If you were deploying all new APs today, N or AC?
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
I believe that that is true too. However, it cannot use that unless both sides of the connection are AC. Otherwise the signal might reach the laptop or phone, but the signal from the phone can't get back to the AP.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
I know AC runs on the 5GHz channel, which you are right in saying has a smaller range than the 2.4GHz channel, but less interference. It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
FYI these are not channels, these are bands. The 2.4GHz band has eleven standard channels inside of it.
My bad. I misused the term. I do know the difference. I'm just doing too much at once right now.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
Absolutely. You'd still be limited to N speeds, but you'd have a greater range physically, which means you can actually use fewer APs to cover the same amount of space. Theoretically.
No, the limit would be both the speed as well as the range. Can't think of any physical way that going to AC on the AP can change the range of the mobile device.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
2.4 on a AC AP is still N. AC is only 5Ghz.
Does AC on 5GHz even go as far as N on 2.4GHz then?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
I believe that that is true too. However, it cannot use that unless both sides of the connection are AC. Otherwise the signal might reach the laptop or phone, but the signal from the phone can't get back to the AP.
Not at all. It's still an N signal, just a higher powered one. It's like what happens if you put higher octane gas in your car. Your car may normally take 87, but if you put 93 in, you'll have more kick and slightly better MPG from the same car.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@g.jacobse said:
In additional to getting GB switches - I would suggest Fiber between them if possible.
If Fiber is not possible now,.. at least set the ground work for it in the future. It'll pay for itself in spades later...
What's the upside to fiber? Costs more, less flexible, easier to break, harder to work with. Unless you can't use copper, use copper.
Fiber between Switchs/ buildings. If they are 10 inches apart, fiber is nearly pointless. But if they are 200 to 300 feet, why not? There isn't the EM noise issues, though there won't be any EM noise with properly selected cooper either.
-
@g.jacobse said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@g.jacobse said:
In additional to getting GB switches - I would suggest Fiber between them if possible.
If Fiber is not possible now,.. at least set the ground work for it in the future. It'll pay for itself in spades later...
What's the upside to fiber? Costs more, less flexible, easier to break, harder to work with. Unless you can't use copper, use copper.
Fiber between Switchs/ buildings. If they are 10 inches apart, fiber is nearly pointless. But if they are 200 to 300 feet, why not? There isn't the EM noise issues, though there won't be any EM noise with properly selected cooper either.
Yeah, I can agree with this. If you're just connecting multiple switches together that are stacked in a rack, copper is fine. But between buildings? Fiber would make sense.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@g.jacobse said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@g.jacobse said:
In additional to getting GB switches - I would suggest Fiber between them if possible.
If Fiber is not possible now,.. at least set the ground work for it in the future. It'll pay for itself in spades later...
What's the upside to fiber? Costs more, less flexible, easier to break, harder to work with. Unless you can't use copper, use copper.
Fiber between Switchs/ buildings. If they are 10 inches apart, fiber is nearly pointless. But if they are 200 to 300 feet, why not? There isn't the EM noise issues, though there won't be any EM noise with properly selected cooper either.
Yeah, I can agree with this. If you're just connecting multiple switches together that are stacked in a rack, copper is fine. But between buildings? Fiber would make sense.
No. Fiber is really only needed if the distance requires it. Install multiple runs of Cat7 (even stp) will be cheaper than fiber if its within limits.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
It could be the antennaes but my understanding was that the 2.4GHz channel on AC routers had a stronger signal than your standard N routers.
I believe that that is true too. However, it cannot use that unless both sides of the connection are AC. Otherwise the signal might reach the laptop or phone, but the signal from the phone can't get back to the AP.
Not at all. It's still an N signal, just a higher powered one. It's like what happens if you put higher octane gas in your car. Your car may normally take 87, but if you put 93 in, you'll have more kick and slightly better MPG from the same car.
Higher power means nothing. Nor is that related to buying an AC AP, is related to the specific model you bought.
With APs its better to use lower power (hence why we use minium RSSI in deployments) as it keeps edge devices from slowing down everyone else. A device that can connect but can also send back slowly will slow everyone else down. This is the case with things like the UAP LR and the reason they aren't a good choice for connecting endpoint devices.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
Yeah, I can agree with this. If you're just connecting multiple switches together that are stacked in a rack, copper is fine. But between buildings? Fiber would make sense.
