Ruckus Wireless WAN Room for Improvement
In terms of room for improvement in Ruckus Wireless WAN, I cannot find a fault with it. It's pretty decent and it deploys easily. The product is also easily maintained. It has very few issues. The RMA process in Ruckus Wireless WAN also works brilliantly. There is nothing I can think of at the moment. I'm not an engineer.
Pricing could be improved in Ruckus Wireless WAN because obviously, everybody wants things to become cheaper. Another room for improvement in the product is from a delivery perspective, particularly the heavy delivery delays because of the chip shortage that a lot of manufacturers have to deal with. The chip shortage is not coming to an end, but Ruckus Networks has to make a plan because the ETA has slipped out from the average of three months on switches to fourteen months, which is very, very rough on the industry at the moment. Ruckus Wireless WAN could lose business to Chinese competitors, for example, HTC has a good wireless solution that I haven't tested yet, other than on POC, and it works great. I haven't yet experienced the HTC wireless solution in large deployments, so you never know how it's going to go, but HTC has managed to circumvent the chip shortage, so the ETA provided by HTC is much more preferred than the ETAs provided by Ruckus Networks, Cisco, and Aruba products.
What I would love, from a service delivery management perspective, is for Ruckus Wireless WAN to look at things like repeat offenders and best practices such as "your power settings on your APs are too high or too specific". APs are constantly fighting for airspace and it would be good if there was some type of analytics in the background that shows you the little nitty-gritty repeat offenders, instead of always looking at the big issue picture. It would be good for the product to focus on the small issue picture as well.
In the next release of Ruckus Wireless WAN, I would also like it to focus on the small things that optimize opportunities within a wireless network because if you sit with a network with five thousand access points, sometimes two APs are too close to one another or are on the same channel, and though auto channel settings sound very cool, if a third party comes in with a wireless device that's on channel sixty for five gigahertz, then that specific Ruckus AP might try to change the channel to another channel, but then the access point next to it needs to change, and so does the access point next to it, and it becomes a ripple effect of changing channels, just because a third party user is interfering with your channel. This sounds cool, but it creates so much overhead on your resources for your access points that it's not worth it because that person will just move along and then cause more confusion as he works with that device. If it's a static device, then an AP can just tell you that there's a third-party device that is interfering with a specific access point so that you can go to the site, locate the third-party device, and negotiate with the third-party owner to change the channel or lower the power settings.
Ruckus Wireless WAN having a more focused approach than a blanket approach is what I'd like to see in its next release.View full review »
IT PM at a university with 1,001-5,000 employees
There's nothing that anyone else is doing that the Ruckus doesn't do.
If you compare to the market, I don't see room for improvement, to be honest. There's nothing feature-wise that I see with Ruckus that I think can be improved at the moment.
Of course, we'd always like it to be cheaper, but that's for every product.
Asset trackingView full review »
DevOps System Engineer at Monash University
The solution could be more stable.