802.11ax Is NOT A Wireless Switch

802.11ax is fast approaching. Though not 100% ratified by the IEEE, the spec is at the point where most manufacturers and vendors are going to support what’s current as the “final” version for now. While the spec for what marketing people like to call Wi-Fi 6 is not likely to change, that doesn’t mean that the ramp up to get people to buy it is showing any signs of starting off slow. One of the biggest problems I see right now is the decision by some major AP manufacturers to call 802.11ax a “wireless switch”.

Complex Duplex

In case you had any doubts, 802.11ax is NOT a switch.1 But the answer to why that is takes some explanation. It all starts with the network. More specifically, with Ethernet.

Ethernet is a broadcast medium. Packets are launched into the network and it is hoped that the packet finds the destination. All nodes on the network listen and, if the packet isn’t destined for them they discard it. This is the nature of the broadcast. If multiple stations try to talk at once, the packets collide and no one hears anything. That’s why Ethernet developed a collision detection  system called CSMA/CD.

Switches solved this problem by segmenting the collision domain to a single port. Now, the only communications between the stations would be in the event that the switch couldn’t find the proper port to forward a packet. In every other case, the switch finds where the packet is meant to be sent and forwards it to that location. It prevents collisions by ensuring that no two stations can transmit at any one time except to the switch in the middle. This also allows communications to be full-duplex, meaning the stations can send and receive at the same time.

Wireless is a different medium. The AP still speaks Ethernet, and there is a bridge between the Ethernet interface and the radios on the other side. But the radio interfaces work differently than Ethernet. Firstly, they are half-duplex only. That means that they have to send traffic or listen to receive traffic but they can’t do both at the same time. Wireless also uses a different version of collision detection called CSMA/CA, where the last A stands for “avoidance”. Because of the half-duplex nature of wireless, clients have a complex process to make sure the frequency is clear before transmitting. They have to check whether or not other wireless clients are talking and if the ambient RF is within the proper thresholds. After all those checks are confirmed, then the client transmits.

Because of the half-duplex wireless connection and the need for stations to have permission to send, some people have said that wireless is a lot like an Ethernet hub, which is pretty accurate. All stations and APs exist in the contention (collision) domain. Aside from the contention algorithm, there’s nothing to stop the stations from talking all at once. And for the entire life of 802.11 so far, it’s worked. 802.11ac started to introduce more features designed to let APs send frames to multiple stations at the same time. That’s what’s called Multi-user Multi-In, Multi-out (MU-MIMO).In theory, it could allow for full-duplex transmissions by allowing a client to send on one antenna and receive on another, but utilizing client radios in this way has impacts on other things.

Switching It Up

Enter 802.11ax. The Wi-Fi 6 feature that has most people excited is Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA). Simply put, OFDMA allows the clients and APs to not use the entire transmission channel for sending data. It can be sliced up into sub-channels that can be used for low-bandwidth applications to reserve time to talk to the AP. Combined with enhanced MU-MIMO support in 802.11ax, the idea is that clients can talk directly to the AP and allocate a specific sub-channel resource unit all to themselves.

To the marketing people in the room, this sounds just like a switch. Reserved channels, single station access, right? Except it is still not a switch. The AP is still a bridge between two media types for one thing, but more importantly the transmission medium still hasn’t magically become full-duplex. Stations may get around this with some kind of trickery, but they still need to wait for the all-clear to send data. Remember that all stations and APs still hear all the transmissions. It’s still a broadcast medium at the most basic. No amount of software configuration is going to fix that. And for the networking people in the room that might be saying “so what?”, remember when Cisco tried to sell us on the idea that StackWise was capable of 40Gbps of throughput because it could send in both directions on the StackWise ring at once? Remember when you started screaming “THAT’S NOT HOW BANDWIDTH WORKS!!!” That’s what this is, basically. Smoke and mirrors and ignoring the underlying physical layer constraints.

In fact, if you read the above resources, you’re going to find a lot of caveats at the end about support for protocols coming up and not being in the first version of the spec. That’s exactly what happened with 802.11ac. The promise of “gigabit Wi-Fi” took a couple of years and the MU-MIMO enhancements everyone was trumpeting never fully materialized. Just like all technology, the really good stuff was deferred to the next release.

