Hi, do anybody know something about POE (in/out) with this unit ?

Official website have listed there informations :
PoE in input Voltage 11-57 V

My RB5009 with 48V power supply thinks differently (according to my log) :
ether5 detected poe-out status: voltage_too_high


So where is the truth ?

Hmmm, not sure if RB5009 can output 48V when device on the other end is passive PoE and not 802.3 af/at which is the case with hAP ac.

Auto negotiation fails and you get error message you see here.

EDIT: Checked right now, RB5009 only outputs 802.3 at/af. Only thing that comes to my mind now is to force poe on if possible but then you really need to be careful what are you plugging in to that port.

thx for you answer bro, forced POE scares me....

With hAP ac there shouldn't be any problem.

Hi, rushlife!
I'd like to reproduce the same setup as in your case: turn my current hAP ac into Wi-Fi access point only and buy RB5009UPr to use it as a main home router. hAP ac I want to power using PoE. So could you please answer:
1. Did you succeeded powering hAP ac from your RB5009 by PoE with 5009's 48V power supply?
2. Did you overcome fear with forced PoE or found other solution (for example, use PoE-splitter or lower-voltage power supply for RB5009)?

Unfortunately, no, this setup is not working. After "forced POE" turning on I've got a message about overload on RB5009. Message was:
ether3-POE detected poe-out status: overload
That is strange, as for RB5009UPr with default power supply (49.4V by system health) and specification record:

Max out per port output (input 30-57 V) 440 mA

I should have 49.4*0.440=21.7W output per port. Maximum power consumption for hAP ac is 17W, so there should be no any overload. But still it's here

Unfortunately, no, this setup is not working.

How long are UTP cables between RB5009 and powered devices?

Hi, mkx!
The cable is about 20 meters long. One cable side is connected directly to RB5009, another side is RJ45 wall socket. Plus one-meter cable from wall socket to hAP ac.

20m long cables should not kill PoE .... but at these lengths losses are not negligible. Voltage, available at power receiver's side will be lower, which means that receiver will draw higher current (to fulfill power budget requirements). And this in turn means that PSE (power provider) has to provide (significantly) more power than powered device draws. This is where simple power calculations fail.

mkx, thank you for the reply!
I've also got a reply from MikroTik support. They answered that overload messages when using forced-on PoE mode is an issue, that will be fixed in one of the upcoming RouterOS versions.