After school Program, do we need a mesh system?

[Adonner]

With kids now each having their own Chromebooks, plus ipads, the number of connected devices has more than tripled this year. Theoretically, we could have 90+ devices but probably never more than 50-60. We currently have two Netgear Nighthawk R6700 with separate IDs. Both are wired, but one is carrying most of the load and hence the problem. we currently have fiber optic 500 Mbps up and down. Suggestions for a third node vs mesh.

 

[thiggins]

With kids now each having their own Chromebooks, plus ipads, the number of connected devices has more than tripled this year. Theoretically, we could have 90+ devices but probably never more than 50-60. We currently have two Netgear Nighthawk R6700 with separate IDs. Both are wired, but one is carrying most of the load and hence the problem. we currently have fiber optic 500 Mbps up and down. Suggestions for a third node vs mesh.

You don't need mesh. Stay with Ethernet connection to each router or any access point you set up. But you could use another access point and balancing the load better.

What is the main application that the devices are running? Is there a big streaming load?

 

[Adonner]

Thanks Thiggins, most use is goggle suite, educational apps. hopefully very little streaming. My concern with adding another node is printing.

How to get devices connected to one router print to print connected to a separate router

 

[thiggins]

Thanks Thiggins, most use is goggle suite, educational apps. hopefully very little streaming. My concern with adding another node is printing.

How to get devices connected to one router print to print connected to a separate router

What you need to do is set the second router up as an AP. Check the admin GUI, there may be an AP mode switch to make it easy.

Connect the AP to one of the router's LAN ports. Then devices connected to either router or AP will be on the same network.

 

[coxhaus]

Using consumer APs you typically can have about 30 active users per AP so you will need 3 APs to support 90 devices and they will need to have the load spread across all 3 APs. If you find this will not work for you then maybe look at small business APs.
I use Cisco small business WAP581 wireless APs which would have no trouble with 90 users.

When you setup your APs make sure you use different channels for each AP. You will also want to use the same security on each AP. I am assuming you will use Ethernet to connect all APs together. This will give you your best setup.

 

[Adonner]

Thanks Thigins and Coxhaus. Yes we use Ethernet to connect each AP.

 

[L&LD]

A single router can still work if the devices are balanced between two bands (up to 32 devices for the 2.4GHz band and up to 32 devices for the 5GHz band).

If everyone needs to be on the same WiFi band, then two AP's are enough, with the current load of 50 - 60 devices connected concurrently.

The fewer AP's used, the better. A router plus two AP's or more will not make a significant difference in a small area like a classroom unless the clients are assigned to only one AP (and the kids don't switch to their friend's WiFi).

 

[Trip]

The lowest hanging fruit here would be running the second R6700 in Access Point (AP) mode, wired back to the main R6700 (in regular Router mode), then perhaps adding in another consumer or SOHO-grade AP, or just replacing everything with a tri-band all-in-one and turn on band balancing (per @L&LD), as too many discrete APs in too small of a space will kill the performance of the whole environment. That said, even with a tri-band all-in-one, you still may have an issue with maxing out the number of clients per radio.

As @coxhaus suggested, the best solution may be a business-grade product purpose-engineered for high client density. A WAP581 is a decent choice and will allow up to 64 clients per radio, 128 total (2.4 and 5Ghz). Authorized retail is as low as $275-300 each, gray-market perhaps $50 cheaper. Ruckus may be a better choice, still. An R510 would allow 500 clients on 2.4Ghz and 180 on 5Ghz on an open network, or 128 on 2.4Ghz and 180 on 5Ghz if it's AES protected. It also has more effective radio tech (PD-MRC, BeamFlex) for better real-world handling of lots of mobile devices. Authorized pricing is higher, ~$450 ea., but you can work with channel resellers (I pay about $360/ea. with my reseller) or find them gray-market on Amazon for $250-ish. You could even go working-pull/refurb off FleaBay if you had to, and save even more. They're all solid caps and CNC-machined internals; very low failure rate, even used.

 

[Adonner]

Thanks Trip and L&LD. It is actually a large space with multiple classrooms and a few small offices off a central gym so that is why we had spread apart the two existing r6700's for better reception.

 

[coxhaus]

Just to let Trip know 512 clients is probably more theoretical than real. Here is a link from Ruckus's site. It seems to me Ruckus units are more in line with the Cisco WAP581 units.
https://forums.ruckuswireless.com/r...he-amount-of-users-for-the-r510-r610-and-r710

 

[Trip]

Indeed, it's typically more like half in real-life, per the numbers I said with WPA2/AES. Still phenomenal client handling on these units. In looking at the APs I've got deployed, I've seen as many as 140 active clients on a single /24 subnet routinely hammering an R510 and nary an issue.

