Inferior physical design of new AP6 420 vs our older APX 320

I have to admit that I had a similar thought when I upgraded to the AP6 420E. The APX 320's no-ventilation is probably not the best design -- especially for Wifi 6E -- but the ability to run the ethernet straight into the wall/celiing OR to run out out of the side was quite nice. In the future, a hybrid design would probably be best.

On the other hand, Wifi 6E is VERY nice. The whole 5GHz band is so screwed up and fragmented in multiple ways and 6GHz -- with Wifi 6 enhancements -- is the way to go. (The APX 320 also had its quirky two-radio solution, but that's another matter.)

I notice that your device has a barrel power connector, which mine doesn't -- so mine has a slightly cleaner look. Not sure if it's the region or the 420E, but mine seems to be PoE-only.

Mine are AP6 420 (without the E) for the Americas. You mentioned a good point about ventilation so that might be ok. I still don't understand the logic of why the unit needs to be larger and why the ports (ETH, Console, Reset and Power) cannot be on the back of the unit? I haven't even enable 6GHz at this point since I wanted to make sure the WiFi works fine plus the majority of smartphones and laptops in the office are not even 6 GHz compatible. I might enable that frequency in the future.

The E is for WiFi 6E, so if you don't have that, you won't have 6GHz -- as I understand it.

It's larger at least in part because it has 3 radios rather than 2, so it can simultaneously do the full 2.4 GHz, 5GHz, and 6GHz ranges. In addition, WiFi 6 (and 6E) support more sophisticated beam-forming, so a larger footprint might support that better. It'll have at least 6 antennas -- two per radio/frequency band.

The 5 GHz band is a mess, broken up into multiple pieces, having DFS frequencies (we're near an airport, so that matters), and then a new set of channels (UNII-4) that may never be supported by many devices. So I'm excited about 6 GHz. And with the loads of bandwidth plus improvements in WiFi 6/6E the effective range should be roughly the same.

Thanks for your replies. Ok so the holes for ventilation and the bigger size make sense after your explanations. Now I need an explanation of why the ports/holes were moved to the side instead of being located at the back (for a cleaner install).

Thanks for your replies. Ok so the holes for ventilation and the bigger size make sense after your explanations. Now I need an explanation of why the ports/holes were moved to the side instead of being located at the back (for a cleaner install).