To make sure that both sides are heard, it is rightly pointed out by wireless professionals like Sam Clements (@Samuel_Clements) that 802.11ax is the most “switch-like” so far, with multiple dynamic collision domains. However, in the immortal words of Tyler Durden, “Sticking feathers up your butt doesn’t make you a chicken.” The switch moniker is still a marketing construct and doesn’t hold any water in reality aside from a comparison to a somewhat similar technology. The operation of wireless APs may be hub-like or switch-like, but these devices are not either of those types of devices.

CPU Bound and Determined

The other issue that I see that prevents this from becoming a switch is the CPU on the AP becoming a point of contention. In a traditional Ethernet switch, the forwarding hardware is a specialized ASIC that is optimized to forward packets super fast. It does this with some trickery, including cut through for packets and trusting the incoming CRC. When packets bounce up to the CPU to be process-switched, it bogs the entire system down terribly. That’s why most networking texts will tell you to avoid process switching at all costs.

Now apply those lessons to wireless. All this protocol enhancement is now causing the CPU to have to do extra duty to work on time-slicing and sub-channel optimization. And remember that those CPUs are operating on 18-28 watts of power right now. Maybe the newer APs will get over 30 watts with new PoE options, but that means those CPUs are still going to be eating a lot of power to process all this extra software work. Even adding dedicated processing power to the AP isn’t going to fix things in the long run. That might be one of the reasons why Cisco has been pushing enhanced PoE in the run-up to their big 802.11ax launch at the end of April.


Tom’s Take

Let me say it again for the cheap seats: 802.11ax is NOT a wireless switch! The physical layer technology that 802.11 is built on won’t be switchable any time soon. 802.11ax has given us a lot of enhancements in the protocol and there is a lot to be excited about, like OFDMA, BSS coloring, and TWT. But, like the decision to over-simplify the marketing name, the idea of calling it a wireless switch just to give people a frame of reference so they buy more of them is just silly. It’s disingenuous and sounds more like a snake oil salesman than honest technology marketing. Rather than trying to trick the users with cute sounding terms, how about we keep the discussion honest and discuss the pros and cons of the technology?

Special thanks to my friends in the wireless space for proofreading this post and correcting my errors in technology:


  1. The title was kind of a spoiler ↩︎
Advertisements

Fast Friday – Aruba Atmosphere 2019

A couple of quick thoughts that I’m having ahead of Aruba Atmosphere next week in Las Vegas, NV. Tech Field Day has a lot going on and you don’t want to miss a minute of the action for sure, especially on Wednesday at 3:15pm PST. In the meantime:

  • IoT is really starting to more down-market. Rather than being focused on enabling large machines with front-end devices to act as gateways we’re starting to see more and more IoT devices either come with integrated connective technology or interface with systems that do. Building control systems aren’t just for large corporations any more. You can automate an office on the cheap today. Just remember that any device that can talk can also listen. Security posture is going to be huge.
  • I remember some of the discussions that we had during the heady early days of SDN and how unimpressed wireless and mobility people were when they figured out how the controllers and dumb edge devices really worked. Most wireless pros have been there and done that already. However, recently there has been a lot of movement in the OpenConfig community around wireless devices. And that really has the wireless folks excited. Because the promise of SDN for them has never been about control, but instead about compatibility. The real key isn’t building another controller but instead making all the APs and controllers work better together.
  • Another great thing I’m looking forward too seeing at Atmosphere is Aruba HER. It’s an event focused on building stronger communities and increasing diversity for all. You can read a bit more about what will be going on there in this post from Claire Chaplais. Make sure to check out Zoë Rose keynoting the event as well! She’s got a very powerful story to tell. She gave us all a bit of it at Security Field Day last December in this Ignite Talk.

Tom’s Take

Make sure you stay tuned for all the things we’re going to be discussing during the event. We’re going to be using the event hashtag #ATM19 but also using #MFDx as a way to let you know about the great stuff we will have going on!

Atmosic and the Power of RF?

I recently talked to a company doing some very interesting things in the mobility space and I thought I’d take a stab at writing about them. Most of my mobility posts are about access points or controller software or me just complaining in general about the state of Wi-Fi 6. But this idea had me a little intrigued. And confused.

Bluetooth Moon Rising

Atmosic is a company that is focusing on low-power chips, especially for IoT applications. Most of their team came from Atheros, which you may recall powers a ton of the reference architectures used in wireless APs in many, many AP manufacturers that don’t make their own chips. Their team has the chops to make good wireless stuff one would think.

Atmosic wants to make IoT devices that use Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE). So far, this is sounding pretty good to me. I’ve seen a lot of crazy awesome ideas for BLE, like location tracking indoors or on-demand digital signage. Sure, there are some tracking issues that go along with that but it’s mostly okay. BLE is what the industry has decided to standardize on for a ton of IoT functionality.

