You are completely missing the point.

Yes... everything you said is correct. But at the heart of it, a "mesh" system involves Mesh Access Points communicating with others via RF, eventually having to communicate with a hardwired device to deliver all that traffic to the network, instead of each AP being hardwired back to the MDF or nearby IDF.

One also does not need a "mesh" network for the WAPs on the network to do everything you've listed; they simply require a controller to handle this. You are making it sound like the only way for WAP's to do all of that is as part of a "mesh" network, and that is not the case.

I can also post links. Here's Cisco's description of how Mesh access points work on the network: https://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/solutions/Enterprise/Mobility/emob30dg/WiMesh.html#wp1002565

I'm not arguing that a Mesh network can't do what your saying. I'm saying that a mesh network is not required to do what you're saying, and is not necessarily the best way to implement a WLAN, unless budget limitations for running new cable or creating new IDFs becomes a problem.

Lathspell said:

---

You are completely missing the point.

Yes... everything you said is correct. But at the heart of it, a "mesh" system involves Mesh Access Points communicating with others via RF, eventually having to communicate with a hardwired device to deliver all that traffic to the network, instead of each AP being hardwired back to the MDF or nearby IDF.

One also does not need a "mesh" network for the WAPs on the network to do everything you've listed; they simply require a controller to handle this. You are making it sound like the only way for WAP's to do all of that is as part of a "mesh" network, and that is not the case.

---

You still don't get it. You just don't get it.

I'm 100% correct as you stated, but I'm not missing any point.

You can't tell me I'm correct, then go back to explaining what isn't a mesh being a mesh.

You either have a mesh network, or you don't. There's no middle. If your AP's and Extenders aren't working together to move you from one AP to another as they share data with one another and talk, and if they aren't self-healing - then they aren't mesh.

You keep describing a standard network with multiple AP's and/or extenders, going back to a router that's smart... but if that router isn't using literal MESH, then it's NOT MESH.

You've thought for a really long time that mesh means just a bunch of stuff connected together on the same network router all using the same configuration SSID/Password was automatically MESH, and it's stone cold not.

And here's another hint that will blow you mind - you can buy some access points that do mesh... but if you don't have mesh actually turned on.... mesh isn't enabled.

Lathspell said:

---

I can also post links. Here's Cisco's description of how Mesh access points work on the network: https://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/solutions/Enterprise/Mobility/emob30dg/WiMesh.html#wp1002565

---

Do you even understand that you just posted me an article that further proves my point - showing how MESH works and how that document literally explains using mesh-enabled equipment that specifically talk to one another for balancing (because that's what MESH ACTUALLY IS)????????

Multiple WAPs on the same WLAN and using the same SSID does not mean it is a mesh.

I'll post AI generated responses, too:

Q: if multiple access points are part of the same WLAN and use the same SSID, does that mean they are "meshed"

A: Not necessarily. Just because multiple access points (APs) are part of the same wireless local area network (WLAN) and use the same SSID (Service Set Identifier) doesn't mean they are "meshed."

It then goes on to explain exactly what I'm saying. The difference between a mesh network and standard WLAN is a mesh network incorporates nodes that communicate over RF between each other instead of wired. That's literally all I'm saying, and you just don't want to accept that.

And i'll also use ChatGPT's answer:

[ol]

Mesh Network: A mesh network specifically refers to a network topology where multiple access points (nodes) are interconnected, often with each node capable of communicating directly with others. These nodes collaborate to create a single, unified network, dynamically routing traffic through the most efficient paths. Mesh networks can be set up with Wi-Fi or Ethernet backhaul. The defining feature is the interconnected, self-healing nature of the network, where nodes work together to maintain coverage even if one node fails or if the environment changes.

Controller-Based Wi-Fi Network: A network can use a centralized controller (or a switch) to manage multiple access points. These access points can offer a unified SSID, seamless handoff, and intelligent access point selection without being part of a mesh network. In this setup, the controller manages handoffs and decisions about which access point a device should connect to, based on factors like signal strength and load balancing. The access points in this type of network are often connected via Ethernet to the controller or switch, rather than directly to each other, which is different from the typical mesh network structure.

[/ol]In summary, while a mesh network includes the features mentioned, a network with these features isn't necessarily a mesh network. It could also be a controller-managed Wi-Fi network with Ethernet-connected access points. The key difference lies in how the access points are interconnected and managed.

Lathspell said:

---

Multiple WAPs on the same WLAN and using the same SSID does not mean it is a mesh.

---

This is exactly what Ive been saying, correcting you and now you're finally there.

Your post that started all this however, was incorrect. It all started with you saying this, which is wrong.

Quote:

---

That's not true. For anyone discussing wireless networks, a "mesh" is a chain of access points where one access point uses the RF from another to grab network connectivity to then provide wireless signal from its own radio.

