Feature Request: Orbi Satellite Ethernet Backhaul

[itGeeks]

As good as Orbi looks on paper I don't understand Y you would cut yourself so short and not support Eithernet backhaul for the satellites, I have 5 locations needing a system like this but without support for Eithernet backhaul I will have no choice but to use either Eero or Luma. Is adding Eithernet backhaul even possible with the curent hardware only having to add it threw firmware or would a new hardware design be needed? There are many of us asking for this, Please update me on this and please push this reqwest to the top.

Everyone please vote this much needed feature up.

[AmitR · Accepted solution]

Let me acknowledge that our customer base has been clamoring for this feature for a while, and we are trying to be responsive to their needs.  To provide context on why it's taking a while to get it out, during the first quarter, the Orbi Engineering team was focused on bringing out the two new products (RBK30 & RBK40) to market.  Now that it's accomplished, we're actively working on bringing this feature and a couple of other interesting, market-requested features to you.  

Orbi Product Team

[peteytesting]

because the orbi is designed as a whole home WIFI solution

if you have ethernet already installed you would not buy this over a decent wireless access point

i believe it may be planned for the orbi to get such function but its not what the orbi is aimed at market wise

[Davidno]

Please tell me: what products do you recommend for wireless access when your whole house is wired for ethernet but has got many wireless dead spots?

[peteytesting]

the answer is any wireless access point you can purchase as you can connect as many as you need to get the whole home covered by wifi 

many use the ubiquiti unifi wireless AC access points that can be mounted to walls or ceilings 

but netgear also have wireless access point solutions as well

you just need a separate router at where the ethernet cable converge to control and connect the various acces points to 

[itGeeks]

Well I would love to be able to recomend Netgear Orbi for your setup but without Eithernet backhaul I would recomend Open-Mesh, They have a hand full of options. I have used there MR1750 and absalutly love it.

[ShadowPeo]

Not even close to being a comparable solution that a real integrated system would offer. Having multiple WAP's having to be managed individually for band management, SSID's and the other multitude of features and settings is beyond most consumers, not to mention the inherent bandwidth limitations and latency issues that come with WiFi mesh networking. Talk about stacking tolerances.

Honestly, I think that Ethernet backhaul, especially with the availability of PoE support is the best option, the new devices scan's the network (after picking up DHCP address obviously) detects the "master" reports in, downloads settings and other information and configures itself is the best option.

You can then get one thing that is sorely missing with your separate WAP theory. Propper, integrated roaming, this will pay for itself in fewer hassles created easily.

[peteytesting]

and that why tbh just wacking ethernet connectivity on the orbi may be a waste of resources at this time , there is plenty more that needs resolving / fixing / implementing on the orbi just to get it to make the features it has work properly or at all , the ethernet is a would be nice to have but not if it complicates what the orbi is 

i can even see ppl then wanting the 1733M become available if the ethernet backbone is used which adds yet more complexity 

pete

[ShadowPeo]

I fail to see (for the consumer at least, there would be undoubtedly more complexity for the developers) how the ethernet adds additional complexity, I would argue it makes it easier, faster and more reliable to the consumer where there is ethernet backhaul infrastructure.

Whilst I do not doubt there are more pressing issues as there are with any product launch, it is something that needs to be addressed, as I personally cannot recommend it to others in good conscience, clients and not alike over other solutions whilst there is a lack of ethernet backhaul connectivity

[peteytesting]

when i talk about complexity , i do refer to the dev team and coding 

but here is the thing the orbi has never been advertised as an ethernet backhaul system , its advertised as a whole home "WIFI" solution which it achieves without the need for ethernet 

i just think you guys wanna change something from what it was designed for into something it wasnt or at least wasnt on the forcast at the design stage , i really do thionk the orbi system is aimed at the simple home env that has no ethernet but has wifi issues and the orbi will resolve this for them 

[awraynor]

I have Eero, but still use MoCA for backhaul. So many devices on wireless trying to keep the experience as best as I can. 

[xantari]

I concur, ethernet backhaul is much needed. I have 1-gig ethernet throughout the entire house. But I need wireless for 8 wireless only devices in my home, and also to provide guest access to the internet.

The way this is currently designed, is that it is stealing bandwidth away from those devices when it could otherwise be using that bandwidth to service my wireless devices.

Please netgear, implement this feature. Your competitor unifi, with their super cheap enterprise level wireless access points are going to beat you to the punch, at half the price.

[TheEther]

---

@xantari wrote:

The way this is currently designed, is that it is stealing bandwidth away from those devices when it could otherwise be using that bandwidth to service my wireless devices.

This is not correct.  The Orbi uses a separated, dedicated wireless channel for backhaul.

[xantari]

According to the Orbi manual (very last page) the backhaul has a theoretical maximum of the following:

5 GHz Back haul: Max 1733 Mbps

I purchased the Orbi router with 2 satellites. Those three devices share one 1 gigabit ethernet port on my switch, since the satellites communicate only over the 5ghz backhaul (maxes out at 1733 mbps), which effectively limits the maximum throughput of the whole system to 1 gbps because everything ultimately communicates via the 1733 mbps 5ghz backhaul with the router. Remember the router is connected via 1Gbps ethernet port to the switch. So the limit is actually 1gbps for the whole system.