How does Atmosic want to change things in the BLE space? Well, those Atheros chipset guys started out by building a chip that uses 5-10 times less power than before. That’s a staggering number when you think about it. BLE beacons already don’t use a ton of power. They’re designed to be used in concert with APs or with standalone, battery-powered devices. The BLE beacons I’ve seen from Aruba are about the size of the AirPods case. And that battery can last for a couple of years.

If Atmosic really did build a chip that can power those beacons with event 5x less power usage, you’re looking at a huge increase in the lifespan of a beacon! Imagine being able to deploy these things everywhere and have them run for a decade? You could literally cover a stadium or a hotel with them for next to nothing. Even if you included the chip in a new AP, which Atmosic is partnering to do, you could effectively run the BLE side of things for free from a power budget perspective.

This is something that is pretty big news. So why did I suddenly see things start sliding off the rails?

Unlimited Power!

The next part of the Atmosic pitch came when they told me about the the other part of their trinity of power savings. On their technology page, they tout the above mentioned chipset along with the special on-demand wake feature that allows the chips to be put into a deep sleep mode that will only awaken when it receives a special packet designed to rouse the chip like a custom alarm clock.

That third thing, though. Power harvesting. Now we’re starting to get into the real weeds of Wi-Fi stuff. Essentially, Atmosic is saying they can power their low-power BLE beacon indefinitely by harvesting power from RF in the air. Yeah, that’s right. They’re literally pulling nanoamps of power from remote power sources. Evidently, their power system is more reliable because they use known sources like 900MHz for coverage as opposed to just trying to pull the power from whatever happens to be around.

At this point, you’re probably saying one of two things:

  1. This is crap and it will never work.
  2. This is the most amazing thing ever!

Right now I tend to fall on the side of the first one. Why? Because if they really did invent a way to pull power from thin air, some really should cut them a check because they need to be building bigger, badder everythings! Imagine being able to power whatever you wanted without clunky batteries or power cords. It would be a revolution!

Sadly, the reality is that the Atmosic trinity pretty much requires all three parts to be so revolutionary. I talked to a couple of my friends in the wireless industry about this and Jonathan Davis (@SubNetwork) was about as skeptical as I was. Since he’s a real math wizard, he figured out that the amount of power being pulled in by the Atmosic chips through the air has to be pretty tiny. Like below nanoamps. And that’s not enough to run an active BLE beacon.

Building a Lower Powered Mousetrap

That’s where the whole system comes into play. It takes a very low power chip with a custom wake sensor (read: Passive Beacon) in order to be able to run on the kinds of power that you can draw from RF waves. And this is where the utility of the whole thing starts breaking down for me. Sure, you could do something crazy like put this on a piece of paper and “hide” it in the service tag of a piece of equipment like a laptop. Then you have a BLE that can track that device even if it’s powered down. But you still need a way to excite the BLE chip and make it wake up. And, at this point, if you’re doing passive Bluetooth is the solution really any better than a passive RFID tag that has the same lifespan? And is a lot cheaper?

The other issue that I have with this solution is the proposed longevity. Forever is the tag on the Atmosic site. For. Ev. Er. Sounds like a great idea in theory, right? Deploy a device in your network that can run forever on free energy and you never have to replace the batteries. Okay, that’s great. How old is your iPhone? Your laptop? Better yet, how old is the oldest piece of enterprise tech that you have on your person right now? I’d wager it can’t be more than 6 years old at this point.

Enterprises get chided for having old technology all the time. Maybe that laptop is 6 years old and still running. Perhaps those servers should have been decommissioned a refresh cycle ago. Compared to the mayfly lifespan of an iPhone, your average piece of enterprise tech is pretty long in the tooth. But not all Enterprise tech is that outdated. Take a look at wireless access points, for example. If you are running the oldest 802.11ac access point made it’s still just barely five years old, the standard having been ratified in December 2013. Most enterprises have already refreshed their 11ac Wave 1 APs. If they haven’t, they’re just holding off long enough for 802.11ax to maybe get certified this year so they can push out hot new hardware.

So, with 5-6 years as the standard for “old” technology in the enterprise, what on earth are we going to do with beacons that are a decade old? With the low-power chipset you’re already looking at a 5-7 lifespan on current battery technology if it really does deliver 5x power savings. Even current BLE beacons are designed with a short lifespan for a reason. Technology changes very fast. If you try and keep that device stuck the wall or a laptop for too long, it’s going to be out of sync with the rest of the tech around it.

