NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Solved
5g vs 2.4g
Dear netgear, Please, please, please just let me connect selectively to 5g. Your algorithm to select "the best" band is driving me crazy!!! WTF!!! I just want to have the best speed whatsoever. I al...
Netgear could simply do the exact same thing that Linksys did, that is to enable the separation of the 2.4 and 5g bands and let users choose their preferred band themselves. Even with this separation, users could still configure their devices to connect to BOTH bands if they still want their routers to decide for them. In my opinion, if I want hamburger for lunch, don't force me to settle for fish & chips! simple as ABC!
PlatinumGoat wrote:Even when standing near a node or satellite with a device in line of sight, 2.4g is often selected first.
This is mostly depends on the WiFi client - for the same ESSID and the available BSSIDs on air, the client does maintain scoring list. Depending on the uptime, the 2.4GHz often become visible before, because of the band is narrow, and slightly less effort is required to evaluate all the 5 GHz bands.
If there is more bandwidth required and the 5 GHz BSSIDs are comparably in the score, the client does switch very quick.
Aside of doing all that, it does continuously scan for other ESSIDs, stored and unknown ones, and does also maintain a score for these.
One trick often implemented in the bandsteering is to kick-off poor or comparable low standard 5 GHz STA either to another 5 GHz radio where available (to concentrate these on a dedicated radio), otherwise to the 2.4 GHz band.
You simply can't expect that "your" preferred STA is immediately and always connected to what you expect to be the very best right away - like "plug" to the 10 GbE port of there are some 10/100MbE and GbE ports available. Regardless of the AP infrastructure.
Netgear could simply do the exact same thing that Linksys did, that is to enable the separation of the 2.4 and 5g bands and let users choose their preferred band themselves. Even with this separation, users could still configure their devices to connect to BOTH bands if they still want their routers to decide for them. In my opinion, if I want hamburger for lunch, don't force me to settle for fish & chips! simple as ABC!
One network name (one ESSID) and many radios on 2.4 and 5 GHz with individual BSSIDs are much better in any aspect: Radio steering. Band streering. Usability. Fast re-connect. Fast roaming. Plenty of advantages. Support. Mantenance. TCO. Ideally on many APs operated on reduced power to avoid interference. So afraid, I can't back your idea:
SpoilerIndividual names for each band or even worse for each individual radio are a relict from the past.
Yes - I was the bad guy who forced Netgear to remove the ***** limitation not allowing the same network name on multiple interfaces on the same router, the same extender. I would not even had considered to deploy Netgear routers or APs with such a limitation in place. Yes - even extenders here run on the very same name here - the bridging "logic" below is BSSID resp. MAC based anyway.
Here in La La Land we're a little bit back in time, and on our mobile networks we're manually tuning our mobile phones to the frequency of what we think is the best frequency and least loaded cell, too.
I'm happy to be a networking novice along with many customers and friends using wireless and network infrastructures I had the pleasure to participate on the design, lead the set-up, and bring to operational level - in a range from a hand full to some 250'000 user (plus some 150'000 industrial devices) organisations. No CIO, CTO, or CEO ever complained that his "boss"-computer did associate with a wrong AP and was performing poor therefore.
You read like the NAS user who wrote "I have configured my NAS with a RAID1. I can see the folders and files on one disk only. How can I check what's on the second disk?". These are **** consumer ideas.
The re-association (to avoid the tech term "roaming" which has a special meaning) of a WiFi STA within a single network name (ESSID) between the different virtual radios (represented by the BSSIDs) is running on a much higher priority and thus much more dynamic than the change to a different network name. While a WiFi STA is asociated to a network (ESSID), it requires much more to change the network - the signal level and quality must become much worse before the client does re-associate to a different network name. With different ESSIDs, a mobile phone say on it's way home does first pick up the 2.4 GHz due to the physical higher reach/coverage. Now the mobile phone does try to stick on the same network. As there are no alternate BSSIDs - because of the **** consumer ideas - the phone will stick with the 2.4 GHz network - the coverage, the signal, almost everything is better. And it must be considered almost a wonder that it ever goes to change to another network ESSID, even if this would be a much more performing 5 GHz virtual radio.
Even when leaving band/radio steering and fast roaming capabilities away - as we have it on typical dumb consumer wireless devices - a client will change much faster to another BSSID within the same network. With all the "smart" plus the standardised helpers in place, you can smoothly walk around in the while doing a VoIP call, even with video conferencing - there will be no interruptions or hanging/lagging video streams. Everything happens within the very same network (ESSID).
Hey Guys...Chill. It is possilbe to set up different SSID's for 2.4 and 5Ghz on Orbi. I did it and it even survived firmware updates except for the latest beta. Even though I used it this way for months, I have reverted back to a single SSID just to see how it works out for a while.
https://www.reddit.com/r/orbi/comments/5svxmy/howto_configure_different_ssids_for_24_and_5ghz/
https://community.netgear.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/169225
I may be wrong, but it seems that if your device is in a position whereby you can receive signal from both the router and satellite, performance is greatly diminished. Inteferrence of signals?
PlatinumGoat wrote:Netgear could simply do the exact same thing that Linksys did, that is to enable the separation of the 2.4 and 5g bands and let users choose their preferred band themselves.
How can this be a solution? If this idea would be part of the technology and standards design - why do most Wi-Fi client STA drivers don't have a control to force it to stick on either the 2.4 or the 5 GHz band? Some advanced drivers allow the configuration of a client to prefer (but not fix) either the 2.4 or the 5 GHz band - but tht's all.
Similar, some 5+ billions of mobile phones have no controls on what band the user does prefer - neither for 2G, 3G, 4G, coming up 5G, or 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz Wi-Fi.
The design of one network name (ESSID) and many BSSIDs (Radio MAC) allowing the clients (to some extent assisted by the access points) to evaluate signal performance and quality and allowing fast roaming is perfectly right. There is no need to guide non-educated users to bad configurations - as it was forced by many vendors in the past on consumer routers. What you are seeking for is a relict from the past.
When I had the Velop, before exchanging it for the orbi, I could configure as I wished. The layout and situation in every home is unique and no vendor can claim superiority that their tech is relevant in every case. With the Velop configured into 2 separate networks, I was able to obtain MAXIMUM ISP speeds in every coner of my home. This was and still is my primary objective. I dont't really care about every tech jargon about benefits of ONE SSID or BSSID (whatever that means). As long as I get what I paid for, I'm happy. BTW, I traded the Velop for the Orbi for some other reasons. Thanks anyway.
