Monday, February 11, 2019

Ubiquiti APs. Exactly what am I missing?

I’ll admit I’m a little green about networking, however in my career I, like many of you, have used multiple different access points. Cisco, fortinet, ruckus (and the cloud managed version) Aruba, and many others.

Recently, for a rush deployment our business had to push out some cheap ubiquiti access points. Customer didn’t want to pay a premium and kept talking up these cheap netgear access points. So we bent over, and convinced them to at least go for the stuff that was billed as enterprise gear.

That was about three months ago. Since then we’ve done five more deployments. An app server with the unifi control software and four or five ACPro or AC LrS

In every test were able to come up with we are able to get better stats, better control, and amazing better reliability from these access points than some of the competition.

Yet, aside from paid phone support and an SLA, I can’t think why we wouldn’t use these? Hell they’ve cheap enough that we just keep a bunch in stock and if one fails, which hasn’t happened, we just mail one down or swap it out.

It’s easy. It’s too easy. Yet I can’t think for the life of me what I’m missing out on with the 100 dollar ACPro LRS and the appserver that I would get from ruckus cloud.

I’ve got radius deployed. Captive portals, we’ve even got those finicky bastard scan guns warehouses use and they’ve been flawless.

What am I missing? The cost savings are so significant that we’re less and less worried about the SLA. And I just can’t help but feel like something is up.

Obviously, I’d never deploy these without enterprise backing for some of our medical clients. But other than that I can’t think why we wouldn’t use these elsewhere?

I feel like I’m missing something. Something big. That I’m just too green around the edges when it comes to networking that I’m missing something obvious. But please help me out. Educate me. Why should I not be buying these things? Even the most expensive 349 dollar Ap has beam-forming (at least, it claims to)



No comments:

Post a Comment