Mesh Router System - 160MHz Backhaul?

JHZR2

Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
52,636
Location
New Jersey
Looking to build a mesh system in a house that is block and doesnt have good reception in all places from a single router setup. The property has 75 up/10 down, but want to future proof the network in a reasonable fashion.

Given my recent deployment of the Asus RT-AX56U, which can mesh, Im thinking of going with either two AX58U (which offer 160 MHz capability) or else one AX58U and one AX56U.

The downside to using the 56U is that it only has 80 MHz channels in the 5 GHz band. I dont know if that matters - I dont think it matters for me, as I live in a structure where the signal goes far enough fast enough for my needs, at least on the 2.4 GHz band. But for mesh, in a system where I cannot have a wired backhaul, it seems like 160 MHz might be useful. It is a spartan enough area that there are no competing routers on any frequency. SO Id think that perhaps it could be set up using 160 MHz for the mesh, and then the other channels for the actual connections.

Given that the speeds arent that fast, Id suspect that 80 MHz would be OK... And Im not sure if I can delegate the 160MHz channel for the backhaul.

So do we save some money and do the 56/58 combo, or just do a 58/58 combo?

Thanks!
 
You mean 75 down/10 up.

So the mesh will slow things down due to the extra hop.

How many devices at once will be using the mesh access points?

Best would be to more centrally locate the main router. Or wire to the additional access points.
 
Originally Posted by Donald
You mean 75 down/10 up.

So the mesh will slow things down due to the extra hop.

How many devices at once will be using the mesh access points?

Best would be to more centrally locate the main router. Or wire to the additional access points.


Yes, 75 down/10 up.

It's in an expansive island house, with no practical or cost effective way to wire it... frankly, even to cleanly get Ethernet from the entry point where the modem is, to a central router point.

Figure there can be 6+ adults, two streaming TVs, and a few computers running at once. Speed isn't really a concern. Much of that is already connected. The interest is in getting some, any connectivity elsewhere, like into some bedrooms and onto the back deck and yard, etc. a bit of latency isn't a huge deal, and it's unlikely that those far locations will do much streaming beyond FaceTime type stuff, maybe some YouTube.

So it's not clear to me if the 160MHz can actually be allocated for the backhaul, and if it will make a difference.
 
Mesh can work nicely, but there are a couple things you need to know. Every hop away from the root doubles the latency. Try to only have one hop in your mesh from the root. Each hop will also cut the throughput by 50%, but I don't think that will be an issue for you at 75/10. 802.11ac is designed to dynamically remove channels that have too much interference, but with few devices using the 5Ghz channels and the short propagation distance of 5Ghz, my guess is you'll won't have a problem with interference anyway. As for channels and power, always leave them at auto, again 802.11ac is designed to dynamically make changes as needed. 80Mhz bonded channels are fine and can be used without any troubles.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully the heavy streaming will go through the main WIFI router.

In this kind of mesh can you select which access point you connect to or do you just connect to one SSID and the mesh pushes you to the best access point.

In the Unifi setup I am familiar with, I have one SSID for both 2.4 Ghz and 5 Ghz and the system gets one to the best access point and you can roam from access point to access point.
 
Mesh does not work well in older homes as the backhaul gets slow going thru my 1910 walls. Latency was terrible.

I ended up fishing ethernet myself and the result incredible. I use Google Wifi($230 3 pack).
 
Hey JHZR2,

Does the house have coax lines into any of the rooms? In that case, you should check out goCoax brand of MOCA adapters. They convert coax cable into ethernert which eliminates the lack of being able to run ethernet where you need it.

If that doesn't exist, I would check out what Danno has posted up to use powerline.

In regards to the wireless mesh backhaul, They are all 5ghz and you will be running into the same attenuation issues regardless of channel width. you want signal at the mid-points between APs to be in the -60 to -75dB range.

My recommendation is to get as many Eero or Eero Pros as you need as they have the simplest set up with the best smart queue management, which helps balance limited bandwidth between devices without your network grinding to a halt bc of lag/jitter/etc.

Lastly, would recommend posting up on snbforums. This is where I grabed the signal reco:
https://www.snbforums.com/threads/help-with-ap-placement-house-layout-pictures-provided.64218/
 
Originally Posted by NYSteve
Hey JHZR2,

Does the house have coax lines into any of the rooms? In that case, you should check out goCoax brand of MOCA adapters. They convert coax cable into ethernert which eliminates the lack of being able to run ethernet where you need it.