Now imagine if the 2 satellites, rather than communicating through the backhaul could each independentaly use their own 1 gig ethernet connections to my switch. I have effectively trippled the maximum throughput to 3 gbps (1 gbps for the router base station and 2 gbps for the satellites (1 gbps per satellite)).

Manuel is located here: http://www.downloads.netgear.com/files/GDC/RBK50/Orbi_UM_EN.pdf

So yes, the backhaul using dedicated switch port is far superior to current method employed.

[xantari]

Also, when all satellites would be hooked into 1gbps ethernet, you could then turn off the backhaul channels and free of RF spectrum. Or better yet, allow wireless devices themselves to use that 5ghz 1733mbps spectrum that is now free to service user requests rather than occupy satellite to satellite communication.

[peteytesting]

---

@xantari wrote:

According to the Orbi manual (very last page) the backhaul has a theoretical maximum of the following:

5 GHz Back haul: Max 1733 Mbps

correct thats the sync maximum the backhauk will connect at

I purchased the Orbi router with 2 satellites. Those three devices share one 1 gigabit ethernet port on my switch, since the satellites communicate only over the 5ghz backhaul (maxes out at 1733 mbps), which effectively limits the maximum throughput of the whole system to 1 gbps because everything ultimately communicates via the 1733 mbps 5ghz backhaul with the router. Remember the router is connected via 1Gbps ethernet port to the switch. So the limit is actually 1gbps for the whole system.

Now imagine if the 2 satellites, rather than communicating through the backhaul could each independentaly use their own 1 gig ethernet connections to my switch. I have effectively trippled the maximum throughput to 3 gbps (1 gbps for the router base station and 2 gbps for the satellites (1 gbps per satellite)).

Manuel is located here: http://www.downloads.netgear.com/files/GDC/RBK50/Orbi_UM_EN.pdf

So yes, the backhaul using dedicated switch port is far superior to current method employed.

---

correct thats the sync maximum the backhauk will connect at 1733M

the 1733M is shared between the 2 sats you have connected

you do understand the the max sync of each sat to clients is 867M

your theory of trippling the signal is wrong

incorrect as the max client connection to each sat is 867M

[xantari]

yes, the satellites couldn't possibly use all the 1gbps ethernet port has to offer. So not techincally triple (3gbps), but rather 3 x 867 = 2,601 Mbps

Either way, ethernet backhaul is the best way to go.

Free up RF Spectrum, and allow much higher speeds for wireless clients. 

Right now everything is limited to 1gbps, because they all end up back to the router, so all satellites and router share one 1gbps ethernet port 😞

[peteytesting]

---

@xantari wrote:

yes, the satellites couldn't possibly use all the 1gbps ethernet port has to offer. So not techincally triple (3gbps), but rather 3 x 867 = 2,601 Mbps

Either way, ethernet backhaul is the best way to go.

Free up RF Spectrum, and allow much higher speeds for wireless clients. 

Right now everything is limited to 1gbps, because they all end up back to the router, so all satellites and router share one 1gbps ethernet port 😞

---

-----------------------

major problem with both is that the upstream from the router or switch is 1 gig as well so no matter what config it aint going to make the internet any faster

using  ethernet wont free up any spectrum as you guys will want both the 5 gig upper and lower bands for client use and thus NO difference

[TheEther]

There is no dispute that APs wired to an Ethernet backbone have the highest theoretical throughput.  That's how my network is set up.

The Orbi is not designed to compete against this.  It is built with a different purpose in mind: to outperform range extenders.  While adding Ethernet backhaul would increase the performance, it doesn't really make sense to provide it.  Why spend so much money on a system and not use its main differentiating factor, the 1733 Mbps wireless link?  One would be better off buying a bunch of APs, for much less money.

BTW, that 1733 Mbps link will likely have no better than 800 Mbps real world throughput.

[xantari]

The main reason I could think of to provide it, is to make it user friendly.

I haven't set up the ubiquiti unifi AP's, but it looked like a lot of low level telnet sessions are required due to the UI not being very complete.

Also, ubiquiti's setup I believe requires a radius server to do roaming, and you have to do a lot of backdoor commands to get it to work.

I might take a stab at going that route and bring these orbi units back. Was just hoping to save time. Which the orbi definately does. And it works pretty good for what it does. 

I'll probably go and purchase a set of unifi AC1300 AP's and set them around the house and see if I can set that up and do some wifi tests.

It looks like the Unifi 802.11AC AP's are $133 each, x 3 = $366, please cost of cloud key (83.95), plus cost of USG (108.99), for a total cost of $558.94 for enterprise grade equipment.

So the netgear stuff is cheaper, so if they could implement ethernet backhaul that would be AWESOME.

