I'm just about to add a new WAX630 to my home network in order to boost both Wifi and to restructure my network and put IoT devices on a vlan.
I have a PoE+ capable switch, but I just realized after ordering the WAX630, that it mentions PoE++... Does that indicate that I either need to upgrade the switch the WAX630 gets plugged into to a PoE++ switch? Or, will it work on a PoE+ branch just fine?
Or, is there any recommended PoE++ injectors anyone recommends if it REQUIRES PoE++ to function? Additionally, will it hurt the injector if I use an existing PoE+ port into the Injector to output PoE++? Or, would it be best to disable the PoE+ output on the port going to a new PoE++ injector?
I ended up getting a Cudy POE400 90W Ultra PoE++ injector. And, yes, I do have all 3 bands working just fine with it, but I'll admit that I only have 1 6Ghz device, so it's the only client using that band. I've had no issues with 3 SSID's hosted on the AP; 2 of which are using all 3 bands (one IoT SSID is only using 2.4 & 5Ghz bands).
Full IEEE 802.3af IEEE 802.3at,IEEE802.3bt Compliant ● Up to 90W of Power on 4-pairs ● Auto detect of POE IEEE 802.3af IEEE 802.3at,IEEE802.3bt equipment ● Supports 10/100/1000Base-T applications ● LED indicators power input indication ● Distance up to 100 meters ● Internal AC/DC converter – no need for external power modules ● Easy plug-and-play installation ● Surge protection
Strongly doubt this can and will lead to a well performing AX6000 3-radio access point installation. The limitations are becoming more obvious in AX7800 3-radio access point installation, where Netgear does talk of up-to 7.8Gbps total WiFi throughput, supported by a 2.5Gbps Power-over-Ethernet and a 1Gbps Ethernet ports!
Said that, take my warnings of deploying such junk or outdated power injectors.
There are these (and many more) reasons why the industry is designing and implementing powerful and capable PoE++ switches. Get a correct spec'ed PoE++ switch supporting at least 2.5 GbE - or wait until the industry does offer full spec power injectors for this kind of deployments, somewhere later in 2023 or early 2024.
in German, I'd say this is "Perlen for die Säue werfen".
Pre-Caveat: I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, at all!
Rather than just saying the Cudy is a piece of crap and giving details why, maybe offer some suggestions as to what would be an optimal replacement for it? While I agree, it's a budget solution for me, what sort of recommendations would you make for a more capable PoE++ replacement?
The -why-it's-j was answered in (I think) sufficient details, please re-read.
The question is if you have an overall network design and layout able to carry at least 2.5 GbE between the not inexpensive WAX630 (or a WAX630E), if your other network environment ready to carry the bandwidth you expect these WAX630 access points, to your other devices on the network, being NAS (Network Access Storage), being the Internet router, and the Internet speed available.
Yes, you invested in the better WAX one can get today, you expect the best of best performance for the wireless radios and their network link.
If people ask me today what to buy on the wireless AP market, I'm going to challenge them, asking if they are stuck on the average GbE environment (router, Internet connection speed, .storage, ...). If the answer is we have GbE only, and the customers are not willing to invest heavily into the in-house network infrastructure and the environment: Buy for a few dollars an AX1800 class access point - perfectly sufficient for the time being is a WAX214v2 WiFi 6 AX1800 Dual-band PoE Wireless Access Point with it's GbE LAN connection. The starting point on the 2023 year 2.5 GbE switch and PoE++ is the basic configureable https://www.netgear.com/business/wired/switches/plus/ms108eup/ switch to make up the heart of an infrastructure to connect a WAX630 for example.
Apologies! I think you might have misunderstood my intent in the previous reply. Yes, I understand why my current PoE++ injector isn't an optimal solution. What I was trying to ask was "What are some better options than using that one?" I most likely didn't make that explicit ask more clear.
