Skip to main content

44 Messages

 • 

710 Points

Tue, May 24, 2016 12:14 AM

OSX Roaming, etc

Do these recommendations still hold true for OSX clients? https://forums.ruckuswireless.com/ruckuswireless/topics/best_practice_optimization_by_cli_for_zone_d...

We're having frequent roaming and disconnect issues with Apple products, so far Ruckus support hasn't been very helpful or insightful. I've recently tested ofdm-only, but it doesn't seem to be a silver bullet.

I've got R710s almost at min tx power due to the density of our deployment and limitations of the building's design (i.e. one main floor with Mezzanine levels above some areas...cinderblock walls, concrete floors, etc.)

Responses

44 Messages

 • 

710 Points

5 years ago

Should I enable smart-roam instead of dealing with ofdm-only and bss-minrate?

https://support.ruckuswireless.com/answers/000002277

116 Messages

 • 

2.3K Points

5 years ago

This summer we are installing a brand new Ruckus network with 400 R710 and two virtual controllers. We have a lot of Apple devices and am interested in seeing the outcome of this. Roaming and disconnect issue have me worried. We also have a lot of Win7 machines and Chromebooks, and iOS devices. Are you seeing roaming and disconnect issues with these devices as well?

44 Messages

 • 

710 Points

5 years ago

We have a few W8.1 + W10 clients, no chromebooks. I've seen some roaming from the W8.1 clients, but not as much the OSX/iOS devices.

116 Messages

 • 

2.3K Points

5 years ago

You mention support has so far not been of much help. Have you had a case open for awhile? Are you on the latest version of code?

44 Messages

 • 

710 Points

5 years ago

We're on 9.12.2.0 build 101 (I believe this is the latest). It's been open/closed/reopened for close to a month now.

Ruckus, I'd really love some sort of best practice guide for OSX clients.

222 Messages

 • 

3.6K Points

5 years ago

Ok, look at this from a different angle; roaming is a client orientated function so maybe you need to look at the WLAN properties so see if they are 'optimized' for Apple devices. Apple devices are very specific about how they work but on the plus side its normally well documented. take a read of this and I would suggest making use of 802.11r

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT206207
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT203068

44 Messages

 • 

710 Points

5 years ago

Thanks, Robert. I should have found those Apple docs by now :). Those should help and I just switched on 802.11r.

116 Messages

 • 

2.3K Points

5 years ago

Jason,

Let us know how it goes, I am very interested in hearing

Dave

44 Messages

 • 

710 Points

5 years ago

Also, just to note from the document above OSX does not support 802.11r, but interoperates with it. iOS does support it. I'm mostly concerned with OSX clients.

222 Messages

 • 

3.6K Points

Also note that 802.11r has been known on occasion to cause issues with older 802.11 devices so do keep an eye/ear out for reports of issues on other devices (if you have them).

116 Messages

 • 

2.3K Points

5 years ago

I thought I read somewhere that 802.11r is supported in El Capitan (OSX 10.11.x). Is that not true?

44 Messages

 • 

710 Points

5 years ago

It might...a quick search doesn't come up with anything definitive. I also can't tell how old the OSX document above actually is.

116 Messages

 • 

2.3K Points

5 years ago

We are sitting on Yosemite across the board right now and I am contemplating jumping to El Capitan for better support of enterprise wireless standards

44 Messages

 • 

710 Points

5 years ago

Okay, there doesn't seem to be issues with 10.9+ and 802.11r, but 10.9 and below forced OSX clients to authenticate with username/password for a WPA2 wlan that previously only required a password.

66 Messages

 • 

902 Points

5 years ago

I have looked into this with ruckus support
The  WIFI stays up with a strong signal, but the software stack collapses somehow.
So the apple says yep i have wireless, but the data just disappears into a black hole.
sleeping or power save kicks it off.
Really there needs to be some sort of hard disconnect that forces the WIFI to re-init and then everything is good until next time.

But that said , i'm not going to be buying ruckus next time round, hardwire is good, but the software is complete crap.

44 Messages

 • 

710 Points

4 years ago

^^ I agree with itdept_head me. Ruckus support determined this is client-forced behavior.

Ruckus, I'd love some sort of paper white re: optimization for OSX/iOS devices. Similar to this Cisco document

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/technotes/8-2/b_Enterprise_Best_Practices_f...

66 Messages

 • 

902 Points

I'm also completely disappointed and underwhelmed,that i cannot  do something like:

1. ban all  "androids"  excluding the following "exceptions" (ban+whitelist)

lets not even get started that the  "zone director" maxes out at 128 banned mac addresses , I mean seriously ZD  75 AP's and 2,000 users? !!!!!

If i had a list of a maximum of 128 devices i COULD whitelist after a  device based BL , i would be happy.

222 Messages

 • 

3.6K Points

I think the question should be why you would want to have a whitelist that is more than 128 entries long when there are so many other, more manageable ways to achieve the same end result.

222 Messages

 • 

3.6K Points

@jasond Agreed Ruckus could do more to provide best practice docs etc but you have to consider the size and resources of the companies you are comparing. Also they have a strategic business partnership so its in their common interests to have a best practice doc

http://www.apple.com/uk/pr/library/20...

66 Messages

 • 

902 Points

actually the maximum black list you can build is 128.
the issue is not that i want a  list of 128, but the fact that the software will not support blocking devices in a reasonable manner. (i can ban all devices of a type) or I can have a black list of 128 devices.
i just want a better solution, to what should be a simple problem.
you state there are other 'solutions' but yet you fail to even mention any that ruckus can employ


it will only get worse once randomised  Mac make a showing
ban all  androids except  'X' makes far more sense

116 Messages

 • 

2.3K Points

Just curious, what is the use case for blocking whole classes of devices or devices by specific Mac address? I work in K-12 education and cannot think of a case where I would use this