If that doesn't exist, I would check out what Danno has posted up to use powerline.

In regards to the wireless mesh backhaul, They are all 5ghz and you will be running into the same attenuation issues regardless of channel width. you want signal at the mid-points between APs to be in the -60 to -75dB range.

My recommendation is to get as many Eero or Eero Pros as you need as they have the simplest set up with the best smart queue management, which helps balance limited bandwidth between devices without your network grinding to a halt bc of lag/jitter/etc.

Lastly, would recommend posting up on snbforums. This is where I grabed the signal reco:
https://www.snbforums.com/threads/help-with-ap-placement-house-layout-pictures-provided.64218/



No coax. No ethernet. In this sort of construction, it is incredibly difficult to run new wire - it effectively requires jackhammering out a trench through block, and then laying in conduit and then covering back with concrete, skim coat, etc.

When you say that they will all run into the same attenuation issues - I thought that 160 MHz channels allowed for much faster speeds. So wouldnt that allow the framework (backhaul) to have higher speeds, and always be bandwidth limited from the ISP? I thought that AX allowed channels to be split up, so in essence, the 160MHz backhaul would be dedicated, and then the consumers would connect to the 80MHz 5G (or the lower 2.4 GHz chanels, its not a crowded environment), which are segregated from the 160 MHz channel.

I wonder if the powerline adapter as a wired backhaul would be practical... Or if that's just dumb because it would add more hops.

I see that the powerline adapters sometimes have a wifi radio that will duplicate the main router radio - not sure I understand how that's different from a router mesh system...????
 
Originally Posted by wwillson
Mesh can work nicely, but there are a couple things you need to know. Every hop away from the root doubles the latency. Try to only have one hop in your mesh from the root. Each hop will also cut the throughput by 50%, but I don't think that will be an issue for you at 75/10. 802.11ac is designed to dynamically remove channels that have too much interference, but will few devices using the 5Ghz channels and the short propagation distance of 5Ghz, my guess is you'll won't have a problem with interference anyway. As for channels and power, always leave them at auto, again 802.11ac is designed to dynamically make changes as needed. 80Mhz bonded channels are fine and can be used without any troubles.


The routers we would use are AX, FWIW...

As I understand it, there is one 160MHz channel in the USA, and then the 80 MHz channels (which can be bonded as you mention). My thought was that the 160MHz channel for router-router comms would be a good approach, with consumers on the other channels available in the 5GHz spectrum. Not sure if it can be set/designed that way though...

80 MHz bonded channels get the same throughput (roughly) as a single 160 MHz, with more flexibility in the USA, right?
 
Higher bandwidth is really only useful at close range (i.e. in the same room). When you have to go through walls a high-bandwidth high bit rate signal is too weak to receive, so the system drops down to slower rates and / or less bandwidth.

So it's quite possible 80 vs 160 is no practical difference in your situation.

In the USA the first and last 80 MHz of the 5 GHz band is usable for wifi without restriction. The middle part of the band, which is 240 MHz wide, is shared with radar systems, and there are rules that a router has to detect radar and move to a different frequency if it is found. Much consumer equipment doesn't even try to operate there. This leads to the 80+80 channel plan instead of 160. Major airports have the radar (known as TDWR) operating 24/7. If you don't live near an airport occasionally a military plane can trip it, but that is not often.
 
Originally Posted by JHZR2



No coax. No ethernet. In this sort of construction, it is incredibly difficult to run new wire - it effectively requires jackhammering out a trench through block, and then laying in conduit and then covering back with concrete, skim coat, etc.

When you say that they will all run into the same attenuation issues - I thought that 160 MHz channels allowed for much faster speeds. So wouldnt that allow the framework (backhaul) to have higher speeds, and always be bandwidth limited from the ISP? I thought that AX allowed channels to be split up, so in essence, the 160MHz backhaul would be dedicated, and then the consumers would connect to the 80MHz 5G (or the lower 2.4 GHz chanels, its not a crowded environment), which are segregated from the 160 MHz channel.

I wonder if the powerline adapter as a wired backhaul would be practical... Or if that's just dumb because it would add more hops.

I see that the powerline adapters sometimes have a wifi radio that will duplicate the main router radio - not sure I understand how that's different from a router mesh system...????


Since the mesh wireless backhaul runs off 5ghz, I meant that if it is hard for your wifi signal to punch through your lathe/cinderblock walls, it will be hard for the backhaul to make it through since it is the essentially the same frequency.