Imagine trying to hook up a Bluetooth 2.x device to a current iPhone. It will work because the standards are there but it’s going to be painful because newer devices offer so much more functionality. Trying to keep devices around forever for the sake of doing it isn’t practical. And if you’re going to try and counter the argument by saying IoT devices can be around for quite a while you’re not going to win there either. Most IoT devices that are embedded for long term use wouldn’t use wireless or Bluetooth in the first place. They would be hardwired to cut down on potential points of failure. Sure, you might include something like this in the system, but it’s going to be powered enough already to not need to harvest power through the air.


Tom’s Take

I think the Atmosic people have the right idea for a baseline but their stretch goal is a bit lofty and sci-fi for my tastes. Sure, the idea of being able to harvest unlimited power from RF to run devices without batteries for years is great in theory. But technology demands for both enterprise tech and consumer/enterprise IoT devices is going to drive people to use the lowest common denominator of simplicity. I think that Atmosic has a lot of upside with these new super efficient chips. But I doubt we’re going to see anyone sucking power out of thin air any time soon.

Wi-Fi 6 Is A Stupid Branding Idea

You’ve probably seen recently that the Wi-Fi Alliance has decided the rebrand the forthcoming 802.11ax standard as “Wi-Fi CERTIFIED 6”, henceforth referred to as “Wi-Fi 6”. This branding decision happened late in 2018 and seems to be picking up steam in 2019 as 802.11ax comes closer to ratification later this year. With manufacturers shipping 11ax access points already and the consumer market poised to explode with the adoption of a new standard, I think it’s time to point out to the Wi-Fi Alliance that this is a dumb branding idea.

My Generation

On the surface, the branding decision looks like it makes sense. The Wi-Fi alliance wants to make sure that consumers aren’t confused about which wireless standard they are using. 802.11n, 802.11ac, and 802.11ax are all usable and valid infrastructure that could be in use at any one time, as 11n is 2.4GHz, 11ac is 5GHz, and 11ax encompasses both. According to the alliance, there will be a number displayed on the badge of the connection to denote which generation of wireless the client is using.

Except, it won’t be that simple. Users don’t care about speeds. They care about having the biggest possible number. They want that number to be a 6, not a 5 or a 4. Don’t believe me? AT&T released an update earlier this month that replaced the 4G logo with a 5G logo even when 5G service wasn’t around. Just so users could say they had “5G” and tell their friends.

Using numbers to denote generations isn’t a new thing in software either. We use version numbers all the time. But using those version numbers as branding usually leads to backlash in the community. Take Fibre Channel, for example. Brocade first announced they would refer to 16GB fibre channel as “Gen 5”, owing to the fifth generation of the protocol. Gen 6 was 32GB and so on. But, as the chart on this fibre channel page shows, they worked themselves into a corner. Gen 7 is both 64GB and 256GB depending on what you’re deploying. Even Gen 6 was both 32GB and 128GB. It’s confusing because the name could be many things depending on what you wanted it to mean. Branding doesn’t denote clear information.

Subversion of Versions

The Wi-Fi Alliance decision also doesn’t leave room for expansion or differentiation. For example, as I mentioned in a previous post on Gestalt IT, 802.11ax doesn’t make the new OWE spec mandatory. It’s up to the vendors to implement this spec as well as other things that have been made option, as upstream MU-MIMO is rumored to become as well. Does that mean that if I include both of those protocols as options that my protocol is Wi-Fi 6.1? Or could I even call it Wi-Fi 7 since it’s really good?

Windows has had this problem going all the way back to Windows 3.0. Moving to Windows 3.1 was a huge upgrade, but the point release didn’t make it seem that way. After that, Microsoft started using branding names by year instead of version numbers. But that still caused issues. Was Windows 98 that much better than 95? Were they both better than Windows NT 4? How about 2000? Must be better, right? Better than Windows 99?1

Windows even dropped the version numbers for a while with Windows XP (version 5.1) and Windows Vista (version 6.0) before coming back to versioning again with Windows 7 (version 6.1) and Windows 8 (version 6.2) before just saying to hell with it and making Windows 10 (version 10.0). Which, according to rumor, was decided on because developers may have assumed all legacy consumer Windows versions started with ‘9’.

