I have been using the Netgear Orbi mesh system, which does not accept OpenWRT, and I want to replace it with something that does. I think that I need mesh because 1) I need coverage in the basement, on the ground floor, and in the converted attic, 2) the old plaster walls and a fireplace probably block signals, and 3) I want good speeds everywhere.
QUESTION 1: Could I be wrong? Could an extender/repeater or something else do what I need? If so, what equipment should I consider? Please see the next paragraph.
My knowledge of networking is deeper than most consumers' knowledge, but still basic. I do not want to have to manage hardware, install upgrades, figure out how to install and operate packages. I do not want to get frustrated while flashing firmware. I just want the network to work.
QUESTION 2: What mesh system would be good for my needs and abilities and disinclination to manage the network? Gl.inet has a mesh system that looks good to me (Convexa-B), but is sold out. Does any other vendor offer a mesh system with OpenWRT pre-installed? How hard would it be to buy three OpenWRT Ones and make them work in a mesh? How does one even get support for 802.11s in those boxes? Three years ago, people on this forum recommended the TP-Link Archer C7, the Linksys EA8300/BR8300, and the Xiaomi Mi Router 4A Gigabit Edition. Are these products or the vendors' successors to them still good options?
QUESTION 3: Vendors of OpenWRT-capable routers modify OpenWRT. Do they or could they also get access to my network as Netgear does? How important is it to use the standard OpenWRT implementation? I don't want to work hard to find a mesh system with pre-installed OpenWRT just to give another vendor the same access to my network that Netgear has.
I know I am asking for much help. I would be grateful for any. Thank you.
However you're then just back at square one where you you have no idea what channels or anything the mesh has (just like your Orbi system) and unless I'm mistaken, every Cudy based router is just dual band and you really want tri band for mesh as frollic suggested.
Many thanks to both of you, frollic and gameinn, for your quick and helpful responses.
I should have stated my concern more clearly: I hate-hate-hate that Netgear has access to my network and collects data from it. I am dealing with them now, but am not optimistic that I can shut off their access.
That is why I am interested in OpenWrt and am asking about vendor versions vs. the stock version. Should we assume that the vendors make modifications to give themselves access to our networks? Apparently, yes. Even GL.inet accesses customers' networks with their modified OpenWrt.
If I cannot shut off Netgear's access, I will probably take at least the next step, i.e., buy one tri-band router and try to get stock OpenWrt on it. If I succeed, then I will buy two more and set up my own mesh system.
"Tri-band" apparently includes support for 802.11s. Is that right?
I will learn more about tri-band routers and which ones can accept OpenWrt.
If you or anyone reading this thread have more thoughts or suggestions about my approach, including recommendations for a router, would you please share them?
Tri-band routers are usually not quite what you would expect.
Typically it means three separate radios, like so:
2.4GHz
5GHz
5GHZ low spec/lowpower for "admin" purposes.
In the proprietary oem firmware, the admin channel is used hidden in the background to facilitate some kind of node setup/tracking/scanning functionality and not used for user data.
Once official mainstream OpenWrt is flashed, all traces of the proprietary stuff is gone. Usually all three physical radios will be supported, exceptions being the likes of Broadcom chips, usb-wifi dongles etc.
The third, "admin" radio will be of limited use due to low performance. This is not always true, but often is.
You are left with a dilemma. Which frequency band to use for the mesh backhaul?
Choices:
5GHz - everyone's intuitive choice. Intuitive because it is faster, 5Ghz is less crowded etc. But it has some major downsides when used for a mesh backhaul:
The mesh backhaul needs to extend to the next node with a good quality signal, but the "ap ssid" signal should not have a large overlap with other nodes. This can be mitigated by using the low performance radio for the ap ssid but this might not be an acceptable compromise particularly as a DFS channel will often have to be used.
A mesh backhaul cannot reliably use DFS channels because false positive radar detections are very likely or even certain as a result of the transmissions from remote mesh nodes on the same backhaul. DFS will repeatedly shut down the backhaul in very unexpected ways.
The number of non-DFS, non-TPC (low power) channels is very restricted, particularly if high bandwidth is selected for high performance (HT/HE 80 160). Most channels cannot be used outdoors either.
2.4GHz- The counter-intuitive choice. Counter-intuitive because it is often crowded and is slower . But it has some significant upsides when used for a mesh backhaul:
The mesh backhaul needs to extend to the next node with a good quality signal, but the "ap ssid" signal should not have a large overlap with other nodes. This is pretty much automatic because the lower frequency has a much greater range due to being able to penetrate walls, obstructions, even air, without as much attenuation as the higher frequency band.
The often crowded nature of this band has less of an effect on a node to node mesh backhaul connections, due to its built in multipoint to multipoint nature - sometimes at the expense of neighbouring "other networks" if they are not really not just neighbours, but perhaps in the same room. This can be mitigated in almost all cases by selecting the high channels, 12 and 13 that can now be used universally.
