White_Fi

And this is why site surveys are always recommended. RF is extremely dynamic and survey designs and requirements change from site to site.

melonhead It all depends on your density requirements. An AP per room is something that most, not all, vendors (except Ruckus) will recommend for "Density" as their APs do not control the Physical Layer like Ruckus do and it is very rare that i would every design a Ruckus network on an AP per Room deployment. Unless the walls were made of lead! Since Ruckus focus the RF energy to the client they cause less interference with neighbouring clients and APs which increases the SNR dramatically, which at the bottom line means faster speeds. Getting the client on and off the link as fast as possible means there is more bandwidth available for more clients. Unless you are looking at 150+ mixed band clients per room in every room i would avoid the AP per Room deployment not only to save on cost but to reduce potential co-channel interference. Yes Ruckus do mitigate interference but if there are too many APs in close proximity may cause issues. Its Physics. General rule of thumb for site deployments is count up how many rooms you have, divide by 3 and that is more than likely going to be your final AP count. For information speak to me at Net-Ctrl, 01473 281211

Guys sorry but I have chased this FR and unfortunately it has not made it onto the RM. The issue is CPU bottleneck on the ZD (and not the ports) as tunnelling is done in software. That’s not going to change [any time soon], so if you want to tunnel the following throughput can be achieved: • ZD1100 - 100mbps max • ZD3000 - 500Mbps max • ZD5000 - 1Gbps max

Mark, agreed. Features are coming thick and fast in the releases now.. They focused on the Wi-Fi first. Something I believe vendors seem to forget these days, "your a wireless vendor. Make my Wi-Fi better, i don't need all these FW rules, I have have a firewall" Ruckus are not focusing on the Enterprise market like Cisco etc by offering unnecessary security and additions hardware appliances for a well working Wi-Fi solution... firewalls etc... They are focusing were a Wireless vendor should..you guess it. The Wi-Fi

I beg to differ. I was at the Ruckus partner conference a few weeks back and they are focusing heavily on both markets. Ruckus happen to fit very well into the carrier grade wifi market thanks to the way they handle the physical layer and improve signal quality and throughput. Trying to sqeeze every Mbps in 802.11 is a big deal now mobile devices are everywhere. Mediocre WiFi is no longer acceptable. The technology they focus and built for carrier grade wifi is seen in all of their enterprise solutions, and they do not see the enterprise as a second best market. How can they when the margins are bigger for them in the enterprise. Rest assured people, Ruckus will continue to deliver outstanding wifi solutions for both carrier and enterprise markets. Stuart

Roaming is down to the client until 802.11v becomes implemented. Vendors have different RSSI thresholds for romaing, amongst other factors. Run up inssider from metageek.net and post the screenshot. Would like to see the RSSI your laptop is seeing from the two APs. You can change your romaing aggression level in the advanced WNIC options. If this option is not there you may need to update your driver.

You can also set the ports as access ports or trunk ports into separate VLANs..Or just disable them for security.

Yes you would be correct. The spare ports are for extending your Ethernet. I see deployments where they are used for mesh and then a switch of the back of the AP. However you can plug whatever, printer, pc etc into a Root AP as well.

Is the connection between the two sites a PtP Ruckus, using 7731 or a MESH using other model APs? Or are you seeing the problem over the WLAN infrastructure?

Achandler, the dog is there because I believe Ruckus is the best out there right now. Why not promote it. I’m a little worried about your burglar alarm and the company the supplied the solution to you. I’m presuming your alarm system was operating in the unlicensed 2.4GHz spectrum, they tend to give interference off as a by-product but should not be triggered by it. I’d invest in a new one. Directing the RF to a particular location in space prevents RF blasting to a location that it is unwelcome.. the AP behind it, avoiding co-channel / adjacent channel interference. Biggest source of interference in 90% of situations are your own APs. You may not see this if the wifi infrastructure is low capacity but start chucking clients on to it and streaming video, throwing lots of data over it. You’ll see packet loss and reduced throughputs. Prevent the interference and mitigate other sources you have improved capacity on the channel.

As with all vendors, kit that has been around a while and will go end of life. The 7942 went EoL as the cheaper and more recent 7343 and 7341 where out performing it, that just makes sense. The ZD1000 series has gone EoL (currently bug fix support for a further 4years) since the memory was no longer sufficient for the amount of AP firmware it needed to hold. It has been replaced with the ZD1100 series. Same kit just more memory. Even though Ruckus is our main wireless kit here at Net-Ctrl, I come from a vendor neutral point of view being qualified on the CWNP programs. With that said other vendors are doing some fantastic stuff, Aerohive from the CoOp control point, Aruba from the firewall and security point of view but Ruckus' USP is where it matters: IN THE AIR!! Its easy to manage just like aerohive (infact even more so) and security is fully supported with 802.11i - where it matters. If you want a firewall....you have one...if you don't you should! Using a smart adaptive array of antennas to beamform (not to be confused with chip-based .11n beamforming) the RF energy to where it is needed improves client performance drastically. It is all about getting the highest throughput to the client as quick as possible, freeing up the medium for the next client. Its where WiFi matters and that is at the PHY. Ruckus have fixed the problems with WiFi, the RF, at the physical layer and no one else even come close to this. Omni-Directional antennas, although work, are not optimum any more for today's explosion of iEverythings. Capacity is key for WiFi these days and Ruckus DO provide just that.