See the trouble that versioning causes when it’s not consistent? What happens if the next minor revision to the 802.11ax specification doesn’t justify moving to Wi-Fi 7? Do you remember how confusing it was for consumers when we would start talking about the difference between 11ac Wave 1 and Wave 2? Did anyone really care? They just wanted the fastest stuff around. They didn’t care what wave or what version it was. They just bought what the sticker said and what the guy at Best Buy told them to get.

Enterprise Nightmares

Now, imagine the trouble that the Wi-Fi Alliance has potentially caused for enterprise support techs with this branding decision. What will we say when the users call in and say their wireless is messed up because they’re running Windows 10 and their Wi-Fi is on 6 still? Or if their cube neighbor has a 6 on their Wi-Fi but my Mac doesn’t?2

Think about how problematic it’s going to be when you try to figure out why someone is connecting to Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac) instead of Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax). Think about the fights you’re going to have about why we need to upgrade when it’s just one number higher. You can argue power savings or better cell sizes or more security all day long. But the jump from 5 to 6 really isn’t that big, right? Can’t we just wait for 7 and make a really big upgrade?


Tom’s Take

I think the Wi-Fi Alliance tried to do the right thing with this branding. But they did it in the worst way possible. There’s going to be tons of identity issues with 11ax and Wi-Fi 6 and all the things that are going to be made optional in order to get the standard ratified by the end of the year. We’re going to get locked into a struggle to define what Wi-Fi 6 really entails while trying not to highlight all the things that could potentially be left out. In the end, it would have been better to just call it 11ax and let users do their homework.


  1. You’d be shocked the number of times I heard it called that on support calls ↩︎
  2. You better believe Apple isn’t going to mar the Airport icon in the system bar with any stupid numbers ↩︎

iPhone 11 Plus Wi-Fi 6 Equals Undefined?

I read a curious story this weekend based on a supposed leak about the next iPhone, currently dubbed the iPhone 111. There’s a report that the next iPhone will have support for the forthcoming 802.11ax standard. The article refers to 802.11ax as Wi-Fi 6, which is a catch branding exercise that absolutely no one in the tech community is going to adhere to.

In case you aren’t familiar with 802.11ax, it’s essentially an upgrade of the existing wireless protocols to support better client performance and management across both 2.4GHz and 5GHz. Unlike 802.11ac, which was rebranded to be called Wi-Fi 5 or 802.11n, which curiously wasn’t rebranded as Wi-Fi 4, 802.11ax works in both bands. There’s a lot of great things on the drawing board for 11ax coming soon.

Why did I say soon? Because, as of this writing, 11ax isn’t a ratified standard. According to this FAQ from Aerohive, the standard isn’t set to be voted on for final ratification until Q3 of 2019. And if anyone wants to see the standard pushed along faster it would be Aerohive. They were one of, if not the, first company to bring a 802.11ax access point to the market. So they want to see a standard piece of equipment for sure.

Making pre-standard access points isn’t anything new to the market. Manufacturers have been trying to get ahead of the trends for a while now. I can distinctly remember being involved in IT when 802.11n was still in the pre-standard days. One of our employees brought in a Belkin Pre-N AP and client card and wanted us to get it working because, in his words, “It will cover my whole house with Wi-Fi!”

Sadly, we ended up having to ditch this device once the 802.11n standard was finalized. Why? Because Belkin had rushed it to the market and tried to capitalize on the fervor of people wanting fast connection speeds. The AP only worked with the PCMCIA client card sold by Belkin. Once you started to see ratified 802.11n devices they were incompatible with the Belkin AP and fell back to 802.11g speeds.

Belkin wasn’t the only manufacturer that was trying to get ahead of the curve. Cisco also pushed out the Aironet 1250, which had detachable lobes that could be pulled off and replaced. Why? Because they were shipping a draft 802.11n piece of hardware. They claimed that anyone purchasing the draft spec hardware could send in the lobes and get an upgrade to ratified hardware as soon as it was finalized. Except, as a rushed product the 1250 also consumed lots of power, ran hot, and generally had very low performance compared to the APs that came out after the ratification process was completed.

We’re seeing the same rush again with 802.11ax. Everyone wants to have something new when the next refresh cycle comes up. Instead of pushing people toward the stable performance of 802.11ac Wave 2 with proper design they are going out on a limb. Manufacturers are betting on the fact that their designs are going to be software-upgradable in the end. Which assumes there won’t be any major changes during the ratification process.

Cupertino Doesn’t Guess

One of the major criticism points of 802.11ax is that there is not any widespread adoption of clients out there to push us to need 802.11ax APs. The client vs. infrastructure argument is always a tough one. Do you make the client adapter and hope that someone will eventually come out with hardware to support it? Or do you choose to instead wait for the infrastructure to jump up in speed and then buy a client adapter to support it?

