Question Moving on from last evolution

[SparkyLB]

To avoid the mile-long thread, I'm creating this thread to ask one question.

If you may recall, I have an LAPAC 1750, and an LAPAC 1200. They can not be connected to the network simultaneously. When the 1750 is running, it does it's job in its part of the house. When the 1750 is removed and replaced with the 1200, the 1200 will not be recognized, error message suggests it's not connected to the internet.

I'm going to dispense with the LAPACs, and get 2 (or 3), Ubiquity WAPs. We'll start with 2

My question to the forum is is for a 3,200 sq. ft. home, one level, and no specific need other than to extend the wireless range of my ISPs router, which Ubiquity would you suggest?

I prefer them all being the same make and model. I don't desire operation or admin. from "the cloud." I want two, free-standing WAPs connected to the PoE ports on my switch. As others have said, I don't even want my network to know they're there. If they didn't receive an IP address, even better. I'm looking to simplify and make the house a beacon of wireless.

Thank you all.
Larry.

 

[Barty1884]

You lost me with "I don't even want my network to know they're there." You don't want your network to know WAPs exist?

That being said, to the 3,200 Sq Ft, single level question - I'd expect two of any modern Unifi APs to do the job with no issues (or potentially a single "LR" - although that's just transmit power turned up to 11, essentially). I have two older UAP-PROs in my typical ~2,700 3 storey (including basement), which is extreme overkill. For 3,200 single level, I'd definitely want to share the load between two.

I'd suggest starting with 2x U6-Pro-US

 

[kanewolf]

You lost me with "I don't even want my network to know they're there." You don't want your network to know WAPs exist?

That being said, to the 3,200 Sq Ft, single level question - I'd expect two of any modern Unifi APs to do the job with no issues (or potentially a single "LR" - although that's just transmit power turned up to 11, essentially). I have two older UAP-PROs in my typical ~2,700 3 storey (including basement), which is extreme overkill. For 3,200 single level, I'd definitely want to share the load between two.

I'd suggest starting with 2x U6-Pro-US

The U6Pro is fairly expensive. The U6Lite does not lose thst much. For the cost of two U6Pro, you can definitely get three Lites. More physical APs is always better. Put APs where the clients are. Don't try to "cover" co-locate.

 

[Barty1884]

The U6Pro is fairly expensive. The U6Lite does not lose thst much. For the cost of two U6Pro, you can definitely get three Lites. More physical APs is always better. Put APs where the clients are. Don't try to "cover" co-locate.

Valid point. $99 for the Lite vs $159 for the Pro (I was looking at CAD, $150 for the Lite, $200 for the Pro)
Depending on the layout, 2x Pros (or Lites) might work fine..... throwing a third into the mix, seems like you're bound to run into overlap. Ubiquiti's handoff works pretty well in my experience, but I wouldn't push it too much.

 

[kanewolf]

Valid point. $99 for the Lite vs $159 for the Pro (I was looking at CAD, $150 for the Lite, $200 for the Pro)
Depending on the layout, 2x Pros (or Lites) might work fine..... throwing a third into the mix, seems like you're bound to run into overlap. Ubiquiti's handoff works pretty well in my experience, but I wouldn't push it too much.

I have 4 APs in my 1900 sq ft house. Handy when doing firmware updates.
Three APs allow one for each 2.4Ghz clear channel. I run one of my APs at 80Mhz and the rest on 40Mhz on 5Ghz. I also wire everytning thst doesn't move.

 

[SparkyLB]

In the OP that links to this thread, there were several mentions that, "WAP's can be called dumb devices," I took that to mean they don't necessarily have to operate with an IP address of their own. In a similar thought one said that your router doesn't need to know there's a WAP in the network. In my less-sophisticated mind, I equate this with (and please correct me if I'm wrong) a WAP does one thing--it extends (where the router has wireless capability that's ON, or creates a wireless network if using a router with no wireless capability. It was also mentioned that the router doesn't "know" the WAP's clients are wireless entities.

The less complex for me, the better. So, my apologies, but my statement "I don't even want my network to know they're even there," is an extension of what I read in my my earlier post.

 

[kanewolf]

In the OP that links to this thread, there were several mentions that, "WAP's can be called dumb devices," I took that to mean they don't necessarily have to operate with an IP address of their own. In a similar thought one said that your router doesn't need to know there's a WAP in the network. In my less-sophisticated mind, I equate this with (and please correct me if I'm wrong) a WAP does one thing--it extends (where the router has wireless capability that's ON, or creates a wireless network if using a router with no wireless capability. It was also mentioned that the router doesn't "know" the WAP's clients are wireless entities.

The less complex for me, the better. So, my apologies, but my statement "I don't even want my network to know they're even there," is an extension of what I read in my my earlier post.

If you want dumb devices, then Ubiquiti UniFI is probably not the right choice for you you, IMO. UniFI is intended for advanced home and small business installations. To utilize them optimally, you have to understand them. There are lots of videos and lots of how-to articles. But if you want dumb, you don't want UniFI. You will be disappointed in what you spent vs what you get.

 

[Barty1884]

Unifi devices can operate in "dumb" mode - phone app for one-time setup, set & forget, no management software running - but, to kanewolf's point, you'll be disappointed for what you spend on them if you're only using the absolute basic features.

While you can have a pretty dumb AP, I can only think of scenarios where you reuse old routers for their AP functionality where that would make sense. I can't actually think of any POE AP that is truly 'dumb' (vs having a dumb mode)..... typically, any POE deployment would also be looking for some aspects of management. Mikrotik probably have something.... they appear to have just about everything, but I have no hands-on experience with them to comment.

As mentioned, the Ubiquiti/Unifi ecosystem is relatively user friendly - and you can expand into cameras, doorbells & more if you want down the road. I can certainly recommend the ecosystem if used to even 50% of it's capability... but in terms of a dumb AP, it's probably not what you're looking for.

Highly recommend you do some research o nthe functionality, interface etc before you go dropping a few hundred dollars (or equivalent) on Ubiquiti gear.

 

[SparkyLB]

Thanks, all. My questions might be a little strong for my ability to decipher the answers.

 

[kanewolf]

Thanks, all. My questions might be a little strong for my ability to decipher the answers.

If you are thinking about UniFI then look at some of the getting started videos on YouTube. That should tell you if that isn't the right hardware.

From your original question, do you have ethernet cable in the ceiling or on wall plates in the areas you want to add APs ?

 

[SparkyLB]

Hi, Kanewolf. The50' long TIAB cables run from switch (it has the PoE ports) and are run in the ceiling.

 

[kanewolf]

Hi, Kanewolf. The50' long TIAB cables run from switch (it has the PoE ports) and are run in the ceiling.

The reason I asked that is whether a router, running as an AP would be appropriate. With a ceiling mount requirement, the answer is no.
POE has changed over time. The newest APs are POE+ (higher wattage). Be careful matching the power output of the switch with any AP you choose.

 

[SparkyLB]

Thank you. Good information.