Ubiquiti released UniFi Dream Router 7 which has WiFi 7 (2.4 / 5 / 6 GHz), 4 x 2.5 GbE RJ45 ports and 1 x 10G SFP+ port.
Now I am considering to replace my RB5009 and hAP ax^3 with UDR7.
MikroTik should release product that would be similar or better than UDR7.
https://mikrotik.com/products/group/wireless-for-home-and-office?filter&s=c&f=[%22sfp%22]#! There are only 3 products which are not good as UDR7.
SFP+ on that Unifi is really a gimmick. With 2x2 chains on all bands you will hardly saturate 2.5Gbit LAN, yet alone 10Gbit SFP+ port.
Also, CPU on Unifi is worse than RB5009.
It all depends what you need. I wouldn’t swap RouterOS for Unifi OS at any circumstances.
But yes, I agree that it is time for Mikrotik to release WiFi7 devices.
That’s not exactly true. I recently tried several 10G Wi-Fi 7 SOHO routers. My own device is only 2 spatial streams. In 320 MHz channel width, the effective speed (what I measured in iperf behind router) is around 3 Gbps.
So I appreciate why 2 spatial streams routers are made with only 2.5G ports - it’s too expensive to add a 10G port for roughly 500 additional Mbps in ideal circumstances, which a regular home user would likely not notice. Even then, without 10G, even 2 spatial streams routers lose some speed. And this is before we start talking about the fact that different devices on different bands (i.e. one on 6 GHz and one on 5 GHz) might utilize the bandwidth at the same time which would saturate 6 Gbps easily (that’s why some routers go rather cheap 5G way instead of 10G, but support for 5G is worse than for 2.5G).
But 4 spatial stream routers must provide 10G. And preferably at least two 10G ports so that they can be chained (lack of 4 spatial streams and lack of second 10G port is my complaint to the new UDR).
I need a 4:4:2 Wi-Fi 7 access point with 4-8 10G ports from Mikrotik on RouterOS.
I might tolerate a 4:4:2 Wi-Fi 7 access point with 2 10G ports and 2-6 2.5G ports.
I might buy a 4:4:2 Wi-Fi 7 router with 8 10G ports or 4 10G+4 or 8 2.5G ports, however, in the end I prefer access points to be separate from the router.
Show me ANY access point or a wifi router with 4-8 10G ports. Why would access point have that many ports, especially 10G capable ? Ridiculous demand.
Without any disrespect, I think you’re too harsh.
If you are, for lack of a better word, “triggered” by my requirement of at least 4 10G ports, then you’re probably right, there are no such existing products (to my knowledge). That is why I caveated the “I need” with “I might tolerate”.
That being said, SOHO segmented Eero Max 7 released in September 2023 (almost 1.5 years ago) has two 10G ports and two 2.5G ports. Mikrotik devices are more of an enthusiast or in-between-SOHO-and-Enterprise segmented, so 1.5 years later(1) it’s quite reasonable to expect from Mikrotik(2) to go a bit further than that.
In addition, I think having two switches (10G and 2.5G) complicates the device block diagram. I appreciate I don’t know the cost difference between two 10G directly connected to CPU ports+two 2.5G switch ports vs four 10G switch ports, but I honestly believe it’s negligible. So producing an access point with 4-port 10G switch is not much more expensive than 2-port 10G switch+2-port 2.5G switch.
All in all, do I think my “I need” request is reasonable? Yes. Do I think it has high probability of being implemented by Mikrotik? No.
Do I think my “I might tolerate” request is extremely reasonable? Yes. High probability? Yes (the bigger delay would be because Mikrotik is lagging on Wi-Fi standards, not because of the amount of 10G ports I want).
Lets not talk about all the current ubi hardware alwas having a switch with 1xLine Speed to the CPU.
Including UDMs
So if its the same then the UDR7 can pull at most 2.5G via all ethernet and (according to the other poster with 320mhz) 3G via Wi-Fi only on this specific station.
Its SOHO.
The BE standard “only” got fully approved like 6 Months ago. (don’t quote me on that number 
)
An AP should be an AP. Unless its a SOHO Device.
So a normal AP might need 2 Uplinks.
Other than that im also in the boat saying mikrotik should get ready to release a 802.11be device soon.
Compared to other people in my SOHO setup im actually quite happy with MT AX Devices and would love to continue using MT WiFi when i update
My logic is as follows. AP does need at least two ports, each of which can saturate all the wireless performance - for two uplinks (redundancy) or for wired mesh (latency). They don’t need to be each connected to the CPU because you’re not going to bond their performance usually, so these ports can be switched. In case of Wi-Fi 7 2:2:2 these ports need to be at the very least 5G, preferably 10G; for 2:4:4 - at least 10G.
So your 2:4:4 Wi-Fi 7 AP already requires at least a 2-port 10G switch.
I posit that the price difference between including a 2-port 10G switch and a 4-port 10G switch is rather negligible, but it creates a lot of versatility while using Mikrotik devices in homelab/enthusiast/etc setting. Had it been Cisco, I would’ve been more “purist” and said “no one needs more than 2 10G ports in an access point, because there is only one proper way to deploy an access point in enterprise environment” (or something like that).
I appreciate that, but it’s more of a reason why Mikrotik (and Ubiquiti) “delay” with catching up to Wi-Fi standards is understandable. Because in fact, they’re not catching up, they’re just waiting for standard finalization (albeit Mikrotik seems to be usually delayed even after that; hopefully it will be different this time).
But the discussion about how many and how performant wired ports such network devices should have is kinda orthogonal to this “delay”. Everyone - SOHO and Enterprise - knew Wi-Fi 7 performance characteristics long before finalization.
So mentioning SOHO router/AP as an example here is not towards Mikrotik “delay” but towards the wired performance expectations.
I’m not harsh, I’m realistic.
Nobody ever released AP with more than 4 ports, and even 4-port is extremely rare. There’s a reason for that - no one needs it.
Also, Eero Max 7 is clasified as WiFi router, not as an AP.
Hi,
I have been deploying many CRS125-24G-1S-2HnD-IN in small businesses. Imagine a refresh of this with SFP+ 2.5/5/10G Wifi 802.11be and 2.5G switch ports. would say no for a 8x 10G 16x 2.5
I’ m also in need for such a config.
Rock
You simply don’t combine a 24 port switch with wireless. Makes no sense at all.
While it might have made some sense with 802.11n @2.4GHz, it certainly doesn’t make sense for more modern standards (e.g. 802.11ax @5GHz) snd even less for oncoming standards (WiFi7 @6GHz) where it’s a must to bring AP really close to stations (less than a few meters and direct LoS to allow throughput promised by those standards). 24-port switches are never on those spots.
Exactly.
And usually mounted in a nice rack too, oh yeah, made of metal. Bye bye wireless signal …
I’m all in for more SFP+ capable Wifi access points and some competitors already have some (or are at least experimenting, like TP-Link, ASUS). I have fiber in the home: because existing cable ducts had no space left for thick Ethernet-cables, but small fibers fit smoothly. So all my Wifi-access points run on fiber connected to SFP+ ports - at the moment I had to use a more home-brew method using OpenWrt+BananaPi-R4, but love to have something more “industrial/commercial”.