users per night, so I am assuming 1,000 which is your cause
should be doable.
Rafael,
At some scales, the WiFi standard alone will not cut it... Research on
MERUNETWORKS virtual cell tecnology. I have done a trial with them. All the
others are far behind on density. Check their case studies.
Compared to the old model of just providing coverage, it's definitely
higher density. I think the point I was trying to make is that the old
high density is the new normal, and what most on list would consider high
density is more along the lines of stadium wireless. I wouldn't really
focus on the term too much, though. It's just a distraction from the real
question.
The answer as always is "it depends". Without detailed floor plans, survey
information, and information on what kind of demand users will place on the
network, there is really no way to tell you what solution will work well.
If you need to service residential areas or hostel units you might be
better off looking at some of the newer AP designs that have come out in
the last year or so targeting that application, like the Cisco 702 or the
Xirus 320.
The general design of these units is that they're both a low-power AP and a
small switch to provide residents with a few ports to plug in if they need
to. This allows you to have one cable drop to each room instead of having
to run separate jacks for APs and wired connections. The units are
wall-mount and if you have a challenging RF environment this design can be
really effective.
I've never run Xirrus personally, but I think they were used for the last
NANOG conference.
That's interesting, I will take a look. Thanks!