If you just take a quick look at the specs ac² and then at the specs of ax², you will see that ax² has higher antenna gain: 5-6 instead of 2-3 dBi. Same between hAP lite and hAP ax lite. Same between cAP ac and cAP ax. The only router that didn’t really get an antenna gain boost in the ax version, is the hAP ac³. And that’s because the ac version itself had already had high-gain antennas. If the pattern of “make the antenna gain higher” continues, wAP ax will have a higher antenna gain as well.
In terms of max speed specs, yeah wave those 2400 Mb/s goodbye, lol. You will never see them. Even if you figure out a way to use the 160 MHz channel, without shooting yourself in the foot in one way or another, the more than gigabit wifi connection would of course be tremendously useful on an AP with a singular gigabit ethernet port. And of course, all of that is only relevant if we assume that your client devices can do 160 MHz in the first place. Which, from my personal experience, they seem to never be able to do.
It seems to me, that NetBox 5 ax is meant as 1Gbit downstream client device, where NetMetal ax with 2.5G SFP is sharing faster upstream to multiple such clients. The NetBox doesn’t even have 2.4GHz, so it already looks like it has some specific/limited purpose.
I still haven’t executed VLAN Trunk over WiFi idea. The pair of NetMetal ax and NetBox could fit the job. It would be cheaper, than single-purpose Wireless Wire, as NetMetal ax AP would be reused for more purposes.
The NetMetal ax would be a combo of ordinary AP (SSID(s) for regular devices) and wireless trunk upstream (hidden SSID - used by NetBox). Though, 2400Mbit WiFi would be overkill in my 1Gbit LAN, but at least, the WiFi trunk should (theoretically) be fully supporting 1Gbit, on single AP, that’s simultaneously serving also regular clients.
But,… having trunk to rely on 5GHz outdoor channels, that are subject to DFS, doesn’t seem very good. Which means, that Wireless Wire should be better? But, another ugly boxes on the building. Maybe, just dig in a cable,… But, then I don’t get the purpose of these two beast devices. At least, not when one is subjected to regulations, that mandate DFS.
Having 5 Ghz back hauls and access point… things are going to get crowded.
Move to the 60Ghz backhauls, and you can use more channels to serve clients.
Have an event space I am slowly converting. They have an old 5Ghz PtMP system on the property. It runs on channel 40-48. So I have to plan all the wireless access points around that. because since its PtMP… it SLOWS down everything when anything is happening.
As I move distant APs to the clean links… clients in those areas really get to take advantage of the higher data speed and cleaner spectrum. But they all have to be in the High side of 5Ghz. Which makes me need to make smaller channels.
A humble, good-natured suggestion to Mikrotik’s marketing people: Don’t use the words “drop” or “drop-in” to market a wifi product. “Dropping” (which when spoken sounds very much like “drop-in”) wifi is not something we want.
This is a welcome arrival. I am not quite as sold on the form factor as Mikrotik seem to be (from the YouTube video), however. Given the choice of in-view on a ceiling, or other side of the ceiling, I would still choose other side for this, in a decorated room anyway. However it is much more hideable and stash-able than the cap ax so a welcome arrival, and it can be fitted much more easily to various locations where appearance is not of primary concern. I have the old wap ac tucked up in square staircases of old buildings, and above/below architraves.
