Forum Discussion
Serious Satellite Connectivity Bug
Thanks @OrbiMan
I just really, really don't think this has anything to do with square footage personally. You know why? Because what Orbi is trying to do here is the holy grail. This is the thing that we have all begged for, for years. I bought Three Apple AirPorts 3 years ago attempting to use two to simply make a dedicated wireless backhaul, and then Ethernet connected the 2nd to another AirPort. I needed my wifi access point in a particular area and did not need an extender, but I could not have users connecting to the router. All wireless traffic HAD to go through this ideal location or I'd get 5GHz drop out because of material in one wall, which I then installed the router in the ceiling next to where the problematic material was not present (up higher). Yes, in my current home I do not need more than one. My router/modem are exactly placed in the middle of my space, albeit on the upper floor but still. I know one is wildly sufficient.
The problem is that I want coverage in my courtyard and even my garage, both of which the satellites give me fairly well. So tack on another 3K SF of exterior space and I'm not that far off from any of you larger homes. IF you're saying the satellites need to be farther than 25' away, maybe 50' or 75' well technically I could actually try this. Grab a little UPS and haul my Orbi out to the outside on a little table, just for a test. I just cannot imagine this solving it. I seriously have no issues with hopping wireless or throughput. These work famously. It's the double hops on the backhaul. Satellite 1 to Router to Satellite 2.
If this was a true Mesh network and Sat1 could backhaul directly to Sat2, then maybe this wouldn't be a problem. It seems to only be a problem with satellites AND your more typical user is not doing as much node-to-node communication. If you just have devices that need to connect to the internet and devices plugged into the router, that all works great.
It's when a device connected to Sat1 wants to connect to Sat2 is the problem. When I'm connected to the Router no issues. I just walked within a few feet of my router, my iPhone hopped over and BAM every device is visible/accessible/not gray in Fing. This is reliably reproducible every time, just sometimes you have to wait a bit for the system to fall apart, might be a few minutes or a few hours, but it always happens. Then sometimes fixes itself, then back to the same again.
If Orbi Satellites could be turned into bridge mode to receive but not rebroadcast the signal, that would be a stopgap. At least I wouldn't have these drop outs and yes, my place is small enough where I could get by with one node. I could live without the exterior coverage, until this is figured out. This is the reason I did what I did with the AirPorts. I wanted strictly a wireless node with a bunch of Ethernet ports on it. That way, the latest-generation, best-available wireless chip in the WAP can handle all communication, in a queued fashion, through a single wireless connection thereby reducing interference and wireless traffic/noise. I want as much as possible simply handled by this one 802.11x connection. Devices which must be wireless (phones, tablets) then have more space on the primary network.
benn600 I posted this article on here a couple months ago. It's a good read. It explains some of the technical reasons why "more is not better" with WiFi.
and i hope the above helps the poster understand whats going on as far as wifi coverage goes , and yes there is too much of a good thing
i have 3500sqft of house and its just on the break point between orbi router and 1 sat v 2 sats and tbh one sat is enough
the piosters coverage is far less and is why the client wont roam , its simple physics , if a client doesnt lose a signal it wont roam