[peteytesting]

---

xantari wrote:

1 .I haven't set up the ubiquiti unifi AP's, but it looked like a lot of low level telnet sessions are required due to the UI not being very complete.

2.  Also, ubiquiti's setup I believe requires a radius server to do roaming, and you have to do a lot of backdoor commands to get it to work.

3. I'll probably go and purchase a set of unifi AC1300 AP's and set them around the house and see if I can set that up and do some wifi tests.

4. It looks like the Unifi 802.11AC AP's are $133 each, x 3 = $366, please cost of cloud key (83.95), plus cost of USG (108.99), for a total cost of $558.94 for enterprise grade equipment.

---

1 . that would be wrong all ubiquiti unifi stuff runs on a gui

2. nope they usse standard wpa2 as all normal ap's do

3. you understand the 1300M unifi ap,s which is the one they call the lite version  are still only 867M on 5 gig just like the orbi is

4. wouldnt really call the unifi lite stuff enterprise grade equipment.

[xantari]

It does run in a UI. I said the UI is not very complete. The radius issue is actually the VPN setup. They only allow VPN setup using radius servers, if you want to do user/password you have to revert to command line because their GUI is not yet capable of setting up the VPN that way. Sorry for the confusion.

The AC-PRO's are what I was looking at, they have 1300 MBPS on the 5ghz band. I'm not looking at the lite versions, those are even cheaper though. https://www.ubnt.com/unifi/unifi-ap-ac-pro/

You can get an AC-PRO AP for $133 on amazon. They are water proof as well, so you can put them outside 🙂

[TheEther]

---

@xantari wrote:

The main reason I could think of to provide it, is to make it user friendly.

I haven't set up the ubiquiti unifi AP's, but it looked like a lot of low level telnet sessions are required due to the UI not being very complete.

Where did you see that?  All of the basic setup should be doable through the UniFi Controller software, which is GUI based. 

Also, ubiquiti's setup I believe requires a radius server to do roaming, and you have to do a lot of backdoor commands to get it to work.

I don't believe this is correct. 

I might take a stab at going that route and bring these orbi units back. Was just hoping to save time. Which the orbi definately does. And it works pretty good for what it does. 

I'll probably go and purchase a set of unifi AC1300 AP's and set them around the house and see if I can set that up and do some wifi tests.

It looks like the Unifi 802.11AC AP's are $133 each, x 3 = $366, please cost of cloud key (83.95), plus cost of USG (108.99), for a total cost of $558.94 for enterprise grade equipment.

So the netgear stuff is cheaper, so if they could implement ethernet backhaul that would be AWESOME.

---

The Orbi can only support link speeds up to 867 Mbps towards devices, so the Unifi UAP-AC-LITE would be the comparable unit.  These are $77 each.  Unless you live in a gigantic house or have concrete/brick walls, you shouldn't need more than 2 of them.  

You can run the UniFi Controller software on a PC, so the Cloud Key is optional.  The USG would only make sense if you don't have a router.  If you get the USG, then you don't need the Cloud Key, because it has the Controller software built into it.

The UniFi Controller minimally needs to run it once just to set up the APs.  It only needs to run continuously if you want to collect statistics or to do some more advanced features.  Otherwise, the APs can run fine on their own.

So, the cheapest option is to get 2 UAC-AC-LITES for a total of $154 or 3 for $231.  Personally, I would skip the Cloud Key and run the UniFi controller on a PC.  If you need the USG, then your costs go up to $262.99 or $339.99 with 2 or 3 UAP-AC-LITEs, respectively.  In all cases, this is less than an Orbi.

[Miles267]

Incidentally I've recently begun testing my Open-Mesh 3 x MR1750 AP (each running 6.2 Beta firmware) configuration in my home environment vs Netgear Orbi. OM supports Ethernet backhaul. Surprisingly I've found Orbi to be noticeably more reliable as follows:

- Orbi throughout exceeds Open-Mesh even though OM is connected via gigabit Ethernet and Orbi is wireless backhaul
- The signal coverage of the Orbi main and satellite units are better than even my 3 OM APs (despite adjusting the OM radio output strength)
- band steering capability of Orbi is more reliable than OM's still in beta.
- handoff - while neither support seamless roaming, my client devices seems to travel more seamlessly between Orbi main and satellite than between OM MR1750s

Granted, Open-Mesh offers many commercial grade benefits, these findings were positive.

[Bernard6176]

For those wanting to be able to connect the satelites by ethernet - make sure you up vote the suggestion here: 

https://community.netgear.com/t5/Idea-Exchange-For-Home/Netgear-Orbi-Wired-Sattelite/idi-p/1145210

That is where Netgear look for feedback on features to add and their relevant priority.

[cue003]

Ethernet backhaul could help those that have less than ideal situations where they cannot put the router in the middle of the house but instead at say one end and they want Wifi to the other end. It isn't always about cost for some people. Not everyone wants to spend hours/days/weeks troubleshooting router and satellite placement when they could use Ethernet backhaul to connect the systems while still using it for whole house wifi. The alternative with several access points may be cheaper but more of a hassle for 85% of the population.