Unleashed - Per Radio SSIDs

[william_burnett]

So I ordered a few R600 UNLEASHED APs for a client site that is having tremendous interference issues (4 story building with multiple tenants per floor) with their current APs (Sophos JUNK).

I find it frustrating, if not laughable that the Unleashed APs are not capable of PER RADIO SSID assignment. 

Simple facts:

In a typical SMB deployment (or a town home or cul-de-sac for that matter), there are typically multiple (sometimes dozens) of APs in close proximity, but not controlled by the customer. This means that 2.4 channels 1, 6 and 11 are almost always full of interference and noise.

Most SMB customers still require some connectivity on 2.4, for the sake of legacy devices, even if it is saturated and slow.

Putting the primary WLAN/SSID on 5GHz is usually the best practice.

Lastly, when an SSID is being broadcast on BOTH 2.4 and 5, the connection usually ends up landing on 2.4.

Why in the world would Ruckus decide to force unleashed SSIDs to be broadcast on both radios?

Somebody has their head up their backside. 

[william_burnett]

Cloud products: (not really relevant here, but everybody keeps bringing it up).

No, the point of "cloud" products and licensing is to create a predictable, recurring profit stream for the vendor, especially from products that were historically perpetually licensed or one time purchases. It has nothing to do with convenience for the customer. In fact, all if this cloud crap is an inconvenience for most customers, creating much larger attack surface, added monthly costs, the hassles of dozens of accounts, passwords, passwords resets, outages, etc.

As for "cloud" APs... give me a break. The customer still has to buy the freaking hardware and then pay monthly to allow it to operate. In 3-5 years the hardware is outdated and the process starts again. The difference? The Wifi vendor has profited all along for those 3-5 years instead of at the date of initial purchase.

Go ahead and tie your customers to a cloud based firewalls, wireless solutions, productivity suites, switches and software. Tell me how that goes next time one or more of those services are hacked, attacked (DDoS, etc.), bankrupted, bought out, or discontinued. Tell me how that goes when firmware/software updates are not optional and buggy or non-existent when needed.

Sure, in some cases, hosted services make wonderful sense, but most SMBs are having them shoved down their throats in the name of profits for the vendor, not convenience or need of the SMB.

Go talk to a business owner and ask him/her what their per user rollup costs are now and what they were 5 years ago.  Then ask them how much more productive the employees and IT department have become. The reality? All of this cloud crap has hindered productivity significantly and increased per employee technology costs by magnitudes (literally).   

No cloud for our customers, wherever and whenever possible... Take notice folks, SMBs are tired of paying for, yet one more new "cloud" service every time they turn around.

[john_d]

With regards to recurring costs, that I think is a separate issue from the cloud, and more specific to the enterprise business model. Ruckus non-cloud solutions also require recurring annual licensing costs or you lose access to the KB, advance RMA services, firmware/security updates, etc etc etc. And don't forget that vSZ/SZ/SCG are all "Cloud" based and you can choose between whether you own the cloud or you use Ruckus's Cloud, and both seem more expensive than ZD and Unleashed and likely Ruckus Cloud as well....

I won't take a stance here on cloud tech other than to say that most of the infrastructure I've set up is composed of at least one piece of cloud-managed tech. Not because of a love for the cloud or whatever, but because I think that piece of equipment is the best suited for the job even with recurring costs of ownership in mind.

I agree with you that SMB's are much more sensitive to the recurring cost of "the cloud" as well as the cost of 3-5 year upgrade lifecycles for hardware, but at the same time the way they manage non-cloud solutions can be irresponsible as well. I live in an apartment complex that seemed to buy Ruckus 7962's at the time it was built, and has not updated the ZD firmware ever since. I think they are running 9.2.x or so, and full of known issues. 

In the realm of *enterprise* products, it seems like the cloud-offered services have a better track record for timely updates and ease of management, while the traditional methods are far more likely to encourage owners to stay stranded on old, insecure, unmanaged firmware. Of course, consumer / pro-sumer IoT devices are a totally different story with thoughtless examples of poorly executed cloud technologies.


Bottom line is, considering Ruckus just announced sparse details on their solution a week ago, I think it's way too early to label it as one or the other type of "cloud". The devil is in the details and I'd rather not pre-judge it.

[eizens_putnins]

I agree with this arguments, and they are really valid -- this are exactly cloud benefits.
Also, this discussion reminded me one of the first installations (2007 ?, anyway, long time ago) ---  ZD1000 with ZF2942 in a hotel, and as installation still functions better than many other hotel wi-fi systems with newer hardware from other vendors, there was no new business opportunity. It still works quit stable, and still provides enough capacity for real life needs.
Interesting, that in EU now in many hotels you see 802.11N or even 802,11ac APs, but uplinks are usually DSLs, so speeds are  very low and new equipment is actually wasted. It isn't problem of technology, it is result of business decisions.

I just wanted to pinpoint that benefits of cloud technologies often aren't a real driver of implementation of cloud solutions, but  opportunity to gain much better profit often is.
And it is not related to recently presented Ruckus cloud.  Ruckus actually provides  a wide choice of implementation options,, and there is a choice in fact - if you choose not to buy support subscription,  equipment doesn't become a brick.
So it isn't exactly same as with Meraki (Cisco), and I agree again with you  -- difference is in details.
When implementing cost saving technology, different business strategies can be chosen, and it can mean standard or very high margin for vendor.
Often high margin model together with very agressive marketing is used. As a result market share of product often is not reflecting it quality, and Wi-Fi market is a good example -- by far biggest part of enterprise market is owned by vendor with not the  best product, but the most powerful  marketing... 
Ruckus without doubt has currently the best technology, and it market share is growing but still much lower -- but I personally would prefer that Ruckus continue to excel in technology. not in marketing...
Marketing produces sales and profit, but it may sell anything -- and a bad product as well (which often happens, unfortunately).
Anyway, this all thoughts have no relation with thread subject, so p it isn't a proper place...

[henry_labbert]

I totally agree, we need per radio AND per AP SSIDs.

[hayward_kong]

I agree with everyone one else that we need to ability to add additional SSIDs and VLANs.  It's very short sighted that they left it out on unleashed since SMB market does have a use.  Even a small cafe might want to have a wireless network that separate from their own network and and customers. Or even a Laundry mat  to have their wireless network separate from staff/security and customers.   Or even a small school that has two standlone ruckus AP could used unleashed, but is lacking in more SSID support and VLANs. As for now my clients have  theirs in standalone mode.  It's a joke that they market it for SMB since it's lacking in features.  I really hope you consider adding those basic features for the SMB.