Live data from Hacker News

Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

blog.google

121–130 of 200 posts

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#121
post #60
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had nothing but problems with typical consumer hardware. Having to restart routers all the time. Dead spots. When family would visit (both my wife and I have large families) they would connect at least 2 devices each to my wifi (tablet, phone, laptop, etc). My wireless would just tank. They would always ask me why my internet was so terrible. Last year I bought an Edge router and a higher end Netgear hotspot. Works…

Ubiquiti Unifi Access Points just work. I too have bought a variety of high end consumer devices (for a small business), and they all crash or randomly drop out. Disable wifi radio on router, plug in Unifi AP, solid connection. They are annoying to configure, but have been so worth it. Apple AirPort has also been rock solid.

Motion seconded on Unifi. I've just deployed these and they're so far a delight. The PoE (power-over-ethernet) support is great -- if you can get the ethernet cable to the AP's location, you're good. Allows for zero visible cable installations if you have the opportunity to do in-wall cabling.

I did spring for a "Unifi Cloud Key", which is just a small (pack of cards sized), dedicated host for running the Unifi Controller. Makes administration and updates a fair bit easier.

As someone else mentioned, they do require a wired ethernet connection, but the point of that is these are intended as (entry-level) enterprise hardware. Unifi vs. Amplifi is for contexts where 1) the administration overhead isn't a burden and 2) it's preferable to run cable and leave wifi bandwidth available for clients and/or the rich multiple network support (vs. mesh networking). Obviously, #1 means it's not intended for the general consumer market.

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, OnHub doesn't support IPv6?! That's inexcusable. There's no reason IPv6 couldn't "just work" too. Google Wifi had better support IPv6 at launch.

>That's inexcusable Except it's not, we live in an IPv4 world. Edit: How are you guys downvoting me on your v6 connections? HN only supports v4.

Maybe you haven't checked lately but we live in a world where IPv6 adoption is over 10% (over 25% in the US) after doubling each year for the past 6 years. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's inexcusable Except it's not, we live in an IPv4 world. Edit: How are you guys downvoting me on your v6 connections? HN only supports v4.

Maybe you haven't checked lately but we live in a world where IPv6 adoption is over 10% (over 25% in the US) after doubling each year for the past 6 years. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

IPv6 is important, but it's not like your ISP will lower your bill if you forego IPv4, and it's not like there are IPv6-only sites. If I recall correctly, I have to pay _extra_ for an IPv6 address.

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#124
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iPhone or Android.

Okay, that's a bit better, but it should still have a web interface.

There are security implications: How do you provision a cert for it? Do you really want it running a full web server?

The native application is pretty great, because I can manage it from anywhere. (Which includes managing my parents one from anywhere.) I've honestly not needed a web interface, after getting used to it.

A web interface is reportedly on the roadmap, but not a high priority. The last time it came up on reddit, the question asked by the PM was "how would you use it differently than the native app?" And the nice thing is, he takes those suggestions and feedback seriously.

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in downtown Manhattan and have that problem, but like OP asked, I don't think it's a huge enough problem to warrant a separate router just for the purpose. Most people simply use the router rented out from their internet provider (for free), and in most cases just make it work somehow (instead of buying a new device just for routing they would rather acknowledge that wifi doesn't work well in some parts of the…

Do any ISP really provide for free a router? Every place I've ever known will sneak it in as a couple dollars a month if you don't provide you own.

They often come free if you sign a longer contract.

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's inexcusable Except it's not, we live in an IPv4 world. Edit: How are you guys downvoting me on your v6 connections? HN only supports v4.

Maybe you haven't checked lately but we live in a world where IPv6 adoption is over 10% (over 25% in the US) after doubling each year for the past 6 years. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

It's on the roadmap, but so far hasn't passed QA testing.

The engineering time is going into upstream too, so ath9k, hostap, and other big networking libs are benefiting from this.

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#128
post #3

Serious question: whose WiFi is not working, to the degree that they think, "I really need to get a modern router to make this Internet thing actually work." I'm seeing about a dozen fancy modern wifi routers all trying to solve a problem I'm not sure exists.

I have a Netgear router and it's fine. Sometimes I have to reboot it but it seems related to Apple devices that refuse to give up their prior IP address after they've been away, causing conflicts when they return and the address has been assigned to another device in the meantime.

Re: Introducing a new kind of Wi-Fi system

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's inexcusable Except it's not, we live in an IPv4 world. Edit: How are you guys downvoting me on your v6 connections? HN only supports v4.

Maybe you haven't checked lately but we live in a world where IPv6 adoption is over 10% (over 25% in the US) after doubling each year for the past 6 years. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

Why does IPv6 availability matter here? The amount of users that need, want or even directly benefit from IPv6 is vanishingly small.
Post reply on HN