AP6Pro Review/Testing

Access Points
1

Hello,

I received my AP6Pro lab gear about a week ago today and I have to say…I am VERY IMPRESSED…everything about the product down to the packaging is designed to make a lot of people interested, nerds (like myself) and laymen too…the setup can be VERY simple and it can be VERY complicated if you demand more enterprise type features…which brings me to the very first thought I had while provisioning this new equipment.

  1. I asked myself “Self, is this consumer grade, Pro-Sumer grade or enterprise?”…and to be completely honest, the answer I came to was…”YES”…but the product doesn’t cost what any of the big boys cost…so how could that be? (Thats a question that the Alta people will have to answer).

  2. The second thing I thought to myself was, this really feels like the beginning of the Meraki Dashboard…very well thought through and as complicated as you want it to be, which works in a LARGE amount of different verticals.

  3. Most of the equipment I test here in my cave…sorry…”office”…has a lot of trouble just working…my “office” houses a VERY polluted RF environment. But the APs seemed to do well with all of the other crazy RF projects going on at the same time (I do this on purpose to simulate office buildings…and sometimes its just that I am WAY too lazy to turn all the other gear off…heheheh)

  4. I did a survey with Ekahau and one of our aging sidekicks to “see” coverage…I gotta be honest, this AP holds its own when compared to all of the current Cisco/Meraki/Aruba/Mist APs on the market…for a FRACTION of the cost…at some point ill post my Ekahau results if anyone is interested in seeing them.

    1. Did I mention that two of the APs were outdoor APs from Cisco and Meraki? …(ill give you a hint…MR86 and the old trusty 1572) both rocking 8dBi+/- dynamite sticks)…very impressive.

  5. Boot times were freaky fast and a happy surprise!!!

  6. Software upgrades were painless and almost not even noticed…I really like that

  7. The guest network portal is clean and efficient, something I think we have all been waiting for for a long time…great job!!!

  8. My wife looked up at the ceiling and asked “what’s this?”….well, apparently she likes the pretty blue light and the design overall…she made a “frowny” face at the MR53 that was sitting on the table…so that was cool….lol

Now the not so great, but DEFINITELY NOT bad….

I think the dashboard could use additions. To be fair, it could just be that I’m so use to other’s products…we could write this off as i need to learn the product…which I’m perfectly fine with. Here are my observations

  1. I really like the idea of a separate “RF” tab that would allow for entire site/global tweaks…for example,

    1. a usable channel list (check box style) that would apply for each site…
    2. a viewable global “tag” database so that you could create a ton of tags in one location.

  2. This is not the biggest deal, but could be if Mesh was important for a customer (or you had a customer with a super hodgepodge’d switched network)…but some sort of control function for STP/RSTP…even if that was just a pull down that would allow you to set priority…or degrade priority if needed.

    1. I did see a lot more BDPUs then I feel like I should have…not a huge deal if you are rocking an enterprise network switch…Portfast/BPDUFilter or BPDUGaurd fix that right up.

  3. Speaking of enterprise networks….LLDP…we really need it…I know I know I have already asked about that, but I felt it needed to be in here.

  4. By default it seems like a HELLO SSID might make sense for installers, and although I wouldn’t use it I know a lot of my guys would like that.

  5. The onboarding of APs to the dashboard or inventory could be a little easier…like a CSV import or text box (S/N adds)…sometimes we aren’t at the sites that we are actually onboarding gear from, or even worse, we might not have actual network access…I know I know…that is dumb…but it has happened.

  6. The last thing that I have found would be, I’d love the ability to NAT a guest network and change those network settings as needed, so that I don’t have to manage the guest network IP Schema or I can…if needed, not the biggest deal ever…but definitely something.

All in all, I’m already setting customers up to look at these products as a NEW alternative to the VERY pricey competitors. The few that have gotten to see the lab even like the ascetics…so all I can say is….wow…and GREAT JOB!!!

Thanks for taking the time to read this and have a great day!

e

7 Likes
2

@Eric_Sigoloff Thank you for taking the time to provide your very detailed feedback on our access points! We appreciate the kinds words!

As for the six areas of feedback on additional features and functionality, well received! I can say LLDP is a work in process for sure (point #3). As for the other five items, I will get that queued up for internal review. We may have a few follow up questions for you as we review. We will post them here.

1 Like
3

No, THANK YOU!!!

I’m available to help whenever you need me to.

I have been waiting for a new and fresh company to come out and give the big boys a run for their money!

Thanks!

e

2 Likes
4

@Eric_Sigoloff Your feature requests are well received, and under internal review. We do plan to launch a more automatic channel planner feature that will make large site planning seamless.

I did have a question on #6 - guest networks. Is that a feature that the guest network type can already take care of, or is it something else? I don’t know if you are aware, but our APs will NAT on a local-only subnet that transverses APs as the client roams, in the case that there is a DHCP server that is not responsive or has an exhausted pool.

2 Likes
5

Thanks for the response!

This is a very exciting solution, and im ripping all of the Meraki gear out and replacing with AP6-Pros on our ranch (which is also a show piece that I bring my customers to for show and tells, RF testing and other redneck activities…lol)! my order of new APs should be here today.

My main point is on #6, is a way to run a nat’ed interface that can be managed or not…for example, if its nat’ed with a DHCP server and I wanted to be able to adjust the network number or not…we are currently running a 10-Dot network schema…but if I have to punch holes in the NAT’ed int or via embedded FW, it makes it that much more difficult to run ACLs on the infra without potentially messing with your primary IP Schema/Policies…I know I know…a lot of IF’s, but there were many times I had issues with Meraki’s nat’ed int for the same reason. I hope this explains why I was asking for this.

I generally try to keep my network numbers for my guest access (even if behind a NAT) a different network number so that my ACLs are just easy peasy.

Thanks

e

2 Likes
6
7
8

This is a good list.

For #5, I would love to just pre-onboard from the order sheet so that APs just come online when plugged into. No on-prem onboarding necessary. ‘zero touch’ as they say.

For #2, sounds like switch features not AP features. I would say IS-IS+SPB on switches would be ideal with a default cost on a mesh link higher than a wired. I’m not sure what the ‘mesh’ design is here, proper mesh 802.11s or WDS etc, or just a wireless hop like ubiquiti ‘mesh’. I could use some clarification on that.

For #1, 100% this. Imagine a campus that has some 5Ghz links between buildings. Would be REAL nice to take the link’s channels out of the list. Or to dodge some unfriendly 3rd party access point that you can’t rip out no matter how much you want.

1 Like
9

Hi there!

thanks for the comments!

I have never been a fan of the way mesh worked within the STP ecosystem…mostly I see that issue with PtMP networks, but at the end of the day…some control or even a filter option would be nice. definitely not an end all be all, but still nice to be able to tweak when needed. I usually end up controlling those issues at the switch…when I can. But to your point, if the cost on the link is set right from the get go, wired should ALWAYs win…ill do some testing and see if it works that way in the lab…I have been meaning to, just busy as hell this summer. lol, which IS a good problem to have.

e

10

802.11s or WDS with IS-IS and SPB makes for a rather simple ‘mesh’ system for this type of product. I don’t think the ‘mesh’ protocols are all that practical for the most part so this is more about healing a malfunctioning AP or switch link so an emergency turns into a maintenance task. RTSP is almost good enough but I really really hate that mid-ring stp block, that’s it’s own set if irritations and bottlenecks that keep the emergency up in the ‘critical to fix right now’ zone.

1 Like