You should be fine… your client (Naim device and iPad etc) should actively hunt out the best access point with the same SSID.
1 Like
You can but they don’t recommend it and you do loose a lot of bandwidth.
1 Like
I have 3 zones in the house (x3 Wifi Access Points connected via ethernet to a Cat7 feed) and manually assign each a specific SSID e.g. Upstairs/Downstairs/Office.Then the devices in each of those zones get given only that SSID/Password and I can thus ensure they only ever connect to the closest (physical) location. This removes any issues with connecting to the wrong SSID. Obviously this method implies that the device never moves out of the zone.
1 Like
That really is not how to do things and making things unnecessarily complicated, you are trying to battle against the underlying protocols and how modern Wi-fi works… unless of course you are using very old fashioned/early (20 years old) access points and clients which seems unlikely.
That’s true you lose 50% on each wireless hop but a small price to pay for that awkward to reach area that doesn’t require large bandwidth.
I was just pointing out that it can be done with Ubiquiti.
Actually, it’s a really simple implementation and means I’m guaranteed best performance. Closer physical location will always mean better performance, especially over 5GHZ, which has a much shorter range.
I found many devices would remain connected to very weak signal, even though it was much closer to a stronger one. This takes any decision making out of the equation.
Yes but unless you have specialist equipment you won’t know what is necessarily the best performance. Protocols like 802.11k do this for you.
Signal strength is not a good guide alone… unless you are the only user on the wlan.
My iPad happily roams across my home access points all sharing the same authentication and SSID based on load and optimum performance, as the protocols are designed to do
I’m not running an enterprise environment, If im able to saturate a 1300 Mbps / AC…I think thats another (arguably good) problem. Most of this stuff is to have lag free gaming for my son and running a bunch of TV’s - typical Netflix feed is consuming about 15Mbps for 4K per device.
This has nothing to do with ‘enterprise’ type environments, just standard Wi-fi transport and registration protocols…
Your access points and clients will /should if modern enough jump to a neighbouring access point it can see if it’s signal strength is better, or is told to by the access point because it’s busy.
Im refering to (in context) - I have a small number of devices. We aren’t taking about 1000 wifi devices, so in real terms this is the most performant way and tested in a consumer setting.
I am talking about consumer settings too… and keeping it simple… so I have approx 12 devices on my wlan, and I can see they are all distributed across two domestic access points using 2.4 and 5 … and the devices move about where they can to even the load… ie someone starts streaming netflix upstairs.
To be honest it’s really simple… no one needs to do anything … it just works, like I feel a good domestic system should
Yeah, originally I used a single SSID over the house and found it below par (with auto-optimising/switching different access points for me). A PS4 for example, isn’t going to be moving around the house. To keep latency low, its SSID is locked. I get about 9ms from upstairs when hit google now, which is perfect.
For me it’s about consistency. I don’t mind if things are consistently wrong, as long as they’re consistent!
sure what works best for you with your requirements… and if devices are static then its almost like you are using a point to point wlan using adhoc transport links. (in such a case I assume on separate channels).
But perhaps you might agree with me, most on this forum would have regular wifi requirements where the underlying protocols are best left to do their thing and so not need your special case.
Of course. I spent a long time looking at what is in the immediate vicinity (wifi scanner) and made some adjustments. 5GHZ is a double edged sword, it has lesser range, but then due to this, it means neighbouring networks are less likely to cause interference.
I don’t want to hear “Dad this is really lagging, or Dad the internet isn’t working…” (again).
Slightly off topic - but couldn’t recommend Ubiquiti routers enough (at a low cost comparatively). It is great for understanding via DPI who is doing what on your network - especially with young kids. I found that assigning reserved IP’s via the devices MAC address, I could then give them all manual host names (since it’s not always possible to configure this with black box devices for example).
yes these days i find 5 GHz wan channels nearly as busy as 2.4 GHz - though the advantage of the former you can have larger channel bandwidth - at the expense of increased chance of impacting neighbouring wifi networks.
I found the best remedy is to have several access points dotted around - as opposed to one access point shouting to the whole house. That way lower power levels are used - and neighbouring residual interference is largely mitigated on receive.
Of course if you really want to control wifi like ethernet - you need to start using WMM - which the client and access point need to support and be harmonised on - but the is how you guarantee non elastic data transfers - ie a requirement for realtime control and gaming.
Definitively. This is why I ‘zoned’ the house to ensure that I have coverage and no black spots. The Apple Extreme was great - although no longer in production, sadly. You could get ali aftermarket brackets and put them up anywhere.
I agree Ubiquiti access points are very good - I am less sure about their routers - I gave up on mine with its poor implementation go IPv6 integration with ISPs - and I got fed up having to fiddle around with JSONs
These days many consumer devices support mDNS with the .local suffix - and is plug and play. For example my default NDX2 name is NDX2-4460XX.local and this PC I am writing this on is iMac.local.