The use of HT40/HE40 is also now legally acceptable in almost all areas and if combined with high channel selection can give surprisingly good results with 300Mb/s tx rates achievable.
The use of HE40 on low end 2 stream AX devices as nodes (typically 2 antennas with beamforming) (eg gl-mt3000) can give in excess of 500Mb/s backhaul.
The use of HE40 on high end 4 stream AX devices as nodes (typically 4 antennas with beamforming) (eg gl-mt6000) can give in excess of 1000Mb/s backhaul.
Very often, the best performance is achieved using plain old simple dual band devices (AX 4 stream if you can afford them), with the backhaul on 2.4GHz.
I would define this slightly differently, as there are a couple of very different implementations around:
e.g. Linksys WRT3200ACM
there the third radio is not really meant to be used at all, it was originally only intended to scan (and improve DFS switches), it's slow (sdio connected) and limited in functionality (e.g. bad antenna)
e.g. the Xiaomi Mi Router AIoT AX3600
here you have a full-featured, but very low-end (802.11ac/ 1x1) third radio (which can do either 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz), meant as dedicated IoT network (for Xiaomi's proprietary IoT ecosystem). Apart from the the 1x1 wifi5 speed limit (and being aware of the interference for the main radios), this radio is fully usable for 'everything'.
e.g. the Xiaomi Mi Router AIoT AX9000 makes this quad-band, by proving two 5 GHz radios (and retaining the IoT radio), split into <=ch100)
then you have a couple of ipq4019 based 'mesh' devices, e.g. ASUS map-ac2200
three full featured radios, but the 5 GHz band is split in half (one radio for ch36-64 (only), the other for ch100+ (only))
with wifi6e/ wifi7, 'triband' might refer to 2.4+5+6 GHz (with mesh devices you might also see quadband here, 2.4+low5+high5+6 GHz (low5 := ch36-64, high5 := >ch100, but not 6 GHz)
So… it's difficult, and the nuances matter depending on your use case.
Yes, for a repeater (of any kind), you want the split 5 GHz band (low5+high5).
This also applies for 6 GHz (then in the form of quad-band), as the 6 GHz signal doesn't travel (well enough) through walls to be used as backhaul (meaning the 5 GHz band needs to serve as compromise between 'fast-enough' as backhaul and sufficient indoor range to pass through walls). So 2.4+low5+high5+6 GHz, with one of the 5 GHz sub-bands used as backhaul (or, preferably, ethernet).
If/when we get this in the OpenWrt world it is going to be the proverbial "game changer" with the 6GHz band having no complicated restrictions and the potential of 320MHz HE bandwith. I expect it will be a while.
Thank you all very much for your helpful information and this educational discussion.
I anticipate difficulty setting up a mesh network because of my meager knowledge. So I am considering a three-step plan. I would be grateful for your opinions and guidance.
Buy two OpenWrt Ones (instead of conventional routers, with the hope that my work will be easier and less risky). Set one up as the root router. The house is already wired for another access point. Set up the second OpenWrt One as that access point.
If those two boxes don't give me all the coverage that I need, I might run an ethernet line to the converted attic because my needs in that room can be met through a wired connection and a weak wifi signal.
If that configuration does not satisfy me, I will do my best to create a mesh network with the two OpenWrt Ones, and maybe add a third later.
Concerns:
What, if anything, must I do to optimize the use of the second access point? Something with r/k/v? Fast switching? Something else? How do clients switch from one access point to another as they move through the house? Or is this configuration not appropriate for roaming devices? Is there any reason not to expect good performance from a wired access point?
The OpenWrt One is dual-band. (Apparently AX, since it supports wifi 6?) Bluewavenet, you said that a dual-band router can work well in a mesh system. May I ask if others agree? Can the OpenWrt One work well in a mesh system?
What am I missing?
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your help. Thank you, all.
1: You simply configure 802.11r on the access points (WLAN roaming tab). As long as they have the same SSID, Password and mobility domain this will work.
2: If you intend to try hard wiring at one point, the One may not be a good idea due to lack of physical ports on the device. If you itnend to just have all devices wireless connect then it's fine but there are also cheaper dual band alternatives.
Thanks, gameinn. Good observation. But darn. Now I am back to trying to figure out which dual-band and tri-band routers may be easiest and least risky for me to work with. I wish that that process were easier.
I've looked at all the AX wi-fi routers in the table of hardware. Only one stands out to me as having excellent performance and several ethernet ports while apparently being easy to flash with stock OpenWrt: the Gl.inet Flint 2 (GL-MT6000 Wi-Fi 6 AX6000).
If anyone believes that this router is not easy to flash with OpenWrt or they can recommend another router that has excellent performance, several ethernet ports, and is easy to flash, would you please say so?