Gary, I'd stick the Ruckus kit in a VLAN used for server/management then throw each WLAN into its own VLAN, relevant to network access. The security is tight with VLANs, the only risk being any known issues with your switches, rare. And your configuration. You can disable the spare ports on the back of the APs or make them access ports to particular VLANs to stop unwanted access.

What's your iPad problem?

Good stuff, fyi 9.3 is out now. Contact your VAR or support guys for the FW

Can i ask what version the ZD is running? SSH into the ZD hit enter at the first username Login run the following cmds without quotes "enable" "config" "no ap [MAC address of AP]"

Whilst the APs are rebooting from a factory reset delete the AP from the ZD. Once it re-provisions and is connected try again. If something has gone wrong then just a factory reset of the AP will not help. The ZD will keep the settings for that AP's MAC address. Removing it will insure a "fresh" AP join.

Is the WPAD working when taking the ZD out of the equation, i.e deliver it via dhcp or dns? 9.3 has only just been released so i am not aware of any bugs yet nor am i aware of anyone using this feature yet so feedback is nice.

Its is one or the other. If you add the wpad to the ZD then the ZD delivers it to the client upon association. If you chose to deliver it via DNS or DHCP then you do not need to add anything into the ZD unless you want unauthenticated clients to obtain the WPAD file, which is useful for web-portal activation if a proxy is required for the ZD redirect

As long as you are running 9.3: 1) Configure 2) WLANs 2) Edit or Create new WLAN 3) Expand advanced options 4) Upload WPAD file or point to the server holding the WPAD file (useful for unauthorized clients needing the proxy)

FYI, Ruckus 9.3 can support delivery of the wpad file directly from the ZD to the client at association level.

You need to generate a CSR from the Ruckus ZD and get it signed by a CA. Thanks Stu

Hi Miller, 9.3 is out now, i suggest you do NOT upgrade to 9.3 from your current build. I have tested it in a lab and am seeing failed upgrades left fright and centre. Factory resets are needed to restore. As for your guest network you do not need to create a L3/4 ACL. There is a separate L3/4 ACL under guest access settings that are applied to the client(when the WLAN usage type is guest access or the isolation is set to full) You also do not want local isolation but full isolation(any WLAN that has full isolation enabled has the L3/4 ACL from guest access settings applied to it) 10.0.0.152/22 applies to the entire subnet which i presume you do not want for guest clients. You need a /32 (single address range). Is there a proxy address that need to be added as well or are the clients thrown directly out of the FW? If you are locking it down to HTTP and HTTPS only i would use the application as any/ source as any and just add the destination as ports 80 and 443

Can SShot your ACL over please. Along with the WLAN settings please. 9.2 is a beta code and should not be on a production ZD. May i ask where you got that FW from?

Tunnelling traffic is useful for Layer3 traffic back to the ZD. e.g - a VoIP call roams from AP1(10.19.90.0/24) to AP2(10.19.95.0/24) and drops the call. With L3 tunnelling the IP is preserved and the call is not dropped. It is an architecture most vendors are moving away from. By default Ruckus' architecture is distributed forwarding (an architecture vendors are moving to, they really have no choice these days). Authenticated traffic(only) is dropped from the AP on the edge switch.

Hi, The Data rates that can be reached on 5GHz are higher that that on 2.4GHz. 2.4GHz is much more congested so using 5GHz where possible is always recommend. Are those readings from the clients from the 2.4GHz radio? Packet loss is to be expected in 802.11 due to the nature of CSMA/CA, its trying to achieve the lowest error rate possible that makes for good Wi-Fi, enter Ruckus. I would not use 40MHz on 2.4GHz, you are limited to 3 non overlapping channels in the 2.4GHz spectrum, 1, 6 and 11. When using two channels there will be overlap on neighbouring channels making only one channel available in that spectrum that does not overlap, and that channel may be subject to non-802.11 interference. Do not use RTS-CTS protection mode unless you have 802.11b only devices that you need to co-operate with the same BSS, (AP'(s)), however in this case it will be enabled automatically. It just creates too much unnecessary contention overhead to content for the air. It is however very useful for solving the hidden-node issue, but with Ruckus, it is very UNLIKELY you will face this issue.