I would definitely look at powerline. As long as it works for your house, it will beat wireless mesh for stability etc. I would look at what this person did and buy from somewhere with a nice return policy.
https://www.snbforums.com/threads/w...ne-adapter-tested-with-20-outlets.27762/
 
Originally Posted by NYSteve


Since the mesh wireless backhaul runs off 5ghz, I meant that if it is hard for your wifi signal to punch through your lathe/cinderblock walls, it will be hard for the backhaul to make it through since it is the essentially the same frequency.

I would definitely look at powerline. As long as it works for your house, it will beat wireless mesh for stability etc. I would look at what this person did and buy from somewhere with a nice return policy.
https://www.snbforums.com/threads/w...ne-adapter-tested-with-20-outlets.27762/



At the far end of the power line adapter, there's just an Ethernet cable... so if one wants to have WiFi there, then you need another router, right?

I have seen some power line adapters that have WiFi, but then it's no different then a range extender...

I wonder if the power line could be used as a wired backhaul. And then use two routers in mesh just for the seamless connectivity. The key is to have WiFi in a few key places...
 
Originally Posted by JHZR2

At the far end of the power line adapter, there's just an Ethernet cable... so if one wants to have WiFi there, then you need another router, right?

You would need a wireless access point, or a router configured as one. I use a setup like that and it works well.
 
Originally Posted by Saabist
Originally Posted by JHZR2

At the far end of the power line adapter, there's just an Ethernet cable... so if one wants to have WiFi there, then you need another router, right?

You would need a wireless access point, or a router configured as one. I use a setup like that and it works well.


Right... either WiFi built into the Powerline adapter or another router. All of which must have additional latency and hops, and thus reduced bandwidth.

So at that point why not just go with mesh?
 
Originally Posted by JHZR2
Originally Posted by Saabist
Originally Posted by JHZR2

At the far end of the power line adapter, there's just an Ethernet cable... so if one wants to have WiFi there, then you need another router, right?

You would need a wireless access point, or a router configured as one. I use a setup like that and it works well.


Right... either WiFi built into the Powerline adapter or another router. All of which must have additional latency and hops, and thus reduced bandwidth.

So at that point why not just go with mesh?


The power line adapter plugged into a wireless AP (not a router) should have much lower latency as it's almost ethernet equivalent and you have the ability to use better wireless hardware. Something like the Aruba instantON AP's mentioned earlier would be a good fit in that scenario.
 
FWIW...

Best But had the Asus AX58U on sale, $20 off.

My family member who wants a mesh system for the seamless connectivity bought one. I set up one 58U, flashed with the latest Merlin WRT, and then set up my 56U as the mesh node.

These Asus routers are pretty good in terms of signal, as they can reach out further on my property than my old netgear or Verizon routers. But there is a fringe area, so I went there to test.

With just the main router on, signal was spotty and dropped a lot where I stood.

I ran Speedtest and got:
[Linked Image]


Then I went and turned the mesh router on, Located maybe 1/3 of the distance between the main router and where I was doing the test.
[Linked Image]


Then I walked back inside and ran the test standing near the mesh node and got:

[Linked Image]


Of course, by then it could have been connected to the main router - no real way to know.

Standing by the main router, I got:
[Linked Image]


I recognize that this isn't a real and scientific test. I also realize that any useful findings would compare the 56U to two 58U routers to potentially use that 160Mhz channel.

All the same, this is the most cost effective solution I think, and it seems to work well. In cases where I've personally wanted Wi-Fi to reach to the furthest parts of my yard reliably, I've used a repeater, but this sort of mesh option seems a little bit more elegant if it works in one's situation.

When installed, if we face challenges with additional users/streamers or distance, I'll look into the power line adapter as the backhaul.
 
Personally I prefer powerline ethernet over mesh wifi. I don't trust wireless and especially the 5GHz for penetrating walls.

I have used Home Plug style adapter throughout my house with great success, the one I used is the 1200mbps mimo one. I know people complain about them not reaching the advertised speed and that's why I always pick the MIMO one. So far they have been very reliable and connection is great. Then I add access point and router throughout the house and set them all to AP mode and let the main router be the only "router" instead.
 
To be honest I don't understand the difference between an access point and a set of mesh routers.

Especially since my understanding is that an AP must have a wired backhaul, while the mesh system can be either. So more fundamentally then, the difference between wired backhaul in the mesh system and an AP setup.

If we don't get the reach or performance we want, we will do the mesh backhaul over a MIMO PowerLine adapter.
 
Back
Top