 

[System Error Message]

in terms of meshing and APs, thats a different case. The most important factor to look at here is airspace. So if 2.4Ghz airspace is 30% practical, and you have a clear airspace to have 3 APs and you need the bandwidth, then do you need to load balance if there are routers that have multiple radios. Otherwise this is where you mesh.

So its highly dependent on usage rather than clients. Some APs will only support a limited number of clients, so if you already have a variation of APs, put those that support the most in classrooms and the rest elsewhere.

Mesh is a broad term and theres many types. More specifically you'll be wanting to distributed network load across multiple radios/APs all having a wired backhaul.

 

[TNCS]

You really won't want a home grade product for this scenario, the chance of you getting roaming, freezing and among other issues are high. Though Cisco and Rokus are design for the scenario you described, the start-up capex cost are high, as both those two vendor require additional purchase of access controller for unified management. As a rule of thumb, you would like to design in an environment of 12-20 devices per AP, even with the entry level model of Rokus if you expect the client to do download of any form or potential bandwidth abuse (or no QoS policy) won't be handling it too well.

I would highly recommend the Ubiquiti Unifi series, if you want mesh the UAP-AC-M is MSRP at US$ 99 which does both wire and wireless uplink, alternatively without mesh the UAP-AC-Lite is cheap and reliable with proven track record. These unit are design for high density deployment, so you won't stress too much about heavy interference of each other (provide your usual correct configuration). The controller for unified management is software based and are for free, just need a PC (old or new, though Linux highly recommended over Windows version). And FYI, the Ubiquiti owner, which also the owner of Memphis Grizzlies is using the UAP-AC-M to house the wireless in the stadium, like 40-50 in an wide open space.

 

[coxhaus]

You really won't want a home grade product for this scenario, the chance of you getting roaming, freezing and among other issues are high. Though Cisco and Rokus are design for the scenario you described, the start-up capex cost are high, as both those two vendor require additional purchase of access controller for unified management. As a rule of thumb, you would like to design in an environment of 12-20 devices per AP, even with the entry level model of Rokus if you expect the client to do download of any form or potential bandwidth abuse (or no QoS policy) won't be handling it too well.

The Cisco small business wireless APs do not require any access controller as everything is built-in and no additional costs are required. The Cisco WAP581 can support over 200 users per unit and will support up to 16 units in a single point setup which should be plenty for what you want to do.

 

[TNCS]

The Cisco small business wireless APs do not require any access controller

I did mention for 'unified management'. One has to consider for the most appropriate future upgrade path, central management still require the Cisco FindIT Managemen. Even if it only 5 APs, one cannot ignore the pure speed and convenience of central management.

The Cisco WAP581 can support over 200 users per unit

Sure, by Wifi specification.. Nearly any 'enterprise' grade Wifi product will claim that on paper as specification. The Ubiquiti AP-AC Lite on datasheet has a 250+ concurrent user support. What all these vendor means, the AP will connect to maybe 200+ device at the lowest handshake bandwidth (6.5Mbs / MCS0), when it comes to active transfer stream, it a totally different scope.

Currently the Cisco WAP581 list US$ 245 on Amazon, the UAP AC Lite / Mesh is about US$90-99. Throwing additional US$50, you can get 3 Unifi wireless device, I don't see how one WAP581 can go up against Unifi in both coverage and active usage. Though I didn't read though the Amazon listing, pretty sure no Cisco SmartNet warranty coverage (again additional opex) which mean you don't even get firmware upgrade, while Ubiquiti has active firmware developments (as long as Ubnt exist or declare EOL on product).

Don't get me wrong, Cisco has it place but for a small project like this, this ain't Cisco's scene. Consider the opex/capex, resource on at least one CCNA to do basic troubleshoot and maintenance, and weird snob Cisco issue (like I remember 3 or 4 years ago, Cisco has a weird limitation you can't bind one VLAN on more than one SSID... What up with that?!), the cost of annual license for Smartnet warranty service and per device based FindIT Management software license fee, this is all to much to throw. While Unifi has free central management software, cheap capex to add/replace and much more friendly setup all beat Cisco for this scene in my daily experience IMO.

 

[coxhaus]

I did mention for 'unified management'. One has to consider for the most appropriate future upgrade path, central management still require the Cisco FindIT Managemen. Even if it only 5 APs, one cannot ignore the pure speed and convenience of central management.

You are still wrong and not listening to what I have written. You do not need Cisco FindIT to mange 5 APs or 16. The single point setup is built-in to the WAP581 wireless AP. You should try to run these before you state fact. You can even update the firmware on the whole cluster from the WAP581 APs once you load it on the first one. There are no additional costs needed to run the Cisco WAP581 wireless AP after buying it. Quit stating wrong facts.