I’m usually one revision behind in most cases. My home hardware is running 802.11ac Wave 2 currently, but my devices were 11ac capable long before I installed any Meraki or Ubiquiti equipment. So my infrastructure was playing catchup with my clients. But not everyone runs the same gear that I do.

One of the areas where this is more apparent is not in the Wi-Fi realm but instead in the carrier space. We’re starting to hear that carriers like AT&T are deploying 5G in many cities even though there aren’t many 5G capable handsets. And, even when the first 5G handsets start hitting the market, the smart money says to avoid the first generation. Because the first generation is almost always hot, power hungry, and low performing. Sound familiar?

You want to know who doesn’t bet on non-standard technology? Apple. Time and again, Apple has chosen to take a very conservative approach to introducing new chipsets into their devices. And while their Wi-Fi chipsets often seen upgrades long before their cellular modems do, you can guarantee that they aren’t going to make a bet on non-standard technology that could potentially hamper adoption of their flagship mobile device.

A Logical Approach

Let’s look at it logically for a moment. Let’s assume that the standards bodies get off their laurels and kick into high gear to get 802.11ax ratified at the end of Q2. That’s just after Apple’s WWDC. Do you think Apple is going to wait until post-WWDC to decide what chipsets are going to be in the new iPhone? You bet your sweet bandwidth they aren’t!

The chipset decisions for the iPhone 11 are being made right now in Q1. They want to know they can get sufficient quantities of SoCs and modems by the time manufacturing has to ramp up to have them ready for stores in October. That means you can’t guess whether or not a standard is going to be approved in time for launch. Q3 2019 is during the iPhone announcement season. Apple is the most conservative manufacturer out there. They aren’t going to stake their connectivity on an unproven standard.

So, let’s just state it emphatically for the search engines: The iPhone 11 will not have 802.11ax, or Wi-Fi 6, support. And anyone trying to tell you differently is trying to sell you a load of marketing.

The Future of Connectivity

So, what about the iPhone XII or whatever we call it? That’s a more interesting discussion. And it hinges on something I heard in a recent episode of a new wireless podcast. The Contention Window was started by my friends Tauni Odia and Scott Lester. In Episode 1, they have their big 2019 predictions. Tauni predicted that 802.11ax won’t be ratified in 2019. I agree with her assessment. Despite the optimism of the working group these things tend to take longer than expected. Which means Q4 2019 or perhaps even Q1 2020.

If 802.11ax ratification slips into 2020 you’ll see Apple taking the same conservative approach to adoption. This is especially true if the majority of deployed infrastructure APs are still pre-standard. Apple would rather take an extra year to get things right and know they won’t have any bugs than to rush something to the market in the hopes of selling a few corner-case techies on something that doesn’t have much of an impact on speeds in the long run.

However, if the standards bodies prove us all wrong and push 11ax ratification through we should see it in the iPhone X+2. A mature technology with proper support should be seen as a winner. But you should see them move telegraphed far in advance with adoption of the 11ax radios in the MacBook Pro first. Once the bigger flagship computing devices get support it will trickle down. This is just an economic concern. The MacBook has more room in the case for a first-gen 11ax chip. Looser thermal tolerances and space considerations means more room to make mistakes.

In short: Don’t expect an 11ax (or Wi-Fi 6) chip before 2020. And if you’re betting the farm on the iPhone, you may be waiting a long time.


Tom’s Take

I like the predictions of professionals with knowledge over leaks with dubious marketing value. The Contention Window has lots of good information about why 802.11ax won’t be ratified any time soon. A report about a leaked report that may or may not be accurate holds a lot less value. Don’t listen to the hype. Listen to the people who know what they’re talking about, like Scott and Tauni for example. And don’t stress about having the newest, fastest wireless devices in your house. Odds are way better that you’re going to have to buy a new AP for Christmas this year than the hope of your next iPhone support 802.11ax. But the one thing we can all agree on: Wi-Fi 6 is a terrible branding decision!


  1. Or I suppose the XI if you’re into Roman numerals ↩︎

A Review of Ubiquiti Wireless

About six months ago, I got fed up with my Meraki MR34 APs. They ran just fine, but they needed attention. They needed licenses. They needed me to pay for a dashboard I used rarely but yet had to keep up yearly. And that dashboard had most of the “advanced” features hidden away under lock and key. I was beyond frustrated. I happen to be at the Wireless LAN Professionals Conference (WLPC) and ran into Darrell DeRosia (@Darrell_DeRosia) about my plight. His response was pretty simple:

“Dude, you should check out Ubiquiti.”

