If Dynamic is selected for Channel Width and Auto is selected for Channel, how are these values chosen when a client logs on? Does the access point pick the largest channel width and highest performance non-overlapping channel?
The automatic channel selection is the only one the AP does decide on it's free "will" based on availability and current load. This is about a 20 MHz channel alone. With that one set manually you can take some "control" which other bonding channels will be made available. Not more, but not less.
Any other channels are additional boding channels added of 20 MHz bandwidth each which the AP can make available to the wireless client. This is why most Wi-Fi analyzers don't show the effective channel(s) in use.
If you allow more resources, say 160 MHz, it's done to allow more bandwidth over these channels Step back to the bigger picture - this is all within the limited possibilities what is feasible within the amount of free 20 MHz channels, within the same 40, 40+40, 80, 80+80, or 160 MHz junks. This is all not as freely assignable as you seem to imply from your valid questions 8-)
The same logic, the similar standards apply all over all 802.3 band, starting from the 2.4 GHz band with it's 11 or 13 or 14 channel depending on the regulatory allowance. No major derivation for the 5 GHz, or the 6 GHz band. The very similar standards and design principles are applicable.
My wi-fi environment is spread over a large area with eight WAX630E APs. There are not very many users, they just need responsive wi-fi access. Based on this information setting 2.4, 5 and 6 GHz channel width to "Dynamic" and channel selection to "Auto" would enable optimum throughput. Is this correct?
My wi-fi environment is spread over a large area with eight WAX630E APs. There are not very many users, they just need responsive wi-fi access. Based on this information setting 2.4, 5 and 6 GHz channel width to "Dynamic" and channel selection to "Auto" would enable optimum throughput. Is this correct?
The channel width should allow the throughput I would expect from the wireless system, e.g. the client and the access point.
The channels should be distributed in a way over the infrastructure space, so we have ideally independent channels, including the e.g. 160 MHz bandwidth with the n times 20 MHz channels - so all base channel and the related bonding channels are free for each radio system (AP plus client).
just my ubiquitous comment: You really need all this on pure wireless? Real networks - copper or fiber - will outperform such design, even if optimized - by far. Reminds me to a location where the customer had set-up massive installations with HDMI/12GSDI over wireless. needless to say, the results were not great for the obvious reasons.
I can allocate the three no-overlapping 20 MHz channels in 2.4 GHz and nine non-overlapping 20 MHz channels in 5 GHz across the eight WAX630s, but the WAX630 does not allow individual channel selection for 6 GHz. I guess I'll first try the associated 2.4, 5 and 6 GHz Dynamic channel width selection and Auto mode for channel selection and see how well that works. This should maximize throughput. If I experience any conflicts or limited throughput I'll try nonadjacent non-overlapping channels for 2.4 and 5 GHz. I'll keep dynamic and auto for 6 GHz since channel assignment is not yet supported in the WAX630E.