---

Mesh isn't a 'concept', it's literally an enabled functionality by capable equipment. You have to have equipment that can handle MESH technology, and then it has to be enabled/disabled.

I am not wrong. This is a thread for someone talking about their consumer level equipment for a basic home mesh solution. I gave the answer they needed to accomplish what they needed.

You are obviously an IT guy because you have absolutely no concept on how to give simple answers to people just trying to understand something at a high level. I deal with people like you everyday. You can't help yourself from giving a condescending over bloated answer to a simple question because it makes you feel superior.

You are now arguing that I'm wrong because I didn't go into great detail on how meshes are configured, even though the base explanation I gave is still true. At its heart, a mesh is referring to a wireless network based on an RF connection between nodes vs hard-wiring each node.

Move on dude.

It really depends on how your home is set up and where you can put the access point. I have a similar sized house and I am doing fine with a single AP that is centrally located, though the system does support adding nodes and I have cat6 run through the house if I needed to add more but no need so far.

permabull said:

---

It really depends on how your home is set up and where you can put the access point. I have a similar sized house and I am doing fine with a single AP that is centrally located, though the system does support adding nodes and I have cat6 run through the house if I needed to add more but no need so far.

---

That's where I am too.

The one Orbi 970 is performing much better than the older Nighthawk 1900, so I may not need the satellites... but we'll see!


I do have to say that I've learned a lot about the older style router/AP systems I was used to vs this new mesh technology.

Lathspell said:

---

I am not wrong. This is a thread for someone talking about their consumer level equipment for a basic home mesh solution. I gave the answer they needed to accomplish what they needed.

You are obviously an IT guy because you have absolutely no concept on how to give simple answers to people just trying to understand something at a high level. I deal with people like you everyday. You can't help yourself from giving a condescending over bloated answer to a simple question because it makes you feel superior.

You are now arguing that I'm wrong because I didn't go into great detail on how meshes are configured, even though the base explanation I gave is still true. At its heart, a mesh is referring to a wireless network based on an RF connection between nodes vs hard-wiring each node.

Move on dude.

---

You're flat out lying to the guy - clearly trying to tell people that "hey, if you have an extender attached to an access point, that's MESH." It's not.

Mesh isn't some techical concept for just 'some term'. You either have mesh capable equipment and mesh enabled - or you freaking don't.

And YOU responded to ME.

Lathspell said:

---

At its heart, a mesh is referring to a wireless network based on an RF connection between nodes vs hard-wiring each node.

---

You STILL don't understand what MESH actually is. You don't have a "MESH capability" based on whether you're all hard wired, mixed or none....

If you have multiple AP's hard wired, that doesn't mean it's mesh.
If you have multiple AP's wireless extended - that doesn't mean it's mesh.
If you have a mix of both, again, that doesn't mean it's mesh.

MESH is an advanced capability by mesh-capable hardware that goes above and beyond a typical wifi/wireless network.

You're stone cold just flat out lying trying to "dumb things down" for no reason.

Naveronski said:

---

I do have to say that I've learned a lot about the older style router/AP systems I was used to vs this new mesh technology.

---

Having mesh equipment/capability is really great and you'll notice a difference over that same network of AP's and/or extenders without Mesh on things that move around the house like your phones, tablets, etc. If you're in a location where cell service isn't great and you crutch on wifi for it... mesh will improve that experience with the way it works.

It's more advanced because you'll always be connected to the Wifi Access Point/Extender/Whatever closest to you giving you the strongest signal at all times as you move across the house... where non-mesh you'll be connected to one of your devices... just maybe not the one you're closest too (aka non-optimal).

No one is lying to anyone.

All of these modern mesh solutions for consumers offer the ability to mesh the AP's. So to spend half a page on an IT Elitist diatribe on what is required within the configurations for something to be truly a "mesh" solution, and calling everyone else wrong for not spending all that time, is you just being condescending. It serves no purpose.

For the solution at hand, the two options we are discussing is either:
1. Hardwire each AP and create a WLAN with a single SSID. This allows you to go anywhere in the house and have connectivity. Each AP being hardwired allows full bandwidth through that AP's radio, and through the ethernet run back to the network switch.
2. Go with a Mesh solution by having each mesh AP connect back to the network over the RF connection to another AP. YES, this requires those AP's to have the ability to be configured in a mesh configuration, BUT ALL THESE FREAKING SOLUTIONS COME WITH THAT ABILITY. So I don't have to spend half a page trying to make it sound like i'm smart and everyone else is stupid for not bringing it up and explaining every detail about a mesh network. These solutions come out of the box ready to be setup in this method so that the lay-man can install it. Therefore, the biggest difference between the two options (hardwired ethernet to each node or mesh) is simply going to be how they connect, and therefore the degradation of total bandwidth as you jump from node to node in a mesh solution.