Now, my understanding of Ubiquiti up to that point was practically nothing. I knew they sold into the SMB side of the market. They weren’t “enterprise grade” like Cisco or Aruba or even Meraki. I didn’t even know the specs on their APs. After a conversation with Darrell and some of the fine folks at Ubiquiti, I replaced my MR34s with a UniFI AP-AC-HD and an AP-AC-InWall-Pro. I also installed one of their UniFi Security Gateways to upgrade my existing Linksys connection device.

You may recall my issue with redundancy and my cable modem battery when I tried to install the UniFi Security Gateway for the first time. After I figured out how to really clear the ARP entries in my cable modem I got to work. I was able to install the gateway and get everything back up and running on the new Ubiquiti APs. How easy was it? Well, after renaming the SSID on the new APs to the same as the old one, I was able to connect all my devices without anyone in the house having to reconnect any of their devices. As far as they knew, nothing changed. Except for the slightly brighter blue light in my office.

I installed the controller software on a spare machine I had running. No more cloud controllers for me. I knew that I could replicate those features with a Ubiquiti Cloud Key, but my need to edit wireless settings away from home was pretty rare.

Edit: As pointed out by my fact checked Marko Milivojevic, you don’t need a Cloud Key for remote access. The Cloud Key functions more as a secure standalone controller instance that has remote access capabilities. You can still run the UniFi controller on lots of different servers, including dedicated rack-mount gear or a Mac Mini (like I have).

I logged into my new wireless dashboard for the first time:

It’s lovely! It gives me all the info I could want for my settings and my statistics. At a glance, I can see clients, devices, throughput, and even a quick speed test of my WAN connection. You’re probably saying to yourself right now “So what? This kind of info is tablestakes, right?” And you wouldn’t be wrong. But, the great thing about Ubiquiti is that its going to keep working after 366 days of installation without buying any additional licenses. It’s not going to start emailing me telling me it’s time to sink a few hundred dollars into keeping the lights on. That’s a big deal for me at home. Enterprises may be able to amortize license costs over the long haul but small businesses aren’t so lucky.

The Ubiquiti UniFi dashboard also has some other great things. Like a settings page:

Why is that such a huge deal? Well, Ubiquiti doesn’t remove functionality from the dashboard. They put it where you can find it. They make it easy to tweak settings without wishing on a star. They want you to use the wireless network the way you need to use it. If that means enabling or disabling features here and there to get things working, so be it. Those features aren’t locked away behind a support firewall that needs an act of Congress to access.

But the most ringing endorsement of Ubiquiti for me? Zero complaints in my house. Not once has anyone said anything about the wireless. It just “works”. With all the streaming and Youtube watching and online video game playing that goes on around here it’s pretty easy to saturate a network. But the Ubiquiti APs have kept up with all the things that have been thrown at them and more.

I also keep forgetting that I even have them installed. That’s a good thing. Because I don’t spend all my time tinkering with them they tend to fade away into the background of the house. Even the upstairs in-wall AP is chugging right along and serving clients with no issues. Small enough to fit into a wall box, powerful enough to feed Netflix for a whole family.


Tom’s Take

I must say that I’m very impressed by Ubiquiti. My impressions about their suitability for SMB/SME was all wrong. Thanks to Darrell I now know that Ubiquiti is capable of handling a lot of things that I considered “enterprise only” features. Even Lee Hutchinson at Are Technica is a fan of Ubiquiti at home. I also noticed that the school my kids attend installed Ubiquiti APs over the summer. It looks like Ubiquiti is making in-roads into SMB/SME and education. And it’s a very workable solution for what you need from a wireless system. Add in the fact that the software doesn’t require yearly upkeep and it makes all the sense in the world for someone that’s not ready to commit to the treadmill of constant licensing.

The Cargo Cult of Google Tools

You should definitely watch this amazing video from Ben Sigelman of LightStep that was recorded at Cloud Field Day 4. The good stuff comes right up front.

In less than five minutes, he takes apart crazy notions that we have in the world today. I like the observation that you can’t build a system more than three or four orders of magnitude. Yes, you really shouldn’t be using Hadoop for simple things. And Machine Learning is not a magic wand that fixes every problem.

