nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

A poor throughput performance standalone AP with NAT forwarding.

unknown

I have tested throughput test with NAT forwarding for Ruckus AP and some vender APs.

On Nat-forwarding, Aruba(IAP mode)and Samsung AP(standalone mode) have over 300Mbps at throughput test, but Ruckus AP have just 150-200Mbps.

Using same Ruckus AP, when we associated to SZ ver 3.6,x, we find throughput is over 300-350Mbps.

In SZ envirnment, I know Ruckus enhanced nat performance since 3.6.x.

Some customer complaints us Ruckus AP(Standalone) about a poor throughput performance about standalone with NAT forwarding.

They say that when we used cheap wireless Router, those had better throughput than Ruckus.

Why have Ruckus AP poor throughput at using NAT forwarding?

Like SZ, do Ruckus enhance Standalone-AP with NAT forwarding better throughput in future?

In korea, many partner and customer want it.

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

All comments

martin_martin

Hi Jeronimo,

What software and version are you running on the standalone AP?

regards
Martin

unknown

I have tested that using all 104.x and 110.x.

unknown

Can you report how you are tested, or share experiences?

Do we need to know that you have tested them for ISM (2.4GHz), or UNII (5GHz)?

We need to know which foi or throughput server that you used, was foi or mesmo em both (local server, jitter, latência);

But when you are not standalone method, to ruckus não trabalha com resources de rádio (RRM), não works to beam flex feature, nem do channel fly. I acknowledge that this is a difference as long as Aruba, so you can adjust the resources of non-IAP RRM, and transform it into virtual AC.

More please, compartilhe or method used for testing, pois sua dúvida é muito important for nós.

unknown

I had tested 5Ghz/802.11acperformance using iperf3 due to not matter performance for 2.4Ghz.

Samsung AP and Aruba AP are better performance at NAT forwarding.

Ruckus AP with NAT forwarding on standalone mode is very poor.

I don't understand why do Ruckus AP have poor performance.

michael_brado

What version firmware running on your Ruckus AP?

unknown

I tested those on ver.104 and ver.110 both.

unknown

In a lot of sites customer give me a appeal concering this issue.
Why ruckus stand alone AP has slower speed than other vendor APs .
I wish I resolve this problem.

stephen_hall_60

we are seeing this exact same issue (very poor performance when ruckus AP is in gateway mode vs great performance in bridged mode) and its become a really big issue. are there any options to disable QOS maybe (or other packet processing) to increase performance in standalone gateway mode?

While i was seeing 70-100mbit TOPS on a 7372 with 104.x FW , i was really appalled when on higher end hardware (ie r610 or r720), speeds were maxing out at 150-200m in gateway mode. (same APs in bridge mode, 400m +)

any ideas on disabling some packet processing or qos maybe to improve standalone ap gateway mode performance?

(fwiw, unleashed performance in GW is not any better)
thanks

unknown

I thinks so.

Someone using standalone mode is eager to improve performance in NAT mode(GW mode), but Ruckus seems to have no interest in this.