Quit with your IT superiority. You aren't impressing anyone.

Lathspell said:

---

No one is lying to anyone.

---

This is a lie :

Lathspell said:

---

Correct. A mesh network generally refers to one AP connecting to another AP's wireless signal. So that second AP is splitting it's bandwidth between connecting devices and connecting back to the other AP.

---

In another post, also a lie :

Lathspell said:

---

That's not true. For anyone discussing wireless networks, a "mesh" is a chain of access points where one access point uses the RF from another to grab network connectivity to then provide wireless signal from its own radio.

---

Here you admit that in order to use mesh, the equipment actually has to support that (and maybe have it enabled), but then you state that everything supports Mesh - which is false.

Lathspell said:

---

YES, this requires those AP's to have the ability to be configured in a mesh configuration, BUT ALL THESE FREAKING SOLUTIONS COME WITH THAT ABILITY

---

Stop trying to paint me as trying to be too smart while you spread false BS to other Aggies. You're not doing anyone any favors here with trying to 'dumb down' stuff and being totally incorrect.

Everybody stop arguing please!

Haha... okay, man.

You are the type of IT guy everyone else in the industry just shakes their head about and moves on. I will go ahead and do the same.

NERD FIGHT….

Sheesh. Just want something that works, easy install, don't have to do Ip pass through BS. Who gives a F what the proper definition of a Wifi mesh is

LuoJi said:

---

Sheesh. Just want something that works, easy install, don't have to do Ip pass through BS. Who gives a F what the proper definition of a Wifi mesh is

---

100% - but just know if you went to Best Buy or your local whatever store, not everything has MESH capability. That's the deal... it's not about definition, it's knowing what it does as an additive and why you would or wouldn't care to have it in your home or small business.

satexas said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Well, ***** Now we don't know the truth about mesh with all of these competing definitions.

All I know is that I can't really improve my speed because my wiring is basic CAT5 and would require a complete redo. Not really possible without breaking open walls, I suspect. Unless someone has some kind of genius fishing solution I'm unaware of.

---

You can get the U6 or U7 units from Ubiquiti (Unifi), set the bandwidth.

Even on Cat5, you can set the "Channel Width" in the units from default 80 to 160, and reach far closer to that 100 mb/s Cat5 limitation than you likely would otherwise on a Cat6 Gigabit network....

.... or if you aren't in a huge structure, you could put in one of those near your network gear (aka not using old cat5 in the walls) where you're still gigabit only (or cat6 externally), and reach great speeds.

Food for thought.

---

Thank you.

To play back what you said, I could place a U6 or U7 unit close to my gateway which is in a downstairs closet where the cable enters the house (unfortunately) and cast a wider, faster net from the U6 or U7 because the Ubi device is close to the gateway and able to project further?

I'm currently getting around 300-350 mb/s in our key rooms with following configuration:

Spectrum cable to gateway (curb to gateway)
Gateway (downstairs closet) to Orbi Mesh Router (upstairs living room) via CAT5 through walls/ceiling
One additional Orbi Mesh satellite in my office that is connected back to Router via WiFi

I would love to get these speeds much closer to 1 gb/s but have no idea if that is possible.

YouBet said:

---

Thank you.

To play back what you said, I could place a U6 or U7 unit close to my gateway which is in a downstairs closet where the cable enters the house (unfortunately) and cast a wider, faster net from the U6 or U7 because the Ubi device is close to the gateway and able to project further?

I'm currently getting around 300-350 mb/s in our key rooms with following configuration:

Spectrum cable to gateway (curb to gateway)
Gateway (downstairs closet) to Orbi Mesh Router (upstairs living room) via CAT5 through walls/ceiling
One additional Orbi Mesh satellite in my office that is connected back to Router via WiFi

I would love to get these speeds much closer to 1 gb/s but have no idea if that is possible.

---

Yes, and no.

The Access Point's (U6/U7) proximity to the gateway in the closet is immaterial in this case - other than avoiding your Cat5 cables... and Ubiquiti makes a "Long Range" version that should cover your house fine.

HOWEVER - If your Cat5 is actually Cat5e cabling (very, very likely), then as long as the 'runs' (cable length) isn't crazy footage (like 300-400 feet, whch I'm sure it isn't) from closet to wall jacks, then you can actually get Gigabit Ethernet across them, which would be faster than WiFi... and you always want hard wired over wifi when looking for the absolute fastest and stable speeds.

Soooo based on what you have NOW, without buying anything...

1. Gateway/Router Downstairs in closest - Is that Gigabit? Connect to that with a laptop directly, and do speed tests to see how fast you can get. This will always be your 'ceiling'. To get faster, that's up to Spectrum and/or your Gateway Router. Why is this the best you can get? Because you're right at the router and no other devices are being passed through between you and spectrum.... you're at "the source" per-se'. In the 'older days', people often bought their own modems to use to replace the spectrum modems they provided because you could get better speeds... but Spectrum upped their equipment in recent years and these gains are mostly negligible.

