Seamless roaming

JKnott

Put different access points up with the same SSIDs on the same layer 2 networks and have a cocktail.
Controllers can try to steer clients to different radios but it is ultimately up to the clients.

Without a controller, the client has to log onto each AP as needed and once connected won't let go until the signal is too weak. With a controller, the client logs onto the controller and dumb APs act essentially as a bridge. This means the time to transfer between APs is shorter and smoother. Also, a controller can control which AP a client uses, simply by sending traffic for that client through the desired controller. It can also observe the client signal at multiple APs, to determine which is the best to use. Cisco APs, out of the box, must be used with a controller and cannot work stand alone. If you want to use it stand alone, you have to load different firmware.

johnpoz

@JKnott said in Seamless roaming:

Also, a controller can control which AP a client uses, simply by sending traffic for that client through the desired controller.

Huh? That is not how unifi works at all.

mcury

@mcury said in Seamless roaming:

@johnpoz I'm using that 5.24 firmware, found it to be stable.
However, the throughput in my 5GHz network is around 300Mbps using the 80MHz width.
In previous firmware, I was getting around 550mbs in 80MHz .
My RF scan is working, but it seems that it's only working in MTK chips, like nanohd..

Regarding the info above, for the 40MHz and 80MHz speed test, it seems that I could be wrong about it.
Someone there in the ui.com forum, did a test and he got higher speeds than me..
I'm still trying to identify what is happening here..

johnpoz

What speed you see is going to have lots and lots of variables to be sure.. Just because user X gets speed Y, doesn't mean you will see the same speed even if using the same AP, same firmware and even same client.

If you were getting better speed with firmware A, then run firmware A and not B - unless there is something in B that you really really want/need. Then when firmware C comes out - try that one.

To me the difference on say a phone or tablet between 300mbps and 550 is pretty pointless - since anything you do on such a device is going to be way lower than that ;) Even streaming a 4k movie would require less than 100mbps for example.

mcury

@johnpoz Yes, but it's strange, he is getting twice speed as me..
I'm stuck somehow at 300Mbps, he got 613.. I'll try another firmware to be sure about this..
Unfortunately I can't test right now, otherwise my family would ban me from my house

johnpoz

What was the PHY his client was connected at? Going to be a big different if your at 866.7 and he was at 1300 (3 streams)... Which could be the case and could explain his 600 number.. Which seems pretty freaking high for a 867 PHY.. 70% real world bandwidth seems a bit unlikely.. But if at a 1300 phy, then 613 is more in the realistic area of the overhead for wifi.

mcury

According to his post, he was using an Apple device, 866/866Mbps

https://community.ui.com/releases/UAP-USW-Firmware-5-24-0-11950/74e3acca-9a22-4fa0-b76c-c654854638d4#comment/418023aa-13b2-43b0-b2b0-7fc94de12ad3

johnpoz

Well I don't buy his numbers to be honest... 70% real world seems a bit optimistic to be sure ;)

If you want a real world test - load up all your devices doing speed tests at the same exact time.. What is the combined throughput.. That is what is going to matter.. Doing what mobile devices do - the difference between even 300 and 550 is not going to really be noticed by the user.. Is your music going to stream slower ;) Maybe your movie buffers for .2 seconds longer before it starts ;)

JKnott

@johnpoz said in Seamless roaming:

Huh? That is not how unifi works at all.

I wasn't talking about Unifi. I was referring to systems that use controllers for log in and controlling access to the APs. I first heard of this 11-12 years ago, but I've forgotten the company name. They referred to it as "blanket" WiFi. With that system, you had to use their switch and not just plain PoE.

mcury

Yes, you are completely right :)
It's working flawless, roaming events happening, I can't really complain about it. :)

Qinn

Anyone any idea how I can get more info on the following failure: "WPA Authentication Timeout/Failure", which is under "Association Failures" in the dashboard. Tried finding it under "Events" nothing and there is no data at all under Alerts.

mcury

@Qinn You can try a cat /var/log/messages inside the AP, just ssh to it.

Qinn

@mcury Good thinking, so did it and downloaded 4 files from

/var/log 

fastapply
lastlog
messages
messages.old

First 2 were empty in the last 2 the failure was not mentioned.

mcury

@Qinn You would be getting something like this:

nanohd-BZ.v5.24.0# cat /var/log/messages | grep failure
Thu Jul 9 08:16:26 2020 user.info : stahtd[20294]: [STA-TRACKER].stahtd_dump_event(): {"auth_delta":"0","message_type":"STA_ASSOC_TRACKER","mac":"X:X:X:X:X:X","vap":"ra0","wpa_auth_failures":"1","event_type":"failure","assoc_status":"0","assoc_delta":"0","event_id":"2","auth_ts":"61017.241076"}

Qinn

@mcury said in Seamless roaming:

cat /var/log/messages | grep failure

GRumpff , did a

cat /var/log/messages | grep Failure

instead of

 cat /var/log/messages | grep failure

Found it, thanks!!

mcury

Reverted the nanohd firmware back to the stable version, 4.3.20, and the 300Mbps limitation is no longer happening..
Just saying this for information purposes, not that the users will really notice that, but I'm getting now around 600.

Qinn

@mcury Thanks for the info

johnpoz

@mcury said in Seamless roaming:

but I'm getting now around 600

On a 866.7 PHY?

mcury

@johnpoz Yeap.
5GHz 80MHz, phone shows 866Mbps

https://community.ui.com/releases/UAP-USW-Firmware-5-24-0-11950/74e3acca-9a22-4fa0-b76c-c654854638d4#comment/68e879e7-bdd4-4450-8ddd-0d3bfeed5fa4

johnpoz

Looks more like 516 mbps to me ;) Which is actually realistic.. At 60% of PHY.. not 70..

5]   0.00-10.03  sec   618 MBytes   516 Mbits/sec

Just tested off my phone to speedtest getting 437mbps down on 5.24 firmware on AC-Pro with iphone Xr.. Showing a 780 PHY.. Or 56% which is good..