Assuming buildings are farther apart than copper will handle. Even between buildings copper can be fine when the buildings are close.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
Not at all. It's still an N signal, just a higher powered one. It's like what happens if you put higher octane gas in your car. Your car may normally take 87, but if you put 93 in, you'll have more kick and slightly better MPG from the same car.
If your goal is higher powered N, buy a better N AP, not an AC AP.
-
@g.jacobse said:
There isn't the EM noise issues, though there won't be any EM noise with properly selected cooper either.
Because fiber comes with loads of caveats, the biggest ones being cost. Unless you are dropping packets with copper, fiber has literally no performance or reliability advantage. If you are dropping packets, you need to address what is wrong with your copper. EM should not impact you under normal conditions.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Not at all. It's still an N signal, just a higher powered one. It's like what happens if you put higher octane gas in your car. Your car may normally take 87, but if you put 93 in, you'll have more kick and slightly better MPG from the same car.
If your goal is higher powered N, buy a better N AP, not an AC AP.
Yes, but if you can gain the range benefit and also have the AC ready to go when your computers start coming with AC cards, why not?
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Not at all. It's still an N signal, just a higher powered one. It's like what happens if you put higher octane gas in your car. Your car may normally take 87, but if you put 93 in, you'll have more kick and slightly better MPG from the same car.
If your goal is higher powered N, buy a better N AP, not an AC AP.
Yes, but if you can gain the range benefit and also have the AC ready to go when your computers start coming with AC cards, why not?
Because that's not a feature of AC. It's a feature of a long range AP. 2.4ghz on a N AP and an AC AP is exactly the same.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Not at all. It's still an N signal, just a higher powered one. It's like what happens if you put higher octane gas in your car. Your car may normally take 87, but if you put 93 in, you'll have more kick and slightly better MPG from the same car.
If your goal is higher powered N, buy a better N AP, not an AC AP.
Yes, but if you can gain the range benefit and also have the AC ready to go when your computers start coming with AC cards, why not?
We just discussed how range does not improve.
-
Remember, investing today in technology for tomorrow means you pay a premium for that technology. What if, by the time you are ready for AC, the next thing is out. Will you invest again in something that you cannot use? You are just continuously losing money doing that. You need a tangible benefit to your investments, especially when they are large (in percentage, normally.) AC is not cheap compared to N, it's not like a couple extra dollars. It's real money that you lose, money that could have been banked and used to buy even better stuff when the right time came and a need existed.
-
On topic: If I am going to deploy APs today, I would only recommend AC based units.
None of my clients lease hardware They purchase it. This hardware will be in place for 6+ years unless some other business need forces it to be changed before that. This means that all hardware purchased needs to be thought about with implications to future usage.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Remember, investing today in technology for tomorrow means you pay a premium for that technology. What if, by the time you are ready for AC, the next thing is out. Will you invest again in something that you cannot use? You are just continuously losing money doing that. You need a tangible benefit to your investments, especially when they are large (in percentage, normally.) AC is not cheap compared to N, it's not like a couple extra dollars. It's real money that you lose, money that could have been banked and used to buy even better stuff when the right time came and a need existed.
I think arguing that because AC isn't an official standard yet so not using it doesn't make sense is a foolish way to go about it considering it was what, a decade before N became an official standard?
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Remember, investing today in technology for tomorrow means you pay a premium for that technology. What if, by the time you are ready for AC, the next thing is out. Will you invest again in something that you cannot use? You are just continuously losing money doing that. You need a tangible benefit to your investments, especially when they are large (in percentage, normally.) AC is not cheap compared to N, it's not like a couple extra dollars. It's real money that you lose, money that could have been banked and used to buy even better stuff when the right time came and a need existed.
I think arguing that because AC isn't an official standard yet so not using it doesn't make sense is a foolish way to go about it considering it was what, a decade before N became an official standard?
It was only about 6-7 years. But, I don't think that's the issue it's deploying something that's overkill for your needs. If you really need those improved speeds go for it. If not your wasting money and may never need it. Along with the fact that by the time you do need it something may have replaced 802.11AC and you spent more on your last deployment just to have to upgrade it again to meet the needs.
Most do not need the benefits of AC. In a medium size deployment AC will easily cost tens of thousands more. Also in deployments you have to consider you have less room for interference (and more chances of it) with a 256-QAM Constellation of AC.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Remember, investing today in technology for tomorrow means you pay a premium for that technology. What if, by the time you are ready for AC, the next thing is out.
Any new deployment that is going to need APs will also mean there is very likely newer hardware onsite.
FWIW, AC is active and in use on the few AC capable APs I have installed so far.