2. Go Upstairs, plug into the Cat5 there... test again. Same as downstairs 'best case ceiling' results you got in #1 above?

Ubiquiti is the best, but Orbi is decent stuff... so if you're getting close to the same numbers off your Orbi upstairs as you are your 'ceilling best' result in #1 above - your WiFI is fine.

- Russ

I have cat5e and get wired 900+gb speeds wired to the switch.

I was thinking of upgrading my 2400 baud modem to 4800. Just not getting the throughput I need.

Anyone have any suggestions for brands? Price is not an issue.

Diggity said:

---

I was thinking of upgrading my 2400 baud modem to 4800. Just not getting the throughput I need.

Anyone have any suggestions for brands? Price is not an issue.

---

You want the US Robotics, Courier Class, V.Everything 56k.



If you actually need it internal, if you have an extra PCI slot, you can go with this version.... but make sure it's not one of those new fancy PCI Express slots.

Man. That brings back memories!

Atomic Cafe, here I come!

satexas said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Thank you.

To play back what you said, I could place a U6 or U7 unit close to my gateway which is in a downstairs closet where the cable enters the house (unfortunately) and cast a wider, faster net from the U6 or U7 because the Ubi device is close to the gateway and able to project further?

I'm currently getting around 300-350 mb/s in our key rooms with following configuration:

Spectrum cable to gateway (curb to gateway)
Gateway (downstairs closet) to Orbi Mesh Router (upstairs living room) via CAT5 through walls/ceiling
One additional Orbi Mesh satellite in my office that is connected back to Router via WiFi

I would love to get these speeds much closer to 1 gb/s but have no idea if that is possible.

---

Yes, and no.

The Access Point's (U6/U7) proximity to the gateway in the closet is immaterial in this case - other than avoiding your Cat5 cables... and Ubiquiti makes a "Long Range" version that should cover your house fine.

HOWEVER - If your Cat5 is actually Cat5e cabling (very, very likely), then as long as the 'runs' (cable length) isn't crazy footage (like 300-400 feet, whch I'm sure it isn't) from closet to wall jacks, then you can actually get Gigabit Ethernet across them, which would be faster than WiFi... and you always want hard wired over wifi when looking for the absolute fastest and stable speeds.

Soooo based on what you have NOW, without buying anything...

1. Gateway/Router Downstairs in closest - Is that Gigabit? Connect to that with a laptop directly, and do speed tests to see how fast you can get. This will always be your 'ceiling'. To get faster, that's up to Spectrum and/or your Gateway Router. Why is this the best you can get? Because you're right at the router and no other devices are being passed through between you and spectrum.... you're at "the source" per-se'. In the 'older days', people often bought their own modems to use to replace the spectrum modems they provided because you could get better speeds... but Spectrum upped their equipment in recent years and these gains are mostly negligible.

2. Go Upstairs, plug into the Cat5 there... test again. Same as downstairs 'best case ceiling' results you got in #1 above?

Ubiquiti is the best, but Orbi is decent stuff... so if you're getting close to the same numbers off your Orbi upstairs as you are your 'ceilling best' result in #1 above - your WiFI is fine.

- Russ

---

Yeah, I get most of that. My confusion has been on cabling which I have since confirmed that we have RG 6. Based on my limited research, it seems that RG 6 can handle at least 1gb and up to 10gb if the modem has DOCSIS 3.1 on the latter and if Spectrum offers it. Is that accurate?

So, I'm thinking I should be able to upgrade our service to 1gig service but it's stupid expensive with Spectrum at $115 per month. I can get it for $80 with ATT.

The RG6 is what Spectrum is bringing into your home, though. If AT&T is bringing in their residential fiber service, they actually pull fiber from the street to some form of ONT in your home or garage.

I know mine is out in the garage, and then they pulled ethernet from that to their gateway in my house. If AT&T is cheaper, I would ditch Spectrum and go with them.

Lathspell said:

---

The RG6 is what Spectrum is bringing into your home, though. If AT&T is bringing in their residential fiber service, they actually pull fiber from the street to some form of ONT in your home or garage.

I know mine is out in the garage, and then they pulled ethernet from that to their gateway in my house. If AT&T is cheaper, I would ditch Spectrum and go with them.

---

Most likely will at some point. I did upgrade our spectrum service to 500mb today simply because it was an immediate upgrade and it worked (tested to verify) so better than we were. Just expensive as hell.

Yeah, we had ATT fiber in Dallas and the ONT was in a large white box on the outside wall and then they ran cable from the ONT to the modem in the house through the wall. Janky as hell but it was fast and reliable. The only ATT service I ever liked.