However, my favorite thing was the quick mention of how emulating Google for the sake of using their tools for every solution is folly. Ben should know, because he is an ex-Googler. I think I can sum up this entire discussion in less than a minute of his talk here:

Google’s solutions were built for scale that basically doesn’t exist outside of a maybe a handful of companies with a trillion dollar valuation. It’s foolish to assume that their solutions are better. They’re just more scalable. But they are actually very feature-poor. There’s a tradeoff there. We should not be imitating what Google did without thinking about why they did it. Sometimes the “whys” will apply to us, sometimes they won’t.

Gee, where have I heard something like this before? Oh yeah. How about this post. Or maybe this one on OCP. If I had a microphone I would have handed it to Ben so he could drop it.

Building a Laser Moustrap

We’ve reached the point in networking and other IT disciplines where we have built cargo cults around Facebook and Google. We practically worship every tool they release into the wild and try to emulate that style in our own networks. And it’s not just the tools we use, either. We also keep trying to emulate the service provider style of Facebook and Google where they treated their primary users and consumers of services like your ISP treats you. That architectural style is being lauded by so many analysts and forward-thinking firms that you’re probably sick of hearing about it.

Guess what? You are not Google. Or Facebook. Or LinkedIn. You are not solving massive problems at the scale that they are solving them. Your 50-person office does not need Cassandra or Hadoop or TensorFlow. Why?

  • Google Has Massive Scale – Ben mentioned it in the video above. The published scale of Google is massive, and even it’s on the low side of the number. The real numbers could even be an order of magnitude higher than what we realize. When you have to start quoting throughput numbers in “Library of Congress” numbers to make sense to normal people, you’re in a class by yourself.
  • Google Builds Solutions For Their Problems – It’s all well and good that Google has built a ton of tools to solve their issues. It’s even nice of them to have shared those tools with the community through open source. But realistically speaking, when are you really going to use Cassandra to solve all but the most complicated and complex database issues? It’s like a guy that goes out to buy a pneumatic impact wrench to fix the training wheels on his daughter’s bike. Sure, it will get the job done. But it’s going to be way overpowered and cause more problems than it solves.
  • Google’s Tools Don’t Solve Your Problems – This is the crux of Ben’s argument above. Google’s tools aren’t designed to solve a small flow issue in an SME network. They’re designed to keep the lights on in an organization that maps the world and provides video content to billions of people. Google tools are purpose built. And they aren’t flexible outside that purpose. They are built to be scalable, not flexible.

Down To Earth

Since Google’s scale numbers are hard to comprehend, let’s look at a better example from days gone by. I’m talking about the Cisco Aironet-to-LWAPP Upgrade Tool:

I used this a lot back in the day to upgrade autonomous APs to LWAPP controller-based APs. It was a very simple tool. It did exactly what it said in the title. And it didn’t do much more than that. You fed it an image and pointed it at an AP and it did the rest. There was some magic on the backend of removing and installing certificates and other necessary things to pave the way for the upgrade, but it was essentially a batch TFTP server.

It was simple. It didn’t check that you had the right image for the AP. It didn’t throw out good error codes when you blew something up. It only ran on a maximum of 5 APs at a time. And you had to close the tool every three or four uses because it had a memory leak! But, it was a still a better choice than trying to upgrade those APs by hand through the CLI.

This tool is over ten years old at this point and is still available for download on Cisco’s site. Why? Because you may still need it. It doesn’t scale to 1,000 APs. It doesn’t give you any other functionality other than upgrading 5 Aironet APs at a time to LWAPP (or CAPWAP) images. That’s it. That’s the purpose of the tool. And it’s still useful.

Tools like this aren’t built to be the ultimate solution to every problem. They don’t try to pack in every possible feature to be a “single pane of glass” problem solver. Instead, they focus on one problem and solve it better than anything else. Now, imagine that tool running at a scale your mind can’t comprehend. And you’ll know now why Google builds their tools the way they do.


Tom’s Take

I have a constant discussion on Twitter about the phrase “begs the question”. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. Almost every time the speaker really means “raises the question”. Likewise, every time you think you need to use a Google tool to solve a problem, you’re almost always wrong. You’re not operating at the scale necessary to need that solution. Instead, the majority of people looking to implement Google solutions in their networks are like people that put chrome everything on a car. They’re looking to show off instead of get things done. It’s time to retire the Google Cargo Cult and instead ask ourselves what problems we’re really trying to solve, as Ben Sigelman mentions above. I think we’ll end up much happier in the long run and find our work lives much less complicated.