Yes the Cisco WAP581 wireless AP supports 64 active users using web traffic not just texting per radio so that is 128 users per AP. Cisco does not over state their products like some companies do. Where does Ubiquiti rank?

The Cisco WAP581 AP is very easy to setup and support since Cisco has a wizard that does the setup for you. Once you setup the first AP the rest are just joined to the first AP and they auto configure to the cluster. Pretty easy. I would think much easier than Ubiquiti.

And if we look at Ubiquiti switches they don't even have layer 3 switches you are forced to use a slow router.

 

[TNCS]

You are still wrong and not listening to what I have written. You do not need Cisco FindIT to mange 5 APs or 16. The single point setup is built-in to the WAP581 wireless AP. You should try to run these before you state fact. You can even update the firmware on the whole cluster from the WAP581 APs once you load it on the first one. There are no additional costs needed to run the Cisco WAP581 wireless AP after buying it. Quit stating wrong facts.

Yes the Cisco WAP581 wireless AP supports 64 active users using web traffic not just texting per radio so that is 128 users per AP. Cisco does not over state their products like some companies do. Where does Ubiquiti rank?

The Cisco WAP581 AP is very easy to setup and support since Cisco has a wizard that does the setup for you. Once you setup the first AP the rest are just joined to the first AP and they auto configure to the cluster. Pretty easy. I would think much easier than Ubiquiti.

And if we look at Ubiquiti switches they don't even have layer 3 switches you are forced to use a slow router.

I think you misinterpret mine statement more than anything... I said central management -- in one interface. I've never doubt you on the 'single point' part. I don't know about you, but to visit each device to configure is too much work for me. Maybe unlike the router/switches which do need pay to upgrade the firmware, I stand corrected.

Regarding to the active users, I'm not going to debate any further. I personally will not provision in an environment where the active AP/user ratio is 1:128, and let agree that all vendor quote on the best possible condition? As to ranking, nor I'm debate that either, I mean what is a subjective rank? By market share? Sure.... Each product has it place in market, just because Cisco is supposedly no1, doesn't necessarily mean Cisco is suited and best at every possible way.

And why bring up the switch? I've never quoted using Unifi switch. It also interesting you even bought up switch, would you recommend a full Cisco setup instead? I'm not type of the person who would recommend a product just because I'm a fan over anything. If you see my post history, I criticize Ubiquiti Unifi line where it due. I'm well aware the limitation on the Unifi Router and switches, but you're advising for a person from a two Netgear R6700 to a Cisco AP and the need of a proper L3 swtich... In an ideal world and hardware centric person, sure going for the supposedly no1 network vendor seems to be the the best option, but in the real world there're other things involved, such as opex/capex budget, deployment, post maintenance, etc.

 

[coxhaus]

I think you misinterpret mine statement more than anything... I said central management -- in one interface. I've never doubt you on the 'single point' part. I don't know about you, but to visit each device to configure is too much work for me. Maybe unlike the router/switches which do need pay to upgrade the firmware, I stand corrected.
.

You keep confusing Cisco enterprise and Cisco small business gear about fees. Cisco small business routers, switches and wireless come with lifetime support for free so all firmware updates are free for wireless, switches and routers for the lifetime of the unit.

I run a Cisco Small business L3 switch at home along with Cisco small business wireless and routers. There is nothing I can throw at my L3 switch which will bog it down. I have run this setup for many years. I figure I will get close to 10 years out of my switch. So I think there is reason to consider this setup.

I am glad you consider Cisco number 1 as I do to that is why I run it.

 

[TNCS]

You keep confusing Cisco enterprise and Cisco small business gear about fees. Cisco small business routers, switches and wireless come with lifetime support for free so all firmware updates are free for wireless, switches and routers for the lifetime of the unit.

I run a Cisco Small business L3 switch at home along with Cisco small business wireless and routers. There is nothing I can throw at my L3 switch which will bog it down. I have run this setup for many years. I figure I will get close to 10 years out of my switch. So I think there is reason to consider this setup.

I am glad you consider Cisco number 1 as I do to that is why I run it.

Well, you caught me.. I will only consider Cisco on the Enterprise products where the scenario fits, and it also where most of my Cisco experience lies.

As for no.1, I only consider them no1. base on their history, and because of their head start and survived throughout the years the impact they have on industry standard and most importantly -- market share where they're probably make them no1 at the present. But no more. That being said, even the enterprise ASR9000 series has many issues and flaws you won't believe.

As the Enterprise space is moving more to software define, personally I'm curious to see what Cisco will do, because I consider them very late start and are now playing catch up.

 

[Adonner]

Thanks all for your help and insight. I'll post an update when we get the new system updated