NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Orbi - why can't we change channels on satellites?
Wireless design best practice when installing multiple access points in an area is to have non-overlapping channels. So if you have 3 APs (RBR50, 2-RBS50) in an area, for 2.4 GHz, one AP would be cha...
It has been suggested on this thread that Mesh networks by definition share the same channels for satellites, that is simply not true. The Google Wifi mesh network negotiates channels amongst the satellites and each can be on its own channel to avoid interference.
I see that people have asked for manually setting the channel, I would much rather that Orbi was smart and picked optimal channels for each and every satellite. To be honest, I niavely assumed that Orbi did just that and have some regret about not discovering the limitation before my purchase.
As someone mentioned, the only advantage is more seamless low-latency switching between access points. However, in my home the latency is hardly an issue when compared say to cellular tower switching.
I certainly hope a software update might add channel optimization !
The problem with auto channel assignment is radios tend to pick in between channels. In 2.4 Ghz, there are only 3 non-overlapping channels: 1, 6 and 11. If the radio picks Channels 4 and 7, there will be a lot of noise.
Wireless 101 for 2.4 Ghz is to have the two APs on the same channel spaced so the signal level from AP1 when you are standing at AP2 is under -72 dBm. Otherwise you have co-channel interference that reduces throughput.
That is not really achievable with the Orbi since the 5G backhaul would likely be too weak (5G is shorter range than 2.4G). Add in the complexity of competing wifi signals from your neighbors, and you have quite a problem. I can see the wireless networks of 12 of my neighbors.
Yes, there are only three non-overlapping channels. The question is, when 1, 6, and 11 are all already in use by neighbors, which channel makes the most sense for a router to automatically select? Pick 1, and have 100% overlap with an existing network, or pick, say, 3, which has partial overlap? With four routers all within range of each other, the optimal assignments would probably be 1, 4, 7, and 11, as those all maximize the distance between neighboring in-use channels. I used to live in an apartment where I could pick up 20-30 networks on my laptop. I don't know the breakdown of 2.4G and 5G networks, but there aren't enough channels for everyone to have a non-overlapping one, and splitting everyone between 1, 6, and 11 would result in an even worse experience than using all 11 channels. That's just the reality of modern living and a limited number of channels.
In case of neighbouring channel interference then I'd choose:
- Obviously, the channel with less received power from the neighbours. Imagine that you have many people in a room talking the same language but with low volume. The disturbance is minimal
- The channels with less load (less traffic), a network with no or little load has almost no effect on your network even if it has high received power. If you take the same example of the room with people talking the same language but not talking at all or talking very few words! :) Disturbance is minimal here again!
markalan wrote:
It has been suggested on this thread that Mesh networks by definition share the same channels for satellites, that is simply not true.
This idea in people head comes from very basic designs where mesh and client make use of the same radio.
markalan wrote:
I see that people have asked for manually setting the channel, I would much rather that Orbi was smart and picked optimal channels for each and every satellite. To be honest, I niavely assumed that Orbi did just that and have some regret about not discovering the limitation before my purchase.
Agree. Critical point is that many legislation require using a DFS process (to avoid collisions with weather radar systems) before using the higher bands of the 5 GHz network - what can require more than one minute wait before actively sending would be allowed.
markalan wrote:
As someone mentioned, the only advantage is more seamless low-latency switching between access points. However, in my home the latency is hardly an issue when compared say to cellular tower switching.
There is no problem - roaming does happen anyway, and using the same process, same standard, regardless of the next AP radio channel. However I doubt it's smart to have heavily overlapping wireless range from routers and satellites on the same channels for the obvious reasons.
